The 'grapevine effect' is a concept that has gained significant importance in defamation law, particularly with the rapid rise of social media.
This term is used to describe how defamatory material may be repeated or republished to others, causing damage to a much wider audience than initially intended.
In this blog post, I discuss the grapevine effect in the context of defamation law and examine some recent cases that have dealt with this issue.
The Grapevine Effect Explained
As noted in the recent case of Hockings v Lynch & Adams [2022] QDC 127, the grapevine effect has been used as a metaphor to help explain the basis on which general damages may be recovered in defamation actions.
The real damage caused by defamatory material cannot be ascertained and established, as it is impossible to track the scandal or determine the extent to which the poison may reach.
The grapevine effect provides a means by which a court may conclude that a given result was "natural and probable," depending on factors such as the nature of the false statement and the circumstances of its publication.
However, the grapevine effect does not operate in all cases, and republication is not always the "natural and probable" result of the original publication.
The Grapevine Effect and Social Media
The grapevine effect is particularly relevant in the context of social media, where defamatory material can spread rapidly and might emerge from its hiding place at some future date.
As observed in Hockings v Lynch & Adams, courts must be conscious that an award of damages needs to be sufficient to convince a bystander, who later learns of a slur through the grapevine, of the baselessness of the charge.
Case Examples
In O'Reilly v Edgar, the court accepted evidence that at least 1,000 members of the public group had downloaded and read defamatory posts, providing the foundation for a finding of wide publication.
In contrast, the case of Bolton v Stoltenberg relied on evidence of the 'reach' of a website in question and 'likes, comments, and shares' of defamatory posts, which the court used to infer that the material had been downloaded and read by a significant number of people.
Hockings v Lynch & Adams: A Closer Look
In Hockings v Lynch & Adams, the court found that in respect of certain occasions, posts were published beyond the admitted scope of publication due to factors such as the number of members in relevant Facebook groups and the overlap between groups.
However, the court also found that in other instances, publication was no greater than to those who were friends or followers of the pages in question.
Key take-aways
The grapevine effect has significant implications in defamation law, especially in the context of social media.
Courts must carefully consider the nature and extent of publication and republication in determining damages.
As social media continues to evolve, it will be interesting to see how courts adapt to the changing landscape and deal with the grapevine effect in future cases.
Cases
In the blog post above, the following cases are mentioned:
Hockings v Lynch & Adams [2022] QDC 127
O'Reilly v Edgar [2019] NSWDC 374
Bolton v Stoltenberg [2018] NSWSC 1518