Social media makes it very easy for individuals to make simple comments, statuses, and videos that are misleading or damaging for another person especially on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter like the Mickle v Farley case. In this case, it displays how easy it can be to be defamed from social media and the dangers it can hold for young people online.
In 2021, Australia has 20.5 million social media users which are roughly around 80% of the whole population which leads to a lot of people landing in hot water regarding what they publish online.
From 2013 to 2017 in Australia there have been 20 cases of social media defamation, 16 cases involving Facebook, and 4 involving Twitter. Including a case from 2012 involving a high school student Mr Farley defaming a music teacher from his high school, Mrs Mickle over tweets against her that lead a judge to decide that Farley would have to pay $105,000 to Mickle.
What is Defamation ?
Pearson & Polden writers of ‘The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law’ describes defamation as:
Consider the Mickle VS Farley case
Mickle VS Farley was the first Twitter defamation case in Australia that proceeded to go to court and receive an outcome. This case is a prime example that shows others especially young people that are users of social media, how easy it can be to defame, and its shows the dangers of making nasty comments, tweets, and posts.
This case shows a former school student Andrew Farley that graduated in 2011 from Orange high school being sued for defamation after several comments that were posted on Facebook and Twitter on the 15th of November 2012 about Orange high school music teacher Christine Mickle despite never being a student of hers.
It was said in court that Mr Farley had a grudge against the plaintiff, Mrs. Mickle as she became the head of the school’s music department, Farley appeared to believe that Mickle had something to do with his father leaving the school. Mr Farley was never taught by Mrs. Mickle, so he had no justifiable reason to make defamatory comments towards her and when he did post these comments in question, he was not even a student at the high school.
The comments that were made by Farley were said to have a ‘devasting effect’ on Mrs Mickle as the comments damaged her reputation and the comments became a lot for Mrs Mickle and she decided to take sick leave for several weeks. The matter was brought to court and Judge Michael Elkaim ordered Farley to pay $105,000 to Mickle for compensatory and aggravated damages due to false allegations against her.
$85,000 was awarded in compensatory damages to show the public that Farley’s comments and allegations were false and Mrs. Mickle’s reputation was restored to the public. Another $20,000 in aggravated damages was added to the total, as the posts that Farley published, spread to multiple people online and also Farley’s careless attitude towards the court proceedings as he did not even attend the proceedings. By this simple and stupid mistake that Farley made he was made to pay in total $105,000 to Mickle which works out to be $750 per character on the 140-character limit per tweet.
Judge Elkaim made this final statement at the end of the hearing warning people of the dangers of posting on social media:
“when defamatory publications are made on social media it is common knowledge that they spread. They are spread easily by the simple manipulation of mobile phones and computers. Their evil lies in the grapevine effect that stems from the use of this type of communication.”
Judge Elkaim
What are the laws around defamation and social media?
The 2005 Defamation act passes all the laws relating to defamation in Australia across all states. Within In this document it specifies that a defamatory ‘matter’ includes:
– Articles, report, advertisements, or any other things communicated in newspapers, magazines, or periodicals
– Programs, reports, advertisements, or other things communicated in television, radio, the internet, or any other form of electronic communication
– Letters, notes, or other writing
– Pictures, gestures, or oral communication
– Any other thing that can be used to communicate to another person
When a social media defamation case is brought to court, for it to be a successful defamation case, there needs to be evidence that the plaintiff posted the defamatory material, also it identifies the accused and the material has to be posted to a third party which is a social media platform, text messages or can be an article in a magazine as well.
Social media is the easiest place for individuals to land in hot water over nasty comments or defamatory materials, even though the defamation act was never intended for the use of social media it is the framework for judges and the legal system as there is a growing number of cases that involves social media defamation with the rising and growing use of technology.
Defences for defamation
If you are ever finding yourself in the situation of being sued for defamation in court, Pearson, and Polden, the authors of ‘The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law’ describe these defences that people use to explain their actions or why they did it:
In the case of Mickle v Farley, Farley’s defence was the offer of amends as he did ‘apologise’ and taken the defamatory material off social media, but the judge observed that ‘the apparent sincerity’ of the apology was contradicted with Farley’s action’s so the defence fell through. The defendant then pleaded the defence of ‘qualified privilege’ under the posts being truthful or justified as Farley was acting out in public interest, but it had no substance for that to be his defence as the material that was posted by Farley had no truth whatsoever.
So, what can we learn from this ?
This simple mistake Farley made, led him out of pocket by $105,000. The aim of this is to inform individuals about defamation and how to avoid it on social media. A lot of people in Australia don’t consider posting comments or opinions on their social media accounts can be defamatory and end them up in court. People consider their pages to be their safe space and people also hide behind their social media pages by thinking they really can say whatever they please on social media. The aim of this is to inform individuals about defamation and how to avoid it on social media
This case displays the relevance of how easy It is to defame someone on social media just by a touch of a button especially with the popularity of social media, the case is also very important as it was the first Twitter defamation case in Australia, and it involved at the time a high school student which shows that no matter how old or young you are still responsible for what you post online.
Social media is such a big part of our everyday lives, it can be very useful and also can be very entertaining, however, there is always a chance that you can end up on the wrong side of the screen with commenting, tweeting or posting defamatory materials on social media that spreads especially younger people can easily fall into the trap. Defamation is very serious and can have serious effects on both parties. All of this can be avoided if people learned how to utilise social media properly and remember that everything that someone’s posts on social media always stay there.
Mia’s life 