The author is not the only person who is liable for a defamatory publication. Anyone involved in its publication and distribution may also be liable. For example, this might include printers, editors, publishers, retailers and even librarians.
However, it is possible for some people involved in the chain of publication (e.g. retailers and librarians) to escape Legal responsibility, enforced by civil or criminal courts. by proving that they were an ‘innocent’ or ‘subordinate’ distributor of the Relevant or important. For example, material evidence is something that helps to prove an argument in a criminal case.. To prove this, they need to establish that they did not know the publication contained defamatory material, had no reason to suspect that it did, and that their lack of knowledge was not due to An act that breaches a duty to take reasonable care and results in loss or damage to another person. See also tort.. However, where a publication is ongoing (e.g. it’s published on the internet), once a distributor has been told that the publication contains defamatory material, then this (1) A defendant’s response to the legal claims made against them in court by a prosecutor or plaintiff. (2) A lawful excuse for conduct: for example, causing minor injuries to someone while saving them from certain death. (3) ‘The defence’ is also a way of referring to the defendant and their legal team. may no longer be available to them, particularly if they have the The ability to understand and be held responsible by the law for your actions. It also refers to a person’s ability to understand and agree to something, such as to undergo medical treatment. Full legal capacity is reached at 18 years of age, when a child becomes an adult. to restrain the ongoing publication.
There are provisions in the Public Records A written law made by parliament. Also called an ‘Act of parliament’, ‘statute’ or legislation. 1973 (Vic), the The right of any person to access documents held by government agencies, except documents excluded by legislation. Act 1982 (Cth) and the Information Privacy Act 2000 (Vic) that prevent legal action being brought against public bodies releasing information to fulfil their duties under Statutory rules made by parliament or by bodies the parliament delegates power to, for example a local council or a registration authority. See delegated legislation; statute.. However, it is possible to To take legal action in a civil case. the author of a document obtained through a freedom of information request.
Are internet content hosts and service providers liable?
The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) (‘BS Act’) (cl 91 sch 5) prevents internet content hosts and internet Formal delivery of legal documents to a person to tell them there are court proceedings against them which they must defend, or to make sure a witness in a case knows when they have to go to court to give evidence. providers from being liable for defamatory material transmitted using an internet carriage service – provided the internet content host or service provider was not aware of the nature of the material. The BS Act provides that an internet content host or service provider is not required to make enquiries about, or keep records of, internet content. This exemption does not apply to information transmitted by email or for broadcasting. (See Chapter 7.5: The internet and the law.)
Are internet search engine providers liable?
In England, providers of internet search engines (e.g. Google) have been held not to be liable for publications accessible on websites identified by their search engines on the basis that they take no active steps in the publication of the material.
However, this has not been embraced in Australia. In a Victorian case (Trkulja v Google Inc (No 5)  VSC 533), a A panel of people selected from the general public to decide whether an accused in a criminal case is guilty or not guilty, or to decide questions of fact and the amount to be awarded as damages in civil cases. found Google liable for material accessible via its search engine. The trial judge refused to set that verdict aside, stating that the position in England did not necessarily reflect the law in Australia.
In another case, the Supreme An independent body that hears legal claims brought by parties and decides between them. Serious cases are heard by a judge and jury, or just a judge. Less-serious cases are heard by a magistrate. of South Australia, in Duffy v Google Inc  SASC 170, rejected an argument by Google that they should never be liable for defamatory publications that are accessed via the Google search engine.
However, the Supreme Court of New South Wales reached the opposite conclusion in Bleyer v Google Inc LLC (2014) 300 ALR 529, finding that Google could not be held liable as a publisher of defamatory material accessed via its search engine, except where a person has brought the existence of that material to Google’s attention and Google then refused to remove the offending material from its search engine results.
That approach was adopted by the Victorian Court of The review of the decision of a lower court by a higher court. If an appeal is successful, the higher court can change the lower court’s decision. in another case involving Google (Google Inc v Trkulja  VSCA 333); however, in 2018 the High Court overturned that decision. Following the High Court’s decision, the position is that it remains open for a A person who begins a civil action against another person. to argue that Google is liable for defamatory search results generated by the Google search engine, whether or not the plaintiff brought the existence of those results to Google’s attention.
The High Court also overturned the Victorian Court of Appeal’s finding that the search results that were the subject of Google Inc v Trkulja (a combination of ordinary internet search results, ‘image’ search results and ‘autocomplete’ search suggestions made by the search engine) were incapable of carrying any defamatory meanings to ordinary users of search engines. The High Court found it was at least arguable that the search results conveyed defamatory meanings, and that ultimately this was a matter for the jury to decide at trial. The matter of Google Inc v Trkulja is ongoing in the Supreme Court of Victoria.