The Bhutanese Leading the way.
Case to set a legal precedent on anonymity and online culpability
As the Royal Bhutan Police (RBP) investigates the suicide case of the 20-year-old Tiktoker, more details are coming forth.
It now emerges that the two women who attacked the 20-year-old victim in a party hall bathroom on the night of her suicide were not involved in the viral Tiktok LIVE fight with her as initially perceived.
RBP said that the two women and the victim were known to each other, but no clear motive for the attack has come forth yet.
It all started when the women were using the party hall bathroom at the same time, and one of the two women used a slur language on the victim attacking her character. The victim asked why they were calling her that word, and this is when the fight allegedly started.
One of the two women allegedly held her while the other attacked her physically. It was also found that one of the attackers is an unemployed woman.
As the attack happened, a group of women gathered around to watch. This is why the police assumed initially that it was a gang attack on her, but more interrogations and questioning has revealed that while the two women attacked the victim, others were watching the brawl.
RBP said that the victim also fought back even though she was outnumbered, and in the process, received some bruises but there were no life-threatening injuries from the fight. All three were under the influence of alcohol.
The two women are likely to be charged with battery and harassment.
Many people had assumed that one of the attackers may have been the woman in the LIVE Tiktok video with whom the victim had a verbal fight, but RBP clarified that the particular girl is not even in Thimphu, and is facing a different legal case of her own in Phuentsholing not related to the above case.
The victim’s mother had said that her daughter had voice messaged her ex- boyfriend on Messenger that if he doesn’t come to see her, it may be his last time to hear from her.
RBP explained that they are not charging the ex-boyfriend because he did his duty.
After the attack on her, the deceased TikToker said she was going to Taba to kill herself and the ex-boyfriend immediately informed the family, and this is how they could go to Taba and get in touch with her.
The police said that since the ex-boyfriend informed and also tried to help, he is not being charged.
Meanwhile, more information has come about on the complicity of the 37-year-old businessman who had created a fake account where he downloaded the LIVE video and then shared it after which it went viral.
The police had targeted his account as he was the source from which the video went viral, and moreover, the victim had taken a snapshot of his account and the video and expressed concern to her friends and to report the video.
The ex-boyfriend told the police he had even messaged the fake account to take down the video, but the fake account did not do so.
The police, explaining the impact of the video going viral, said that the victim had even stayed up at nights trying to report the videos as it got shared more and more.
The police explained that the businessman is not being charged with complicity or abetment to suicide as one cannot link the viral video directly to her suicide.
The fake account holder has instead been charged with online harassment, publishing and transmitting obscene communication, and engaging in lewd and lascivious conduct in connection with the case, which are all petty misdemeanor cases for which there is no prison time if Thrim Thue is paid.
The fake account holder is currently in detention, as the case investigation proceeds, and so far, he has refused to accept he is the one behind the account, though the TikTok headquarters in Singapore had shared his phone number with the RBP.
The legal precedent and implications
As unethical and wrong as the action of the businessman is, his arrest and the charges levied on him is going to set a legal precedent, and so it has opened up a public debate.
While there are many who welcomed his arrest and the charges on him, there are also many who question his legal prosecution.
The argument made by the latter group is that he simply downloaded a public argument on a public platform and shared it without any changes. People argue that if he is prosecuted, then in the future, many more can be held liable for simply sharing public content.
There are also questions on if this impinges on the Constitutional Right to Freedom of Speech, and how this case could set a precedent to go after off colour, but not hateful language in various online forums.
RBP here said that in this case, the video downloaded and shared by the fake account had consequences as everybody has family, and the video going viral would have caused shame. RBP said the fake account did not take down the video even when requested. The police also said that, as per the law, itself, the video is incorrect. The victim had tried many times to report the video and was concerned about it.
RBP said the fight between the two women, even while on LIVE, was meant to be on LIVE and not meant to be recorded and shared.
This paper also talked to two lawyers and a former judicial figure on the issue.
The first lawyer said that the viral video had been shared months ago, and the victim died by suicide after being attacked and after messaging her ex-boyfriend, and so the businessman cannot be held accountable for the suicide. The lawyer said what is more relevant is what happened on the night that drove the woman to die by suicide.
The lawyer also pointed out the LIVE has 2,000 to 3,000 views and several likes and comments, and so who should be held accountable?
The lawyer said that fight happened on a public platform and that should be given weightage too.
The second lawyer, the paper talked to, had a different point of view. He said that it is high time something is done about the misuse of social media and misconduct using social media.
The second lawyer said, if it was up to him, he would even charge the businessman with abetment to suicide.
He said, “The girl is not a public figure and does not hold a public office. If the businessman was doing something for the good of the person, then that would have come out but it was not so.”
He said that while the video was live on TikTok it would have finished there, but the fake account is the one who downloaded and shared it to the rest, and thus made it available to the public. He said the fake account, itself, shows a malicious intent to share the video.
The lawyer said, “If he was so concerned then he should have reported the matter to the law enforcement.”
He said that the issue of Freedom of Speech does not apply here, as such a freedom is not unlimited as the freedom to swing one’s arm ends where the nose of another person begins.
He said free speech protection also does not apply here, as unlike a journalist, the aim is not to improve society or carry out a social responsibility.
He added, “The person should have put himself in the shoes of the victim and would he have liked something degrading about himself being uploaded online.”
The lawyer said that no public interest was served in uploading the video.
He explained that in Bhutan, only ICT providers are not liable for transmitting third party content and the rest are all accountable.
He also pointed out that the 37-year-old is a businessman, and hence a responsible person who should know better.
A former judicial figure said that while freedom of speech is there, it also has certain boundaries within the bounds of reason.
The judicial figure asked why did the person do this from a fake account, in the first place, and what was his intention.
He said if people saw the fight live on TikTok and left it there then it is fine, but then this person downloaded the video using an anonymous account, and disseminated it to society. He said the important thing is the intention behind the act.
The former judicial figure said the issue is also part of the larger issue of Brain Rot in Bhutanese social media and society, a term that has now entered the Oxford Dictionary.
Ultimately, what the case comes down to is intent of the businessman in sharing the video, and if it was malicious and reckless, the legal jurisdiction and applicable laws, and also causation, as in whether there is a proven link between the video and the person’s suicide.
Ultimately, the TikTok case will set a precedent in many ways, as this is the first time that an anonymous account from Tiktok has been tracked with cooperation from TikTok, and it will be interesting and consequential to see how this cases interprets cyber bullying, limits on speech online, what is lewd online, what is online harassment and more.
