What constitutes defamation on social media?

A Supreme Court case has provided helpful clarification on defamation from social media posts.

The case concerned comments made by Mrs Stocker about her ex-husband Mr Stocker, to his new partner on the social media website, Facebook. These comments included the words: “he tried to strangle me”. In response, Mr Stocker brought a defamation claim because while he admitted he had throttled her he objected to the word “strangle”. After all, the dictionary definition of strangling includes having an intent to kill, which was not the case.

Mrs Stocker defended the claim. She argued that the word “strangle” was not defamatory because she had not used the word “strangle” in the dictionary sense of intent to kill, she had used the word in its colloquial sense of violently gripping her neck. She claimed that the content of social media posts should be interpreted in this informal context, not by strict dictionary definition.

The Supreme Court found that Mrs Stocker was correct and that words used on social media must be seen in the context in which they are used. Words may be given less weight than if they had been made in a more formal setting, such as a journalist writing in a newspaper.

Caution will always be needed when writing on social media but this case confirms that courts will take a common-sense view on what was meant by words online.

Although judges in the lower courts have pointed up the importance of “context” in libel actions based on social media posts, this is the first time the Supreme Court has ruled on how people write and read them.

Such posts are not to be treated in the same way as a carefully considered newspaper article.

Lord Kerr said: “It is wrong to engage in elaborate analysis of a tweet; it is likewise unwise to parse (analyse) a Facebook posting for its theoretically or logically deducible meaning.

“The imperative is to ascertain how a typical (i.e. an ordinary reasonable) reader would interpret the message.”

The effect of the ruling is that the meaning of words on social media should not be “pushed up” to benefit those claiming to have been in libelled, and judges should give more leeway to defendants who post in haste for those who read somewhat fleetingly.

We were recently instructed to act for a Defendant in a highly contentious High Court defamation claim arising from a twitter exchange. The Claimant sought an injunction, together with significant damages and costs, we were delighted to secure a speedy and successful outcome. We have also managed to prevent a competitor from defaming a client in the leisure industry.

Acting quickly and decisively when dealing with any alleged defamation issue is vital. Your reputation can be quickly defended by our experienced and knowledgeable litigation team.

Our experts can also help you to defend a claim if someone has accused you of defamation or slander. We act swiftly and decisively to get the desired outcome and to protect your reputation.