Abstract
The rapid expansion of social media sites and other online communication channels has fundamentally changed how people interact, share ideas, and get information. Online defamation is one of the difficulties that accompany this convenience, though. The Internet amplifies the potential harm by enabling defamatory content to spread quickly and reach audiences throughout the world, in contrast to conventional forms of defamation.
When a false remark that damages the reputation of a person, organization, or business is posted online, it is considered online defamation. Libelous or slanderous content has proliferated on social media sites, blogs, forums, and even private messaging applications, frequently leaving victims unable to protect their reputations. This article examines social media’s function, the legal framework governing online defamation, and precautions one might take to protect their reputation online.
Around 5.5 billion people worldwide, or roughly 67.5% of the world’s population, are expected to be internet users by 2024, according to recent research. This shows that around 1.8 billion more people from the last 5 years. It is obvious that trying to damage someone’s or a company’s reputation on social media might have extremely serious and far-reaching implications, especially considering how crucial social media is to how we engage with one another in the modern world. Most of the people uses social media to connect with there loved ones, but at the same time there are peoples who uses this platform to harsh people’s reputations. Due to this most of the people are afraid of sharing their information in the social media.
It has been observed that the material given on social media is highly accessible, participatory, and easily shared. It is also generally assumed that the information originates from individuals who aspire to work as journalists but lack the necessary training. In contrast to traditional media, which employs instruments known as gatekeepers to ensure that information is evaluated and distributed without any unethical or incompetent journalism, it would only be accepted at face value. Content from traditional media must also be supported by pertinent statistics and facts. Sometimes the information found in twitter, Instagram, Facebook and other social platform is defamatory as well as untrue. In recent years, social media and the internet have developed into very favorable environments for statements that could be considered defamatory. This is because a lot of people have found that platforms let people express their thoughts far too openly, and there are a lot of interesting websites or platforms where someone may unintentionally or purposely post a defamatory comment.
Social media users can solve this problem by treating everything they post online or on social media platforms as though they were broadcasting on the news or appearing on the front page of a highly read newspaper. Because the screening algorithms aren’t designed to look through every comment for defamatory content, even though certain websites and social media platforms filter comments for offensive or unlawful content, a large number of defamatory claims nevertheless make it online. Any content posted on a social media platform that denigrates an individual or company is known as “social media defamation.” This kind of defamation is known as cyberbullying, character assassination, disparagement, libel, internet defamation, and other forms of online harassment. The purpose of defamation laws is to shield people’s reputations from harm or tarnishing caused by untrue statements made about them. It seeks to safeguard a person’s reputation by prohibiting unwarranted communication.
Given its participatory nature, the potential for it to be taken at face value, and its immediate and complete global ubiquity and accessibility, it is sufficient to say that online defamation is different from other forms in terms of its potential to harm people’s and businesses’ reputations. Therefore, when assessing damages in cases of online defamation, the type and volume of distribution is a crucial consideration.
The most widely used social media sites where defamation can happen are Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok, YouTube, LinkedIn, Pinterest, and Snapchat.
Meaning of defamation
Section 356 of BSA states that, “Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes in any manner, any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.” Simply means that any person through words written or spoken harms the persons reputation in the society is called defamation.
There are two types of defamation
Libel- Written defamatory statements, including posts, comments, and articles posted on social media sites, are referred to as libel. These written declarations are easily retained as proof and are thought to be more lasting.
Slander- spoken defamatory statements, such those found in videos or live streaming on social media platforms, are referred to as slander. Even while they are not as irreversible as written comments, these verbal declarations can nonetheless seriously damage someone’s reputation.
Cyber defamation
Any act that occurs online or in cyberspace is considered cyber defamation. It mostly happens when a computer via the internet is utilized as a tool or technology to disparage an individual or their organization. For example, when someone posts something unrelated or disparaging about someone on social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, or another website, or sends a defamatory email with the express purpose of slandering someone. Furthermore, it is difficult to determine the level of damage in any of the financial value given the dissemination of information on these platforms or the internet’s widespread coverage. Although there are differences between the physical and digital media that engage in this behaviour, defamation laws are the same.
The following are India’s responsibilities for compromising cyberspace:
internet slander of writers.
In contrast, “Section 79 of the Information Technology” function of 2000 states that a service provider or retailer is not accountable if they function as a middleman without initiating or altering the defamatory content. This protection also rests on the necessity that the intermediary agency follows the central government’s due diligence and arbitration rules and that any unlawful content be taken down after the government or agency has seen or received it.
What is online defamation?
Defaming any person through internet means by using twitter, Facebook, Instagram or any other online means is known as online defamation. This also includes any online website which is sufficient for the peoples to excess it is also comes under the online defamation. Laws pertaining to cyberdefamation
The law of defamation in India is primarily interpreted by “Section 356 of the BNS”; nevertheless, it is significant to note that the legislation has recently been expanded to include “electronic documents.” “Electronic record forgery” is covered under “Section 336 of the BNS”, which now reads as follows: Anyone found guilty of forgery with the express purpose or intent that the forged document or electronic records will damage the party’s reputation or image faces up to three years in prison of any kind and a fine.
In the 2015 case of “Shreya Singhal v. Union of India”, the Supreme Court of India struck down clause 66B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 due to the ambiguity of the word “offensive” in the clause. According to the provision itself, sending an insulting message via a computer or other technological device is illegal. Section 66B was repealed because the government abused this authority to stifle or control people’s freedom of speech and expression.
Free speech v. Defamation
A fundamental component of democratic society, the right to free speech and expression is safeguarded under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Nevertheless, under Article 19(2), which lists defamation as one of the grounds, this freedom is subject to reasonable limitations. Although free speech permits people to express their thoughts and beliefs, it cannot be used to damage the reputation of another person.
Judiciary about defamation in social media
In the recent Swami Ramdev and Anne v. Facebook Inc. & Ors 2019 case, Judge Pratibha Singh mandated that any online defamatory content against yoga instructor Baba Ramdev be taken down without regard to location. According to this, Indian courts must have international jurisdiction in order to render rulings that apply globally if the content is posted from India or on Indian hardware. Facebook has lodged grievances against rulings made by the Delhi-based Supreme Court Department. Despite knowing the individuals who submitted the content, the applicant was not involved in the situation, which is why he is filing this complaint. The fact that Baba Ramdev has not shown compelling prima facie proof of irreversible loss is likewise debatable. Among other reasons, Facebook’s complaint argues that international seizure laws violate defamation laws in other nations, which is against national sovereignty and the international community. Furthermore, the immunity they have been accorded in other jurisdictions is undermined by this judgment.
The aforementioned instances highlight several facts of situations in which cyber defamation may arise as well as legislative measures that can be used to address this issue. Nonetheless, several cyberspace prohibitions are still pending international legislation. However, cyber defamation and the harm it produces might be minimized if the case is filed in the appropriate place and on time.
Complexities of Defamation in the Digital World
Liability for defamatory content on social media is generally not restricted to the author, who may or may not be held accountable in many situations. However, in certain situations, an internet service provider (ISP), website operator, or employer may also be held accountable.
The host or internet service provider (ISP) that made the defamatory statement may have more financial clout to influence decision-makers than the person who alleges defamation, notwithstanding the temptation to sue them.
The main takeaway is that before posting or leaving a comment on social media, a blogger or anyone else wishing to do so should confirm that all relevant information has been gathered or is accurate. This is because once the send button is clicked, the message has gone viral, and there is no simple or quick way to take it down before anyone sees or receives it.
Defamation cases may be challenging to prove based on: Absolute privilege, which protects people’s rights and allows them to say anything they want “unedited,” as can be found in parliaments or courts, as evidence during a trial, during an investigation, or as a complaint to a quasi-judicial body or professional association; truth or justification, where the author of the said defamatory statement is said to be true and can be supported by facts;
Fair commentary and responsible communication on topics of public interest are further arguments, especially when journalists cover claims and remarks while disseminating information in the public interest. Another instance is when claims are supported by verifiable facts and are not made deliberately.
It is important to note that online communication is quick, easy, engaging, honest, global, and extensive. Additionally, it lacks personalization, and the contacts’ anonymity increases the likelihood that the disparaging remarks will be taken seriously.
The bulk of defamatory remarks on Facebook, for instance, have been found to be false and unjustifiable statements about specific people, and copies that had already been copied were unaffected by the removal of such posts. This is due to the fact that people who shared the postings retain them even if the original author removes them, as the removal of the original creator has no bearing on them.
The quantity of people who have viewed the postings or messages is another aspect. This is due to the fact that when a post or message goes viral, even if it is later removed, those who saw it would still remember it, and it would be challenging to establish how many people saw it without leaving a remark or responding.
A statement made on social media could instantly reach millions, if not billions, of people due to the potential size of the viewing audience for any social media post and the vast global reach of the internet. This could have disastrous effects on people’s personal well-being and financial capabilities, with a person losing contracts and business deals worth millions of Naira, pounds, or dollars as a result of defamatory remarks.
The use of online social media platforms has the ability to instantly destroy reputations; one way to prevent this is to punish the offender or offenders severely if it is shown that they used defamatory language. Another option is to request that such offensive content be immediately taken down from social media sites. Courts can now adapt to the changing realities of social media and defamation once the cases have been proven. Since no post or shared post can be kept anonymous while demonstrating that defamation has taken place, people who make disparaging remarks about other people can now be held accountable for their remarks. This could have an impact on both the original authors of the posts and those who distribute the offensive statements or materials.
The most crucial element in preventing defamation lawsuits is educating and informing people—especially frequent social media users—about social media usage, communication, and information dissemination on these viral platforms. It goes without saying that users of the various social media platforms should exercise caution to prevent liability for remarks they make, comments they leave, and information they share. This is because the classic legal concepts of defamation have remained true in this fast-paced world where technology has boosted communication abilities, even though they are fundamentally more complex and exacerbated in the era of social media.
The rule must be vigorously implemented with severe penalties, such as substantial fines and removal or banishment from social media platforms, in order to curtail people’s excesses on social media.
Users of social media should be aware of and educated about media laws. Social media users ought to understand how to interact and obtain information on different platforms in a safe manner. Social media users should learn how to restrict access by granting people restricted permissions so they can add them to groups they are unaware of or tag or connect them to subjects that might bother them.
Author: Nikita Baloda, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.
Reference
- The Indian Penal Code by Prof. T. Bhattacharyya, Central Law Agency, 10th Edition
- The Constitution of India by Durga Das Basu
- Social media and online defamation on ILRJS ISSN (o) 2583-0066
- Law Enforcement Challenges to Defamation on social media by Tista Nabila Ahmad, Dian Ekawaty Ismail, Jufryanto Puluhulawa, Estudiante Law Journal vol.5, number 3, October 2023: pp 742-753
- Legal Consequences of Online Defamation in India by Ankit Valdaya, Jan 2014
- Defamation through social media based on laws and regulations by Endah Tri, vol-01, issue 06 (031-040), 2020
- Trending Now: The Role of Defamation Law in Remedying Harm from social media by Cory Batza, volume 44, issue 2
- https://stonegatelegal.com.au/social-media-defamation-complete-guide/
- https://www.nolo.com/legal-e/social-media-online-defamation.html
- http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Law-of-Torts/Chapter19.htm#:~:text=Defamationcommittedthroughspeechis,oravoidedinthesociety
- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/applicability-information-technology-act-2000-media-law-agarwal/
- https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1999/1/A2000-21(1).pdf
- https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/bharatiyanyayasanhita/356.php?Title=BharatiyaNyayaSanhita,2023&STitle=Defamation