- This episode of Legal Eagle was made possible by Skillshare. Learn to think like a lawyer for free for two months by clicking
the link in the description. Ah PewDiePie, PewDiePie. Love him or hate him, there
is no denying he is one of the most influential people
in the online world today. The Swede, whose real
name is Felix (mutters) Felix Kjellberg, whose real name is Felix, has over 96 million subscribers at the time of this video. That is an astonishing number for a guy who got his start just making
funny videos for gamers. Like others who accidentally built an enormous online platform, PewDiePie has a way of
stumbling into controversy. His most recent controversy involves India's high court blocking
two of his YouTube videos that were allegedly defamatory,
racist, and offensive. What the heck is defamation in India and how is it different
in the United States? Well that's the topic of today's video. (dramatic music) Hey Legal Eagles, it's time
to think like a lawyer. PewDiePie has built an
incredibly large media company just by being a version of himself. The Swede is known for juvenile jokes, meme reviews, pop culture commentary, video gaming, and goofy music videos. (laughing) ♪ My name is PewDiePie ♪ - There's of course an enormous appetite for this kind of content, and it has paid off
handsomely for PewDiePie, whose net worth is over $20 million. PewDiePie the YouTuber
thrives on arguments and seems to get a kick
out of provoking people, and of course this is going to rub some people the wrong way. Over the last three years, a handful of loosely-affiliated
far-right groups have seized on some of
PewDiePie's comments. Some people think that PewDiePie
welcomes this association, but others think that his
comments are taken out of context and blown way out of proportion. A few of the controversies
swirling around PewDiePie include him once saying the N word while playing a video
game, making nine videos in six months that include
references to Nazis, including swastikas, Nazi
salutes, and photos of Hitler. He included a video clip of
a person dressed as Jesus saying "Hitler did
absolutely nothing wrong." Those videos caused Disney
to back out of a contract with PewDiePie to
produce original content, and he used a freelancing
website Fiverr to hire two Indian men to hold up a banner reading "Death to all Jews." Through it all, PewDiePie has maintained that these were just
juvenile jokes gone wrong, and has admitted to his
mistakes in the past. - I'm really sorry if I offended, hurt, or disappointed anyone with all of this. - Unfortunately, some
right-wing communities have adopted PewDiePie as a kind of mascot in their movement, posting about him in the neo-Nazi site the Daily Stormer, and making lots of memes
promoting his content. This kind of third party
attributions reached a fever pitch after the New Zealand mosque massacre wehen the shooter
actually encouraged people to quote, subscribe to PewDiePie, as was part of the
internet meme at the time. - I think it's time to end the subscribe to PewDiePie
movement or meme. - PewDiePie staunchly
maintains that he is not a supporter of any right-wing causes, but others have said that
PewDiePie has not done enough to distance himself from
these various groups. Generally, PewDiePie has reiterated that his overall stance is it's just a joke and it's all a parody,
which takes us to T-Series. The latest issue involving
PewDiePie's sense of humor involves the Indian
record company T-Series, which has a huge following
on YouTube in its own right. As of the time of this video, the Indian record label
T-Series has the biggest YouTube channel in the entire world, which recently PewDiePie's channel with over 97 million
subscribers and counting. It looks like T-Series is going to be the first channel to reach
100 million subscribers in the entire world. After T-Series surpassed
PewDiePie in followers, he responded with two
satirical diss tracks, one called Congratulations, and the other called
called (bleep) Lasagna. - T-Series, yeah! - We are definitely going
to have to bleep out (bleep) Lasagna, because (bleep) Lasagna is totally inappropriate. T-Series was not amused by the two videos. The company filed a
lawsuit in Indian court alleging that the videos were disparaging, defamatory, racist, and offensive. Back in October of 2018,
PewDiePie apologized for the tracks in his typical fashion, claiming that it was just a joke and removed the tracks for a while. When the tracks remained on the channel, T-Series filed for an injunction in the Indian legal system
to get the videos taken down. So what did PewDiePie
say to get into trouble? Well, the track Congratulations
is a tongue-in-cheek music video that purports
to congratulate T-Series on surpassing PewDiePie's
channel in number of subscribers, but here is what the song actually says. PewDiePie accuses them
of once being a purveyor of pirated songs and videos, he says that T-Series sent
him a defamation letter, he insinuates that they have
ties to the Indian mafia, he asserts that he has never defamed them and that his opinion isn't defamation, saying for legal reasons that's a joke. Popular YouTuber Boy in a
Band, who co-wrote the song, goes into great detail about
the songwriting process. - Hi, I'm Dave from Boy in a Band, and recently me and my friend
Roomie have made a song with PewDiePie.
(crowd murmuring) Whoa, whoa, whoa, calm down fellas. - It's definitely worth
a look on his channel, and as a purported example
of what isn't defamation, he says that Indians have
poo poo in the brains, still not defamation. PewDiePie actually nails the issue with that last lyric,
it's still not defamation. Or does he? What counts as defamation? Well first, let's talk about
defamation under US law. Defamation is the communication
of a false statement that harms a person or
organization's reputation. Like the United States,
India's legal system is based on English common law, but America, India, and
the UK approach defamation in completely different ways. The law of defamation is concerned
with stopping publication of statements that injure
a person's reputation. This law comes from the
common law of England, where Alfred the Great once announced that public slander was to be
compensated with no lighter penalty than the cutting off of
the slanderer's tongue. Although we aren't cutting
out anyone's tongue for defamation these days,
there are now civil penalties for defamation in the United States. Some legal commentators
have noted that all American freedoms begin
with freedom of speech, and over the years,
American law has developed a doctrine of defamation
that tries to balance harm to someone's reputation
with the anti-censorship tradition of the first amendment. So let's do a quick review of how to prove defamation in America. There are two kinds of
defamation historically, slander is defamation
by spoken word alone, whereas libel is defamation by
written word, video, or song. But in the modern context, there
isn't much differentiation, it's basically all defamation. A communication may be
considered defamatory if it, quote, tends to
so harm the reputation of another as to lower
him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating with him. To prove defamation, the
defendant must show three things. The defendant knowingly
or negligently made a false and defamatory
statement of verifiable fact concerning the plaintiff. The defendant made an
unprivileged publication to a third party, and the publisher acted at least negligently in
publishing the communication. The statement must be, of course, untrue and harmful to one's reputation. The defendant can defend him or herself by claiming that the
statements are literally true, but the burden proof is on the person who says the statements
are defamatory to show that the statements are actually false. American law has an even higher standard when the plaintiff is a public figure. When the statements
involve a public figure, it doesn't matter if
they happen to be false. In those cases, a plaintiff must also show that whoever made the statement did so with what's called actual malice. By choosing this standard,
American law has chosen to tip the balance in
favor of free speech. India, on the other hand, tips the balance in favor of protecting the
person or entity's reputation. Mind you, I am not an Indian lawyer, this is merely my understanding
based on my research as an outsider looking
in, so take my statements with a grain of salt. So let's talk about
defamation under Indian law. The Indian constitution
protects freedom of speech under Article 19 to that constitution, however defamation is an exception to the general protections of free speech. India makes a person's
reputation as a key aspect of the right to life,
which is also guaranteed under the Indian constitution. India's definition of
defamation is the, quote, publication of a statement which reflects on a person's reputation and
tends to lower him or her in the estimation of
right-thinking members of society generally or tends to make
them shun or avoid him or her. In India, defamation can be both a civil and criminal cause of action. India's actually one of the few countries that makes defamation a criminal offense. India's penal code criminalizes any speech that quote, promotes enmity
between different groups on grounds of religion,
race, place of birth, resident, and language. Indian penal code section
499 makes defamation a crime punishable by up to two years in prison. It defines defamation as
a statement concerning any person intending to harm
or knowing or having reason to believe that his statement will harm the person's reputation. The existence of criminal
penalties for defamatory speech contributes to an overall
environment that is on balance chilling to free speech. If you fear potential jail, after all, you're going to think twice
about what you publish. While there are several
exceptions to section 499, truth is not always one
of those exceptions, and the civil claim in India is similar. Truth is a defense only if the statement was made for the public good. If the statement was true but was intended to hurt someone's reputation, then under Indian law,
defamation still applies. Defamation in India
includes statements made against corporations, people,
and even the deceased as well. Defamation can include
things which are just jokes. The Indian law states that
an imputation in form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. So looking at PewDiePie's case, PewDiePie's defense that
his videos are just jokes would work pretty well in the US. Satire and parody are good
defenses to defamation. Satire can be a sharp political critique, and such commentary is well
within speech rights in the US. Parody makes light of a situation, and although it's not as
sharpy critical as satire, parody is also a valid defense
to charges of defamation. When it comes to parody, as
long as the false statement is so over-the-top and ridiculous that no one would take it seriously, then that defense is likely to succeed. And that's also what
happened in the infamous case of Jerry Falwell versus Hustler magazine. When Hustler magazine
published a parody account of Jerry Falwell's first sexual encounter, Falwell sued the magazine for defamation. Hustler and its owner
Larry Flynt prevailed because no reasonable
person would have considered the humorous and periodic
article to be a true account of Falwell's private life. So the up shot of all of this
is that the same YouTube video that could be considered
defamatory in India is almost certainly acceptable free
speech in the United States. Although the India High
Court ruled that YouTube had to block PewDiePie's videos in India, it's a fairly good bet that
PewDiePie is going to win this war, and more often than not, free speech rights are
probably going to prevail and you will still be able
to watch PewDiePie's parodies and satire for a long time to come. But you can also bet that
this probably won't be the last time there's
litigation between T-Series and PewDiePie, the top
two YouTube channels in the entire world. - Shift blame, whatever
you could do, okay. Never take responsibility. If you take responsibility,
then that's admitting that you're wrong, and doing that, that's just impossible. - If you want to learn to
to make your own possibly defamatory songs and get sued in India, you'll first need to learn how to mix and produce your own songs. To do that, I would recommend Young Guru's Skillshare course, Learn to How Mix Music with DJ Young Guru. He covers everything you
could possibly want to know about making your own music,
including organizing the mix, tweaking the levels, and adding effects. He can't keep you from getting sued in the High Court of India, but he can help to make sure
your diss track sounds awesome. Skillshare is an online learning community that has over 25,000
classes on everything, like lifestyle, design, and technology. The first 500 Legal Eagles
will get two free months of Skillshare when you
click on the link below. Plus, it really helps out this channel. The free premium membership gives you unlimited access to must-know topics so you can improve your
skills and learn new things. So click on the link below, get two free months of Skillshare, and start learning to
think like a lawyer today. It could even help you
become internet famous. Do you agree with my analysis? Do you think the US courts
have the right conception of defamation, or do you think that the more expansive Indian
version gets it right? Leave your objections down
below in the comments, and check out my other
real law reviews over here, where I will see you in court.
