Open Access Research Article
DEFAMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
DEFAMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA
AUTHORED BY
-PRASHANT RAJPOOT[1]
CO-AUTHOR
-SUYASH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA[2]
ABSTRACT
The
21st Century has ushered in a new era of change, where individuals have the
unprecedented ability to voice their opinions on social platforms through the
written word, regardless of potential harm. This age is characterized by the
dominance of media, often hailed as the fourth pillar of democracy. However,
the rise of social media has expanded the reach of media, enabling anyone to disseminate
content to a global audience. Usually, politicians widely use hate speech or
words to gain popularity and propagate their parties through social media
sites. While social media has its pros, such as creating change in our lives,
it also has cons, such as disrupting the reputation of individuals. Despite
this freedom, defamatory statements made on social media are legally regarded
as libel, amplifying the complexity of legal recourse. The proliferation of
likes, clicks, comments, and shares further complicates matters, as each action
constitutes an active statement on the web. Consequently, communication on
social platforms has the potential to swiftly reach millions of individuals,
courtesy of mass dissemination channels.
KEYWORDS:-
Defamation, Social Media Defamation, Cyber Defamation,
Libel
INTRODUCTION
Social media serves as a means by
which individuals maintain communication and engage with friends, family, and
various communities. The collection of diverse websites and applications,
including Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, among others, collectively
encompasses social media. These platforms facilitate global interaction and
communication, community-oriented input, content sharing, collaborative
efforts, and numerous other functions. The media plays a significant role in
the dissemination of information, as it directly impacts the audience. Its
autonomy derives from the provisions outlined in Article 19 (1)(a), which
stipulate that limitations on freedom of speech and expression should be reasonable[3].
the entitlement to freedom of speech and expression is considered a fundamental
right that is ideally present from birth, yet is only truly available to a
limited number of people on a global scale. The role of speaking out and
expressing oneself plays a crucial role in granting individuals the
independence to either participate in or refrain from specific actions that
resonate with their goals. This mechanism plays a significant part in advancing
a country, aiding its transition from an inadequate democratic system to one
marked by effectiveness and accountability. Nearly all countries worldwide have
acknowledged this as a basic right of each person. Article 19, Freedom of
Speech and expression, was included in both the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR). The UDHR stipulates that every individual possesses the entitlement to
freedom of opinion and expression, encompassing the freedom to uphold opinions
without interference and to access, receive, and communicate information and
ideas through any means, irrespective of boundaries.
The ICCPR
asserts that every person is entitled to freedom of expression, which comprises
the liberty to access, receive, and communicate information and ideas of all
types, without constraints on frontiers, whether verbally, in writing, or in
printed form, through art, or via any other preferred media.
MEANING OF DEFAMATION
Defamation, in its broad sense,
refers to an erroneous assertion portrayed as truth that results in harm or
impairment to an individual's character. It entails the act of tarnishing an
individual's standing in the presence of an unrelated party. The act of
defamation can be categorized into two primary forms: libel, which pertains to
written defamation, and slander, also referred to as verbal defamation.
Defamation encompasses both a
tortious act and a criminal offense. By the authoritative Black's Law
Dictionary, defamation is defined as "the transgression of impugning an
individual's reputation, renown, or standing."
Defamation is
characterized as a fabricated dissemination designed to tarnish an individual's
reputation, or "an assault on another's character, encompassing notions of
slander and defamation through falsehoods, leading to harm to one's reputation
by such methods." Perhaps the most widely accepted definition,
nevertheless, is put forth by Prosser.
“Defamation
constitutes an encroachment upon the concern for reputation and honorable
standing, through the transmission of information to third parties that serves
to lower the regard in which the plaintiff is held or to provoke unfavorable
sentiments or judgments against them[4]”.
ONLINE DEFAMATION
Online defamation, also known as
cyber defamation, refers to the act of falsely accusing someone of something
online. The internet and social media platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram,
and LinkedIn, provide individuals with the means to post written words or
comments, which can be considered libelous. It is undeniable that social media
and the internet have tremendous benefits for individuals and society as a
whole. They contribute to personal and societal development and progress.
However, it is essential to recognize that, like any other phenomenon, they
have both positive and negative aspects. In this context, it is important to
acknowledge that social media and the internet can provide fertile ground for
potentially defamatory statements. Many individuals have come to realize how
effortlessly one can express their opinions online. Numerous intriguing
websites unwittingly or deliberately host comments that can be construed as
defamatory. Examples include public comments on media platforms like Facebook
and Instagram, letters to the editor published in newspapers, and remarks made
in WhatsApp chat groups. While certain websites may screen comments for
offensive or illegal content, this screening process is not designed to
identify offensive material in every comment. Consequently, numerous defamatory
statements manage to circulate via the internet.
Defamation legislations encompass
digital publications, and a mounting multitude of individuals and enterprises
confront substantial economic repercussions as a result of disseminating
defamatory content on the internet.
Defamation law serves as a safeguard
against the dissemination of false or harmful remarks that have the potential
to detrimentally affect an individual's personal or professional image. The
primary objective of defamation law is to strike a balance between allowing the
unfettered circulation of ideas, opinions, and information, while
simultaneously safeguarding the reputation of both individuals and enterprises.
Commencing a defamation lawsuit entails taking legal action against an
individual or business entity for the damage caused to one's reputation as a
result of the dissemination or publication of certain statements or materials.
In India there is about 120 million internet users
and Facebook says about a fifth of this number are active users. Twitter claims
that about 4 million people use its service at least once a month[5].
Defamation encompasses the act of
disseminating an article or newsletter, uploading content onto a website, or
even composing an electronic mail. Given the ubiquity of social media and electronic
mail, the remarks and submissions made by individuals possess the capacity to
attain instantaneous and widespread popularity. What may have initially
materialized as a private conversation between two individuals can promptly
proliferate to an audience significantly larger than originally intended,
occasionally giving rise to profound ramifications.
WHO CAN BE SUE FOR DEFAMATION?
Plaintiffs who have experienced
online defamation frequently pursue legal action against their Internet Service
Provider or the platforms responsible for hosting the defamatory content, such
as Facebook and Twitter. This is because these companies possess substantial
financial resources that enable them to bear the financial burden of
compensating the plaintiff for damages incurred as a result of the defamation
cases. In 1955, the Communication Decency Act was enacted by Congress to
safeguard Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and various social media networking
sites against claims of defamation. Individuals with a strong belief that they
have been defamed online should initiate legal proceedings against the
individual who made the defamatory statement. During this process, the
plaintiff is required to file a lawsuit in a State court that holds
jurisdiction over the matter. The determination of the appropriate State court
should be made following a thorough evaluation of jurisdiction by a qualified
attorney.
WHO CAN BE LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION
It is crucial to bear in mind that
while it may be impossible to defame a deceased individual and legislation may,
depending on one's place of residence, prohibit or restrict a corporation from
pursuing a defamation lawsuit, it is imperative to note that each individual
who partakes in the act of defamation may be held accountable for their
actions. Consequently, should one receive a defamatory email maligning the
local plumber who failed to fulfill their obligations or the irrational parent
from their child's educational institution and subsequently choose to
disseminate this information widely, they may find themselves facing legal
repercussions akin to those of the original author of the email.
RELATION BETWEEN ARTICLE 21 AND
ARTICLE 19(1) WITH RESPECT TO DEFAMATION
It is of utmost significance to
maintain equilibrium between Article 21 and Article 19(1). Both articles play a
crucial role in safeguarding an individual's reputation and freedom of speech
and expression. These provisions enable individuals to articulate their
opinions and ideas while also restraining those who may cause harm to their
reputation. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the "Right to
Reputation" is safeguarded under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,
which protects an individual's "life and personal liberty" from state
intervention. This declaration was made by the Supreme Court in response to the
dismissal of a petition filed by Subramanian Swami challenging the validity of
Section 499 of IPC, 1860. The court further emphasized that Article 21 must not
be exploited as a means to defame or malign an individual's reputation, as such
actions pose a significant threat to the future of constitutional rights.
Despite this, the court concluded that the right to freedom of speech under
Article 19(1)(a) must be balanced against the right to reputation enshrined in
Article 21. It is worth noting that the Supreme Court has historically
displayed a somewhat contradictory approach towards freedom of speech and
expression, treating it more as a nuisance rather than a fundamental right.
This pattern is evident in its defamation law judgement, further perpetuating
an unfortunate legacy.
SOCIAL MEDIA AND JURISDICTION
Where did the article appear? The
location of the publication is of significant importance due to the fact that
the jurisdiction where the lawsuit was filed governs the establishment of
defamatory claims. Each instance of defamation gives rise to an individual
cause of action that is contingent upon the country in which the message was
read or heard, irrespective of the location of the server where it was stored.
This phenomenon directly relates to social media and jurisdiction. Social media
platforms have provided the potential for defamation claims to be sought out
more frequently than traditional print media or radio broadcasts. One may begin
by considering the reasons why pursuing a defamation claim in a specific forum
may be intriguing. The court may be lauded for its impartiality and the perception
that a fair trial could be more likely to be obtained there. It may be more
persuasive to litigate against other individuals in a specific jurisdiction in
order to clear one's name based on their status and influence, such as the
jurisdiction in which they reside. This can be one of several jurisdictions
where legal action is initiated against the international reputation of the
victim. The laws in that particular jurisdiction may be more favorable for
potential disputes, and the claimant desires to exploit this advantage.
In the case of defamation, the
initial question that the Court may address is whether Kitts and Nevis is an
appropriate forum in which to adjudicate the claim, based on the subject matter
and the evidence put forth. Our court asserts jurisdiction as a prerogative of
the citizens and entities involved within its jurisdiction. The test for
determining the appropriate forum in cases of defamation resulting from
defamatory posts or social media broadcasts is the same as that used in forum disputes
arising from other contractual or tortious matters. The eastern Caribbean
adheres to the principles established in Spiliada Maritime Corporation and
Cansulex Limited, The Spiliada, which consider both the forum that appears
prima facie to be more appropriate and the connecting factors that establish
one forum as more suitable than another. Claimants must demonstrate that their
defamation claims have genuine and material connections to the jurisdiction in
question.
Protecting information, even when it
contains defamatory material, does not automatically guarantee the disclosure
of said information, as this could potentially expose individuals to harm.
People still maintain the right to not be excessively troubled. In the case of
"Totalise Ltd v Motley Food Ltd", the UK Court of
Appeals stated: "First and foremost, it must be assessed whether the
disclosure is justified by considering the rights, freedoms, or legitimate
interests of the individual whose data is at stake." The publishers of
Gentle for Defamation argue that "the reality is that such applications
are almost always granted by the internet service provider or web host
involved, who typically do not even appear (safely) in court and are aware that
the costs of implementing the order will be borne by the applicant in each
case) , but are content to maintain a neutral stance and comply with any orders
deemed appropriate by the court."
PROVISIONS REGARDING DEFAMATION
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code
articulates that any individual who utters or communicates words, whether
spoken or intended to be read, or employs signs or visible representations,
with the purpose of making or disseminating an imputation about another person
with the intent to cause harm, or with knowledge or reasonable belief that such
imputation will inflict harm upon the reputation of said person, is considered
to defame that individual, unless the cases specifically exempted are
applicable.
Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code addresses
the imposition of penalties. Any individual found to be liable under section
499 shall be subject to imprisonment for a duration of two years, or a fine, or
both.
Section 469 of the Indian Penal Code
pertains to forgery, wherein the creation of a false document or fraudulent
account that tarnishes the reputation of an individual is deemed an offense.
The punishment for this transgression can extend up to three years of
imprisonment and a fine.
Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, which was invalidated by the Supreme Court in 2015,
encompassed the regulation of punishment for the transmission of 'offensive'
messages via a computer, mobile device, or tablet. As the government had not
elucidated its stance on the term 'offensive', it began exploiting this
provision as a means to suppress freedom of speech. In 2015, the Supreme Court
nullified the entire section.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS
SHREYA SINGHAL VS. UNION OF INDIA[6]
Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 is invalidated in its entirety due to its infringement
upon Article 19(1)(a) and its lack of preservation under Article 19(2). Section
69A and the Information Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for
Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009 possess constitutional validity.
Additionally, Section 79 is deemed valid, contingent upon the reading down of
Section 79(3)(b) and so forth.
Kalandi Charan Lenka vs. State of
Odisha[7]
In the present case, the petitioner
was subjected to persistent harassment, and a false profile was established to
disseminate indecent messages to the acquaintances of the victim by the
wrongdoer. Furthermore, an altered image displaying nudity was displayed on the
premises of the residence where the victim resided. The court deemed the
offender responsible for the commission of the offense.
Rajiv Dinesh Gadkari through P.A.
Depamala Gadkari vs. Smt. Nilangi Rajiv Gadkari[8]
In this instance, the respondent
filed a lawsuit against her spouse for persistently harassing her by posting
offensive photos and defaming her after obtaining a divorce letter from him.
The wife has requested maintenance of Rs. 75,000 per month, and the offence has
already been reported.
In the Cyber Defamation case of SMC
Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra[9],
the High Court of Delhi issued an ex-parte ad interim injunction prohibiting
the defendant from defaming the Plaintiff in both the physical and virtual
domains. The case involved a disgruntled employee who sent vulgar, abusive, and
defamatory emails to the company's subsidiaries and other employers worldwide,
with the intention of slandering the company and its managing director.
A compulsory and prohibitory
injunction was requested by the petitioner in M/S Spentex Industries Ltd.
& Anr. vs. Pulak Chowdhary[10]
in addition to recovering Rs. 50,00,000 as damages for reputational and
commercial harm caused by the defendant's defamatory emails to the World Bank,
the International Finance Corporation, the President of the Republic of
Uzbekistan, and UZEREPORT (a news website portal and publisher of monthly news
reports).
In Swami Ramdev & Anr. v.
Facebook Inc. & Ors.[11],
Justice Pratibha Singh issued an order removing all online defamatory content
about yoga guru Baba Ramdev, without regard to territorial boundaries. The
order stated that if the content was uploaded from India or was found on an
Indian computer resource, Indian courts should have the authority to issue
worldwide injunctions.
On the 30th of April, 2020, the
Supreme Court of Victoria reached a verdict in the case of Defteros v
Google LLC[12],
in which it was determined that Google had committed defamation against former
attorney George Defteros. The court ordered Google to compensate Mr. Defteros
with a sum of $40,000 in damages. This decision was made on the grounds that
Google could be classified as a 'publisher', as its search engine displayed
articles and images of Mr. Defteros that had originally been published by The
Age newspaper in 2004. Furthermore, Her Honour Justice Richards concluded that
the inclusion of hyperlinks within the search results constituted the act of
publishing the webpage. Similarly, on the 12th of June, 2020, the District
Court of Queensland awarded a veterinarian with damages totaling over $25,000
in the case of Asbog Veterinary Services Pty Ltd & Anor v Barlow[13].
This ruling was made following defamatory online reviews and comments posted on
social media by a former client, regarding the cost of treatment for her pet
beagle. The original bill presented by the Albion vet surgery amounted to $427.
CONCLUSION
The interconnection between the act
of defaming and the fundamental right of free expression is a multifaceted
matter. On one hand, the legislation pertaining to defamation has been
formulated with the intention of safeguarding an individual's standing against
the dissemination of false and detrimental assertions. Conversely, the right to
freely express one's thoughts and sentiments is indispensable for the
functioning of a democratic society. The task of striking a harmonious balance
between these two conflicting interests is no facile feat. Nevertheless, it is
crucial to acknowledge that both defamation laws and the freedom of speech and
expression serve a significant purpose within society. The former affords
protection to individuals who are unjustly accused of misconduct, whilst also
deterring individuals from propagating untruths that are detrimental to others.
This plays a pivotal role in upholding public trust in institutions. The
latter, freedom of speech and expression, is a crucial tenet within a democratic
society. It permits individuals to articulate their perspectives and opinions,
even if these viewpoints are unpopular or contentious. This facet is
indispensable for fostering public discourse and ensuring the government is
held accountable.
[1] 4th Year Law Student of
Central University of South Bihar.
[2] 4th Year Law Student of
Central University of South Bihar.
[3] Article 19(2) of Constitution of
India.
[4] Newell,
Libel and Slander 32 (2d ed. 1898).
[5] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/social-media-defamation-rules-people-have-to-be-careful-about-what-they-post-on-social-media-websites/articleshow/10686349.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
[6] AIR 2015 SC 1523
[7] BLAPL No. 7596 OF 2016
[9]
Suit No. 1279/2001 decided by Session court, Delhi
[10] Civil Suit No. 219/18 CNR No. DLSW010034832018
[11] Case
No. 27/2019 decided by Delhi High court on 23 October 2019
[12] [2020] VSC 219
Article Information
DEFAMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Authors: Prashant Rajpoot, Suyash Kumar Vishwakarma
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/06/19
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.