It seems to me that if the recounting in the presence of three were before G–d- fearing men, who guard themselves against the prohibitions of lashon hara, then, as a matter of course, this report is not bound to be heard; and if so, it is forbidden by Torah law to repeat it afterwards to another. And even if only one of the three were G–d-fearing, guarding himself against the issur of lashon hara, the din remains the same, for there are no longer three [potential] "publicizers." And it may be that this is the din if one of the three were a relative or a close friend of the object of the slander. The same rationale applies here. For he certainly will not go and reveal to all the taint of his relative or his close friend, so that there are not three [potential publicizers] who were present.
נִרְאֶה לִי, דְּאִם הַסִפּוּר בְּאַפֵּי תְּלָתָא הָיָה (יב) בִּפְנֵי אֲנָשִׁים יִרְאֵי אֱלֹקִים שֶׁנִּזְהָרִים מֵאִסוּרֵי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, מִּמֵּילָא אֵין דָּבָר זֶה עָשׂוּי לְהִתְגַּלּוֹת וְאִם כֵּן אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה לְסַפֵּר אַחַר כָּךְ דָּבָר זֶה לְאַחֵר. וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם רַק אֶחָד מֵהַשְּׁלוֹשָה הָיָה אִישׁ יְרֵא אֱלֹקִים, שֶׁנִּזְהָר מֵאִסוּר לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, גַּם כֵּן דִּינָא הָכֵי דְּתוּ לֵיכָּא {ששוב אין} שְׁלוֹשָה מְפַרְסְמִים. וְאֶפְשָׁר דְּהוּא הַדִּין אִם אֶחָד מֵהַשְּׁלוֹשָה הָיָה מִקְּרוֹבָיו אוֹ (יג) אוֹהֲבָיו שֶׁל מִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עָלָיו הַגְּנוּת, גַּם כֵּן שַׁיָּךְ הַאי טַעְמָא, דְּהוּא בְּוַדַּאי לֹא יֵלֵךְ וִיגַלֶּה לְהָעוֹלָם הַגְּנוּת שֶׁל קְרוֹבוֹ וְאוֹהֲבוֹ, אִם כֵּן תּוּ לֵיכָּא תְּלָתָא.
It seems to me that if the recounting in the presence of three were before G–d- fearing men, who guard themselves against the prohibitions of lashon hara, then, as a matter of course, this report is not bound to be heard; and if so, it is forbidden by Torah law to repeat it afterwards to another. And even if only one of the three were G–d-fearing, guarding himself against the issur of lashon hara, the din remains the same, for there are no longer three [potential] "publicizers." And it may be that this is the din if one of the three were a relative or a close friend of the object of the slander. The same rationale applies here. For he certainly will not go and reveal to all the taint of his relative or his close friend, so that there are not three [potential publicizers] who were present.