-46(d) as subordinate publishers, satisfied the requirements of the innocent dissemination defence both before and after they became aware of the defamatory content of the offending postings.100 114. I would accordingly dismiss the appellants’ appeal and make an order nisi that they pay the respondents’ costs, directing that the parties have liberty to file written submissions on the question of costs within 14 days from the date of this judgment. Mr Justice Litton NPJ: 115. Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ’s judgment gives a helpful view of how the law of libel evolved as technology for the transmission of messages advanced. Over the past fifteen years or so there has been a quantum leap in the development of the mass media, and the appearance of the “social media”, with the increasing use of the internet. Even in the traditional realm of radio and television the focus has shifted: Instead of the operators uniquely controlling content, the media has become much more interactive, with listeners and viewers contributing to the content in open discussion. 116. The public has accordingly greater scope now for freedom of expression than in olden times: A freedom which the common law protects in the public interest: see for instance Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534 where the House of Lords held that institutions of government have no right at common law to sue for defamation in respect of their public functions: Notwithstanding the fact that Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 101 100 Section L above. 101 “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers….” See p.550-F