So, apparently Parler is the new no-moderation free speech social media platform and some conservative pundits love it. It has a leak. Here it is and I’m gonna tell ya. /1

First note that Australian defamation law is much more plaintiff-friendly than US defamation law. A side effect of that pesky first amendment. And you can’t sidestep it with some libel tourism because Aussie defamation judgments can’t be enforced in the US. /2

But, the NSWCA just upheld the trial decision in Voller [2020] NSWCA 102. The effect of that judgment is that the owners of websites can be liable for defamation for the content users post on them.

For my American followers, it means there’s no §230 CDA equivalent in aus law. /3

So if a user defames someone on Parler and Parler is on notice of it (rest assured someone who is defamed will give notice to Parler) then Parler has two options:

1. Remove the defamatory post; or
2. Be named as a defendant.

In the first, there goes no-moderation. /4

And so let’s assume Parler sticks to its principles and stands its ground. What does that mean for the author of the defamatory comment?

Well, this gem is tucked away in the Terms and Conditions:
/5

An Aus defamation judgment might not be enforceable in the USA but a contractual indemnity against one probably is. And so, circutiously, Parler users are exposed to SLAPP suits in the defamation capital of the world in a way that twitter users are not. /6

This explains why Devin Nunes loves it so much.

Some will say “but Parler is American, you can’t enforce a defamation judgment against them any more than an individual user”.

And sure, that’s true. Provided they never want to sell an ad or generate a single $ of profit here. /7

Nobody should read this as me advocating a new form of defamation tourism. But, absolute free speech on a commercial platform is demonstrably harder than people think. Parler shows one way to plug the leak is with your users’ money. Twitter so far hasn’t gone that route. /end