Republishing Defamation — The Liability of the Sharer, Quoter and Reporter
A common mistake: 'I just shared it — I didn't write it.' But in defamation law, someone who shares, quotes, forwards or repeats another person's harmful publication may bear independent liability of their own. The notion that the 'distributor' is exempt from liability merely because they are not the 'source' is fundamentally wrong. This guide explains why republishing is considered an independent publication, when the sharer is exposed, and when a defense may be available — a critical topic in the age of networks, where content is distributed with a click.
1. Republishing = An Independent Publication
A foundational principle: every 'publication' of defamation gives rise to liability, and for this purpose repeating an existing publication or distributing it is also considered a publication in its own right. Someone who shared a defamatory post, quoted a harmful statement, forwarded a message or attached a link with endorsement — carried out an independent 'publication,' and is not protected merely because the content was originally written by someone else. The logic: every distribution widens the circle of exposure and the harm to the injured party. So, legally, sharing is not 'neutral' — it is an act of publication that may impose liability on the sharer themselves.
2. Sharing, Quoting and Forwarding Online
In the age of networks, the distinction is critical. Sharing a defamatory post, a retweet, forwarding a WhatsApp message, quoting in an article or a post — all of these may be considered republishing that gives rise to liability. Even a 'like' may, in certain circumstances and depending on developments, raise questions (although its status is more contested and complex than active sharing). The practical meaning: before you share content that may be defamatory, stop — the very act of distribution may expose you, even if you did not create the content and added nothing to it.
3. When a Defense May Be Available
Not every repetition of a publication imposes liability without a defense. Defenses may be available depending on the circumstances: fair and balanced media reporting on a publication or a proceeding may fall under permitted publications or the good-faith defense; quoting for the purpose of legitimate criticism or expressing an opinion may be protected; and distribution in good faith in the circumstances listed in the law. But the defenses are conditioned on good faith, proportionality, and the distributor not adopting the harmful content as truth and not widening the harm beyond what was necessary. A 'casual' share of defamatory content, without a protective context, will usually not enjoy a defense.
4. Practical Precautionary Rules
To avoid finding yourself liable for another's publication: do not share or forward content that appears defamatory without verifying its reliability; do not add endorsement or reinforcement ('so true!', 'pass it on') to harmful content; if you reported on a publication, do so fairly, in a balanced and qualified manner, without adopting the accusation as fact. If you already shared it and it turns out the content is defamatory — consider immediate removal. Remember: online, clicking 'share' is an act of publication in every respect, and the sharer's liability stands on its own, separate from the original creator's liability.
Checklist
- Internalize: sharing/quoting/forwarding are an independent publication giving rise to liability
- Do not share content that appears defamatory without verifying its reliability
- Do not add endorsement or reinforcement to harmful content
- When reporting on a publication — do so fairly, in a balanced and qualified manner
- If you shared content that turns out to be defamatory — consider immediate removal
- Remember that defenses are conditioned on good faith and proportionality
Common Pitfalls
- Assuming 'I just shared it' exempts from liability — it does not
- Adding endorsement/reinforcement that makes you an adopter of the content
- Casual sharing without a protective context of reporting or criticism
- Distributing harmful content without checking its reliability
- Keeping the share up even after it turns out the content is defamatory
שאלות ותשובות
I shared a defamatory post someone else wrote — am I liable?
Quite possibly. Republishing is considered an independent publication. The very act of sharing widens the harm and may impose liability on you, even if you did not write the content.
Do quoting or forwarding a message also count as publication?
Yes. Quoting, a retweet, forwarding on WhatsApp and attaching a link with endorsement may all be considered republishing that gives rise to independent liability.
When will I not be liable for a share?
When a defense is available — fair and balanced reporting, quoting for legitimate criticism, or good-faith distribution under the law. But the defenses are conditioned on good faith, proportionality, and not adopting the content as truth.
What should I do if I shared and then realized it was defamation?
Consider immediate removal of the share. Keeping it up may aggravate your liability. Quick action and good faith work in your favor.