Have you ever posted, retweeted, shared something where you had to stop and think, “wait, will I kena?”
Did that Blogger Leong Sze Hian VS Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong defamation case make you question the content on your social media?
If your answers to these questions were yes, read on to find out more about the defamation law and whether you’d be liable for posting such content.
You Can Be Sued If You “Share” the Wrong Things on Social Media; This Applies to Quoting Someone Else in Quotation Marks As Well
These questions surfaced after the defamation court case where the High Court ordered Leong to pay PM Lee S$133,000 for defamation.
The sum includes S$100,000 in general damages and S$33,000 in aggravated damages.
Leong had shared an article on Facebook that falsely claimed that PM Lee was involved in the 1Malaysia Development Berhad Scandal.
In a written judgement on Wednesday (24 March), Justice Aedit Abdullah explained that Leong had shared the offending article “without making any enquiries as to its truth whatsoever” and exhibited “reckless disregard of whether the article was true or not”.
TODAYonline had contacted several lawyers who helped to clarify the law and its effects on the public.
The Meaning of Defamation and Why the Law Exists
Mr Suang Wijaya from law firm Eugene Thuraisingam LLP said that defamation occurs when somebody publishes a statement that lowers the standing of the subject in the eyes of third parties.
Basically, it exists to protect a person’s reputation and to restore any damages to them.
Mr Jonathan Cho from Covent Chambers also pointed out the general considerations used to determine whether there was defamation, including:
- Whether the statement was defamatory — it lowers the reputation of the subject being defamed
- Whether the statement was published, made available and accessible to the public
- Whether the subject was identified
Will I Kena for Sharing Contentious Information?
As seen from the Leong VS Lee case, yes, a user will be liable so long as the article contains defamatory information. The blogger had shared the article and was subsequently fined, even though it was not written by him.
Mr Wijaya from Eugene Thuraisingam LLP noted that the law extending to the sharing and republishing of an article, as well as quoting someone in quotation marks, is nothing new.
Both Mr Wijaya and Mr Gary Low, director of dispute resolution from law firm Drew and Napier, echoed that any publication allows a defamatory statement to reach third parties and thus has the potential to lower a person’s standing.
Applying this principle to the realm of social media, all reposts and sharing of defamatory material can potentially lead to a defamation lawsuit, noted Mr Low.
Even if the users who shared the content did not add any comments, they may still face penalties. Yikes.
Mr Fong Wei Li from Forward Legal LLC said that in some legal jurisdictions, the law distinguishes between endorsing a statement and merely reposting or sharing the statement.
He gave the example that in some legal jurisdictions, some may only be liable if they “[endorse] or [embellish] the article in the process of sharing it, such as by adding a caption that says, ‘Wow, this article is so true’ or ‘Please read; good points made in here!’.”
However, he notes that this legal principle has not yet been applied formally in Singapore.
Penalties for Sharing Defamatory Content
As with all civil lawsuits, it is up to the person being defamed to decide whether to sue and claim for monetary damages or other remedies.
They can also decide whether to sue every person who republishes the defamatory content or the original publishers of said content.
The lawyers also raised that while the Defamation Act is a civil law, defamation is also covered under the Penal Code, which is a criminal statute and hence, the police may also press criminal charges for defamation.
They urge online users to be aware of what they are posting or resharing on social media.
Featured Image: Wachiwit/ Shutterstock.com
Here’s a simplified summary of the South Korea martial law that even a 5-year-old would understand:
Read Also:
- Salon Allegedly Charged $880 Treatment Package to Elderly Who Has Hearing Difficulties
- Man Replaces M’sia-Registered Car With a S’pore Plate & Drives It Without a Driving Licence
- Confirmed: Allianz Withdraws Its Offer to Buy Income Insurance
- 10th Floor Resident Leaves Baby Stroller On Air Conditioner Compressor
- $400 Worth of Durians Delivered to Customer; Customer Allegedly Takes Durians Without Making Payment
- Woman Borrows Touch ‘N Go Card From S’pore Driver to Cross JB Checkpoint & Didn’t Return Card
Advertisements
