TODAY’S headline news about Stuart Young’s touted legislative reform on social media is a cocktail of bogus politics and sloppy journalism.
It also further reveals how the incoming national leader is getting a free pass on critical issues, including the disputed sale of Petrotrin to Oando, which is shaping into another Niquan scandal.
The daily press reports Young as saying he “will not stand idly by” amid social media attacks, and plans to reform relevant legislation.
But it has long been confirmed that the Libel and Defamation Act applies to social media posts.
In February 2018, High Court Judge Frank Seepersad ruled: “Without reservation, this court concludes that postings and information placed on social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Viber, and Whatsapp have to be viewed as publications and the common law test in relation to libel will apply to same.”
The judge said such posts “can be assessed and read by a potentially worldwide audience.”
The soon-to-be-Prime Minister may have forgotten – or deliberately ignored – this assertion by Justice Seepersad:
“Social media ought not be to viewed as an unregulated media forum.
“Anyone who elects to express views on such a forum stands in the shoes of a journalist and must be subjected to the standards of responsible journalism which govern traditional media.”
Young’s comments are even more of a sham because he had previously threatened to use the law against people who “habitually attacked my character on social media.”
In December 2019, he said he had “decided to seek legal redress” and “shall continue to protect my reputation” against such critics.
Indeed, several people have secured judgments against social media posts that were deemed to be defamatory.
Two weeks ago, Justice Margaret Mohammed ruled against blogger Rhoda Bharath and in favour of parliamentarian Dr. Roodal Moonilal.
Moonilal filed action over an April 2020 Facebook post.
Justice Mohammed said: “The tone conveyed by the use of those words was serious and sarcastic.”
As far back as 2016, a local court ruled (Joseph vs. Charles) that a woman was defamed in a post in which she was accused of leaving her children at the side of the road.
But Young has clearly perfected the skill of capturing headlines through cheap and populist remarks.
As for the media, such vacuous reporting is easier than researching the worrisome Petrotrin deal.
