‘Exposés’ of those who sit out boycott violate privacy laws, say lawyers

Fast food outlets such as McDonald’s have been subject to a boycott since late last year over the Israel-Hamas conflict.

PETALING JAYA: Publishing social media posts to shame those who do not participate in boycotting brands purportedly linked to Israel is a violation of privacy laws, lawyers say after the circulation of pictures showing fast food chains like McDonald’s and KFC bustling with customers during Aidilfitri.

Netizens had labelled customers at these outlets as “dogs”, but lawyer Bastian Pius Vendargon said such social media posts infringe on privacy laws.

He also said that those affected may pursue civil action since it is a “recognised right” in Malaysia.

Those who were exposed in these posts may also file a defamation suit against the authors, he said.

“If the post suggests that the people in the picture or video have engaged in odious behaviour or something that tarnishes their reputation in the eyes of the general public, then it could constitute defamation.”

He also said these posts may have violated the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588), giving the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) the right to initiate criminal proceedings.

“If these kinds of posts can incite violence or a breach of peace, then it falls within Act 588. That is an abuse of the media,” he said.

Section 233 of Act 588, for instance, criminalises online content that is “obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person”.

“In Kuantan, there has already been physical violence or the threat of physical violence. That has gone way beyond the bounds of propriety,” Vendargon added.

In Kuantan, Pahang, a man recently claimed that a group of men had insulted him when he went to a McDonald’s outlet with his family, with one of the men allegedly threatening to hit him with a helmet.

Five people have been arrested over the incident. They are being investigated for criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Penal Code, which carries jail time of up to two years, a fine, or both upon conviction.

Lawyer Baljit Singh Sidhu said that photographing customers at such outlets without their consent is illegal and violates their privacy.

He said another concern with these videos is that the faces of minors can be seen in some of the posts, which could be a violation of the Child Act 2001. The Child Act 2001 spells out the restrictions on media reporting and publication regarding vulnerable children.

“Identities of children cannot be disclosed, this is a violation. Action can be taken by the welfare minister,” he said, referring to women, family and community development minister Nancy Shukri.

“(These posts) are something the authorities must look into. They must not be left unchecked.”