Home Knowledge Facebook not Obliged to Remove the Defamatory Posts of An Anonymous User

Facebook not Obliged to Remove the Defamatory Posts of An Anonymous User

The High Court has ruled inMuwema v Facebook Ireland IEHC 519 that theinternet service provider was not obliged to remove the defamatory posts of ananonymous third party. The Court opted instead to exercise its discretion andmade a Norwich Pharmacal order, forcing Facebook to reveal the identity of theuser in question. Norwich Pharmacal orders are generally granted against athird party, forcing them to disclose information that assists the applicant inidentifying and bringing legal proceedings against the individual who isbelieved to have wronged them.

Mr Muwema, a Ugandan lawyer (the”applicant”), initiated proceedings when a number of “false scurrilous anddefamatory” comments were posted by a Facebook Ireland Limited(“Facebook”) user operating under the pseudonym “TVO”.

The case was brought in Irelandagainst Facebook as it is the contracting entity for users outside the US andCanada.

The applicant sought a number ofinterlocutory orders, namely:

  1. An order prohibiting the publication or further publication of the posts
  2. An order that Facebook or anyone on notice of the order cease and desist in further publishing the articles in question
  3. An order directing Facebook to disclose the identity of TVO (a Norwich Pharmacal Order)

The reliefs sought at (1) above wererefused by Justice Binchy who emphasised that the making of such an order would“serve no useful purpose” given that the information was now wellwithin the public domain.

Justice Binchy also found that theprohibitory order sought at (2) above could only be available when thedefendant had no defence which is reasonably likely to succeed and, in thisinstance, the defendant may well have been successful in availing of the”innocent publication” defence.

The applicant was successful,however, in obtaining a Norwich Pharmacal order compelling Facebook to disclosethe identity of “TVO”, the activist responsible for the defamatorypublications. 

The order, which is one of only ahandful made in this jurisdiction, will now enable theapplicant to pursue an action in defamation in Uganda against the userin question.

Contributed by DavidCullen

Back to Legal News