Woman to pay for defamatory Facebook posts

A WOMAN who posted defamatory statements on the social media website, Facebook, will have to compensate an entire family.

The woman was sued after a series of post appeared on her personal page in 2016.

In a ruling in the High Court on Monday, Justice Frank Seepersad said the words posted were “reckless and scandalous.”

He ordered her to pay compensation and the family’s legal bill, which are to be assessed by a Master of the High Court.

Seepersad said it was “ difficult to fathom how any right thinking member of society would contemplate to publish words” such as those posted on Janelle Burke’s Facebook page.

‘Sadly however, far too often, social media is used as a forum to engage in this type of irresponsible and cruel discourse. This state of affairs cannot continue unabated... There is entrenched in local parlance the phrase, “You will pay for your mouth”.

Given the technological revolution which now characterises modern life, this traditional phrase has to be subject to an update and all social media account holders need to understand that they may now have to “Pay for their posts”, if it is established that their posts are defamatory.”

In their lawsuit, the family claimed Burke published a number of libellous statement on Facebook that resulted in them suffering “shame and embarrassment” since those statements were false and may have been seen by thousands.

They said the posts were intended to disparage them in their work, social, community and family lives. Two of the family members are minors.

In her posts, Burke allegedly accused the family of engaging in incest. Her posts further alleged that the father of the family was a rapist who was engaging in sexual activities with his stepson and daughter, while the seven-year-old was involved in prostitution at school.

The posts also went on to claim the mother of the family had sex with other men and women.

The family’s telephone numbers and their photographs were also shared along with the posts.

The posts even resulted in officers of the Child Protection Unit (CPU)interviewing the family at home at a police station. The police, the mother testified, cleared she and her husband of any wrongdoing and told them there were no longer under investigation.

The family also denied any of the other activities ever took place.

A number of police reports were made and a private harassment complaint was filed by the family against Burke.

Burke, in her defence, used what the judge referred to a “Shaggy defence” of “It wasn’t me.”