By Prior Beharry
A MESSAGE on WhatsApp can defame the character of a person.
This was the ruling of Justice Frank Seepersad in the Port of Spain High Court on Tuesday.
He ordered a policeman to pay $75,000 in aggravated damages after he defamed a female officer in a WhatsApp chat with 211 police officers.
Justice Seepersad said due to the advances in technology, libel and slander could no longer be viewed strictly as the spoken word versus the written word.
He said that memes and cartoons could also be deemed defamatory.
Justice Seepersad said, “This court holds the view that the WhatsApp platform can be used for the transmission of defamatory content in a comprehensive form.”
He said, “When it can be established that an individual wrote a statement which contains impugned words which clearly relate to an identifiable subject and those words are defamatory in so far as they were capable of lowering the subject’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person being an individual to whom the message was sent, then such an individual may be held liable in libel.
“When an individual elects to author a message about another and forward same on WhatsApp caution and restraint must be exercised and such an author must be prepared to defend the veracity of his or her publication.”
Justice Seepersad said the freedom of expression must come with restraint.
He said, “The right to freedom of expression must be subject to reasonable restraint. The right to express one’s views cannot be used to negatively impact the reputation of others without justification.
“Users of messaging platforms should therefore only post about others that which you know to be true.”
The case stemmed from the WhatsApp group Central Watch when the claimant identified as M.S. commented about a police officer in the Central Division being charged on January 31, 2020.
M.S. posted, “Is best to shut your mouth on this chat before u get case this homer Simpson humpty dumpty fly by night detective does quick to jump 2 d defence of his friend and cant do a proper investigation. Talking aby exemplary when yuh name always calling in s….Look eh give me a break eh. When u learn to stop touch ppl thing and beg to work in section and stop perjure in court them open yr mouth damn idiot.”
In her witness statement, she said the defendant C.H. whom she knew responded to her messages and attacked her professionalism, reputation, character and integrity in a lude and malicious manner.
The defendant stated in response on the chat: “I does beg to work section i does get stink transfer and take it just like many others in this division. and fly by night detective you cant talk about me you aint ready you f… to work in the task force i does work I could solve crime homer looking. You getting personal. Study because ah two police in longdenville you get away from case with your big bandit.”
Justice Seepersad said the tendency to slut shame women has to stop. He said there was no justification to challenge the claimant based on her sexuality.
Justice Seepersad said too often women were seen as soft targets even being referred to as “bumpers” during Carnival time.
He said there was significant use of WhatsApp in Trinidad and Tobago as a medium to transfer information and to discuss a myriad of issues or events.
Justice Seepersad said, “Persons may feel that there is a measure of security using such a forum as it is marketed as a private forum. There are even options for messages to disappear after they have been read.
“That sense of privacy is misguided as even a disappearing message can be screenshotted. Messages sent via WhatsApp are easier than Facebook posts to track as the account is tied to a mobile number which is usually visible and the holder of the said number can be determined especially where the number is registered locally.”
He said the number of online commentators and bloggers has increased and there were no boundaries as every aspect of the lives of public officials was discussed.
Justice Seepersad said, “In flagrant disregard of the doctrine of separation of powers even judicial officers have been branded and verbally attacked by persons who appear to be blinded by their partisan concerns and or loyalties.”
He said many of the blogs and posted comments neither fall within the category of fair comment nor within the acceptable limits.
Justice Seepersad said no one has the right to defame another citizen. It must be understood that these forums were not insulated against libel suits, the judge said.
He said social media and messaging services were here to stay.
Justice Seepersad added, “They form an integral part of our daily lives but these forums must be managed in a measured manner and restraint has to be exercised.”
Justice Seepersad, thank you for your judgment. Thanks for the precedent that you have set.