Users beware!

TikTok. Snapchat. WhatsApp. Facebook. Instagram. YouTube. They are electronic platforms that are grouped together as social media that people use to share documents, photographs, videos, and audio files. They fall outside of the ambit of traditional media, such as newspaper, radio and television, regarded as mainstream media.

Over the years, as it relates to content consumption, social media have surpassed mainstream media, it seems, especially with the widespread ownership of smartphones, and intimate and private properties of their owners, some of whom are using the right of freedom of speech to disseminate whatever they want, with or without malice. It has given rise to ‘citizen journalists’, such as vloggers and bloggers, some of whom have no formal academic and/or professional training and/or experience.

DELUSIONAL PEOPLE

Twenty-four seven, users are sending data, some of which are meant to harm, destroy or damage, while at the same time exposing their own misery, torment, delusion, pain, insecurity, self-hatred, low self-esteem, foibles, mental challenges, etc. It has also inflated the ego of some, giving rise to an unprecedented high level of megalomaniacs, phantoms, ‘phishers’, delusional people, social media ‘stars’ and ‘influencers’. And, despite the informative, entertainment and monetary value of some content, social media can be a double-edged sword that can cause self-inflicted wounds.

Efforts by users to create harm can boomerang based on how the public perceives the content/data and the intent. The act can backfire, destroying the sender’s reputation forever, or the sender end up being slapped with a lawsuit for defamation. Recent newspaper reports of social media personalities losing defamation lawsuits come to mind. It is a reminder that people cannot use social media to tarnish reputations and massage their egos by publishing lies or unproven information to vindicate themselves and others.

DEFAMATION LAWSUITS

But, why are a plethora of defamation lawsuits not coming from left, right and centre, in light of what is happening on social media? King’s Counsel M. Georgia Gibson-Henlin says, in most cases, it is not worth it, especially if the publisher of the harmful data/content is not regarded as credible/believable in the public’s eyes, or is of a particular mental disposition.

There is also the element of financial redress. Some of these citizen journalists do not have the assets, financial and otherwise, to make remedy, especially in cases when the damage is already done and reputations have been torn to shreds. It might just be a waste of time and money.

The law, Gibson-Henlin noted, cannot stop the publication of defamatory matter in light of the right to freedom of speech, but there are injunctions, and the Defamation Act of 2013. People who believe they were harmed cannot get legal remedy if a lawsuit is not pursued. There has to be a claimant and a respondent.

Gibson-Henlin and Sherian McDonald, instructed by Henlin Gibson-Henlin, appeared for applicant William ‘Bill’ Clarke in his lawsuit against Bank of Nova Scotia Limited et al in the Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica, in chambers, on January 6 and February 23, 2010. In order to locate the electronic source of a false Facebook profile bearing his image and name, Clarke applied for legal permission to discover the source.

In his ruling, Justice Brooks writes, inter alia, “The name William ‘Bill’ Clarke has been a household name in Jamaica for many years. Associating that name with less than honourable activity is therefore likely to draw attention and comment. Mr Clarke alleges that such an association has, in fact, been wrongfully made. The problem is that he does not know who has perpetrated the act. It was done between April and July 2009, through a medium known as ‘Facebook’, which is a social networking website on the Internet.”

The Internet, the home of social media, is mentioned in the Defamation Act (2013). As it relates to a defamatory matter, the act says “unless the context otherwise requires” – “defamatory matter means any matter published by a person that is, may be, or is alleged to be defamatory of another person”. ‘Matter’ includes … (b) a programme, report, advertisement, or other thing communicated by means of television, radio, Internet or any form of electronic communication.

A part of the conclusion of Justice Brook’s ruling says, “Mr Clarke has made out a prima facie case that he has been wronged by a false ‘Facebook’ profile. He is entitled to discover who is responsible for creating the site so that he may bring his claim against that person. This court is empowered and required to give him the remedy of discovery based on his allegations.”

The entire lawsuit itself was settled out of court. The message is, even if fake profiles or pages were used to convey the defamatory matter, the creator of such can be traced, and might end up with a lawsuit, and his/her own world, too, might be turned upside down by his/her very action and utterance.