Research paper on

Social media defamation and tort law

Abstract
In India, there are no rules or regulations regarding online defamation. Online defamation is

considered libel, and the rules governing libel apply to online defamation as well. However,

the issue of cause of action becomes more complicated in the case of defamation. This is

because "every click, like, comment, and even sharing of the material" triggers the statement

on the homepage. The internet has grown into a strong communication tool in the twenty-first

century. It offers a wide range of accessibility choices. Any message published on the social

networking website may instantly reach a million persons in a fraction of the time due to its

feature of mass communication with a single click. Because of the Internet, the way businesses

and individuals interact has changed drastically. The majority of people regard this as a positive

accomplishment and believe that everyone can post online and obtain useful information.

We've discovered that while social media allows people to communicate their views, ideas, and

opinions, these statements may occasionally morph into nasty defamatory charges. We can

now share our opinions with the rest of the world thanks to the Internet.

Unfortunately, people are growing increasingly exposed to cyberbullying as technology

progresses. Politicians are using them to increase their popularity and disseminate their views,

and they are also becoming a place for online defamation. Every coin has two sides, as the

expression goes. Social media may be used to make a good difference in our lives, but it can

also be used to trash someone's reputation. Sting operations and the spreading of cartoon

pictures of persons are examples of this. However, these benefits are accompanied by the

increasing harm caused by people who publish bogus company ratings, personal insults, and

manipulated photographs and videos.

Social Media Deformation and Tort law - Social media has revolutionized the
way we communicate and express ourselves. In this section, we will explore the impact of social media
deformation and discuss its legal implications under tort law.

Understanding Social Media Deformation

Discover what social media deformation entails and how it affects individuals, relationships, and
reputation in the virtual world.

The Power of Words- Uncover how a simple tweet or post can lead to severe consequences and harm.

The Role of Technology- Examine how technological advancements have amplified the impact of social
media deformation.

The Emotional Toll- Explore the psychological effects of being a victim of social media deformation.

Tort Law and Social Media Deformation

Delve into the legal framework that governs social media deformation and learn how tort law comes into
play in protecting individuals.

What is Tort Law?

Understand the fundamental principles of tort law and its relevance in social media cases.

Elements of a Tort Claim Explore the necessary elements for a successful tort claim related to social
media deformation.

Legal Remedies- Learn about the legal remedies available to victims of social media deformation. Real-
Life Cases of Social Media Deformation

Uncover some notable cases where social media deformation has had profound real-life ramifications for
individuals and communities.

Case Study: Journalist's Nightmare Examine the consequences of false online allegations against a
renowned journalist.

Case Study: Cyberbullying Tragedy Discover the tragic aftermath of social media deformation in a teen's
life.

Case Study: Celebrity Defamation Battle Explore the legal battle of a high profile celebrity fighting against
a false online narrative. Legal Implications and Consequences Deepen your understanding of the legal
repercussions associated with social media deformation and how they impact individuals and online
interaction. The Burden of Proof Discover the challenges individuals face when trying to prove social
media deformation and its impact. Privacy Rights Explore the delicate balance between freedom of
speech and the right to privacy in the digital age. Compensation and Damages Learn about the potential
remedies available to victims of social media deformation. Protecting Your Rights on Social Media Take
control of your digital presence and safeguard yourself from falling victim to social media deformation.

1 Educate Yourself Stay informed about your legal rights and responsibilities in the digital world.

2 Monitor Your Online Presence Discover tools and strategies to track and manage your online
reputation.

3 Combatting Online Hate Explore effective ways to respond to and address social media deformation.
Social media has undeniably transformed the way we communicate and connect with others in the
digital age. However, with its widespread use comes certain risks and challenges, including issues related
to deformation and tort law.

Deformation, or defamation, refers to the publication of false information that harms the reputation of
an individual or organization. This can occur on various social media platforms where content spreads
quickly and reaches a vast audience. Tort law, on the other hand, encompasses civil wrongs that cause
harm to someone's person, property, or reputation, leading to legal claims for compensation.

When it comes to social media deformation, individuals may experience reputational damage due to
false statements, rumors, or malicious content posted by others. Online platforms can amplify the reach
and impact of defamatory statements, potentially causing significant harm to a person's personal or
professional life.

Tort law provides a framework for addressing such harms. In cases of social media deformation, affected
individuals may have legal recourse to protect their reputation and seek compensation for damages.
However, pursuing legal action can be complex, as it may involve identifying the responsible individuals,
proving that the statements are indeed false, and demonstrating the harm caused by the deformation.

To address social media deformation and related issues, jurisdictions have established legal standards
and frameworks. These may include laws related to defamation, privacy, intellectual property, and
cyberbullying, among others. These laws aim to strike a balance between protecting freedom of
expression and offering remedies for individuals who suffer harm due to online defamation.

It is important for individuals to be mindful of their online actions and the potential consequences they
may have on others. Additionally, social media platforms play a key role in addressing these issues by
implementing mechanisms to report and take down defamatory or harmful content. Many platforms
have community guidelines and content moderation practices in place to mitigate the negative impact of
deformation.
Furthermore, educating individuals about responsible social media use and digital literacy can help
prevent deformation and promote a healthier online environment. Understanding the legal implications
of online actions and engaging in respectful and factual communication can contribute to reducing the
occurrence of social media-related deformation.

In conclusion, social media deformation poses real challenges in today's digital landscape. Understanding
the legal aspects surrounding deformation and tort law can help individuals navigate these issues while
promoting responsible online behavior and protecting one's reputation.

Conclusion: Navigating the Digital Landscape :- In conclusion, social media deformation poses serious
challenges in our digital age. By understanding the Legal implications, real-life consequences, and ways
to protect our rights, we can navigate the digital Landscape with confidence. Take action

TYPES OF DEFAMATION

Libel is a lasting expression, such as words, a video, or a photograph. For example, X may have run an ad
claiming that Y was bankrupt, while Y was not. Slander, on the other hand, is the dissemination of a brief
defamatory comment, such as spoken words or gestures. When A, for example, queries B's chastity in an
interview, A is slanderous. The label is aimed at the eyes, whereas the slander is aimed at the ears. Only
libel is recognized as a criminal violation under English criminal law; slander is not. Both of these
offenses are punishable under Indian law under IPC sections 499 and 500.

ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION
You must demonstrate that the individual criticizing you issued, uttered, or circulated a message to
anybody other than yourself. This implies that defamatory parts in private

conversations will not be considered as defamation. This also implies that the comment does

not have to reach 500 people to be slandered. You have published a statement that provides

enough information to identify you to the broader public. If there is insufficient information in

the defamation statement, the comment may not be defamatory. This is because the general

public must conduct an extra investigation on you for the comment to have a negative impact.

I made a comment that harmed your reputation in some way. I forgot to post the statement. In

other words, they didn't bother to do an adequate investigation before deciding to defame you.

If the person's evidence does not match all of the above criteria, the court treats it as an opinion

rather than a defamatory remark. For example, if someone thinks you're bothersome, it's only
a personal opinion, not a defamatory comment.

METHODOLOGY
Secondary data is data that has been obtained and evaluated by someone else for a purpose

other than the present one. It is less expensive, takes less time, and requires less work. This

project is based on secondary sources such as newspapers, the internet, magazines, books, and

so on. For this article, the secondary data technique was used, and the following procedures

were done to give a complete and comprehensive evaluation of Defamation and the Role of the

Media.

-Investigating Defamation Tort Law.

-Invoking defamation laws, as well as the formal definition and explanation provided in the Indian Penal
Code.

-Citing different research papers and publications by famous institutes and writers in the fields of tort
and cyber law.

-Referring to too many major defamation cases in India.

RESEARCH ANALYSIS
Tv Channels:
Defamation through the media is a serious problem in today's society. At times, news outlets

serve as a conduit between the government and the general population, disseminating alerts

and vital information, instructions, and cautions. Since the covid attack, news networks have

flourished; the epidemic has boosted their business like no other. However, as the saying goes,

every coin has two sides, and news outlets, although beneficial to society, maybe may objective

be utilized incorrectly. News networks will go to any length to earn television rating points

(TRP) and views, whether it's making harsh statements about a person's character or

embarrassing the individual in front of the public.

One of the most recent incidents of press defamation was filed by Mumbai Police against Arnab

Goswami, in which they filed a criminal defamation suit against Republic TV's editor-in-chief

over coverage of the Sushant Singh Rajput death case. During the broadcast of actor Sushant

Singh Rajput's suicide last year, Goswami made "grossly inaccurate," "malicious," and

defamatory allegations about DCP Abhishek Trimukhe. These defamatory claims were made

during a discussion regarding actor Rhea Chakraborty's phone records on Republic Bharat.

Print Media:
This is a print media firm that publishes newspapers containing libelous content. Because

printed material may be entirely altered, the editor is legally liable for it. As a result, it is

anticipated that defamatory information can be monitored. As recent court verdicts on sysops

show, many sysops are significantly more suited to this position than distributors or co-network

operators. The print media comparison is useful. In this example, the distributor would be a newspaper
kiosk, which might sell newspapers with

libelous material. The kiosk is not aware of the content of the publications it sells and is not

liable for them. However, in some situations, the newsstand may discover defamatory

information. You may be held accountable for future dissemination of this content in this case.

Traders are often not responsible since they have a passive part in potential defamation. The

dealer will be held accountable only if willful wrongdoing is proved, such as a refusal to erase

defamatory content. We've already learnt that social media allows people to share their

thoughts, ideas, and opinions, yet these remarks can occasionally evolve into nasty defamatory

claims. Cyber Defamation is the term used to describe defamation through social media

CYBER DEFAMATION
Cyber Slander refers to defamation that happens on social media platforms. Cyber defamation

is described as the deliberate insulting, defaming, or offending of another person or party using

virtual media. It can take both written and verbal forms and is known as Libel and Slander. We

can now share our opinions with the rest of the world thanks to the Internet. Unfortunately,

people are growing increasingly exposed to cyberbullying as technology progresses. Under

Indian law, you can sue both the person who defames you and the person who shares and
reposts such content. All of those activities, such as sharing, like, retweeting, and/or

commenting, might be regarded as defamatory content republication - the act of republishing

from social media is so straightforward that people give no attention to the significant

implications that may occur. Images that have been altered to harm another person's reputation

are likewise clearly defamatory. Defamation through an online medium is considered libel

because electronic recordings, whether written text, audio, or video files, are categorized as

documents.

PROVISIONS GOVERNING ONLINE DEFAMATION IN INDIA

Section 499 of Indian Penal Code says that “Whoever by words either spoken or intended to

be read or by signs and visual representations makes or publishes any imputation concerning

any person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will

harm the reputation of such person is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected to defame

that person.”, Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment wherein “any person held
liable

under Section 499 will be punishable with imprisonment of two years or fine or both.”

Section 469 deals with forgery. If anyone creates a false, document, or fake account it harms

the reputation of a person. The punishment of this offense often extends up to 3 years and is

fine.

Section 503 of IPC deals with the offense of criminal intimidation by the use of electronic

means to damage one’s reputation in society.

POSSIBLE PRIVILEGES AND DEFENCES INCLUDE

 Wire Service Defense: If you republish information from a reputable news source (such As the
Associated Press) you may be entitled to the wire service defense if it turns out That the information was
false.

 Fair Report Privilege: This very important privilege may apply if you relied on a public
Document or a statement by a public official for the incorrect information, made clear

That the public document or statement was your source, and fairly and accurately used The source 
Neutral Reportage Privilege: The neutral reportage privilege applies to unverified Accusations made by
one public figure about another on a matter of legitimate public

Interest, such as when a politician opposing a healthcare bill claims that the bill’s Sponsor is taking
money from the pharmaceutical industry.

 Opinion and Fair Comment Privileges: Statements of opinion, even if egregious or Widely off the mark,
cannot ordinarily sustain a cause of action for defamation. “Fair Remark on an issue of public interest” is
a defense akin to opinion. If the mayor is Accused of being implicated in a corruption scandal, stating
your belief that the charges Are accurate is unlikely to sustain a defamation claim.

 Substantial Truth: “Truth” is an absolute defense in a defadefenselawsuit. Even if you Are not certain
that what you have written is accurate, you should read this section.

 Statute of Limitations: If the plaintiff waits too long to file a case, the defamation claim May be barred
by the statute of limitations, which establishes the maximum period Plaintiffs can wait before initiating a
lawsuit after the events they are suing over have Transpired.

SOCIAL MEDIA INTERMEDIARIES AND DEFAMATION

Section 79 of the IT Act provides a safe harbor for intermediaries from any act of defamation.

According to Section 79, an intermediary is not accountable for third-party information, data,

or connections housed on its platform. However, safe harbor protection is restricted to

particular circumstances, such as when an intermediary initiates the transmission of defamatory

material, chooses the destination of such content, or changes such content. Given the

circumstances, it is fair to believe that an intermediary's culpability can be reduced by adhering

to specified duties, such as imposing "notice and takedown methods."

CASES
Kalandi Charan Lenka v. the State of Odisha: The petitioner was harassed frequently in this

instance, and the culprit set up a false account for her and sent obscene messages to her
acquaintances. A modified naked photo was also plastered on the walls of the victim's hostel.

The culprit was found guilty by the court of his crime.

SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. V. Jogesh Kwatra (CS (OS) No. 1279/2001): It was the

first case of cyber defamation in India in which the court issued an interim, ex-parted injunction

order, and as a result, the Delhi High Court barred the defendant from sending derogatory,

defamatory, obscene, vulgar, humiliating, and abusive emails to the plaintiffs or its sister

subsidiaries around the world, including their Managing Directors and Sales and Marketing

departments

CYBER DEFAMATION
Cyber Slander refers to defamation that happens on social media platforms. Cyber defamation

is described as the deliberate insulting, defaming, or offending of another person or party using

virtual media. It can take both written and verbal forms and is known as Libel and Slander. We

can now share our opinions with the rest of the world thanks to the Internet. Unfortunately,

people are growing increasingly exposed to cyberbullying as technology progresses. Under

Indian law, you can sue both the person who defames you and the person who shares and

reposts such content. All of those activities, such as sharing, like, retweeting, and/or

commenting, might be regarded as defamatory content republication - the act of republishing

from social media is so straightforward that people give no attention to the significant

implications that may occur. Images that have been altered to harm another person's reputation

are likewise clearly defamatory. Defamation through an online medium is considered libel

because electronic recordings, whether written text, audio, or video files, are categorized as

documents.

What is the right way to deal with defamation?

When a person is found to have been defamed, they are clearly entitled to a

remedy. The problem – and the reason that defamation law has such notoriety

among journalists – is that the remedies imposed are so often punitive and disproportionate.

We have already seen that sentences of imprisonment for criminal defamation

are regarded as disproportionate for their impact on freedom of expression. Likewise, heavy fines,
whether in criminal or civil cases, are aimed at punishing the

defamer rather than redressing the wrong to the defamed.

The ridiculous sums awarded in defamation damages in some jurisdictions have

led to the phenomenon of “libel tourism,” whereby plaintiffs shop around to find

the most lucrative jurisdiction in which to file their suit.

Whenever possible, redress in defamation cases should be non-pecuniary and

aimed directly at remedying the wrong caused by the defamatory statement.

Most obviously, this could be through publishing an apology or correction.

Applying a remedy can be considered as part of the “necessity” consideration in

the three-part test for limiting freedom of expression. A proportional limitation –

which can be justified when defamation has been proved – is one that is the least

restrictive to achieve the aim of repairing a damaged reputation.

Monetary awards – the payment of damages – should only be considered, therefore, when other lesser
means are insufficient to redress the harm caused. Compensation for harm caused (known as pecuniary
damages) should be based on

evidence that the harm actually happened

CONCLUSION
The easy exchange of data and information via the Internet has become a significant defamation

hotspot. There are laws that ban defamatory information from being uploaded online, but most

individuals are uninformed of these rules and are negligent in determining whether the text is

defamatory. If the freedom of expression jeopardizes a person's reputation, the state must

impose limits so that freedom of expression does not become a weapon in the hands of some

individuals. There is an urgent need for a system to educate and enlighten people on what to

do and what not to do in cyberspace, as well as what is wrong and what is right, and what is

defamatory and what is not defamatory. In this day and age, media has become an important

channel for the public to communicate their perspectives, ideas, thoughts, viewpoints, views,

and even criticism, which may sometimes lead to character assassination. In such

circumstances, a balance must be struck between freedom of expression and opinion, as well
as the right to reputation, both of which are highly prized in contemporary culture.