After Voller, does a business that operates a Facebook page need to disable commenting to avoid defamation liability?

Not necessarily — but the business should be aware of the risk and take steps to manage it. Options include: (1) disabling commenting entirely on the Facebook page (which eliminates the Voller risk but limits engagement); (2) pre-moderating all comments before they are published (which requires a review process but prevents defamatory comments from being published); (3) post-moderation — reviewing comments after publication and removing defamatory content quickly (which reduces the period of publication but does not prevent the initial publication); or (4) restricting commenting to followers who have been vetted. A defamation lawyer advises on the best approach for a specific business — balancing the Voller defamation risk against the commercial value of social media engagement.

Platform & Publisher Defamation Defence Lawyers — Voller Liability — All States

Platform & Publisher Defamation Defence Lawyers — Voller Liability. Media Defamation. Content Moderation.

Q: Is a news publisher liable for defamatory statements made by interviewees in a news article?

Yes — a news publisher who publishes defamatory statements made by an interviewee is itself a publisher of those statements and potentially liable in defamation. The publisher cannot avoid liability simply because the defamatory statements were made by someone else — by choosing to publish the statements, the publisher participates in the publication. The publisher's available defences include truth (if the statements are substantially true), honest opinion (if the statements are clearly expressed as opinion), qualified privilege (if the publication was on a matter of legitimate public concern to which the publisher had a corresponding duty to publish), or the new public interest defence (if the matter is of public interest and the publisher reasonably believed publication was in the public interest).

Social media platforms, news publishers, website operators, and businesses that operate public social media pages face significant defamation exposure following the High Court's Voller decision. A defamation lawyer advises media organisations, platform operators, and social media page owners on their defamation liability, the available defences, and the content moderation practices that reduce exposure to defamation claims.

Free consultation Voller liability Media defamation All states

Request a free publisher defamation defence consultation.

Share a few details so your request can be reviewed before anyone contacts you.

Legal issue

First name Last name

Phone Email

Postcode State

What do you need help with? I agree to be contacted about this request. I understand this form does not create a lawyer-client relationship.

Your details are used to understand the request and arrange follow-up.

⚠ A concerns notice received by a publisher must be responded to within 28 days — either with an offer to make amends or a decision to defend the claim. An unjustified refusal to make a reasonable offer to make amends may deprive the publisher of this defence. Get publisher defamation advice immediately.

Publisher Defamation Law

Platform and publisher defamation liability in Australia

The Australian concept of "publication" in defamation law is intentionally broad — any person who participates in communicating defamatory matter to a third party is potentially a publisher. This includes the original author, the editor, the printer, the broadcaster, and — following Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller (2021) 273 CLR 346 — the operator of a social media page on which third-party comments are posted.

The Voller decision (decided 5:2 by the High Court of Australia) held that the operators of media company Facebook pages — which hosted user comments — were publishers of those comments, because they took an active step (creating and administering the page) that facilitated the publication of the comments. The High Court rejected the argument that knowledge of the specific defamatory comment was required before the page operator could be a publisher — knowledge is relevant to defences (particularly the defence of innocent dissemination) but not to the question of whether the page operator is a publisher.

The innocent dissemination defence (s 32 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)) is a potential defence for passive secondary publishers — including platform operators who host third-party content. The defence requires the defendant to establish that: (1) it did not know the matter was defamatory; (2) its lack of knowledge was not due to its negligence; and (3) it was a subordinate publisher — not the original author, editor, or commercial publisher of the defamatory matter. After Voller, the innocent dissemination defence remains available to social media page operators — but it requires them to demonstrate that they were not negligent in failing to know the comment was defamatory, which may be difficult if the comment was obviously defamatory on its face or if the page operator had previously been notified of similar defamatory comments.

Media organisations — newspapers, broadcasters, and online news publishers — have a range of defences available for defamatory content they publish directly: truth, honest opinion, qualified privilege, absolute privilege for fair and accurate court reporting, and (since 2021) the public interest defence. A defamation lawyer advises media organisations on the pre-publication review of potentially defamatory content, the available defences, and the management of defamation claims including the offer to make amends procedure.

Publisher Defence Matters

Platform and publisher defamation defence matters we handle

Voller liability assessment

Assessing the defamation liability of social media page operators under the Voller principles — advising on the risk posed by comment functionality and the steps that reduce liability.

Innocent dissemination defence

Advising platform operators and secondary publishers on the innocent dissemination defence — including the evidence required to establish that the operator did not know and was not negligent in not knowing the content was defamatory.

Media pre-publication review

Pre-publication review of potentially defamatory content — advising media organisations on the defamation risks and the changes required to protect the available defences before publication.

Truth defence strategy for media

Advising media organisations on the truth defence for published content — gathering the evidence to support the substantial truth of the imputation and managing the risk that a failed truth defence aggravates damages.

Concerns notice response

Advising publishers on responding to concerns notices — assessing the strength of the available defences, preparing an offer to make amends where appropriate, and defending the claim where the defences are strong.

Content moderation policy

Advising businesses that operate social media pages on implementing content moderation practices that reduce Voller liability — including comment pre-moderation, rapid takedown procedures, and clear community guidelines.

Frequently Asked Questions

Platform and publisher defamation defence questions answered

After Voller, does a business operating a Facebook page need to disable commenting?

Not necessarily — but the business should manage the risk. Options include: disabling commenting entirely; pre-moderating all comments before publication; post-moderation (reviewing and removing defamatory content quickly); or restricting commenting to vetted followers. A defamation lawyer advises on the best approach — balancing the Voller defamation risk against the commercial value of social media engagement.

Is a news publisher liable for defamatory statements made by interviewees?

Yes — by choosing to publish the statements, the publisher participates in the publication. The publisher's defences include truth, honest opinion, qualified privilege, or the public interest defence — but the publisher cannot avoid liability simply because the defamatory statements were made by someone else.

Can the public interest defence protect investigative journalism that turns out to be partially inaccurate?

Yes — potentially. The public interest defence (s 29A Defamation Act 2005 NSW) focuses on the defendant's reasonable belief at the time of publication — not on the objective truth of the statements. A journalist who thoroughly investigates, follows editorial processes, and genuinely believes publication serves the public interest can rely on the defence even if some specific facts later prove to be wrong.