receiving between 4 and 10 comments per day. The number of comments
would diminish as time passed, but the initial post by the media outlet remained
on the public Facebook page indefinitely.
86
The estimate of 4 to 5 comments per day on a post by the media outlet is a
reference to the first week after the initial posting. The only difficulty with
monitoring the comments in that circumstance was when, on occasion, the
comment would be posted outside of work hours, which occasioned difficulty in
the monitoring process. That difficulty would evaporate if all comments were
hidden until reviewed and, if appropriate, “un-hidden”.
87
On the calculations proffered by Mr Pfeiffer, it would take, one or more staff
members, an hour of work per week to monitor the normal number of
comments that came through. That hour would cover the 50 comments, on a
conservative (i.e. highest) basis, that were received on all of the posts that
were relevantly placed on the public Facebook page that week. Mr Pfeiffer was
the most open and forthcoming of the witnesses called by the defendants.
88
For the purpose of the separate question that is before the Court, the parties
were agreed that the evidence in one proceeding would be evidence in all of
the proceedings. That agreement, which is both sensible and commendable,
applies only to the separate question. For obvious reasons, each defendant
may have a different position in relation to the remainder of the proceedings
and the defences that may be available.
89
Overall, there was some confusion caused by the witnesses’ use of the term
“block” and the term “hide” almost interchangeably. Strictly, the terms deal with
a different effect and it is necessary to look at the use of the term in the context
of the answer being given to determine precisely what it is to which the witness
is referring.
90
From the foregoing evidence, there are a number of factual conclusions that
can be reached:
(i)
The public Facebook pages operates similarly but not
identically to an individual Facebook page;
(ii)
Each defendant’s page operates relevantly identically and
for the same purposes;