Losing reputation or face?
31 December, 2008 – The government lost a defamation case against a private citizen this week. It was an interesting case that raises many questions and reveals how little our society knows about defamation, although ours is an oral society where gossip is a powerful medium.
In fact, a number of defamation cases have been threatened or registered in recent years and most of them have basically fizzled out. Typically, one case died because some way through the trial the judge, prosecutor, defendant, and just about everyone else got too confused to continue.
This comes at a time when there is more discussion and debate within Bhutanese society, discourse that is becoming more open by the day. Allegations of defamation are a natural progression to such a trend and we know that it will only get more intense. There will be more public disagreements every day.
Perhaps the main reason for the protraction of defamation cases is that defamation, as a concept, lacks clarity in our society. Bluntly speaking, we do not know what defamation really means, not in its legal sense anyway. Most cases are being registered because someone does not like what someone said.
As some of us learnt, in an ongoing workshop on media law in Thimphu, defamation, libel, slander, and numerous other terminology have very specific contexts and meanings and implications. We often mix them with codes of ethics and conduct and that further complicates the issue. It would take much more effort than we have put in so far to understand them.
As a visiting expert explains, an individual’s reputation is regarded as property and the balance between free speech and reputation can be complex, far more complex than just saving face. Proving that someone’s reputation has been affected takes more than just personal embarrassment.
The traditional interpretation of defamation “to place a black hat on a white countenance” worked when society was small and rural. It was largely left to interpretation, both social and legal, and it made sense as a balance of common sense, accepted norms and ethical standards, and interpretation of respected citizens who functioned as judges.
That will not hold up in court today. And, even if the laws are written, the interpretation and application of the law are different issues. For example, the high court decreed that this week’s case should not have been taken up as a government case in the first place.
All we learnt for it is that there is much more to learn.
“Fiction is easier than discernment”
Source: Kuenselonline