SOCIAL MEDIA DEFAMATION IN T&T

CONTACT US HERE

Share This:

​
​In Trinidad and Tobago, the proliferation of social media platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter) has transformed communication, enabling instantaneous sharing of thoughts and opinions. However, this digital freedom brings legal responsibilities, particularly concerning defamation. Understanding the legal framework and notable case law surrounding online defamation is crucial for all users to navigate the digital landscape responsibly.​

While social media encourages free expression, this right is not absolute. It must be exercised with care, as anonymity does not shield individuals from accountability. Recklessly damaging someone’s reputation online can have serious legal consequences, reinforcing the need for responsible digital conduct.

Understanding Defamation
Defamation refers to false statements that damage an individual’s reputation. It falls into two main categories:

• Libel – Defamatory statements in a fixed, lasting form, such as written articles, social media posts, or videos.
  
  
• Slander – Defamatory statements in a temporary form, typically spoken words or gestures.
  
  

To succeed in a defamation claim, the Claimant must prove that the statement:

• Was published to a third party.
• Clearly identified or referred to the Claimant.
• Was false and defamatory, meaning it harmed or was likely to harm their reputation.
  
  

In legal terms, "publication" means the statement was communicated in a way that a third party could receive and understand it. Since online content remains accessible, internet publications, including social media posts, are generally classified as libel.

Defamation and Social Media
​The rise of social media has blurred the lines between private and public communication. Notably, the Trinidad and Tobago High Court has addressed the issue of defamatory content on these platforms:​
​

• WhatsApp Communications: In the case of MS v CH  (CV2020-00493), the court recognized that messages posted on WhatsApp could ground legal claims for defamation, emphasizing that users should be cautious about the content they share, even in private group chats.
  ​
• Facebook Posts: Similarly, in DRA and SA and another v Jenelle Burke (CV2016-02974), the court held that messages posted on Facebook could also be subject to defamation claims, highlighting the potential legal repercussions of online statements. ​

Notable Case Law in Trinidad and Tobago
Several cases in Trinidad and Tobago have underscored the seriousness of online defamation:​

1. DRA & Others v Jenelle Burke (CV2016-02974)
Background: This case was one of the first in Trinidad and Tobago to establish liability for defamatory social media statements. The claimants, a family, sued their neighbour, Jenelle Burke, over Facebook posts that falsely accused them of serious criminal and immoral conduct, including allegations of sexual abuse and incest.

Court Findings:

• Defamation via Facebook: The court ruled that posts on social media constitute "publications" and can form the basis of a defamation claim.
  
  
• User Responsibility: Even private individuals are liable for defamatory content published on their social media accounts.
  
  
• Burke’s Defense Rejected: Burke argued that she did not author the defamatory posts and that her social media account had been accessed by others. The court rejected this, emphasizing her responsibility for content on her account.
  
  
• Damages Awarded: The court found the defamatory statements caused severe emotional distress and reputational damage to the claimants. Compensation was awarded accordingly.
  
  

Significance: This case reinforced that digital platforms are not a legal free zone—users must exercise caution when making statements online. It set a precedent for social media defamation cases in Trinidad and Tobago, ensuring individuals can be held legally accountable for false and harmful posts​

2. Heidi Joseph v Ama Charles (CV2016-02996)
Background: The defendant, Ama Charles, made defamatory statements about the claimant, Heidi Joseph, via Facebook. Charles accused Joseph of abandoning her children on the roadside and made efforts to disseminate this false claim by tagging news outlets like Beyond the Tape, Ian Alleyne, and TV6 News.

Court Findings:

• Defamation via Facebook Sharing: The court ruled that tagging widely followed public pages facilitates republication, thereby expanding liability.
  
  
• Lack of Control Over Shared Content No Defense: Even though Charles argued that she did not personally post on the TTPS Facebook page, the court ruled that by tagging high-traffic pages, she implicitly permitted the dissemination of the content.
  
  
• Damages Awarded: The court recognized the severe impact on Joseph’s personal and professional reputation, particularly as a prison officer.
  
  

Significance: This case underscored that even reposting or tagging defamatory content exposes users to legal consequences. It reinforced that Facebook privacy settings do not absolve a user from liability if the content is deliberately made available to a wider audience​.


3. MS v CH (CV2020-00493)
Background: This case involved defamatory statements made in a WhatsApp group chat with over 200 participants, involving two members of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS). The defendant suggested that the claimant secured a favorable position through sexual favors and was associated with criminal activity.

Court Findings:

• Defamation in Private Group Chats: The court ruled that WhatsApp messages in large group chats constitute publication under defamation law.
  
  
• Harm to Professional Reputation: The defamatory statements tarnished the claimant’s standing within the TTPS, leading to social ostracization and professional setbacks.
  
  
• Damages Awarded: The claimant was awarded $75,000 in general and aggravated damages, acknowledging the distress and damage caused.
  
  

Significance: This case emphasizes that WhatsApp messages are not private and can be subject to defamation claims. Group chat participants should exercise caution, as harmful statements can lead to legal consequences​

4. Mickela Panday v Phillip Alexander (CV2020-02580)
Background: Political activist Phillip Alexander posted a live video on Facebook in July 2020, making false and damaging statements about politician Mickela Panday, alleging she had accepted funds from the Syrian business community to manipulate election votes.

Court Findings:

• Malicious Intent: The court determined that Alexander’s statements were false, politically motivated, and made without any attempt to verify the information.
  
  
• Rejection of Fair Comment & Public Interest Defense: The court ruled that Alexander failed to meet journalistic standards, making reckless statements without fact-checking.
  
  
• Damages Awarded: Alexander was ordered to pay $600,000 in general damages and $250,000 in exemplary damages (totaling $850,000), reflecting the severity of the defamation.
  
  

Significance: This case serves as a critical warning to public figures and social media users about the dangers of making false political allegations. It reaffirmed that reckless statements can result in substantial legal and financial penalties

5. Colm Imbert v Phillip Alexander
Background:
Political activist Phillip Alexander made several Facebook posts in February and March 2020, alleging that Finance Minister Colm Imbert had purchased an exotic Swedish sports car for US$2 million, insinuating misuse of foreign exchange and abuse of his official position.

Court Findings:

• Defamatory Nature: The court ruled that Alexander’s statements amounted to a sustained attack on Imbert’s character, both personally and in his role as Finance Minister. The allegations were found to be false, damaging, and made without justification.
  
  
• Damages Awarded: Alexander was ordered to pay $525,000 in damages to Imbert for defamation. The judgment was later upheld on appeal, reinforcing the severity of defamation claims made on social media.
  
  

Significance:
This case highlights the legal and financial risks of making unverified allegations online, particularly against public officials. It serves as a warning that social media users can be held accountable for false claims that harm reputations.
​
Legal Defenses
While the law provides avenues for redress, certain defenses are available to those accused of defamation:​
​

• Truth (Justification): If the defendant can prove that the statement is substantially true, they are not liable for defamation. Under Trinidad and Tobago law, truth is an absolute defense to both libel and slander.
  
  
• Fair Comment: This applies when a statement is an honest opinion on a matter of public interest, such as government affairs or judicial matters. However, for this defense to succeed, the comment must be:
  • Based on true facts
  • Made without malice
  • Recognizable as an opinion, not a factual assertion
    
    
• Absolute Privilege: In certain situations, public policy demands that people speak freely without legal consequences. This defense applies to statements made in Parliament, during court proceedings, and other official functions, regardless of whether the statement is true or false.
  
  
• Qualified Privilege: This defense protects individuals who make statements in good faith in situations where public interest requires open communication. Unlike absolute privilege, it can be defeated if malice is proven. It often applies to journalists, professionals, and officials reporting on matters of importance.

Best Practices for Social Media Users
​Given the potential legal ramifications, social media users in Trinidad and Tobago should exercise caution:​
​

• Think Before Posting: Consider the accuracy and potential impact of your statements before sharing them online.​
  
  
• Avoid Sharing Unverified Information: Reposting or forwarding unverified content can lead to unintended defamation.​
  ​
• Understand Privacy Settings: Even with strict privacy settings, content shared online can become public, so always post responsibly.​
  
  

Conclusion
The Trinidad and Tobago courts have firmly established that defamation laws apply to social media. Whether on Facebook, WhatsApp, or live video streams, users can be held accountable for making false and damaging statements. Users in Trinidad and Tobago should be mindful of the content they share to avoid potential defamation claims and the associated legal consequences. Consulting legal professionals when in doubt can provide guidance tailored to specific situations.​​​

​​Important Notice: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always seek consultation with an attorney for your specific legal concerns, as only a professional familiar with the details of your situation can provide proper guidance. 
​
​This website is managed by AURORA Chambers; a law practice in Trinidad and Tobago.

Click HERE to receive updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to our newsletter.