The Supreme Court has this week raised the bar for anyone suing for defamation arising out of a social media post. In Stocker v Stocker the court found in favour of a defendant whose husband had sued her for defamation. The case resulted from a social media post in which the defendant had written that her husband had ‘tried to strangle’ her.
In reaching its unanimous decision the Supreme Court highlighted the fact that the case centred on a Facebook post. According to the court this was critical because, from a legal perspective, it was essential to keep in mind the way such postings are read.
In other words, when it comes to online defamation, the context and the nature of the platform where the alleged defamatory material appears is crucial.
STOCKER v STOCKER
The case involved defamation proceedings brought by Ronald Stocker against his ex-wife Nicola. After their marriage had broken down, a Facebook exchange took place between Mrs. Stocker and her estranged husband’s new partner, a Ms. Bligh. Mrs. Stocker made various comments about her ex husband, including one in which she told Ms. Bligh that he had ‘tried to strangle’ her.
Mr. Stocker argued that, in using these words, Mrs. Stocker had meant that he had tried to kill her, and they were therefore defamatory.
The first judge to hear the case – in the High Court – used the Oxford English Dictionary to determine the precise meaning of the words Mr. Stocker ad complained about. He concluded that anyone reading the post would have understood it to mean that Mr. Stocker had tried to kill Mrs. Stocker. The Court of Appeal confirmed this decision.
THE SUPREME COURT DECISION: CONTEXT AND JUSTIFICATION
The Supreme Court, as we have seen, took a different view. It found that using dictionary definitions as the starting point to determine the meaning of the words complained of was wrong. The lower courts had then failed to examine the context of the Facebook post.
In reaching this decision the Supreme Court took the following into account:
- The main purpose of the court was to focus on how the ordinary reasonable reader would interpret the words. In finding an answer to this question the court had to be very aware of the context in which a statement is made.
- The court had to bear in mind the way Facebook and other social media postings are made. Facebook was a “casual medium in the nature of a conversation rather than a carefully chosen expression”.
- People scroll through Facebook quickly and their reaction to posts is “impressionistic and fleeting”. An ordinary reader, according to the judgment, would have interpreted the post as meaning that Mr. Stocker had grasped Mrs. Stocker by the throat and applied force to her neck.
With this in mind the court decided that Mrs. Stocker had been justified in making the statements her ex husband had objected to.
COMMENT
At Nath Solicitors in London we act regularly in online defamation cases, representing both plaintiffs and defendants. We believe the Stocker case is an important development in the law. It is likely to have a significant impact on the way we advise clients in future. That’s because judges now have the flexibility to be more generous to defendants in online defamation actions by looking at the context of the material to decide whether the alleged defamation is justified.
In a nutshell, a comment that may on its face be defamatory (‘tried to strangle’) may not in fact be legally actionable because of the context in which it appears.
If you need advice on defamation, whether the material has appeared online or in traditional media call our director Shubha Nath in confidence on + 44 (0) 203 670 5540 or contact us online.