Kiefel Keane Gleeson CJ J J 4. parties affixed defamatory statements on the wall of a premises8 or scrawled them as graffiti on the walls of a structure9. In cases of this kind the occupier has been regarded by the courts as a publisher only if, after becoming aware of the statements, the occupier allowed them to remain in place and the circumstances justified an inference that they had accepted responsibility for the continuing publication of the statement by adopting or ratifying it. 15 In a case to which reference was made in the judgments in the Court of Appeal10 it had been held that internet platform providers which hosted a discussion forum were in a different position from the occupiers referred to in those cases. Unlike the occupiers, the providers had encouraged and facilitated postings by members of the forum and were therefore held to be participants in their publication from the outset11. 16 Basten JA accepted that the appellants played no such active role, distinguishing them from the internet platform providers in that case, but nevertheless considered the appellants to be publishers, as did Meagher JA and Simpson A-JA12. Each of their Honours pointed to the appellants having facilitated the making of comments by third parties which then became available to others. Meagher JA and Simpson A-JA pointed out that the appellants invited and encouraged comments from Facebook users and provided the vehicle for publication to those who might avail themselves of it. Their Honours upheld the primary judge's answer to the separate question, that the plaintiff had established the element of publication. 17 After finding the appellants were publishers, the primary judge went on to consider aspects of the defence of innocent dissemination under s 32 of the Defamation Act. But as the appellants pointed out in the Court of Appeal, that issue did not arise in relation to the separate question. There was some discussion in the judgments in the Court of Appeal as to whether the cases which developed the 8 Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818. 9 Urbanchich v Drummoyne Municipal Council (1991) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-127. 10 Oriental Press Group Ltd v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd (2013) 16 HKCFAR 366. 11 Oriental Press Group Ltd v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd (2013) 16 HKCFAR 366 at 387 [51]-[52]. 12 Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller (2020) 380 ALR 700 at 712 [47], 724725 [108]-[110].