Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Ritu Pandey   06 September 2024

Defamation

Nikhil is a comedian who made jokes about actor during a live show that is latter posted on his personal social media handle. He called out an actor a "box office disaster" and said, "his movies flop harder than a bad internet connection." The audience laughed, and the video clips went viral online. The mentioned actor was not happy. He felt the jokes hurt his career, especially since two brands cancelled their endorsement deals with him soon after. The actor then decided to file a defamation case against Nikhil. He said the jokes damaged his reputation and caused him to lose money. Nikhil argued that his jokes were just for fun and should be allowed as free speech. The court now has to decide if Nikhil’s jokes were harmful enough to be considered defamation or if they are simply part of comedy. The case is about where to draw the line between jokes and damaging someone’s reputation.Could Nikhil’s jokes get him into legal trouble for defamation under the new criminal law? How will the court decide if Nikhil’s comments were just part of his comedy routine or if they actually damaged the said actors reputation?



Learning

 1 Replies

Saloni Pande   06 September 2024

This case is a representation of conflict between freedom of  public speech and protection of reputation. Under the sec 356 of the new criminal law that is the BNS defamation is specifically mentioned. It is similarly defined as done previously under the IPC sec499, that include written, spoken, verbal, signs or any sort of virtual representation. It can include fine or two months imprisonment or both.

To prove defamation the following elements need to be fulfilled:

The said statement should have harmed the reputation

It should be referred or directed to him

The said defamatory statement should be communicated to more than one person

Financial loss or loss to his reputation has to be shown

Arguments that could be put forth by Nikhil can be that the statements made were just in jest and are protected under the freedom of expression and speech. In the matters of public interest, the defence of fair comment can be applicable as a matter of opinion. Whether or not the said statement were having an intention to cause harm, were the opinions or assertion on factual grounds, endorsement loss and evidence of being harmed will be a few things that the court will take into consideration.   The court may also consider the widespread impact of the video of viral nature on the social media. If defamation is proved then there could be stricter liability and penalties, considering the digital amplification of the statement.

 The importance of free speech of Nikil’s joke may be seen defamatory however the court will weigh the importance of it. If the said statement is made as a humor and not with any malicious intend then there is a possibility that Nikhil could face legal consequences under the new laws. This case may set a precedent for balancing the reputation and free speech in the age of digital.

 

 

 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register