鈥淎 reputation once broken may possibly be repaired, but the world will always keep their eyes on the spot where the crack was.鈥� - Joseph Hall.

Words, once spoken, can be impossible to every really take back.

The popularity of social media gives rise to a whole new group of potential defamation claims.

One case illustrates the importance of being careful when posting on social media sites. This case also demonstrates the importance of being careful when forwarding on or re-posting such comments, and failing to remove any additional comments added by others.

Pritchard v. Van Nes began as a dispute between two next door neighbours. After one heated event, the defendant took to Facebook and vented. She made various remarks about the plaintiff, who was a well-liked and respected middle school music teacher. The court ultimately found that the attacks on the plaintiff鈥檚 character were false. She insinuated, for example, that he was a pedophile and expressed some concern that he worked for a school district.

At the time, the defendant had over 2000 Facebook 鈥榝riends鈥�. Her privacy settings were set to 鈥榩ublic鈥�, meaning there were no restrictions on who could see her posts. Several of her friends posted replies to her original post. Many were derogatory toward the plaintiff. At least one 鈥榮hared鈥� it, and also emailed the plaintiff鈥檚 principal to warn that he could be a pedophile.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for defamation and nuisance. He testified about the significant and irreparable harm that the defendant鈥檚 posts had caused him.

The court found that the Facebook posts profoundly and adversely affected his quality of life.

The defendant was held liable for damages for the defamatory remarks she made.

Interestingly, the court also held her liable for others鈥� republications of her defamatory remarks and for the email from one of her Facebook friend to the plaintiff鈥檚 principal. It noted that Facebook鈥檚 structure is such that anyone who posts in such mediums must realize that his or her post could be widely disseminated. Choosing this forum within which to post implicitly authorized republication of her posts both within social media and through other forms of electronic communication including email.

The court also found that the defendant knew of her friends鈥� defamatory comments. Although she had control of her Facebook page, she did not delete either those comments or her original posts. The court commented that the nature of Facebook created a reasonable expectation of further defamatory statements being made.

The court acknowledged the severity of allegations of this type to a teacher鈥檚 reputation, and noted that the impact would likely continue into the future.

In the end, the plaintiff was awarded $50,000 in damages. Partly to discourage reckless online behavior, a further $15,000 was awarded as punitive damages.

The moral of this story? Before 鈥渧enting鈥� on social media, take a few deep breaths, and consider whether doing so may not be such a great idea after all.

The content of this article is intended to provide very general thoughts and general information, not to provide legal advice. Specialist advice from a qualified legal professional should be sought about your specific circumstances.

If you would like to reach us, we may be reached through our website, at www.inspirelaw.ca.

To report a typo, email:
newstips@kelownacapnews.com.

newstips@kelownacapnews.com
Like us on and follow us on .