Facebook posts in Dylan Voller’s sights

Media organisations have been accused of deliberately attracting ‘peddlers of fake news’ on their Facebook pages.

Dylan Voller. Picture: Emma Murray

Media organisations that deliberately posted controversial articles and videos on their Facebook pages were aware it was likely to attract “peddlers of fake news” and “extremely hostile” defamatory comments online, a Sydney court has been told.

“They set the agenda, they are inviting comments … they know very well there can be defamatory comments,” Tom Mollomby SC told the NSW Supreme Court yesterday.

Mr Mollomby is representing Dylan Voller, a former inmate of the notorious Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in Darwin, in a world-first defamation action against three Australian media publishers.

Mr Voller’s shocking abuse at the centre made international headlines and sparked a royal commission in 2016. But he says articles and videos posted in The Australian, Sky News, The Bolt Report, The Centralian Advocate and Nine’s Sydney Morning ­Herald newspaper in late 2016 to mid-2017 prompted a series of derogatory comments about him on their Facebook pages.

Justice Stephen Rothman admitted yesterday the law was in uncharted territory as to whether media companies could be held responsible for third-party comments on their social media.

Social media editors from the three media companies gave evidence yesterday about the range of strategies used to block and hide abusive public comments, including use of the so-called “profanity filter” Facebook tool.

Mr Mollomby repeatedly challenged the witnesses, ­demanding to know whether they ever did a “risk assessment” on the likely impact their Facebook posts might have on “vulnerable” people like Mr Voller.

He also quizzed the social media editors about whether they had ever heard of “rednecks” or “peddlers of fake news”, a question that prompted Justice Rothman to interject: “We are excluding the President of the US, are we, Mr Mollomby?”

But it was Mr Mollomby’s question as to why media companies didn’t just do away with comments on their Facebook pages altogether that left one of the witnesses, The Australian’s digital night editor, Brighette Ryan, momentarily lost for words.

She then proceeded to explain how social media worked.

“I imagine … people would get frustrated. People go on to Facebook to comment and if comments weren’t appearing it would defeat one of the purposes of the page,” Ryan explained.

The social media editor for The Sydney Morning Herald, ­Sophia Han Thuy Phan, also came under pressure, rejecting Mr Mollomby’s claim the main purpose of the Facebook page for media companies was to aim for “maximum engagement” to generate new subscribers.

“I wouldn’t agree with that at all,” Phan said. “ … my job is to best represent our platform on Facebook … I don’t get alerted if someone becomes a subscriber.’’

Mr Mollomby persisted: “It’s not just a worthy social mission, is it? Your job is to make money.’’

Mr Voller’s statement of claim says the media organisations were ­liable for up to a dozen false and defamatory comments about him that ­appeared on the publications’ Facebook pages.

The comments included ­allegations Mr Voller “savagely” ­assaulted a Salvation Army worker, leaving him “blinded in one eye and deaf in one ear”.

The hearing continues.