The issue of 'Review Bombing' in the Malayalam film industry, has grown to be a significant concern. It has escalated to the point where the High Court of Kerala had to step in and order police intervention. 'Review Bombing' refers to the act of vloggers and content creators rapidly posting highly critical reviews of movies on various social media and video platforms within hours of their release. This harmful practice has far-reaching consequences, affecting a movie's box office earnings and audience reception, often leading to a considerable decline in its success. Regrettably, the Malayalam film industry, much like its counterparts, has not been immune to this issue, with movies of all scales falling prey to the scourge of review bombing.
What is review bombing and what is the case associated with it?
Review bombing is an online phenomenon where numerous individuals, or a few using multiple accounts, post negative user reviews to undermine the sales or popularity of a product, service, or business.
Allegations have surfaced suggesting that certain reviewers deliberately target movies without actually watching them, and their negative assessments persist until they receive financial incentives for more positive appraisals. This unethical practice has cast a shadow on the integrity of film reviews, undermining the industry's credibility.
Back in October, Mubeen Rauf, the director of 'Aromalinte Aadyathe Pranayam', filed a petition with the Kerala High Court. He sought a court order to prevent social media influencers and vloggers specializing in film reviews from posting their reviews of his movie on social platforms for a minimum of seven days following its release.
Justice Devan Ramachandran's bench had then designated Shyam Padman as the Amicus Curiae. In his report to the court, Padman indicated that there is substantial evidence supporting the existence of vested interests, including some individuals who believe they hold the power to shape the destiny of movies.
The Kerala High Court's involvement in this issue prompted the police department to explore measures to mitigate negative movie reviews. Building upon this, a significant development has taken place as the Kerala police have initiated legal action against online film reviewers and social media platforms. This action follows a complaint from Ubaini E, the director of the Malayalam movie 'Rahel Makan Kora'. He alleges that the film was deliberately defamed and disparaged, with the intention of extortion and blackmail.
The police have registered an FIR under IPC sections 385 and 34 for extortion, and they have invoked Section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act against the accused for causing a nuisance.
What are the sections mentioned in the case?
Article 385 of the Indian Penal Code: Causing fear of harm with the intent to commit extortion—Any individual who, with the purpose of extorting something from another, induces or tries to induce fear of injury in that person, shall be subject to a penalty involving imprisonment, which could extend up to two years, a fine, or both.
Article 34 of the Indian Penal Code: When multiple individuals engage in a criminal act with a shared intention, each person is held accountable for that act as if they had committed it individually.
Section 120 (o) of the Police Act: The fundamental element of an offence that can be penalized under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, is when an individual causes a disturbance to another person through any form of communication.
Will anyone expressing their views will be charged under these sections?
Every individual possesses the inherent right to freely express their opinions. This is a fundamental right, and no one can lawfully hinder someone from voicing their perspectives. Senior advocate Rajesh KR, emphasizes that if you sincerely share your views about a movie, even if it's negative, and someone files a lawsuit alleging that you targeted them, you can secure your position in court by demonstrating your genuine intentions behind the review. He explained that, by the law, the mindset of the person receiving information or comments about them holds significance in a legal context. For instance, if A informs B that they didn't enjoy a particular movie and suggests that B shouldn't waste time watching it, it ultimately falls on B to decide whether to watch the movie or not. A cannot be held responsible for B's choice, as it is entirely B's prerogative and not a fault of A.
With that said, it's essential to understand that targeted reviews and reviewers are not exempt from rules and regulations. If an individual or media outlet explicitly states that their views in an article, video, or any medium are personal, it mitigates the issue. However, if legal action is taken against them for deliberately targeting movies and publishing negative reviews without substantiated grounds, they may face legal consequences if they cannot provide valid justifications in court.
Registering a case may not hold up in court, as the Indian constitution grants every citizen the right to criticize. Unless concrete evidence of malicious intent targeting a movie is presented, there may be limited legal recourse available.
If the freedom to express one's viewpoint is a fundamental right, why is a legal case brought up in this regard?
Under the law, expressing personal opinions, whether by the press or any ordinary individual, is not a punishable offence. However, in cases involving negative reviews, the registration of a case can be attributed to the involvement of IPC sections 385 and 34. It's important to clarify that the case isn't initiated solely due to the act of expressing an opinion.
Instead, the petitioner has filed the case on the grounds of 'extortion,' implying that someone/group of people have taken actions to intimidate or harm them for financial gain. As explained by Advocate John Zachariah, this distinction is critical in understanding the legal context. Article 34 of IPC has been incorporated into the case as the petitioner contends that a collective of individuals is responsible for targeting his movie.
With that in mind, it's important to note that anyone can initiate legal proceedings against another individual, making various claims. For instance, if Person A files a case against Person B, asserting that they found B's content defamatory and untrue, both parties, A and B, are obligated to present evidence in court to support their claims. A must provide sufficient documentation indicating that B had malicious intent when creating or presenting negative content about their movie, while B is tasked with proving that such negative intent was not the intention behind their actions.
What will be considered a fair review?
The law does not provide a precise definition of a 'good' review, as individuals have the fundamental right to express their opinions on various matters. Similarly, the media enjoys the freedom of the press to convey their viewpoints. Therefore, it is not ethical to dictate what one can or cannot express.
However, it is important to note that creating reviews or content with the intent to harm someone or inflict financial hardship violates the law. What constitutes a 'good' review has not been definitively determined by any court to date. As such, people must await the court's decisions to gain clarity on this matter.
Can the case involving review bombing lead to any significant changes?
Legally, implementing any changes will require time due to the unique nature of this case, which demands thorough examination. However, this case sets a precedent that could serve as a warning to the general public, indicating that targeting a movie or anything else for personal gain is a punishable offence.
Punishment
IPC Section 385: As per section 385 of the Indian Penal Code, individuals attempting to induce fear of harm for extortion can face penalties of up to two years of imprisonment, a fine, or both. This offence is bailable.
IPC Section 34: Section 34 is a rule of evidence and does not mention any separate offence. The punishment under section 34 will be combined with the crime committed by the convict.