Clarifying the meaning of 'publication' of defamatory matter in the age of the internet

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The concept of ‘publication’, which is central to establishing liability in defamation, is conceptually uncertain as to its definition and scope. The uncertainties have been brought into sharp relief in the proliferation of cases concerning the internet. Such cases demonstrate the potentially wide application of ‘publication’ and the inconsistencies as to its meaning. Although these difficulties have long existed, until they are resolved, we will continue to struggle to apply the concept of ‘publication’, be it in the context of new or ‘old’ fact-patterns. This article considers the uncertain parameters of the concept of ‘publication’ and, in particular, the relevance of knowledge of the content of the defamatory material in establishing such ‘publication’. One of the problems raised by a wide definition of publication is that it puts pressure on defences to relieve innocent parties from liability, especially parties who have had only a peripheral involvement in the commission of the tort. The article argues that the law of defamation has largely sidelined an analysis of liability of such peripheral players in terms of established concepts of accessorial liability. Recent cases involving internet providers have used the concept of knowledge as one means of restricting the meaning of ‘publication’, thereby providing greater protection to parties who are merely peripheral participants in the communication of defamatory matter.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)53-57
Number of pages5
JournalPrecedent
Volume117
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Internet
liability
proliferation
uncertainty
Law
communication

Cite this

@article{7b6d61b7550643219b9ef719bb304b5f,
title = "Clarifying the meaning of 'publication' of defamatory matter in the age of the internet",
abstract = "The concept of ‘publication’, which is central to establishing liability in defamation, is conceptually uncertain as to its definition and scope. The uncertainties have been brought into sharp relief in the proliferation of cases concerning the internet. Such cases demonstrate the potentially wide application of ‘publication’ and the inconsistencies as to its meaning. Although these difficulties have long existed, until they are resolved, we will continue to struggle to apply the concept of ‘publication’, be it in the context of new or ‘old’ fact-patterns. This article considers the uncertain parameters of the concept of ‘publication’ and, in particular, the relevance of knowledge of the content of the defamatory material in establishing such ‘publication’. One of the problems raised by a wide definition of publication is that it puts pressure on defences to relieve innocent parties from liability, especially parties who have had only a peripheral involvement in the commission of the tort. The article argues that the law of defamation has largely sidelined an analysis of liability of such peripheral players in terms of established concepts of accessorial liability. Recent cases involving internet providers have used the concept of knowledge as one means of restricting the meaning of ‘publication’, thereby providing greater protection to parties who are merely peripheral participants in the communication of defamatory matter.",
author = "Joachim Dietrich",
year = "2013",
language = "English",
volume = "117",
pages = "53--57",
journal = "Precedent",
issn = "1449-7719",
publisher = "Australia Lawyers Alliance",

}

Clarifying the meaning of 'publication' of defamatory matter in the age of the internet. / Dietrich, Joachim.

In: Precedent, Vol. 117, 2013, p. 53-57.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clarifying the meaning of 'publication' of defamatory matter in the age of the internet

AU - Dietrich, Joachim

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - The concept of ‘publication’, which is central to establishing liability in defamation, is conceptually uncertain as to its definition and scope. The uncertainties have been brought into sharp relief in the proliferation of cases concerning the internet. Such cases demonstrate the potentially wide application of ‘publication’ and the inconsistencies as to its meaning. Although these difficulties have long existed, until they are resolved, we will continue to struggle to apply the concept of ‘publication’, be it in the context of new or ‘old’ fact-patterns. This article considers the uncertain parameters of the concept of ‘publication’ and, in particular, the relevance of knowledge of the content of the defamatory material in establishing such ‘publication’. One of the problems raised by a wide definition of publication is that it puts pressure on defences to relieve innocent parties from liability, especially parties who have had only a peripheral involvement in the commission of the tort. The article argues that the law of defamation has largely sidelined an analysis of liability of such peripheral players in terms of established concepts of accessorial liability. Recent cases involving internet providers have used the concept of knowledge as one means of restricting the meaning of ‘publication’, thereby providing greater protection to parties who are merely peripheral participants in the communication of defamatory matter.

AB - The concept of ‘publication’, which is central to establishing liability in defamation, is conceptually uncertain as to its definition and scope. The uncertainties have been brought into sharp relief in the proliferation of cases concerning the internet. Such cases demonstrate the potentially wide application of ‘publication’ and the inconsistencies as to its meaning. Although these difficulties have long existed, until they are resolved, we will continue to struggle to apply the concept of ‘publication’, be it in the context of new or ‘old’ fact-patterns. This article considers the uncertain parameters of the concept of ‘publication’ and, in particular, the relevance of knowledge of the content of the defamatory material in establishing such ‘publication’. One of the problems raised by a wide definition of publication is that it puts pressure on defences to relieve innocent parties from liability, especially parties who have had only a peripheral involvement in the commission of the tort. The article argues that the law of defamation has largely sidelined an analysis of liability of such peripheral players in terms of established concepts of accessorial liability. Recent cases involving internet providers have used the concept of knowledge as one means of restricting the meaning of ‘publication’, thereby providing greater protection to parties who are merely peripheral participants in the communication of defamatory matter.

M3 - Article

VL - 117

SP - 53

EP - 57

JO - Precedent

JF - Precedent

SN - 1449-7719

ER -