Fahmi Fadzil, Blu Inc and defamation
As I sit here typing this, my Twitter timeline is flooded with tweets using the #defahmi hashtag (a brilliant one, I might add!). I have been trying to write this blog post for the last hour, but it’s so interesting monitoring people’s thoughts and opinions on it.
Taken from _DaniloRamos on Flickr under Creative Commons License.
In case you’re not sure what it is about, social activist Fahmi Fadzil has been tweeting an apology to publishing company Blu Inc (which publishes Female, Her World, Marie Claire and Men’s Health among others) for a tweet he had sent in January. A Malaysiakini story explains:
Back in January, he wrote that a friend had been treated poorly by her employers at Female magazine because she was pregnant, resulting in her tendering her resignation.
I probably should establish from the outset that Fahmi is a friend. But taking that aside (I have also done work for Blu Inc), I just wanted to share some thoughts on the issue.
From a personal point of view, I guess there’s not much to say. Blu Inc obviously thought that the statement was defamatory. I am assuming that Fahmi and his lawyer also felt that there was a chance they might lose the case and as such, settled for the er, settlement.
And from what I remember from my Media Law classes (and promptly forgotten!), defamation law is complicated in that the defenses are very specific and often times hard to prove.
According to Malaysiakini, he is required to tweet out an apology 100 times over three days. As I write this, he’s only on tweet 12 of the 100 and it’s only day one. But already, Twitterjaya is buzzing about it and local and international media – including AP and CNBC has picked up on the story.
My general feel about Twitterjaya’s sentiment is that they feel that the settlement is rather ridiculous. While there are many tweets of support and solidarity for Fahmi (including from myself), there are also quite a few against Blu Inc.
From a social media perspective, I think this is a fascinating case, for several reasons.
- It could well be unprecedented, having to use Twitter as a medium for apology (reports state that Twitter was offered as an option because Blu Inc originally wanted an apology in the mainstream media and Fahmi couldn’t afford it).
- 100 tweets over three days is quite a few tweets, to say the least.
- What kind of reach is Blu Inc expecting?
For me, I think 100 tweets is an overkill. Look, we get the point. He defamed you and now he needs to apologise. We don’t need to read it 100 times. The tweets go back to the same 4,300+ Twitter followers that he has no matter how many times he sends that message.
Which brings me to reach. As compared to a newspaper, Fahmi’s Twitter numbers, while on the high side in the context of the average Malaysian Twitter, is very small.
Which brings me to intention. If Blu Inc just wanted an apology and an acknowledgment of mistake, then I would ask why so many tweets (besides the fact that he already apologised and retracted his comment on the same day he first tweeted it)? I can appreciate that not all 4,300(odd) followers of his will see the one tweet (just like how I have been following Fahmi all this while and missed that alleged defamatory tweet), so maybe a few would be okay.
Now, because of this 100 (or 12 or 13), everyone is talking about it and now everyone knows what the defamatory statement was (when we wouldn’t have known otherwise). I would argue here that this isn’t the Streisand Effect at work as some people are suggesting, as Blu Inc wasn’t trying to hide any information – but they obviously wanted people to know it is inaccurate.
In this sense, isn’t this exercise then bad publicity for Blu Inc? For sure. Already there are tweets which have pointed out Blu Inc’s previous mistakes. There have also been a call to boycott Blu Inc magazines (and cancel subscribtions). Others are just having a good laugh at Blu Inc’s expense.
Will this have much impact on their sales? I don’t know. It’s easy to stand in solidarity with someone and retweet stuff, but it’s another to give up on indulgences like magazines.
But that doesn’t mean that it won’t tarnish the company’s name. Publishing companies do not solely rely on the sales of their magazines (and readership) alone. There are advertisers involved as well – some might not want to be associated with a brand that has come across as what some people consider petty.
Then there is the fact that Blu Inc does not just published their own materials – they also have contracts to produce publications for other businesses and organisations.
The general readership might not care too much about bad press, but major organisations will.
One of my favourite tweets from the whole debacle is from my friend @smellykatemoss, who said:
“if those blu dudes have any sense, they shld be on the phone screaming STOP!”
Still, let this be a good reminder to people to think before they Tweet. The Internet isn’t the anonymous place it used to be and anything you say can, and might, be used against you.
4.45pm Malaysian time (+8 GMT)
Plan. BACKFIRED.
it’s 100 tweets spread equally over three days. great article, though!
Thanks for pointing it out! Fixed.
If my memory serves me correctly, Blu Inc shouldn’t even have a case in the first place. Defamation laws do not protect organisations from defamations, unless an individual’s name has been tarnished then it can be brought up in court. So, unless Blu Inc was suing under the guise of the employer, as an organisation, they shouldn’t have a case at all.
Whoops, real late reply but don’t know the exact details of the settlement and what the case was so can’t tell if they have a case or not.
I’m assuming they would have, otherwise Fahmi’s lawyers wouldn’t have attempted to settle?
Read somewhere that even Questlove is following him and even commented on it. Which begs the question: who gains from all of this??
Ah, so that’s the case! Was wondering what’s the whole case is about earlier. Reading this article, makes me feel that I’m back in Uni. Alas, why la you not lecturing anymore
I am.