Orville Taylor | A lesson in defamation

‘Give a dog a bad name and hang him’. Not many of us remember this maxim from our Students Companion and Angus McIver’s First Aid in English. Yet, it always rings true.

Different from lawyers, we behavioural scientists have our own notion as to what we consider to be truth or facts, and in the academy, we arrive at proof through a very rigorous process. It is not accidental that we are social ‘scientists’. This is not the humanities, where we are able to spin various versions of reality and we accept these things to be true, and because we do so they are ‘real.’

Because of the rigours of the scientific method, even if we are sure that things are of a certain nature; we are never secure in our knowledge.

Nevertheless, truth and reality are not always those which instruct behaviour. In fact, humans operate according to their phenomenology and do not always seek what we in anthropology and sociology call ‘ontological verification’ of our epistemology. Yes, it is a lot of big words. But simply what we are saying is, generally speaking, we do not necessarily try to find out that the things that we believe are really true and we typically operate on the basis of what we believe.

Make no joke about this, 80 per cent of Jamaicans declare that they are members of a church and they believe in prayer, and they believe that a God exists. Indeed, most of us are firm in our convictions, despite our sinful conduct, that Jesus Christ is the Lord, and he will come again. As regards prayer, there is really no scientific basis for assuming a strong causal relationship to be established between making a particular request to God, and having a particular outcome. However, that is a discussion for another time, because many people who swear blind with lots of anecdotal evidence about the efficacy of their prayers totally missed the boat.

Real prayer does not line up one’s desires with what one believes is the will of God. Rather, prayer is about having God determine both the desired goal, and the result itself.

TRUTH AND REALITY

But, back to the conversation about truth and reality. It is precisely because people operate on the basis of what they believe to be true, rather than what the facts are, why the law has evolved over centuries to restrict an individual’s freedom of expression, now enshrined in Section 13 of our Constitution.

The pen is mightier than the sword. Never mind this nonsense about word being wind and blows being unkind. Having a tongue carries a major responsibility. And its misuse can do irreparable damage. In some cases, it can cause disaffection and evil public mischief. This is why perhaps mischievously, our lawmakers placed the offence of causing disaffection in the Jamaica Constabulary Force squarely in Section 69.

Language, whether written or otherwise, is community property. Therefore, we don’t give our own definitions to words: and even if we are master debaters, speaking for cups or trophies; it should not be used for the purposes of putting someone down or aggrandisement. If one follows a basic rule, that one’s speech and utterances are supposed to be for the public good, then one simply would be interested in speaking what one knows to be true.

For this reason, it is almost a cardinal sin when writers such as academics and historians lie, because it totally misrepresents reality and serves no good purpose.

Generally speaking, if one is interested in being truthful, just and fair, then, it is very difficult to get into trouble, because one followed due diligence, before making the statement.

GENUINE ERROR

On other occasions, an individual may make a genuine error because, of course, we are human and sometimes the information that comes to us is flawed.

However, there is a hell of a difference between one’s opinion, especially when one applies a meaning to a word that is so esoteric that only he and the small set of people with the same mindset will think that it means that.

But even eloquent debaters are not permitted to have an illicit relationship with the truth.

Notwithstanding all of that, it might be surprising that in some jurisdictions, the golden standard of the truth, being a perfect defence, does not protect one.

In Japan, for example, it is not enough to say that that statement made by an individual is true or accurate. If the intention was malicious even if true, in a country where honour is paramount, digging up dirt, which have no purpose, but to embarrass an otherwise decent individual, then it is actionable. Under Article 230-1 of the Criminal Code of Japan, the truth does not set one free, if the goal is to destroy.

In broadcasting, everything, which is transmitted during an announcer’s show, is his responsibility.

From time to time, callers make their own diatribe and attempt to build their narratives on the assertion or a blatant lie.

Even when warned, sycophants push the envelope with total disregard for the truth or well-being of the host.

Unfortunately, an anonymous caller cannot be sued; and the on air personality is liable, even if he immediately rubbishes the lie.

My intention in this article is not to speak to details of any special case of defamation. Suffice it to say, that sometimes offending persons have egos larger than their brains, despite their cranium being very massive.

When loose-lipped callers, who might not know better, run their mouths, due to sheer ignorance, it is bad enough.

However, when a senior academic with more degrees than a thermometer, a person trained in law, a head of a national sport organisation, an individual who heads an iconic organisation, with a large membership, the level of reprehensibility is high.

While it might not absolve one completely, an apology and retraction is good treatment. However, what are you to be called, when you dig in your heels, despite you and the victim knowing the truth?

Puss and dog don’t have the same luck, because dogs see the whole doughnut … and cats have tunnel vision.

Dr Orville Taylor is senior lecturer at the Department of Sociology at The University of the West Indies, a radio talk-show host, and author of ‘Broken Promises, Hearts and Pockets’. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com