Kochi: The Malayalam film fraternity’s attempts to rein in the online movie reviewers have reached the courtroom and the Kerala police on Thursday registered an FIR against a set of vloggers and social media giants Facebook and YouTube over a complaint filed by a filmmaker for posting negative review of his work.
The FIR was registered on a day when the state police chief submitted before the high court a protocol to deal with cases of motivated, malicious and negative movie reviews. The protocol was drafted in response to an interim order of the high court asking the police chief to come up with instructions and suggestions to ensure that the movie industry is not subjected to denigration on account of the illegal actions of a few people whose intent is extortion and blackmail.
The high court used the phrase ‘review bombing’ in the interim order on a petition filed Mubeen Rauf, the director of the film 'Aromalinte Adyathe Pranayam', who alleged that a set of vloggers unleashed a negative campaign against his movie even without watching it.
The police protocol has listed out the actions to be taken on such complaints without infringing on a person’s freedom of expression. It also contains suggestions for the police officers investigating such cases to differentiate between a genuine review and ‘review bombing’ with malicious intentions.
The protocol says that the police should ensure proper registration of FIR as per Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if a prima facie cognizable offence is established in case of a complaint alleging motivated and calculated movie reviews with a clear allegation of extortion, intimidation, threats and blackmail.
When it comes to complaints without clear allegation of cognizable offences, police should verify if the complaint pertains to a movie review that potentially violates laws related to defamation or obscenity.
“If the false statements made in reviews harm the reputation of individuals, they could potentially be charged with criminal defamation under Section 499 of the IPC. If such statements are proven to be knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth and they harm the individual's reputation, they could potentially be subjected to defamation claims. Expression of opinions, reviews, or critiques is generally protected as long as they are based on facts or reasonable interpretations of the work in question,” the protocol says.
What if a cop agrees with a negative review?
The police chief has flagged the possible agreement of an investigation officer with a reviewer’s opinion as a problem which will be faced by the police while dealing with a complaint of review bombing. Stating that no expert committee/movie jury can accurately predict the commercial and critical fate of a movie, the protocol advises cops to refrain from registering a criminal defamation case unless false statements are made about the creator or artist with the intent to harm their reputation.
“In cases, where review bombing or calculated reviews involve online harassment, cyberbullying or abusive behaviour they may violate various provisions of the IPC or 66E and 67 of the IT Act, 2000. Consult with legal experts, if required, to ensure that the investigation adheres to the principles of legality and due process,” the document states.
Advisory to IOs
The protocol has drawn up criteria which could be used during the preliminary probe to distinguish between malicious reviews and genuine expressions of opinion. The criteria are not comprehensive, the protocol says.
The criteria include a look into the reviewer’s details, history and consistency. The cops are advised to examine if a reviewer has a complete and “real-sounding” profile with contact information, including profile pictures and user names. It states that reviewers with a history of genuine, diverse and consistent reviews of various movies or products are more likely to be genuine. “Genuine reviewers typically express their opinion on a range of topics. In contrast, review bombers may post extreme or uniform reviews,” it suggests. “Review bombers may not have watched the movie at all and their reviews often lack evidence of a legitimate viewing,” it adds.
The state police chief also instructs his cops to examine the timing, language, tone and relevance to movie content while analysing a review to check its authenticity. It says a sudden influx of reviews in a short period, often coordinated, can be indicative of review bombing. The use of abusive or derogatory language or repetitive content in reviews can also be a sign of such malicious reviews. A genuine negative review, meanwhile, supports its criticism with evidence from the movie. It may cite scenes, dialogues, or specific elements to justify its points. Review bombers may include content unrelated to the movie such as political or social commentary as they have a different agenda, the protocol says.
