Heavy consequences: We should not be too quick to condemn and pass judgement, or worse, bully someone on social media. — 123rf
FREEDOM of speech has been taken for a ride recently on social media under the guise of ignorance. Many people think they can say and write whatever they want with impunity.
However, this privilege doesn’t equate to the luxury of slandering or defaming others.
Targeted parties also have their rights and can exercise them when unproven accusations and even innuendoes are made about them.
Everyone in the media, including social influencers and their followers who post nasty messages, are governed by the law.
Most of us in mainstream media have been sued at one point or another. We’re often picked on because the grieving parties, and their lawyers, assume our companies can pay.
Despite these established media outlets having fulltime legal officers and editors who handle these demands, slip-ups still occur.
News portals receive lighter retribution because they’re deemed to have a smaller audience and are less likely able to pay up, although this no longer rings true.
Some of these portals are run by young editors with no training in legal rules, or even journalism fundamentals, unlike their more experienced and older counterparts in mainstream media who began their careers on the court beat.
We were educated on terms like defamation, libelous, slander, summons, statement of claims, affidavits, case management, sub judice, ultra vires, among others, from day one as reporters.
But much has changed in the media sphere. Many editors who clear copies have minimal knowledge of the legal system, so the prospect of letting through stories that infringe on defamation laws is real.
Reporters are now able to skip the court and crime beats, which are often viewed as the most mundane and graveyard-shift gigs. Being called on at odd hours isn’t necessarily fun, but many of us started from the bottom, and we like the crime beat.
I’ve done my tour of duty visiting police stations, crime scenes, fires, hospitals, morgues and even delivering bad news of deceased victims as a young reporter.
But now, online news portals – which includes the mainstream media – have the comments section.
The most seditious, defamatory and racist comments are freely posted in some of these portals. It’s near impossible to moderate these discussions since comments are posted around the clock.
These are genuine news portals, but then, there are also social influencers who draw a different audience. They may be a one-person operation, but their reach runs into the millions.
They probably have greater impact than some mainstream news portals, and the world wide web is a free-for-all space.
But it can have deadly consequences, too. Social media influencer A. Rajeswary, better known as Esha, used her Tik Tok platform to review cosmetics.
It sounds innocent as it was not even political or religious in nature, but it turned lethal when she was taunted by cyberbullies with threats of gang rape and physical violence, which drove her to suicide.
The nation is outraged that the penalty was a paltry RM100 fine imposed on private nursing homeowner Shalini Periasamy after she pleaded guilty in a Magistrate’s Court for deliberately uttering vulgarities with the intention to incite anger and disturb peace through her Tik Tok account, an offence under the Minor Offences Act.
She got away with a slap on the wrist probably because the case was the first involving cyber bullying and there are no specific laws for it yet.
The culprit walked out of court with a smirk on her face, seemingly indifferent to her grave act.
Esha was found dead in a condominium unit in Setapak on July 5, a day after lodging a report at the Dang Wangi police station over threats made against her.
The first accused, lorry driver B. Sathiskumar, pleaded guilty to a charge of posting lewd comments on Tik Tok. He claimed trial to a second charge of posting lewd comments with the intention of outraging the modesty of Esha’s mother, PR Puspa, 56, on the same day.
Then, there’s the case involving HRD Corp, which has made national news.
It’s common practice for the media to report on the findings of the Auditor General’s Report and the Public Accounts Committee. Most of the weaknesses and alleged conducts of mismanagement and malpractices are reported by these two bodies, and naturally, the media would go to town with it as they detail the reports.
The media has the right to question and cite cases of alleged violations of improper governance as it involves public money. No one should be able to stop the media.
Many questions have surfaced with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission forming a task force to investigate elements of crime while an independent auditor has also been hired to dig deeper.
Reporting the findings of the AG and PAC would be the easy and safe way, but many media commentators also want to have their say because the case is of public interest, and the people deserve to know more.
But there are also those who hide behind anonymity and escape punishment with their innuendoes and accusations, while some news portals have received demand letters from HRD Corp.
Accusations of “stealing people’s money,” “dubious” and “bloody thieves” in commentaries, however, risk the writers being sued, as those implicated can defend their integrity.
These words cast aspersions on the people implicated when they haven’t even been charged with any offence.
None of these words were used by the AG and PAC, as they have merely raised issues on possible mismanagement and short-sightedness on the part of HRD Corp, but Human Resources Minister Steven Sim has asked HRD Corp to drop the legal letters since no one in the media should be pressured on their reporting.
Defamation actions are costly and time-consuming exercises, and all parties hate going to court because it takes ages to resolve. Most parties eventually find a settlement with an apology and financial agreement.
By then, the public has already lost interest in the case and the aggrieved parties have cooled down.
For old-fashioned journalists trained to be cautious and mindful of the laws, we’re becoming a rarity, and could possibly be dismissed in the digital age where anything and everything is done to increase clicks and followers.
I’m still finding it difficult to understand how there can be “likes” with the thumbs-up emoji about news of someone who has died, sometimes in a terrible way even.
Our Federal Court has ruled that the publisher – a media company or a person who owns a social media account – is responsible for the comments posted. Basically, if the comments are defamatory or seditious, you can be sued and also be hauled up by the authorities.
However, tracing anonymous readers can be a nightmare if these online publishers need to protect themselves.
There’s a lesson to be learnt from Esha’s tragic death. Her demise shouldn’t be forgotten, and laws need to evolve to remain relevant in the digital age.
No one should be cyberbullied over social media, or even allow a narrative to be created by political and religious operatives who can individually run thousands and even millions of accounts.
Unfortunately, many of us are quick to condemn and pass judgement, and worse, bully someone on social media without thinking of the consequences.
Acting against these online violators isn’t an infringement on the freedom of speech, and our prosecutors shouldn’t take these cases lightly after the police have completed their investigations. Accountability is imperative.
