Hi all! Welcome to my blog where I have researched a number of articles related to Defamation/ Freedom of Speech. I have been given a chance to explore and understand the Law of Defamation thoroughly with all the readings of news and cases appended to it. This blog has been exclusively created for the purpose of my assignment BYL7134 CYBERLAW. Feel free to review, comment, share your thoughts and opinion on the articles below here. Have fun :)
Friday, March 15, 2019
Introduction to Defamation
Defamation - Brief Introduction
Defamation is an untruthful allegation
of a crime or a malicious misrepresentation of anothers’ words or actions. The
existence of the law is to simply guard from reputational damage to an
individual or an organisation. Defamation laws defend both private citizens and
public figures. There are two types of statements in the contexts of
defamation, libel and slander. Libel can be considered to be permanent
statement which comes in the form of writing, recording, or other way. On the
contrary, slander is said to be non-permanent communication as it is only
executed orally, body language or gestures. Generally, lawsuits are filed by
the people who experiences intolerable accusation leading to fatal reputational
damage to career, business, organisation, financial injury and others.
Plaintiffs or in other words accuser must prove actual harm and not the
potential for harm, in a claim.
The ruling enactment of defamation in Malaysia is Defamation Act 1957 which is governed under the Penal Code especially Section 499. Section 499 defines defamation as "Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs, or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation and shall also be liable to fine of such person, is said,except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person".
The punishment for executing a defamation act falls under the Section 499 stating "Whoever defames another shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both."
The ruling enactment of defamation in Malaysia is Defamation Act 1957 which is governed under the Penal Code especially Section 499. Section 499 defines defamation as "Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs, or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation and shall also be liable to fine of such person, is said,except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person".
The punishment for executing a defamation act falls under the Section 499 stating "Whoever defames another shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both."
There elements of defamation
comprises of 4 areas :-
1) The
Statement Must Be Defamatory
False statement
that reveals a person to hatred, or contempt, causing them to be shunned, or bringing
about injures to him or his business. Statements that are merely offensive are
not defamatory. An opinion statement is void in the basis of defamation claim
because true or false cannot be proven.
2) The
Statement Must Be About the Claimant
Untrue
accusation should be directed and impacting the intended person or subject
target. In other words, when another person reads the statement, the sentence
should not be read twice in order to understand the meaning. Sometimes, the
name of the claimant will not be revealed and will statement of subject will be
unclear to precisely identify. However, if the information provided is out
rightly describing or revealing the plaintiff, then the criteria is fulfilled.
3) The
Statement Must Be Published
Statement are
considered to have reach and communicated to the intended group of people.
4) The
Statement Must Cause Serious Harm
The statement has caused or would be likely to
reason a serious harm to the claimant's reputation. If there is lack of
evidence supporting the its serious harm to the reputation of the client, then
the statement is not deemed to be defamatoryLaw as Part of Our Life
Law is an important because it
plays a huge role in our life in shaping the way we conduct and execute our
actions and allows the nation to function in an orderly manner. The non-existence
of it will clearly demonstrate a poor and aimless individual, group,
organisation and nation. The composition of law derived from the Parliament and
the judges has said confirmed provides a framework for interaction. The law
applies in all places which leaves no space to be questionable. Defamation in
this current era has far reached people in so many ways via emails, social
media, and verbal communication and so on. The channel that’s being used or
abused has allowed a wider range of audience to actually witness defamation
cases going on. Some of the defamation articles that i will talk about are workplace,
racial discrimination, social media, character and educational defamation.
In Malaysia, the number of cases
falling under the defamation umbrella is quite a number and that includes from
all categories as mentioned previously. This makes it more interesting for me
to do more research on defamation as I would be able to surf around for
information that could suffice my upcoming articles to be posted. The process
of defamation that is being taken into execution by the Malaysian Law is no
different from other country as well. Every small action an individual decides to take or act upon will have its consequences if it is done against good will. The current generation of young adults, teenagers has poor awareness on the major
consequences that defamation charges could bring about for their actions conducted.
Their inconsiderate ad hurtful speech, action and gestures has led to social
discrimination regardless if its students or adults. There are some unheard
voices from victims who are unaware that they are facing or going through defamation
due to lack of knowledge on law that’s in place to protect them. Though aware
of the situation, some remain to suppress and be silent fearing that it
jeopardizes their current state.
The current law and educational
system need to be reinforced and revisited to better ensure the visibility of
the law strength among our nations. Some of the suggestions I could propose are
:-
a) Revisiting
the education syllabus to include or add on law as a mandatory subject
b) Organizing talk for all age group on the awareness of defamation law (school,
colleges/universities, working world
c) Mandatory
compliance training (online/face-to-face)
d) Gain
the nations trust to believe the law will stand by them – no biasness
Case 1: Teacher Wins RM400,000 in Defamation Suit Against Principal
Summary: Wong from SMK Convent Light Street, Penang filed a case against Lee, the principal of the school for defamation remarks that was being reported to the Penang Education Department. The statement written by Lee are Wong aggressively attacking the principal, scolded the principal “you are gila”, “you are an idiot” and “you go to hell”. In addition to make the defamatory true, he adds her refusal to abide the school regulations and complaint about her performance. She has been accused too of calling her pupils with inappropriate words and being disrespectful among other teachers.
Action: Wong had indeed won the case by proving all those defamatory statements wrong and not aligned with her character and actions. Judge Azman ordered Lee to pay a total of RM430,000 damages and ruled Lee to immediately stop carrying out such remarks and claim RM 1.8mil in damage. Both teachers was transferred to different school to continue their profession respectively.
Review: The case has taken over all the points under the Law of Malaysia, Defamation Act 1957. The law also applies Section 211 and 233 of the Communication and Multimedia Act 1998 for which the defamation remarks was circulated via electronic platforms to higher authority and wide range of audience. In addition to that, the principal can be charged under Section 509 under Section 211 for insulting the modesty of the plaintiff Wong by words. The allegations thrown upon by the defendant to the plaintiff are proven wrong. Because of the report, Wong would have felt a feeling of hatred, ridiculed and humiliated by society members, friends and staff of SMK Convent Street. The statement made also had clearly stated her name only and not a certain group or class of people which makes the claimant identifiable. Wong and the court preceding viewed the same page as the publication of the report containing defamatory remarks to the Department had severely tarnished her professional status, character and reputation. I believe that the defendant should have undergone a counselling session with strict probation period to monitor his course of action over the time. This can be made a lesson to all concluding that regardless of who a person is in the society, the law tolerates no misconduct of action regardless of the degree of impact. The case here is touching based on conventional law which also applies strongly in cyberlaw context because as mentioned in artcicles in this blog, any wrong act done in real also applies the same in cyberspace with no distinct penalty to offenders. The above case can be further supported with “Teacher Gets $363K For Student’s Lie, Defamation” that took place in Californi (https://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2013/11/teacher-gets-363k-for-students-lies-defamation.html)
Case 2 : Kambala Girls' School and Former Principal Settle Defamation Case Out of Court
Summary : Former school
Principal of Sydney’s Kambala Girls’ School, Debra Kelliher confirmed to have
her former employer and another 2 teachers to be sued for circulating series of
emails containing defamed statements. The misconduct of the act was executed by
head of music teacher Mark Grandison and Head of Social Science Department, June
Peake. Case was brought to NSW Supreme Court and agreed to settle the issue out
of the courts attention to avoid damaging each other’s reputation publicly. The
school accused her 3 year leadership as tyrannical, bullying and unethical
behaviour. In the end, Kelliher was satisfied with Kambala’s apology to her and
the apology that had been made public. Upon her resignation at the school, approximately
100 teachers of other schools lose confidence in her leadership.
Action: Kambala School
together with the two teachers had issued a letter of apology to express their
regret and unequivocally withdraw all the comments and remarks made against
Kelliher. They further apologise for the publication and distribution of emails
and the damage that has brought about in her personal life and her line of
profession. A copy of the apology letter with signature was issued to 300
people and they accepted the letter. The settlement amount was not disclosed
however she has lost $650,000 of her annual income and claimed total compensatory
damages of $2million.
Review: From the news
analyse, the defamatory allegations made by Kambala School and the two teachers
was proven wrong because they could not support their allegation against the
plaintiff. The two teachers had the same target subject who was the plaintiff alone
and none other involved. The statement was libel since it’s in writing and
circulated using an electronic platform that has reached almost 300 recipients
and 200 comebacks on the email. The seriousness and damage caused by the
defendant (Kambala and the school teacher) has resulted in obstruction of
career pursue, reputational damage among the members of school, parents and
society. Though she has expressed her satisfactory towards the letter of apology,
the impact of the incident leaves a mark that is prominent.
The relevant act that can be associate with the above case is Section 211 Communication and Multimedia Act 1998. Both teacher can be further charged under the Penal code Section 298A and Section 499. Since there was unexpected number on the combacks on the email those who have forwarded those defamtaroy remarks can be charged under Computer Crime Act 1997 Section 7 Aiding and abeiting for aiding the the two teachers crime act. The above case can be further supported with Idaho high court considers 'defamation by inference' lawsuit (https://apnews.com/5880f22380224142b6d50604554268ec ).
The relevant act that can be associate with the above case is Section 211 Communication and Multimedia Act 1998. Both teacher can be further charged under the Penal code Section 298A and Section 499. Since there was unexpected number on the combacks on the email those who have forwarded those defamtaroy remarks can be charged under Computer Crime Act 1997 Section 7 Aiding and abeiting for aiding the the two teachers crime act. The above case can be further supported with Idaho high court considers 'defamation by inference' lawsuit (https://apnews.com/5880f22380224142b6d50604554268ec ).
Case 3 : Blogger’s racist attack against Amar Singh invites hate against Sikhs, council says
Summary: Raja Petra
Kamarudin is Malaysian blogger known for his racist remarks inciting has
insulted Senior police officer Commissioner Datuk Seri Amar Singh turban in his
blog. He mentioned that “Amar Singh’s Turban Must Too Tight. Amar Singh, at
that time handling Najib’s case in regards to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad
(1MDB) financial scandal challenge RPK to produce evidence on the accusation upon
PDRM sweeping off RM40mil but eventually statement was retracted. Police
commissioner further stressed that the racist remark used as weapon was weak amplifying
the level of hatred with minimum reasoning. PRK then continues to bring on the
1MDB issue and Amar Singh having his justification clear cut. He said that the
idea of RM43.3million that was allocated into 15 bags with no monitoring of the
circuit was certainly impossible and hard to escape from the media’s spotlight.
Action: RPK apologies
to Amar Singh and the Sikh community and was made aware of the sacred faith of
the turbans. He further mentioned that what he intended was not matter but what
was received by the public of how I said mattered. He posted his apologies on
blog whilst Majlis Gurdwara Malaysia issued a statement against RPK for his derogatory
and racial remark. His apologies not only reached out to the Sikh community but
also the Minister of Communication Gobind Singh Deo and Amarjit Sidhu, the
lawyer. He claimed and owed his gratitude to Manjeet Singh and Karpal Singh who
was his lawyers during his trials, ISA detention and settling in UK after
leaving Malaysia in 2009.
Review: the article has
mixed up racial and political issue which is branching out into two different discussions.
Initially the article was talking about the plaintiff’s turban and the
defendant brings in the political issue related to 1MDB financial scandal.
Though the plaintiff attack was on the turban, it makes no sense to talk about
the financial scandal. The initial issue strike with the latter statements
about 1MDB shows no connection to the actual title of the article. However, the
article title with the relevant articles to it brings about awareness about the
boundaries of freedom of speech. Communications and Multimedia Minister Gobind
Singh Deo urges the importance to regulate hate speech laws by using the above
as an example. He intends to strengthen such law across the nation’s
territorial to ensure strict prosecution of individuals committing to such
crime across borders. The necessary act that could be placed upon the racial issue case is Section 211 and 233 of the Communication and Multimedia Act 1998, Section 499 and Section 298A. The above case can be further supported with Matteo
Salvini sues black MEP for defamation in racism row (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/19/matteo-salvini-sues-mep-cecile-kyenge-for-defamation-in-racism-row)
Case 4 : Malaysian: Journalist ordered to pay £100,000 damages in Twitter Libel Case
Summary: the plaintiff who is the managing director of
Gapurna Group of companies had accused journalist Nadeswaran, the defendant for
defamoatory publication of statement in twitter. The incident occurred on two
different time frame 12 July tweeting his first one as “bumiputra”status and 22
December 2010 tweeting regarding the plaintiff as “land thief”. the defendant was
instigated even more with the a certain remarks made on the social media
platform when letter was sent to him requesting to bring down those post on
Twitter, which he in fact ignored. Plaintiff continues to press on the case
filed claiming a total of RM17million There was no defense made by the
journalist and admitted the claims made by the plaintiff was true.
Action: High Court
Justice Amelia only granted total of RM500,000 and issued ruling order against
the defendant, Nadeswaran to refrain from publishing such statements. Due to
the high number of followers the defendant has, the court urges Nadeswaran to
be more vigilant and sensitive in his postings on social media platform.
Review: internet user
are certainly lacking of awareness and knowledge to wholly understand the
responsibility and risk being taken for each remarks or statement being made on
the internet, public or private. Charges for defamation are not light and they
could be sued regardless of anything. The alleged made by defendant to the
plaintiff in the first posting clearly shows racism and degrading the character
by calling the plaintiff land thief. The unlawful remarks has caused
reputational damage to the individual and also Gapurna Companies. The
statements were libel and made published at a wider scale due to his high
number of followers in Twitter. The defendant can be charged against Section 211 Telecommunication and Multimedia Act 1998 and Section 499 for Defamation.The above case can be further supported with Former
mayor awarded $120,000 over defamatory Facebook posts https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/former-mayor-awarded-120-000-over-defamatory-facebook-posts-20181015-p509oq.html
Case 5 :Actress Maria Farida awarded RM400,000 for defamation
Summary: a defamation
suit was thrown at a cosmetic businesswoman and her daughter by the Malaysian
actress, Maria Farida. The defendant
Hadijah and Shazleen crime was libel as it was done on social media Instagram
and Facebook. The plaintiff received malicious messages from the defendant and
invading her privacy and being disrespectful by taking her photographs to be
used as an advantage for the defendant’s business expansion. The two woman
continues to release remarks that caused defamation to the plaintiff on TV entertainment
programmes.
Action : Due to failure
of the defendants to produce themselves at court during the trial, the court
ordered them to make an apology statement and seek the concern of the plaintiff
before making it official on media channels. The total claim was RM400,000 with an
additional of RM50,000 in costs. The plaintiff requested for an injunction
against the defendant however there was no confirmation by the court granting
them.
Review: the
discriminating remarks thrown upon the defendant to the plaintiff was untrue
and the claims made were directly to the actress. All the acts done were to
only bring down the career of Maria and to bring up her own cosmetic business
conjoined with her daughter. All allegations made were libel and done on a digital
platform communicating with a huge scale of social media user. The severity of
the defamation has caused her reputation and career to be stained. The above
case can be further supported with Chris
Brown Sues Alleged Rape Victim for Defamation.
Case 6 : Fired McCann Health Global CCO Sues Former Employer for Defamation and Wrongful Termination
Summary: Jeremy Perrott has filed a defamation lawsuit
against the giant McCann Worldgroup and other PG network for unlawful
termination of employment. The plaintiff regards as unjust corporate culture
for her has been fired on the baseless accusation. Some of the accusation
thrown to the plaintoff my the defendant are using inappropriate language and speech
misconduct. However the defendant, McCann spokesperson stands strong on their
actions and claims to have been truthful with their employees. The defendant
finally confirmed after “investigation” that Perrott had a complained against
him in regards to code of conduct violation. Initially they refused to justify
the firing of Perrott when asked.
Action: Perrots right
as basic citizen was taken away and the court told McCann it would be “basic
decency” to identify the plaintiff’s accuser. The plaintiff is seeking
$25million and yet to be confirmed.
Review: The issue over
Perrott is seen to be severe and has injured the plaintiff in all aspects. The remarks
stated by McCann (inappropriate language usage, misconduct of speech decency
with woman, unable to justify the firing, false offence confirmation) have been
proven wrong for there was no evidence to support allegations. The unlawful
remarks was targeted to only one subject and eventually followed by Joe
Alexander, IPG-owned The Martin Agency’s former CCO who was fired under the
grounds of sexual harassment accusation by several women. The statements were
published and channelled through different medium and platform reaching out
massive internet users. Obviously, the defamation remarks has caused
reputational damage, emotional stress and disturbance, inappropriate term used
“pariah”, immediate sacked and to leave the country and snatch the right to
defend himself. Similar issue took place at IBM whereby firing veteran
employees to sustain the younger generation for a better performance [IBM
Reportedly Targeted Older Workers in Layoffs Affecting Ten of Thousands]
Opinion 7 : Laws in cyberspace
Summary: Shad Saleem Faruqi, a Malaysia Law Professor serving
at Universiti Malaya explains and emphasizes that bloggers can never overrule
the law and will be taken action on if found guilty. Remaining anonymous is not
an escape plan of how they perceived to be however thanks to the technology
advancement the government has invested in, tracking and monitoring are now
faster to identify the sender. On the contrary, some bloggers disclose themselves
to their viewers and public. The writer further talks about The Communication
and Multimedia Act 1998 stating that any content that is published through any
electronic medium has been found to disrespect any other law concerning, will
be have to face the consequences. The law does not fully guarantee that the publications
of content in the Internet are not possibly refrained from pre-publication but
one should remain responsible for their execution of misconduct. The law allows
the victim of defamation in the context of cyberspace to apply to the court for
injunction and fail to comply by blogger shall face heavy charges. Section
211(1) tells us that no content or the person using the content application
provided by a service provider shall circulate statements that could cause
uneasiness and disturbance to the reader or victim. The Complaint Bureau which
implemented the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Content Code stresses
that two options are given to the service provider if indecent, offensive,
degrading material are found. One is to remove access of the content
application service provider and the other is to remove the content displayed for
which the complaint has been received from. The writer finally states one can
challenge such instances by exercising their rights or maybe sit back and watch
if it’s too burdensome. The ball is in your court.
Review: the writer
spoke about how bloggers shall not be excused from law order despite being
anonymous and working behind the keyboards and screen monitor. The law spares
no one and clear explanation has been given on the Section that is involved. A
new term used in this article is pre-publication which means a censorship has
been executed on a particular matter by the government, institution or those in
strict governance to prevent from immediate release. This article could relate
closely to PRKs issue in insulting the Commisioner Amar Singh’s turban of being
a visible blogger to the public and certainly being inconsiderate with his
statements causing outrage and racial hatred. The law played its role well in
ensuring the necessary has been done to prevent similar actions in the future.
Opinion 8 : Awarding damages in civil claims
Summary: the writer
clearly explains about the differences between general and special damages. He
touches a little on special relief under the Specific Relief Act 1950 whereby
damages are claimed in non-monetary form such as property possession, specific
performance contract, and rectification of instrument, rescission of contract,
cancellation of instruments, declaratory decrees and injunction. This order is
executed by court to the delivering party under an obligation one is bound to
to the receiving party or claimant. Special damages are quantifiable damages
with proven figures when producing in the court for claim whereas general
damages are pre-set by the claimant but final assessment comes from the court.
Cost of repair, medical expenses, and property damage are some of the special damages
that constitutes to figures to be proved when claimed from party constituting
wrongful act. General damages are of non-quantifiable amount as it relates to
emotions and physical such has reputational damage, injury, suffering and so
on. This damages incurred can never be translated to monetary form and
certainly the defamatory statements affects and felt in different ways to every
individuals. When considering the damages of claim, the court will enter into
default judgement if defendant fails to show up in court for defence in the
case of special damages. On the contrary, default judgement is not applicable
for general damages and will consider interlocutory judgement to allow damages
to be analysed.
Review: The article
above describes the cases I have considered in this blog explaining the types
of damages that are incurred from plaintiff upon the defendant. Obviously not
all damages claimed by plaintiff are successful and some will be thoroughly
assessed by the court before finalizing the amount. Some damages are not in
monetary form which comes in the aspect of injunction (Specific Relief Act
1950) which is not mentioned in any of those articles above except this.
Opinion 9 : Exceptions for slander
Summary: the articles comprises on types of defamation
in a brief, interpretation of defamation statements and the exceptions to it. Slander
as mentioned prior refers to verbal communication of remarks without black and
white proof. The writer quotes in few examples of slander cases which has been
failed or perceived by another as defamatory. Some words used can be considered
defamatory but it has to tie back to the context of subject and the person
carrying it our does not necessarily constituting defamatory remarks too. Some of
the fail lawsuits that has been brought to court are Ayob bin Saub vs TS
Sambanthamurthi, C Sivanathan vs Abdullah bin Dato’ Haji Abdul Rahman and a Canadian
case of Faminow vs Reid. the three cases mentioned had absence of actual
damage whereby the words were not actionable has resulted in no defamation
though there was slander. Nonetheless, slander would be taken into action with
no actual damage incurred if unwanted allegation is made upon the person in
guilt of offense committed.
Key Take-Away from All the Readings and Analysis
- · Two types of defamation in place which is libel and slander
- · 4 criteria that substantiate defamation
i)
Statement must be defamatory
ii)
Statement must be about claimant
iii)
Statement must published
iv)
Statement must cause serious harm to plaintiff
- · Two types of damages – special (quantifiable) and general damages (to be assessed by court
- · More cases are favorable to libel in comparison to slander for its merely verbal no proper recording or proof to claim defense.
- · Not all defamation cases are truly one due to evidence that’s not compatible to the 4 mentioned criteria
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Note of Appreciation to Dr Bahma
During this whole Cyberlaw course, I would like to thank Dr Bahma for having to execute the subject in an interesting manner with her enorm...
-
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-12/kambala-girls-principal-defamation-case-settled-/10709864 Summary : Former school Principal of ...
-
https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/03/05/actress-maria-farida-awarded-rm400000-for-defamation/ Summary : a defamat...
-
Summary : Wong from SMK Convent Light Street, Penang filed a case against Lee, the principal of the school for defamation remarks that was ...











