Tweet
Are you the subject of cruel comments by a blogger? Have you been victimised by malicious or untrue allegations over the internet? Laws on defamation are designed to protect you against such injustice.
In summary, Singapore has several measures to protect the individual against harm to his reputation. Defamation is a criminal offence under section 499 of the Penal Code. This means that the police can take action and arrest the perpetrator of defamation if there is sufficient evidence of such transgression. For the prosecution of criminal defamation, it must be shown that the defamer intended, or knew, or had reason to believe his words would harm the reputation of the victim.
In addition, defamation is also a wrongful act that can give rise to civil action under the tort of defamation and the Defamation Act. A tort is a breach of civil duty owed to a fellow person, as differentiated from a crime, which is the breach of duty owed to society in general. Under the tort of defamation, written words can constitute libel, while spoken words can constitute slander, both of which can give the victim a right to commence a civil lawsuit against the wrongdoer and pursue either compensation or injunctions.
Defamatory words published over the internet would constitute libel, if the 3 elements described below are present.
Firstly, the statement in question must be defamatory. It is defamatory if it lowers the victim in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, causes the victim to be shunned or avoided, or exposes the victim to hatred, contempt or ridicule. For example, if a blogger publishes a post accusing you of being a thief, or a philanderer, the post would be defamatory because it harms your reputation, causing you to be exposed to contempt.In addition, a statement is defamatory if the inferential meaning alone defames, as opposed to the literal meaning. For example, in 1998, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong successfully sued Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, when the latter made a loaded statement without directly accusing the former of wrongdoing. Therefore, if a blog post impliedly accuses you of wrongdoing, by claiming, truthfully or otherwise, that you were being investigated by police for crimes, you may have a case against the blogger of the post.
Secondly, the statement in question must refer to the victim. For example, a blog accusing one of being a dishonest person, referring to the victim by your name, or posting a photograph of the victim, would constitute reference. The crux is whether the victim can be identified by the words or pictures in the statement. This means that if a blog post accuses an organisation of wrongdoing, and a reasonable person can relate the imputation of dishonesty to you, a member of that organisation, reference would be found. Careless words or inadequate research, leading to mistaken identities, is no defence to the tort of defamation.
Thirdly, the statement in question must be published, or communicated to a third party.
However, the maker of the statement can absolve himself of liability, if he can prove that the statement made was truthful in fact.
If the statement is not defamatory but is still very damaging, you may still have grounds to sue the perpetrator, under the tort of malicious falsehood. For example, if a website falsely claims that a doctor has retired, it may not be defamatory, but such words could take a huge toll on the doctor’s earnings.
If you are indeed the victim of defamation, your first course of action should be to make a police report, provided that there is sufficient evidence showing that the maker of the statement, intended, knew, or had reason to believe, that the statement would harm your reputation.
If such intention on the part of the perpetrator is unlikely to be proven, you can alternatively commence a civil lawsuit for defamation. If successful, the court may award you monetary damages, or grant an injunction to force the perpetrator to remove the offending statement(s) from their publication media. You will need to engage a lawyer to do so. Depending on the circumstances, you may also choose to resort to mediation, arbitration, or a private settlement outside of court.
In summary, Singapore has several measures to protect the individual against harm to his reputation. Defamation is a criminal offence under section 499 of the Penal Code. This means that the police can take action and arrest the perpetrator of defamation if there is sufficient evidence of such transgression. For the prosecution of criminal defamation, it must be shown that the defamer intended, or knew, or had reason to believe his words would harm the reputation of the victim.
In addition, defamation is also a wrongful act that can give rise to civil action under the tort of defamation and the Defamation Act. A tort is a breach of civil duty owed to a fellow person, as differentiated from a crime, which is the breach of duty owed to society in general. Under the tort of defamation, written words can constitute libel, while spoken words can constitute slander, both of which can give the victim a right to commence a civil lawsuit against the wrongdoer and pursue either compensation or injunctions.
Defamatory words published over the internet would constitute libel, if the 3 elements described below are present.
Firstly, the statement in question must be defamatory. It is defamatory if it lowers the victim in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, causes the victim to be shunned or avoided, or exposes the victim to hatred, contempt or ridicule. For example, if a blogger publishes a post accusing you of being a thief, or a philanderer, the post would be defamatory because it harms your reputation, causing you to be exposed to contempt.In addition, a statement is defamatory if the inferential meaning alone defames, as opposed to the literal meaning. For example, in 1998, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong successfully sued Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, when the latter made a loaded statement without directly accusing the former of wrongdoing. Therefore, if a blog post impliedly accuses you of wrongdoing, by claiming, truthfully or otherwise, that you were being investigated by police for crimes, you may have a case against the blogger of the post.
Secondly, the statement in question must refer to the victim. For example, a blog accusing one of being a dishonest person, referring to the victim by your name, or posting a photograph of the victim, would constitute reference. The crux is whether the victim can be identified by the words or pictures in the statement. This means that if a blog post accuses an organisation of wrongdoing, and a reasonable person can relate the imputation of dishonesty to you, a member of that organisation, reference would be found. Careless words or inadequate research, leading to mistaken identities, is no defence to the tort of defamation.
Thirdly, the statement in question must be published, or communicated to a third party.
However, the maker of the statement can absolve himself of liability, if he can prove that the statement made was truthful in fact.
If the statement is not defamatory but is still very damaging, you may still have grounds to sue the perpetrator, under the tort of malicious falsehood. For example, if a website falsely claims that a doctor has retired, it may not be defamatory, but such words could take a huge toll on the doctor’s earnings.
If you are indeed the victim of defamation, your first course of action should be to make a police report, provided that there is sufficient evidence showing that the maker of the statement, intended, knew, or had reason to believe, that the statement would harm your reputation.
If such intention on the part of the perpetrator is unlikely to be proven, you can alternatively commence a civil lawsuit for defamation. If successful, the court may award you monetary damages, or grant an injunction to force the perpetrator to remove the offending statement(s) from their publication media. You will need to engage a lawyer to do so. Depending on the circumstances, you may also choose to resort to mediation, arbitration, or a private settlement outside of court.
Comment