IN THIS second of a four-part series, I will communicate approximately the upward push of cyber-defamation. The quantity of cyber-associated tort instances filed within the Kuala Lumpur High Court in 2018 elevated to 60 over from over 50 instances. Most of those cases were related to cyber-defamation.
The Court treated numerous defamatory online postings that went viral. In those cases, the High Court has granted damages among RM50,000 to RM100,000. In Datuk May Phng @ Cho Mai Sum & 2 Ors v Tan Pei Pei [2018] four AMR 784, HC, the High Court was tasked to assess the damages to be granted to the Plaintiff against the Defendant for publishing defamatory statements in an email to at least 4 recipients. It is now not disputed that the said electronic mail has been circulated to most of the public through the internet to as many human beings as possible, and Defendant invited the recipients to study and spread its contents as extensively as possible.
The Court held that the said email was no longer a regular email directed to 1 character. Still, the stated email turned into a written one within the context to cope with the general public, to have the said email extensively circulated among the public. Therefore, the Court believed that the said email was extensively circulated and/or presumed to be so.
The Defendant’s attempt to prove that the e-mail turned into despatched simplest to the 4 individuals named therein or five individuals as a whole as contemplated with the aid of the Plaintiffs does now not exchange the scenario or truth that such booklet on the internet thru email is deemed to be wide movement due to the fact the Defendant supposed the extensive circulation of the stated email-based totally on her statements within the said electronic mail in which the Defendant asked the general public to flow into the said email.
The Court held that it is nearly impossible to prove precisely to whom the stated e-mail had been circulated; there is a presumption by law that such a stream over the internet is presumed to be a huge publication, and the onus is on the Defendant to show the restrained booklet as alleged.
The High Court granted RM80,000 as exemplary damages.
In Mohamed Hafiz Mohamed Nordin v Eric Paulsen and Another Appeal (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. W-02(NCVC)(W)-1668-08/2017), the Plaintiff filed a movement towards the Defendant for defamation arising from an article published at the net through the website of Portal Islam & Melayu at www.Ismaweb.Net which went viral on social media.
The plaintiff is the government director of ‘lawyers for Liberty, a human rights lawyers’ non-governmental enterprise, and a famous human rights lawyer and activist in Malaysia. The defendant is Pertubuhan Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma), a non-governmental agency established in 1997. Isma’s essential consciousness is Islamic propagation in u. S. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant had uttered a defamatory declaration posted in a piece of writing entitled “Jangan Biar Eric Paulsen bebas Tanpa perbicaraan” on www.Ismaweb.Net.
The High Court observed that the Plaintiff had not shown that the impugned statement became defamatory. He had failed to show that his popularity was adversely affected and tainted. The High Court additionally brushed off the Defendant’s defense of justification and honest comment. The Court of Appeal discovered that the impugned announcement is derogatory, calculated to incite hatred and anger among the multi-spiritual companies and ethnicities in Malaysia.
The impugned statement no longer most effectively described Plaintiff as a fraudster, a liar who incites hatred of the Islamic faith, and as someone funded and supported by overseas entities, which include the United States of America and the European Union.
In their natural and normal sense, that means the impugned statement is supposed to and is understood to mean by using reasonable and normal readers of the item that the Plaintiff is anti–Islam. Therefore, taking the bane and the antidote of the item published, the defamatory assertion had the handiest one purpose, that is, to tarnish the plaintiff’s character and popularity.
