Reposting Defamatory Content in Australia: Legal Overview
Reposting defamatory content in Australia can create serious legal consequences, even if you did not write the original post.
Under Australian defamation law, a person does not need to be the original author of defamatory material to face liability. In the digital environment, reputational harm is often amplified not by the first publication, but by the second, third, or hundredth republication across social media, messaging platforms, business forums, online communities, and other digital channels.
A Facebook share, an X repost, a LinkedIn repost, a screenshot forwarded into a group chat, or the republication of allegations in an online community may all create legal risk if the content conveys defamatory imputations about another person.
Australian courts have repeatedly recognised that publication in defamation is not confined to authorship. The focus is whether the defendant participated in making defamatory matter available for comprehension by a third party.
In Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27, Gageler J stated that a publisher is anyone who is an active and voluntary participant in the publication process.
As social media defamation in Australia continues to evolve, understanding when reposting defamatory content, sharing allegations, or forwarding screenshots may amount to publication is increasingly important for individuals and businesses alike.
What Makes Reposting Defamatory Content Legally Defamatory?
Before considering whether reposting content creates liability, it is necessary to identify what Australian law recognises as defamatory matter.
At common law, a plaintiff was required to establish that defamatory matter was published to at least one third party, that the matter identified the plaintiff, and that the publication conveyed one or more defamatory imputations. In Australia, a plaintiff must also establish that the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation.
Although the various Australian Defamation Acts now regulate important aspects of the cause of action, the legislation expressly preserves the operation of the common law except where modified by statute.
In Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27, the High Court observed at [10]:
The Act does not define what is meant by the ‘publication’ of defamatory matter. Resort is necessary to the general law in that regard.
A statement will generally be defamatory if it tends to lower a person in the estimation of ordinary members of the community, exposes them to ridicule, or causes others to shun or avoid them.
However, following the introduction of the serious harm requirement, not every defamatory publication will be actionable. A plaintiff must also establish that the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation.
In modern digital defamation claims, defamatory imputations frequently arise from allegations of criminal conduct, dishonesty, professional misconduct, sexual misconduct, fraud, or behaviour said to make others unsafe.
Social media cases provide useful illustrations of how quickly such imputations can arise.
In Rothe v Scott (No 4) [2016] NSWDC 160, the defendant published a Facebook post alleging that motels operated by the plaintiff were being used to house paedophiles, and expressly encouraged others to spread the publication.
The post as set out at [1] stated:
People what the fark [sic] share this post please! Can’t believe this just another council decision without consent! Bus stops are right out the front of these hotels for our children?
The Court held that the publication conveyed serious defamatory imputations and awarded substantial damages.
Similarly, in Mickle v Farley [2013] NSWDC 295, defamatory publications were made about a school teacher through Facebook and Twitter.
Elkaim SC DCJ recorded at [8]:
However, acting on that belief, on 15 November 2012 through the social mediums of Twitter and Facebook, a number of defamatory comments were posted about the plaintiff.
These decisions demonstrate that defamatory matter need not appear in a newspaper article, television broadcast, or formal publication.
A post, repost, comment, screenshot, or social media share may be enough if the material identifies a person and conveys a defamatory meaning to at least one other person.
In the context of reposting, the critical question is often not whether the original content was defamatory, but whether the person sharing it has participated in a fresh publication of that defamatory matter to a new audience.
Understanding what makes content defamatory is critical before reposting defamatory content online.
A person who shares allegations without understanding the legal meaning of defamation may unintentionally expose themselves to serious legal risk.
When Does Reposting Defamatory Content Amount to Publication?
In many online defamation disputes, the central issue is not whether the original post was defamatory, but whether the person who shared, reposted, forwarded, or otherwise amplified that content has become a publisher in their own right.
Australian law has long recognised that every fresh communication of defamatory matter may amount to a new publication.
This principle has become increasingly significant in the age of social media, where content can be republished to entirely new audiences in seconds.
In practice, reposting defamatory content often creates legal exposure because Australian defamation law focuses on publication, not just authorship.
The central issue is whether the act of sharing communicates defamatory matter to a new audience.
The High Court confirmed in Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27 that publication is a process directed toward making matter available for comprehension by a third party.
Gageler J stated at [58]:
Those standard common law principles posit that publication is a process which includes making matter available for comprehension by a third party… and which is completed upon the third party having that matter available for comprehension.
This matters because a social media repost often does exactly that.
A Facebook share, an X repost, a LinkedIn repost, an Instagram story share, or a screenshot forwarded into a group chat may all place the material before a fresh audience that did not previously receive it.
If that audience reads and comprehends the defamatory matter, a new publication may arise.
The High Court’s decision in Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 remains foundational in this area.
The Court held that online material is published where it is downloaded and comprehended by the recipient, reflecting the way internet publications were accessed at the time.
The joint judgment stated:
His Honour concluded that the statements of which Mr Gutnick sought to complain were ‘published in the State of Victoria when downloaded by Dow Jones subscribers’…
Applied to modern social media, this means that reposting content into a new feed, chat, forum, or professional network may create a fresh act of publication where others access and understand the content.
The issue becomes even clearer where the person sharing the content adds commentary.
A user who reposts allegations with statements such as “everyone needs to see this”, “if this is true, unbelievable”, or “watch out for this person” may strengthen the argument that they have adopted or endorsed the defamatory sting of the original publication.
Australian courts have also considered cases involving deliberate encouragement of further dissemination.
In Rothe v Scott (No 4) [2016] NSWDC 160, the defendant published a Facebook post containing serious allegations about businesses operated by the plaintiff and expressly encouraged others to spread the publication.
Once again the post stated at [1]:
Pedophile [sic] warning:- Nambucca has been used as a relocation for these monsters – blue dolphin – nirvana hotel and above the indian restaurant!… People what the fark [sic] share this post please!
The Court ultimately awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in damages.
That case does not establish that every click of a “share” button automatically creates liability.
What it does demonstrate is that where social media users publish serious allegations and actively encourage others to republish them to a wider audience, Australian courts are prepared to treat that conduct as publication capable of giving rise to substantial damages.
In Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27, the High Court held that merely providing a search result containing a hyperlink to allegedly defamatory material did not, on those facts, make Google the publisher of the underlying article.
The Court distinguished between actively participating in communication of defamatory matter and merely providing a content-neutral reference.
This distinction is important.
Simply mentioning that content exists may not always amount to publication.
Reposting, forwarding, embedding, screenshotting, endorsing, or otherwise making the defamatory matter directly available to a new audience is far more likely to create legal exposure.
In practice, the stronger the connection between the user’s conduct and the communication of the defamatory material, the stronger the argument that a fresh publication has occurred.
Social Media Liability for Reposting Defamatory Content
One of the most significant developments in Australian defamation law is the recognition that liability may arise even where the defendant did not personally write the defamatory words.
In the social media context, businesses, media organisations, professionals, community groups, and public page administrators may all face exposure when they create or control online spaces that facilitate others’ defamatory publications.
This issue reached the High Court in Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27.
The proceedings concerned public Facebook pages operated by major media organisations, where third-party users posted allegedly defamatory comments beneath news stories.
The High Court described the operation of those pages at [1]:
They each maintain a public Facebook page on which they post content relating to news stories and provide hyperlinks to those stories on their website. They invite comment on the posted content from members of the public who are Facebook users.
The media companies argued that they had not authored the comments and should not be treated as publishers of words written by unrelated Facebook users.
The High Court rejected that argument.
The Court held that by creating the pages, posting content, and facilitating public interaction, the page operators had participated in the publication process.
The Court noted at [16] that the operators had:
facilitated the making of comments by third parties which then became available to others.
This decision has significant implications beyond media companies.
A business operating a public Facebook page, a professional running a LinkedIn discussion page, an employer managing an industry forum, or an administrator of a community group may all face similar arguments if defamatory material is published through channels they actively operate or encourage.
In practice, disputes commonly arise where:
-
a business owner reposts allegations about a competitor,
-
an employer shares accusations involving a former employee,
-
a director circulates damaging claims in an industry group,
-
or a professional republishes client complaints without verification.
Australian courts have also recognised that social media publications can cause substantial online reputation damage, even where the original post remains online for only a short period.
In Mickle v Farley [2013] NSWDC 295, the Court considered defamatory comments posted on Facebook and Twitter about a school teacher.
Elkaim SC DCJ observed at [9]:
It is well known that students can use Facebook for bullying.
Although that case involved direct publications rather than third-party comments, it reflects the courts’ recognition that social media can rapidly magnify reputational harm.
A common misconception is that liking, resharing, tagging, or commenting on another person’s allegations is legally safer than writing the allegation yourself.
That assumption is often misplaced.
Where a user adopts, endorses, amplifies, or materially assists the communication of defamatory matter to a new audience, the law may treat that conduct as participation in publication.
The platform may be digital, but the underlying legal principles remain the same.
Many people assume that reposting defamatory content is legally safer than writing the original allegation.
In reality, Australian courts focus on participation in publication, which means sharing or amplifying content may still create liability.
Defences and Common Misconceptions
One of the most common misunderstandings in online defamation disputes is the belief that a person cannot be sued because they did not create the original content.
Australian law does not recognise any automatic immunity simply because the defamatory matter was written by someone else.
If a person actively contributes to the communication of defamatory matter to a new audience, liability may still arise unless a recognised defence applies.
In Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27, the High Court observed at [1]:
Comments which are made appear on the Facebook page and are available to be seen by other Facebook users.
That factual reality sits at the centre of modern republication disputes.
Once defamatory material is shared, reposted, or left visible within a digital environment controlled or actively used by another person, the legal focus shifts from authorship to participation in publication.
It should also be noted that recent amendments to Australian defamation legislation provide specific protections for certain digital intermediaries, including providers of caching, conduit and storage services, search engine providers, and other prescribed intermediaries in defined circumstances. Those protections are highly fact-specific and generally do not extend to ordinary social media users who actively repost, share, endorse, adopt, or otherwise republish defamatory content.
Where a claim arises from reposting defamatory content, one of the first issues is whether any recognised statutory or common law defence may apply.
However, these protections are often narrower than social media users expect.
| Defence | What it Means | May Apply to Reposting |
| Truth | The defamatory imputations are substantially true | Potentially |
| Honest Opinion | The publication is clearly opinion based on proper material | Potentially |
| Innocent Dissemination | Limited involvement in publication without knowledge | Sometimes |
| Qualified Privilege | Publication made in a legally protected context | Sometimes |
| Public Interest | Publication concerns legitimate public interest issues | Fact specific |
Truth
Truth, historically referred to as justification, remains one of the strongest defences available under the various Australian Defamation Acts.
If the defamatory imputations conveyed by the publication are substantially true, liability may be defeated.
However, the burden generally rests on the defendant to establish the truth of the imputations actually conveyed.
This creates obvious risk for users who casually repost allegations from social media, anonymous forums, or workplace gossip without any independent evidence.
Repeating someone else’s accusation does not transfer the burden back to the original author.
For a deeper analysis, see our guide to truth as a defence in defamation.
Honest Opinion
A defendant may also seek to rely on honest opinion where the publication clearly communicates opinion rather than fact, is based on proper material, and relates to a matter of public interest.
In practice, this defence is often misunderstood online.
Statements such as “in my opinion he is corrupt” or “just my view” do not automatically avoid liability if the publication still conveys factual imputations.
The substance of the communication matters more than the label attached to it.
For more detail, read our article on honest opinion in Australian defamation law.
Innocent Dissemination
In some circumstances, secondary publishers may seek to rely on innocent dissemination.
This defence may be relevant to intermediaries, hosts, distributors, or parties with limited involvement in the publication process.
Its practical strength often diminishes once the defendant becomes aware of the defamatory content and fails to act.
In Duffy v Google Inc [2015] SASC 170, the Court discussed circumstances where liability may arise after actual knowledge of defamatory material and a failure to remove it within a reasonable time.
This principle has practical relevance for page administrators, businesses, and forum moderators who leave problematic content online after receiving complaints.
Learn more in our guide to innocent dissemination and online publication liability.
Public Interest and Qualified Privilege
Australian defamation legislation also recognises defences such as qualified privilege and public interest publication.
These defences may arise where the publication serves a legitimate social, political, or public function.
However, reposting controversial allegations for entertainment, outrage, engagement, or viral reach will rarely fall comfortably within those protections.
Courts are often particularly critical where serious allegations are published without any meaningful effort to verify their accuracy.
This was evident in Rothe v Scott (No 4) [2016] NSWDC 160, where the Court observed at [145]:
Only a very substantial award of damages is capable of vindicating as well as consoling the plaintiff in relation to the defendant’s disgraceful conduct in publishing allegations of this seriousness without any prior inquiry or proper evidence…
For social media users, the practical lesson is simple.
Sharing content “for awareness,” “just asking questions,” or “passing on what others are saying” does not create a standalone defence.
If the repost contributes to the spread of defamatory matter, legal exposure may still follow.
For related commentary, see our article on qualified privilege and public interest defences.
Key Legal Risks of Reposting Defamatory Content
Reposting defamatory content in Australia is not a legally neutral act.
The law does not confine liability to the original author, and the modern authorities make clear that participation in the communication of defamatory matter may be sufficient to establish publication.
In Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27, the High Court confirmed that publication involves making matter available for comprehension by a third party, and that a person may be a publisher where they take part in that process.
In a digital environment, reposting, sharing, forwarding, or otherwise amplifying content will often do exactly that.
Whether through a social media share, a repost with commentary, or the circulation of screenshots to a new audience, the act of republication may expose a person to liability if the material conveys defamatory imputations.
The decisions in Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27, Mickle v Farley [2013] NSWDC 295, and Rothe v Scott (No 4) [2016] NSWDC 160 demonstrate that courts are prepared to apply established defamation principles to contemporary forms of communication without modification.
The platform may have changed, but the underlying rule remains consistent.
Where a person contributes to the spread of defamatory matter, particularly to a new audience, they may be treated as a publisher.
At the same time, the law recognises limits.
Not every interaction with online content will amount to publication, and questions of control, knowledge, adoption, and the nature of the communication remain highly fact-dependent.
As digital communication continues to evolve, these distinctions will remain central to how Australian courts assess liability for reposting and republication.
For individuals and businesses alike, the key risk is not simply what is said, but what is shared.
Frequently Asked Questions
Because reposting defamatory content often occurs in fast-moving digital environments, many individuals and businesses have practical questions about when sharing, reposting, or forwarding content may create legal exposure.
Can you be sued for sharing a defamatory post in Australia?
Yes.
Under Australian defamation law, liability is not limited to the person who originally wrote the content.
If you share defamatory material with a new audience and the publication conveys defamatory imputations that cause, or are likely to cause, serious harm to a person’s reputation, you may be exposed to legal action as a publisher.
Is reposting defamatory content illegal in Australia?
Reposting defamatory content is not automatically illegal, but it can expose you to civil liability.
If the content identifies a person, is communicated to at least one third party, conveys defamatory imputations, and causes or is likely to cause serious harm to reputation, sharing it may create legal risk.
Can you be sued for retweeting or reposting on social media?
Potentially, yes.
Sharing content on platforms like Facebook, X, LinkedIn, Instagram, or Reddit may amount to republication if the content contains defamatory allegations and reaches a new audience.
Can you get in trouble for sharing screenshots of defamatory messages?
Yes.
Sharing screenshots through social media, email, or group chats can create legal exposure if the content contains defamatory allegations and is communicated to others.
The fact you did not write the original message does not automatically protect you.
Is saying “I’m just sharing this” a defence to defamation?
No.
Adding phrases like “just sharing” or “for awareness” does not automatically protect you.
If your actions help spread defamatory content, liability may still arise depending on the circumstances.
Can businesses be liable for defamatory comments on their social media pages?
Yes.
Businesses that operate public pages, forums, or online communities may face legal risk if defamatory content is published through channels they manage or actively encourage engagement on.
Can you be sued for sharing false accusations in a group chat?
Potentially, yes.
Private group chats on platforms like WhatsApp, Messenger, Slack, or Teams may still create legal exposure if defamatory content is shared with other participants.
What if I didn’t know the content I shared was false?
Not knowing content was false does not automatically remove legal risk.
Liability in defamation generally depends on publication, identification, defamatory meaning and serious harm, rather than an intention to cause harm. While lack of knowledge may be relevant to particular defences in some circumstances, it does not automatically prevent liability.
If I delete a defamatory repost, can I still be sued?
Possibly.
Deleting content may reduce ongoing harm, but it does not automatically remove liability if other people already saw or shared the content before it was removed.
Can liking or reacting to a defamatory post get you sued?
Possibly, but it depends on the context.
A simple reaction may not always create liability, but if your actions endorse, amplify, or help spread defamatory allegations, legal risk may increase.
