Two words. A changing audience.
Publication
In this entry, the communication of an allegation to an audience. Publication can take place through a message or online post; it is not limited to a newspaper or printed article.[2]
Republication
A further communication of material already published. A later publication may involve another platform, a different audience or additional words. Whether it creates liability requires assessment of the particular facts and any applicable defence.[1]
Follow the words.
Then follow where they went.
One allegation. Three versions.
The first audience.
A person posts an allegation of dishonest trading about Company A. A customer saves an image of the post, including its date and surrounding comments.
Questions to identify: What exactly was alleged? Who was being referred to? Who received or saw the material?
This is a fictional example, not a reported case or a Lui & Bhullar client matter. The questions illustrate a way to organise information; they do not determine liability.
In Tan Sing How & Ors v. Ng Ze Xuan, the Court of Appeal discussed publications made at different times, on different platforms and to different audiences. The judgment also explains why assessing damages for related publications is not simply a matter of adding a fixed sum for each one.
Read the judgment, paragraphs 72–81Build a publication map.
An editorial way to make a complicated sequence easier to explain is to give each version its own record. Keep confirmed details separate from assumptions about who shared a post or how many people saw it.
- The wordingThe complete post or message, with the relevant caption and surrounding exchange.
- The versionThe original post, a screenshot, a forwarded message, or a later edited copy.
- The audienceThe platform or group involved, and what is actually known about its recipients.
- The sequenceAvailable dates, links and source records, including uncertainty about timing or origin.
The map is an organising aid. Your lawyer can advise which records are relevant and how they should be handled.
The missing context can matter.
A cropped image may leave out information. A new caption may change the impression given to a reader. Understanding an allegation means reading the material as a whole, rather than isolating its most striking sentence.
In Seema Elizabeth Isoy v. Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong, the Federal Court considered a WhatsApp statement that omitted a known acquittal when referring to an earlier criminal charge. On those facts, the omission created a materially misleading impression.[2]
For a conversation about social media defamation in Malaysia, distinguish what the record shows from what you believe happened. That distinction gives the discussion a clearer starting point.