Comments on: Bloggers and Defamation

By: rajanikanth

rajanikanth — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:20:34 +0000

I suggest yahoo, google & other service providers should rethink on defamatory blogs. no doubt the service of yahoo, google is comendable and they are doing great service to the field of information technology but still onus is on them to stop misusing their services.

By: Indian bloggers’ rights to free expression-Global Voices « FACT - Freedom Against Censorship Thailand

Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:04:56 +0000

[...] Lawrence Liang at Kafila writes a detailed post on whether a defamation case should be settled under civil law or criminal [...]

By: links for 2009-03-05 « Unjustly

links for 2009-03-05 « Unjustly — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:30:29 +0000

[...] Bloggers and Defamation « Kafila So rather than seeing this as an issue of the privilege of bloggers v. newspapers, it might make sense to locate the history of criminal defamation within the larger context of free speech as it affects different kinds of practitioners. And it might make sense for bloggers to also get a little organized in their responses to censorship of bloggers, because this is indeed one of those cases where an attack on one will eventually be an attack on all. (tags: freedom india blogging free_speech) [...]

By: Global Voices Online » Shiv Sena’s Orkut Campaign: The Limits to Freedom of Expression in an Intolerant India

Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:45:56 +0000

[...] Lawrence Liang at Kafila writes a detailed post on whether a defamation case should be settled under civil law or criminal [...]

By: Shiv Sena’s Orkut Campaign: The Limits to Freedom of Expression in an Intolerant India | Gauravonomics Blog

Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:01:00 +0000

[...] Lawrence Liang at Kafila writes a detailed post on whether a defamation case should be settled under civil law or criminal [...]

By: Deepa Govind

Deepa Govind — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:46:52 +0000

Well.. fre- speech comes with a social responsiblty. From what i have seen, most bloggers adher to this ( barring a few.. but then they are private blogs — as far as i know )

Like saraswathi — i too have my doubts.. To name a few ,
{quote from my post }

Dear Judges ,

* Did you visit blogs prior to hearing this case (or, any case on blogs) ?
* Do you remember the concept of the very first blog you visited ? ( movies , books, personal.. etc etc).
* Do you personally read blogs, or depend on your secretary to give you the information from blogs ?
* Does this mean, “Freedom of speech” comes with a Damocles sword?, at the bloggers own discretion ?

By: Shashwati

Shashwati — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:14:09 +0000

Also, from what I understand the kid has a discussion group on Orkut and not a blog. Doesn’t this muddy the waters a bit- since Orkut is somewhere in there with its legal liabilities etc.

Maybe the Judges don’t know the difference between a social networking site and a blog, or maybe TOI doesn’t so they are conflating the two.

By: Shashwati

Shashwati — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:55:02 +0000

Lawrence, could you talk a bit about why there seems to be no consequences for those who bring wrongful criminal cases. E.g, giving false evidence to the police and court etc.

False criminal cases seem to be fairly common in poorer communities and work as a form of blackmailing your relatives to give you resources. The police seldom does a proper investigation, and if the case goes to court and gets dismissed, the accuser doesn’t face any consequences.

By: Shivam Vij

Shivam Vij — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:00:52 +0000

While there are a number of defenses available against a charge of criminal defamation

Lawrence, could you enlighten us a bit more on this? I believe there are ten defences available, truth being the first one. Is there a problem with the defamation law in its spirit or the case laws?

What other way can we describe the bizarre situation of the violence prone macho men, who suddenly run around screaming about the violation of their legal rights and the slurring of their reputation?

The logical corollary of this would be that organisations like the Shiv Sena should not have the right to go to court, because surely, given their aims, all petitions by them would be, at the very least, frivolous? I buy the point that a frivolous complaint is prima facie exploiting the law to intimidate a 19 year old Orkut member. But hey, we don't know what the charges are exactly!

By: Aditya Nigam

Aditya Nigam — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:01:32 +0000

Justice Balakrishnan’s advice to Ajith is truly amazing. Thanks Lawrence for also bringing in the wider context of the misuse if the defamation law. What is intriguing is that, as your post itself shows, the courts themselves are aware of the widespread misuse of criminal defamation generally. It is also clear that in most of the cases you have cited, the mala fide nature of the complaint is itself quite evident – whether or not it constitutes ‘prima facie’ in legalese is for the legal experts to decide. One thing is clear – this could not have been offered in a state of absent-mindedness. That is the worry.
At a slightly different level, on a lighter note: Starting from Ramadoss’s determination to ban cigarette smoking in films and elsewhere through Law to these various instances where the higher judiciary even entertains cases that are evidently frivolous, it seems ‘we’ have suddenly woken up with a vengeance to the Lack of that we had hitherto suffered from: that of a State and Law. We TOO have IT!

By: Bloggers and Defamation | DesiPundit

Bloggers and Defamation | DesiPundit — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:27:58 +0000

[...] to the argument that bloggers should be as responsible as journalists in their writings, Lawrence Liang explains how corporations and organizations often “use defamation laws to to silence any form of critique, [...]

By: Restricting Freedom with Excuses of Responsibility

Restricting Freedom with Excuses of Responsibility — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:18:09 +0000

[...] to stave off critcism. Even the Supreme Court admits this in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC (2006) [via]: “a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. [...]