"Venting" On Facebook Costs Woman $65,000 For Defamation
Be careful where you vent your frustrations. A recent British Columbia Supreme Court case illustrates the high cost of spewing inflammatory comments on social media sites. It also demonstrates that the original "venter" may be held responsible for the comments and shared content of social media "friends".
The venting arose from a dispute between neighbours. After several years of peaceful co-existence, the defendants installed a multi-level fish pond in their backyard. According to the plaintiff, the noise of the waterfall kept him awake at night. Unfortunately, sleeplessness was not the only problem. The property line between the neighbours was not fences which allowed the defendant's dog to enter the neighbouring backyard and defecate. There were also disagreements about parking which blocked the plaintiff's driveway. As is the case, words were exchanged, authorities were called, and complaints were made.
In response to complaints to the municipality, the plaintiff and his wife were told to document the problems by taking pictures. This was done using a cell-phone.
The female defendant took issue with having her property photographed. In a Facebook rant she complained that the plaintiff was videotaping her property and using mirrors to ensure that her entire property was observed. She stated:
Some of you who know me well know I’ve had a neighbour videotaping me and my family in the backyard over the summers.... Under the guise of keeping record of our dog...
Now that we have friends living with us with their 4 kids including young daughters we think it’s borderline obsessive and not normal adult behavior...
Not to mention a red flag because Doug works for the Abbotsford school district on top of it all!!!!
The mirrors are a minor thing... It was the videotaping as well as his request to the city of Abbotsford to force us to move our play centre out of the covenanted forest area and closer to his property line that really, really made me feel as though this man may have a more serious problem.
Over the next 21 hours, a number of her social media friends added their comments, some of which she responded to publically. The defendant, a middle school music teacher, was called: pedo, creeper, nutter, freak, scumbag, peeper and douchebag.
Even more alarming was the comment of several friends who suggested shaming the plaintiff as a means of controlling his behaviour. One friend advised that he would share the postings. While it is unknown whether he did share the postings, he did email the principal at the middle school to advise her that she was employing a "potential paedophile".
The allegations were not substantiated and the plaintiff retained his teaching position. He noticed, however, a change in behaviour from several parents. One child was removed from the music program. The plaintiff and his family members endured some negative comments in addition to some vandalism (late night door-bell ringing, their car was keyed and rocks were thrown onto their property). The plaintiff lost his love of teaching. He wanted to pursue a teaching position in another district but was afraid to apply as he believed the allegations would follow him.
Not surprisingly, he sued both for nuisance (the noisy waterfall and dog defecation issues) and defamation. The defendants did not defend and were noted in default. At the hearing to establish damages, the female defendant appeared. She was given leave to cross-examine witnesses and make closing submissions. The thrust of her submissions were that she was responsible for having made the original statements but that she should not be held responsible for the defamatory comments of others.
The court disagreed and awarded the plaintiff $2,500 for the nuisance claims plus a total of $65,000 for the defamation claim ($50,000 for general damages and $15,000 for punitive damages). The court noted that the comments were clearly defamatory in that they tended to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person. Moreover, the comments were false. There was no reasonable basis for a belief that the plaintiff was videotaping the defendants children or, even, her property.
The court also found that the defendant was responsible for the comments and actions of her friends. For the most part, a defamer is not responsible for republication of defamation. However, there are three exceptions to that rule, being:
if republication is intended or authorized;
if you originally publish the defamatory material to a person under a legal, moral or social obligation to report the material; or
if the repetition of the information is the natural and probable result of the publication.
The court ruled that the nature of Facebook made republication a "natural and probable result" of original publication. Facebook facilitates the sharing of information and posts. Moreover, one of the comments to the original posting was "why don't we let the world know" and a statement that this friend would be posting the conversation on his Facebook page. It was clear from the context that the poster intended that the information would be republished. The defendant's silence amounted to tacit approval of the republication.
Fortunately, for the defendant, the judge ruled that her actions were not malicious. Rather, the comments were "more of stupidity" without regard to the consequences than of malice. This reduced the award of damages significantly.
The Lesson: reckless venting of feelings in a public setting or on social media can be costly. Moreover, you can be responsible for the responses of your friends. Any inflammatory comments or untrue comments should be removed promptly. Any doubt about the accuracy or inflammatory nature of the comment should be resolved by removing the comment. Privacy settings should be set to prevent the general public from viewing private conversations.
Given the nature of this case, it is recommended that individuals conduct a Facebook audit to review their past conversations and to delete any offensive or inflammatory comments. This is the time to make sure that you follow the paraphrased advice of your mother who said "if you can't post anything nice, don't post anything at all."
Pritchard v Van Nes, 2016 BCSC 686 http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc686/2016bcsc686.pdf
The content and the opinions expressed here is informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Nor does reading or commenting on it create a lawyer/client relationship with the author. I encourage you to contact me directly at adrianlawoffice@gmail.com if you have specific legal questions or concerns.
The author encourages you to share this article on social media.
Follow me on Twitter @gwendolynadrian