How can charities deal with hostile social media?

Issues cannot be tackled until they are discovered so having a member of the charity designated to keep an eye on what is being said about the organisation online is the only way to ensure that malicious actions are spotted early. Monitoring is made easier using online “alert” features that can be set up so that updates are delivered to an email inbox.

A sensible approach to handling any issues that arise (unless the issue is more serious), is to step up monitoring and see how the situation develops. Often, a response from the charity will simply add fuel to the fire, and matters may peter out if a reaction is not forthcoming.

Evidently, if matters continue, some action will need to be taken to try and prevent further harm. Individuals posting defamatory, sensitive or otherwise harmful comments could potentially be blocked if they are posted on the charity’s account, however if they originate elsewhere, this may not be possible. Charities can also potentially remove posts if they are posted on the charity’s accounts, but not if they are posted on other accounts. 

Litigation is an option, but can turn a difficult situation toxic, so a softer approach in dealing with social media platforms is preferable. Online platforms have to provide complaints procedures but as many platforms are US-based companies, any complaints will be viewed in light of American freedom of speech principles, which tend to be wider than those in the UK. When writing a complaint, therefore, it is a good idea to focus on the impact of the action(s) being complained of e.g. the distress caused to staff due to the spread of rumours.

There are four elements required to bring a defamation claim: 

1. there must be a statement that would lower the subject in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The publication of the statement must cause or be likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the subject. 
2. publication – it must be established that the statement complained of has been published and the defendant has either published or is responsible for the publication of the statement; 
3. the meaning of the statement - the Court accepts that a statement could be understood in different ways by different people, and so they look to the “right” meaning of the words included; and 
4. identification of the claimant.

Defamation proceedings must be issued within 12 months of the date of the first publication. Separate to defamation is the offence of malicious falsehood. In relation to social media posts it would be applicable where the author of untrue and damaging material has published the content with an improper motive and the subject has suffered financial loss.

In the event that confidential or sensitive information is published regarding a charity, it is likely to be a breach of the common law of confidence. If the charity is the owner of that confidential information it can act in relation to the breach. On a practical level, commencing proceedings for a breach of confidentiality does not provide a full remedy against the disclosure. That is because the damage is usually done at the time the information is posted online. However, the Court can grant an injunction against the further disclosure of the confidential information, order the removal of the information from the internet and award damages as compensation for the wrongful disclosure of the information.

Posting content on social media either directly or indirectly about someone, such as trolling or cyber-bullying, that causes them to suffer distress or alarm could give rise to a claim under the law for harassment. There is also a separate potential criminal offence of harassment.

Further offences that could be committed by posting content on social media platforms include breach of data protection, misuse of private of information and intellectual property infringements (copyright, trade mark, passing off).

If any of the above-mentioned offences have been committed, the charity or an individual of the charity, depending on the exact offence committed, would have the right to commence a legal claim. However, this involves an element of risk as well as being both a costly and lengthy process. 

One issue is identifying the person posting, as they are likely to be using a pseudonym. It is possible to obtain a Norwich Pharmacal order (NPO) from the court, requiring the social media platform to provide details of the poster, such as the email address they signed up with or IP address used. However, this is expensive to do and does not guarantee the details of the poster will be revealed, as they may have set up the account with a new email account or used public wifi to send the messages.

Before any legal proceedings are issued, it would be prudent to consider sending a cease a desist letter to try and get the individual posting the content to remove it. Reference should also be made to the social media platform’s rules to see whether any of them have been breached and contact with the social media platform owner should be considered. 

The instruction of a PR expert should also be considered depending on the exact nature of the content and whether a satisfactory outcome could be achieved without resorting to legal proceedings.