The Kerala police, perhaps in a first-of-its-kind move, have filed a case against seven online film reviewers and social media platforms in connection with the review of a movie. The FIR has been registered following a complaint by film director Ubaini E, whose movie Rahel Makan Kora was released on October 13. The FIR charges the accused of targeting the movie the day it was released by posting negative reviews interspersed with abusive words on social media platforms with the aim of bringing disrepute to the movie and director. The police have invoked Indian Penal Code sections 385 (extortion) and 34 (acts by several persons with a common intent), and the Kerala Police Act section 120 (o) (causing nuisance and violation of public order).
The case assumes significance as the Kerala High Court recently issued a notice to the Union information ministry and the Central Board of Film Certification on a petition seeking clear guidelines for reviews on social media platforms. The petitioner was a director who had sought a directive to ensure that influencers and vloggers would refrain from publishing reviews of his movie for at least seven days from the release. The director had argued that when films fail at the box office due to unwarranted negative reviews, it directly impacts the livelihood of hundreds of people in the industry. Taking note of the matter’s seriousness, the high court observed: “There is a situation where you can do anything if you have a phone in your hand… The film industry should not be destroyed due to ‘review bombing’.”
This is a tricky turf where the lines between freedom of expression and reviews with vested interests get tangled up. Review bombing is a reality with umpteen examples of derogatory assessments squarely aimed at tarnishing the reputation of a movie and its team. At the same time, blaming a film’s failure solely on reviewers is questionable. One’s right to air honest opinions on social media platforms is equally important. There needs to be a protocol in place to clear up the mess, as the high court has pointed out. There is a marked difference between a professional review and a personal opinion dressed up as one. The protocol, which the state government has promised to come up with, must be able to make this distinction.