Protecting Google from defamation is worth seriously considering
In this crossposting from The Conversation, The University of Western Australia’s Michael Douglas considers June’s various landmark defamation stories, and looks to the future of the law in Australia.
Earlier this month, the NSW Government announced a push to reform Australia’s uniform defamation laws. It is calling for a “cyber-age reboot”. That proposal was backed by a “statutory review” of the NSW Defamation Act. At a meeting of the Council of Attorneys-General, the states and territories agreed to reconvene a working party to consider reform of equivalent statutes around Australia.
Last Wednesday, the High Court delivered its most important defamation judgment in years. In a case that fits perfectly with the theme of the NSW proposals, Milorad “Michael” Trkulja succeeded in his appeal against Google. The Court found that Trkulja could sue the American company for defamation in respect of search results which potentially indicated that he had ties to Melbourne’s criminal underworld.
The next morning, the Victoria Court of Appeal allowed Bauer Media’s appeal from the judgment that awarded Rebel Wilson A$4.5 million in damages. The Court held that Wilson was entitled to A$600,000, and not to millions extra for lost opportunity to earn from roles that she may have been offered had the defendant not defamed her in its gossip magazines. The previous assessment of damages depended on the spread of the defamatory allegations on the internet via the “grapevine effect”.
The general and specialist media (remember the ones that actually employ journalists and check their facts) have always complained that Google, Facebook and other social media have an unfair advantage.
Everyone else complains about so called “fake news” on social media.
So now we’re going to change the law to let social media publish what they like without responsibility, while the rest of the media continues to labour under complex defamation laws?
Google and Facebook are big enough and profitable enough to employ some qualified people to ensure they comply with defamation law. Otherwise they can operate under the same law as everyone else.
Without Google’s assistance, many of us would be lost online… Especially consipiracy theorists.
What I cant understand is Google and Facebook put in such strong measure to censor pornography and violence, they should really be doing the same for flat out lies.
Also if you think that Google and Facebook provide a free service, you obviously don’t put any value on yourself. With Google and Facebook (as well as all those conspiracy websites and videos) earning big bucks off this, whilst you may not pay for their services, it certainly isn’t free