5 ms·

All those cases were against the people who actually said something (supposedly) defamatory. The precedent here is that merely sharing a link to something some

All those cases were against the people who actually said something (supposedly) defamatory. The precedent here is that merely sharing a link to something somebody else wrote now also qualifies as defamation.

dvlsg 6y ago
Certainly an interesting (for lack of a better word) slippery slope. Could upvoting this hackernews article count as defamation? It's not the same as sharing it, but it would still make the original article more visible to more people.
- kelnos 6y ago
  Good question. And going back to the original example, would liking a Facebook post with the information also count, as that would signal to FB's algorithms that it should be promoted more?
  - jccooper 6y ago
    I presume even reading a Facebook post (or clicking on a Google search results link) provides a signal about popularity. Probably a little too far down the slippery slope for the law, though.
mountainb 6y ago
It is actually similar to the test for defamation in US law. Public figures just have a much harder time prevailing as plaintiffs in the US due to the precedent of NYT v. Sullivan. Even if you rereport a defamatory statement you can also be liable. Singapore has an opposite standard for public figures. In the US you can defame or libel public figures and our precedent considers first amendment concerns to be exculpatory in most circumstances. E.g. I can say "Cillary Hinton killed Beffery Jepstein" without being held liable for defamation, although if I made the same type of accusation against a nonpublic figure like my neighbor that caused actual damages, I could be lose my shirt in any state court for defamation. I could also be held liable for defamation if I was merely restating what I had heard elsewhere or read in a libelous article. That is not a valid defense. There have indeed been defamation cases involving Facebook posts that resulted in substantial judgments or costly settlements here in the US (example: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/facebook_comment_leads_to_500000_settlement_in_defamation_suit/ https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/facebook_comment_lea...) As some others have said, just because another country has different standards around a body of law doesn't necessarily mean that their interpretation is right and ours is wrong. The American interpretation of the first amendment and its applicability to defamatory statements against public figures could change, and it wasn't the same as it is now in previous eras of American history. NYT v. Sullivan is not the Constitution or one of the tablets handed down to Moses: it's a lot easier to reverse.
- gowld 6y ago
  > “That is extraordinarily rare to have a private defamation suit result in a recovery of that magnitude, and that case was a statement, not a reshare. Also, the parties to the lawsuit were involved in a dispute over control of a business, making it more complicated.
dahfizz 6y ago
Even in the US, disseminating defamatory material is itself defamation. Clicking the "share" button definitely counts as dissemination IMO. There is an innocent dissemination defense [1], but that requires you to show you did due diligence to avoid defamation. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_dissemination https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_dissemination
- toast0 6y ago
  How does defamation law intersect with section 230? > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. This applies to users who quote or forward a message as well as to sites that host a message. But there are some exceptions to section 230, and law is complex, so I may have missed something about defamation.
  - sroussey 6y ago
    It does not apply to users who make such actions. Only to the service provider. Section 230 is like one sentence, btw. It’s interpretation has a long and complex history now though.
    - javagram 6y ago
      According to https://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/where-retweeting-falls-in-defamation-law/ https://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/where-retweeting-... “ under a plain reading of the statute it is clear that retweeting falls within the confines of Section 230’s immunity [...] Unsurprisingly, Reid’s attorneys signaled that she intended to argue just that in response to the complaint filed against her. Faced with the prospect of this hurdle, the plaintiff promptly dropped Reid’s retweet cause of action from the suit, although she has maintained her claims against Reid for allegedly false statements made after the retweet.“
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > It does not apply to users who make such actions. Only to the service provider. It absolutely does reply to users foe actions which merely effect the visibility of materials others have posted, like simple retweets, provided they have an arms-length relationship with the original poster (if they actively solicited the submission and then retweeted it, that’s potentiallt different.)
Guthur 6y ago
You could argue that by sharing a link you are quoting verboten. After all that is likely the intention of sharing the link unless other wise qualified. If the individual in question shared the link with a disparaging comment then they would have most likely been fine. I'm not necessarily defending the use of defamation law here just commenting on how it might analysed in law. IANAL :)

dvlsg 6y ago

Certainly an interesting (for lack of a better word) slippery slope. Could upvoting this hackernews article count as defamation? It's not the same as sharing it, but it would still make the original article more visible to more people.

kelnos 6y ago
Good question. And going back to the original example, would liking a Facebook post with the information also count, as that would signal to FB's algorithms that it should be promoted more?
- jccooper 6y ago
  I presume even reading a Facebook post (or clicking on a Google search results link) provides a signal about popularity. Probably a little too far down the slippery slope for the law, though.

mountainb 6y ago

It is actually similar to the test for defamation in US law. Public figures just have a much harder time prevailing as plaintiffs in the US due to the precedent of NYT v. Sullivan. Even if you rereport a defamatory statement you can also be liable. Singapore has an opposite standard for public figures. In the US you can defame or libel public figures and our precedent considers first amendment concerns to be exculpatory in most circumstances. E.g. I can say "Cillary Hinton killed Beffery Jepstein" without being held liable for defamation, although if I made the same type of accusation against a nonpublic figure like my neighbor that caused actual damages, I could be lose my shirt in any state court for defamation. I could also be held liable for defamation if I was merely restating what I had heard elsewhere or read in a libelous article. That is not a valid defense. There have indeed been defamation cases involving Facebook posts that resulted in substantial judgments or costly settlements here in the US (example: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/facebook_comment_leads_to_500000_settlement_in_defamation_suit/ https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/facebook_comment_lea...) As some others have said, just because another country has different standards around a body of law doesn't necessarily mean that their interpretation is right and ours is wrong. The American interpretation of the first amendment and its applicability to defamatory statements against public figures could change, and it wasn't the same as it is now in previous eras of American history. NYT v. Sullivan is not the Constitution or one of the tablets handed down to Moses: it's a lot easier to reverse.

gowld 6y ago
> “That is extraordinarily rare to have a private defamation suit result in a recovery of that magnitude, and that case was a statement, not a reshare. Also, the parties to the lawsuit were involved in a dispute over control of a business, making it more complicated.

dahfizz 6y ago

Even in the US, disseminating defamatory material is itself defamation. Clicking the "share" button definitely counts as dissemination IMO. There is an innocent dissemination defense [1], but that requires you to show you did due diligence to avoid defamation. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_dissemination https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_dissemination

toast0 6y ago
How does defamation law intersect with section 230? > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. This applies to users who quote or forward a message as well as to sites that host a message. But there are some exceptions to section 230, and law is complex, so I may have missed something about defamation.
- sroussey 6y ago
  It does not apply to users who make such actions. Only to the service provider. Section 230 is like one sentence, btw. It’s interpretation has a long and complex history now though.
  - javagram 6y ago
    According to https://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/where-retweeting-falls-in-defamation-law/ https://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/where-retweeting-... “ under a plain reading of the statute it is clear that retweeting falls within the confines of Section 230’s immunity [...] Unsurprisingly, Reid’s attorneys signaled that she intended to argue just that in response to the complaint filed against her. Faced with the prospect of this hurdle, the plaintiff promptly dropped Reid’s retweet cause of action from the suit, although she has maintained her claims against Reid for allegedly false statements made after the retweet.“
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > It does not apply to users who make such actions. Only to the service provider. It absolutely does reply to users foe actions which merely effect the visibility of materials others have posted, like simple retweets, provided they have an arms-length relationship with the original poster (if they actively solicited the submission and then retweeted it, that’s potentiallt different.)

Guthur 6y ago

You could argue that by sharing a link you are quoting verboten. After all that is likely the intention of sharing the link unless other wise qualified. If the individual in question shared the link with a disparaging comment then they would have most likely been fine. I'm not necessarily defending the use of defamation law here just commenting on how it might analysed in law. IANAL :)