In a judgment delivered on 15 May 2024, the Moroccan Court of Cassation reiterated that a person may incur criminal liability when they share, via Facebook, an article containing serious and false allegations targeting an identifiable person.
In the case examined, a person had shared on their Facebook account an article targeting a manager of a public institution. The content attributed particularly serious acts to this manager, relating in particular to the management of the institution concerned.
The defendant argued that they were not the author of the original content and had merely shared an article already published by a news website. They also argued that their action amounted to criticism of the management of a public institution and therefore fell within freedom of expression.
The trial courts did not accept this argument. They held that the shared content contained precise and serious accusations directed against a specific person, going beyond the scope of mere general criticism. The Court of Cassation upheld this assessment.
One of the main lessons of this judgment is that criminal liability is not necessarily limited to the original author of the content. Sharing a post, an article, a video or any other digital content may be treated as an act of dissemination when that content contains allegations that harm a person’s honor, reputation or privacy. Sharing may therefore be taken into account legally as soon as it helps bring the content at issue to the attention of a wider audience.
The judgment also highlights a fundamental distinction between, on the one hand, permissible criticism of the management of a public service or public institution and, on the other hand, personal accusations that may constitute a criminal offense. Criticism of public action, administrative management or the functioning of an institution remains, in principle, protected by freedom of expression. However, this freedom does not permit the dissemination of serious, unproven or personally dishonoring allegations against an identifiable person.
The line can sometimes be difficult to draw: criticism of the management, functioning or transparency of an institution may be part of public debate. By contrast, attributing specific acts such as corruption, debauchery, fraud or any other seriously reprehensible conduct exposes the author or the person sharing it to significant legal risk, particularly when those acts are not proven.
Before publishing or sharing content about a person, it is advisable to carry out a minimum check of several points. In particular, you should ask whether the person targeted is identifiable, whether the alleged facts are established, whether the language used is measured, and whether the content genuinely concerns a matter of public interest or directly targets the honor and reputation of a specific person. It is also necessary to distinguish between opinions, critical assessments and factual allegations. While an opinion can be debated, a serious factual accusation must be capable of being proven.
This distinction is essential, because a post presented as mere criticism may be requalified if it in fact contains specific allegations likely to harm another person’s reputation or privacy.
When an individual or a legal entity is targeted by a post or a share that harms its reputation, it is important to respond methodically. The first step is to preserve the evidence: screenshots, URLs, date and time of publication, identity of the account concerned, comments, shares and any other useful data. It may then be necessary to have a bailiff’s report drawn up, send a formal notice, request the removal of the content or bring legal action, depending on the seriousness of the facts and the objectives pursued.
The judgment delivered by the Moroccan Court of Cassation on 15 May 2024 is an important reminder: on social media, sharing content can engage the liability of the person who disseminates it.
Freedom of expression remains a fundamental principle, particularly when it comes to debating the management of a public service or a matter of public interest. However, this freedom does not protect the dissemination of serious, unproven allegations that harm the reputation and privacy of an identifiable person.