Rosmah suing Harith for making fun of her looks reminded me of a time when I asked a friend whether my belly was showing.
Not only did he not say no, he said that my belly was showing in a way that exceeded all the times it had shown before.
I never knew I cared so much about my looks until I heard him say that.
For a few days after he said that, I remember I couldn't walk past any tinted cars without checking the size of my stomach in their windows, hoping each time that what I would see was something smaller than what I had seen before.
Sometimes the truth hurts, and no truth hurts as much as an unpleasant truth about oneself.
But as to the question of whether you can sue somebody for saying something hurtful, even though you cannot prove it to be false, I don't think I can give a definite yes-or-no answer.
If somebody were to call you a fat, bald fool, when you are fat, bald and, by a reasonable person's standard, did something foolish, should the courts get involved?
From one point of view, it does seem that they should, because isn't it said that the tongue is a knife that cuts without drawing blood?
If you were to literally hurt someone by stabbing them with a knife, of course you would expect the courts to get involved.
That being the case, why shouldn't someone expect the courts to get involved after someone stabbed them with their words?
But on the other side of the argument, without the freedom to offend, you have no freedom of expression at all.
A lot of people tend to conflate freedom of expression as a Western moral standard, but it is actually not just a Western standard—it is an universal standard that is tied to the very reason for our existence.
We exist to be ourselves, and to be ourselves we must have freedom. One of the quintessential freedoms that we must have to be ourselves is the freedom to express ourselves freely.
If you can't express yourself, you are not going to be able to be yourself.
We all know this. That is why none of us likes to be in the company of strangers, because we can't be ourselves in the company of strangers. A life spent constantly watching yourself, making sure that what you say or think is acceptable to others, is not a life worth living.
So, because you can't categorically determine whether cracking jokes about someone's appearance should be made illegal, like stabbing someone with a knife, or allowed under the premise that freedom of expression is a quintessential right of every individual, I think whether such jokes should be considered legal or illegal can probably only be determined analytically.
Among the considerations in making that judgment are:
1. Whether the comedian makes such jokes about everyone.
If Harith, for example, makes fun of everyone's appearance, then I think his jokes should fall under freedom of expression. If only Rosmah is subjected to his jokes, then it should be considered evidence of an intent to harm.
2. Whether the subject is targeted repeatedly.
If Rosmah is just one target among many, and is not repeatedly targeted with jokes about her appearance, then I think the jokes fall under freedom of expression.
3. Whether the subject is a public or private individual.
If the subject is a public figure, I think most jokes targeting them should be considered an exercise of freedom of expression. The threshold for proving an intent to harm should be much higher than it would be for a private individual.
4. The relative status of the parties.
If the comedian is of a higher status than the subject of the jokes, then the jokes should be weighed more closely as a possible intent to harm. If it is the subject who holds the higher status, then the balance should lean more towards freedom of expression.
5. Whether the comedian profited from the joke.
If the comedian made money from making jokes about someone who found them distressing, then even if the jokes ultimately fall under freedom of expression, I reckon the subject has a right to be compensated for their trouble. They were, after all, part of the gig, so perhaps they should get paid for it too—especially if they had to endure a certain amount of distress for the performance to succeed.
Anyway, I think these are some of the analytical factors that should be applied in determining whether what Harith did to Rosmah is acceptable or not.
At the end of the day, I think the line separating what is acceptable from what is not in this sort of thing will ultimately be determined by culture, and that culture will likely be shaped by how such cases as the Rosmah vs. Harith case is adjudicated.
A few well-known cases like the Rosmah vs. Harith case, if well adjudicated in a court of law, might be precisely what we need to condition our culture to understand where the line of acceptability lies.
So the positive side of this lawsuit is that, if it is conducted well, it could become a necessary and long-overdue way of setting our cultural parameters when it comes to joking about another person.
TheRealNehruism (nehru.sathiamoorthy@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
