NAVIGATING DEFAMATION AND PRIVACY IN THE ERA OF CITIZEN JOURNALISM IN BANGLADESH

1. Introduction:

The digital revolution has transformed the media landscape in Bangladesh. Citizen journalism has found a home in social media platforms, like Facebook and YouTube. According to the "Digital 2025: Bangladesh" report published by DataReportal - Global Digital Insights, there are approximately 60 million active social media users, which is about 34.3% of the country’s population. These social media platforms have created new chances to expose corruption, show injustices, and hold authorities responsible.

However, it has also created a strong “shame culture,” where viral videos of small incidents severely affect people’s reputations and raise serious questions about defamation law and privacy in the digital age. People spread minor issues like a criminal offence. This creates a culture of fear, where public shame becomes a harsher punishment than legal action. Even after being deleted, screenshots and shares keep the incident alive forever, which creates a “digital scarlet letter” to that person. These effects can be devastating, like destroyed reputations, loss of jobs, psychological trauma, and in extreme cases, even suicide.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND LEGAL CHALLENGES

Balancing fundamental rights

The Constitution of Bangladesh attempts to balances freedom of expression with protection against abuse. Article 39 guarantees “the right of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression along with freedom of the press,” which serves as constitutional foundation for citizen journalism. However, this right is restricted by the term “reasonable restrictions imposed by law” to protect state security, public order, decency, morality, or prevent defamation.

Since privacy rights are not listed explicitly but have developed via court interpretation, they pose a higher constitutional challenge. Article 43 protects the privacy of correspondence and communication, while Article 32prohibits the actions that are detrimental to a person’s “life, liberty, body, reputation or property” without due process. Additionally, in Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Secretary, Ministry of Commerce the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 31 to include the right to reputation as part of protecting life and personal liberty.

Judicial Evolution in Digital Rights

The Bangladesh judiciary has started to address the application of constitutional principles to digital technology through landmark decisions. In State and ors v. Oli and ors, the Supreme Court established that Article 43 protects private phone calls, and established that obtaining such records without due process constitutes a constitutional violation. The Court highlighted that the telecommunication company has the “great responsibility” to safeguard private information.

In Aynunnahar Siddiqua and Ors. v. Government of Bangladesh and ors, the Supreme Court held that police collection of information for public safety and crime prevention is not a breach of the right to privacy. However, the Court issued a critical warning that police must prevent misuse of this data and avoid “unjust interference” with citizens' lives. Notably, the court observed, “The right to privacy is an essential foundation of the freedom of dissent” and should not be undermined by surveillance.

3. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND LIMITATIONS

Criminal Defamation Laws

Sections 499 and 500 of the Penal Code, 1860, define defamation as any imputation with the intention to harm reputation and prescribe imprisonment up to two years, fine, or both. This criminal approach distinguishes Bangladesh from many democratic jurisdictions where defamation is primarily treated as a civil matter.

The criminalisation of defamation creates a chilling effect on legitimate expression. "Defamation laws are being widely misused in the country, and these are curtailing the freedom of expression and press, and ultimately forcing many to self-censor," experts observed during a roundtable held by the Daily titled "Use and Misuse of Defamation Law and its Impact on Journalism." According to a Study Report led by Ali Riaz, distinguished professor of politics and government department at Illinois State University, 1,436 Digital Security Act (DSA) cases were filed between October 2018 and September 2023; of these, 32% were against politicians, 29% against journalists, 190 were for defaming the prime minister, 908 were for Facebook posts, and 528 were for offending religious sentiments.

4. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Landmark International Cases

International jurisprudence provides important guidance for balancing defamation and privacy rights in the digital age. In the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the USA Supreme Court held that freedom of the press under the First Amendment protects even erroneous statements unless made with “actual malice” that is, with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, when public officials are concerned.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has developed nuanced standards to balance freedom of expression under Article 10 and privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In Von Hannover v. Germany a series of cases established  key criteria for evaluating competing privacy and freedom of expression rights, including contribution to a debate of public interest, the notoriety of the person concerned, prior conduct, content and form of publication, and circumstances of information gathering. These cases demonstrate how courts can create balanced approaches that protect both legitimate journalism and individual privacy.

Citizen Journalism Protections

In Gertz v. Robert Welch (1974) the USA Supreme Court ruled that private individuals need only demonstrate “some degree of fault” rather than actual malice to recover damages for defamation, while public figures must meet the higher Sullivan standard. This distinction recognises that private citizens have fewer means to self-defence against false statements than public figures.

In Einarsson v. Iceland, the ECtHR held hat publicly accusing a well-known individual of rape on social media violated Article 8 privacy rights. the Court stressed the need to distinguish facts from opinions and held that even opinions must have a sufficient factual basis.

5. PRIVACY RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ERA

The Right to Be Forgotten and Digital Dignity

The “Right to be Forgotten” is a legal concept that allows individuals to request the removal of outdated or irrelevant personal information from online search results and other directories. This principle was recognised in Google Spain v. Mario Costeja González (2014), where the Court of Justice of the European Union held that search engines must, under certain conditions, delist links to such information.

The concept of Digital Dignity becomes particularly relevant in the context of citizen journalism shaming. European jurisprudence increasingly recognises that people should have some control over their digital footprint, particularly regarding non-public interest information.  In the Campbell v. MGN Ltd, the House of Lords held that publishing private information that would cause significant offence to a reasonable person violated the claimant’s right to privacy. The decision established the tort of “misuse of private information” and a structured balancing framework against freedom of expression.

Balancing Tests and Proportionality

International courts often use proportionality tests to fairly balance freedom of expression with privacy rights. The five-factor test used by the ECtHR in Von Hannover v. Germany (No.2) offers guidelines applicable to citizen journalism context:

1.     The information contributes to a debate of general interest

2.     How well-known the person concerned is and the subject matter of the report

3.     The prior conduct of the individual concerned

4.     Content, form, and consequences of the publication

5.     The circumstances in which the photos were taken

Applying this test to typical citizen journalism scenarios such as recording minor civil missteps and portraying them as serious criminal conduct. this factors frequently weigh against publication, as the resulting harm to the individual is disproportionate to any legitimate public interest served.

6. RIGHTS FROM BOTH PERSPECTIVES

The Citizen Journalist's Perspective

As noted by Moniruzzaman in ‘Citizen Journalism in Bangladesh and Its Legal Aspects’ (2021), citizen journalists argue that their work serves the public interest by exposing misconduct and challenging entrenched power structures. Digital technology empowers ordinary citizens to document events that traditional media may overlook. From this perspective, the right to record and share information about public conduct represents an essential democratic function.

Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2009 obliges public authorities to disclose decisions, activities, and policies, reinforcing access to information to citizens at low or no cost. International human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 19 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 19, recognise freedom of expression as encompassing the right to “receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

Subject’s Perspective on Privacy and Dignity

From subject's perspective, citizen journalism can infringe fundamental dignity and privacy rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises privacy as a fundamental right, while Article 8 of the European Convention protects respect for private and family life. Even conduct occurring in public spaces may retain privacy interests where public interest in disclosure is minimal.

The psychological research on public shaming reveals severe mental health consequences, including depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Legal systems increasingly acknowledge emotional distress as a legitimate form of harm, particularly where online exposure results in permanent reputational damage disproportionate to the original conduct.

7. LEGAL PRECEDENTS

Bangladeshi Jurisprudence

Although Bangladesh lacks comprehensive privacy legislation, courts have begun addressing digital rights. The High Court decision in State and ors v. Oli and ors (2019) marked a significant step by affirming constitutional protection for private communications and condemning interception without due process. However, the lack of systematic privacy jurisprudence leaves significant gaps in protection.

At the same time, arrests of journalists under digital security laws demonstrate the potential for abuse. Vague and broad statutory language enables arbitrary enforcement, disproportionately affecting journalists, activists, and marginalised voices

International Precedents

In Fairfax Media v Voller (2021), High Court of Australia held that media companies were legally responsible for defamatory comments made by third-party users on their public Facebook pages. The Court ruled that by creating and posting content on these pages, the companies facilitated and encouraged the comments, are making them publishers of the defamatory material. This decision highlights the complex liability questions surrounding digital platforms and user-generated content.

In Nguyen v Dinh (2024), the New Zealand High Court awarded NZ$780,000 in damages and NZ$62,307 in costs against four defendants for harmful social media posts. The case demonstrates how seriously the Court takes defamation and the substantial damages it might grant for severe reputational loss. 

8. STRATEGIC STEPS FOR IMPROVEMENT

First, Bangladesh should decriminalise defamation and treat it as a civil matter. This would reduce misuse of defamation laws against critics while allowing genuine victims to seek remedies through damages or injunctive relief.

Second, Bangladesh urgently needs a comprehensive privacy law defining personal data, ensuring informed consent, enabling correction and deletion, and safeguarding journalistic and public interest exceptions.

Third, legal reform must be complemented by public education. digital literacy programmes should promote responsible content creation, respect for privacy and consent, and fact verification. This would help citizen journalists understand the ethical and legal consequences of their actions.

Finally, social media platforms should enhance content moderation tools and provide guidance for responsible sharing. At the community level, “Citizen Journalism Councils” could develop ethical guidelines, mediate disputes, and support both journalists and affected individuals.

9. CONCLUSION

Bangladesh stands at critical crossroad. The challenge is to protect freedom of expression while preserving human dignity. By reforming outdated laws, ensuring privacy rights, promoting digital literacy, and encouraging community solutions, citizen journalism can expose real wrongdoing without destroying lives over minor mistakes serving its democratic purpose. The goal is to make the smartphone not a weapon of shame, but a tool for democracy and accountability.