Secondary Publisher in Defamation Laws
Share
In defamation laws, a secondary publisher refers to a person or entity that repeats or republishes defamatory statements made by another party. The primary publisher is typically the original source or author of the defamatory statement, while the secondary publisher is someone who disseminates or republishes that statement to a wider audience.
Knowledge or recklessness: For a secondary publisher to be held liable for defamation, he generally must have knowledge of the defamatory nature of the statement or have been reckless in not verifying its accuracy. Knowledge implies that he was aware that the statement was false or damaging when he republished it. Recklessness means that he didn't take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the statement before publishing it.
Act of republishing: Secondary publishers are involved in disseminating or republishing the defamatory statement to a broader audience. This can take various forms, such as printing the statement in a newspaper, airing it on television or radio, sharing it on social media, or hosting it on a website.
Control: Secondary publishers usually have some level of control or responsibility over the content they republish. This control can vary widely depending on the platform or medium. For example, a newspaper editor has significant control over the content that goes into his publication, whereas a social media platform may have less direct control but still some responsibilities regarding user-generated content because it makes the publication available to third parties.
Defences: Secondary publishers may have certain defences available to them in defamation cases. Common defences include truth, honest opinion and qualified privilege. As for the defence of truth, if the statement is true, it is generally not considered defamatory. As for the defence of honest opinion, expressing a genuinely held opinion based on facts or honestly held beliefs is often a defence. The defence of qualified privilege may apply, such as when a journalist reports on official government proceedings or statements made by public officials.
It should be noted that defamation laws are continually evolving, especially with the advent of the internet and social media. Courts are currently grappling with how to apply defamation principles to online platforms and user-generated content.
Knowledge or recklessness: For a secondary publisher to be held liable for defamation, he generally must have knowledge of the defamatory nature of the statement or have been reckless in not verifying its accuracy. Knowledge implies that he was aware that the statement was false or damaging when he republished it. Recklessness means that he didn't take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the statement before publishing it.
Act of republishing: Secondary publishers are involved in disseminating or republishing the defamatory statement to a broader audience. This can take various forms, such as printing the statement in a newspaper, airing it on television or radio, sharing it on social media, or hosting it on a website.
Control: Secondary publishers usually have some level of control or responsibility over the content they republish. This control can vary widely depending on the platform or medium. For example, a newspaper editor has significant control over the content that goes into his publication, whereas a social media platform may have less direct control but still some responsibilities regarding user-generated content because it makes the publication available to third parties.
Defences: Secondary publishers may have certain defences available to them in defamation cases. Common defences include truth, honest opinion and qualified privilege. As for the defence of truth, if the statement is true, it is generally not considered defamatory. As for the defence of honest opinion, expressing a genuinely held opinion based on facts or honestly held beliefs is often a defence. The defence of qualified privilege may apply, such as when a journalist reports on official government proceedings or statements made by public officials.
It should be noted that defamation laws are continually evolving, especially with the advent of the internet and social media. Courts are currently grappling with how to apply defamation principles to online platforms and user-generated content.
