The Use of Parody Videos in Defamation Claims
Abstract
In the digital era, the dissemination of information through social media occurs rapidly and is often beyond control. One phenomenon that raises concern is the spread of defamation in the form of parody videos. Although such content is often regarded as entertainment, it has the potential to cause serious implications for an individual’s reputation and social standing. This study is conducted to analyse the extent to which the use of parody videos containing defamatory elements may serve as a basis for defamation claims under the Malaysian legal framework. The study adopts a content analysis and doctrinal approach, with emphasis on the examination of legal documents, including the Defamation Act 1957, the Penal Code, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, as well as relevant court decisions. In addition, the study examines comparative defamation laws in several selected jurisdictions, namely Malaysia, Indonesia, and the United Kingdom. The findings of this study serve to clarify the scope of legal liability in relation to defamatory parody content, while also assessing the effectiveness of commonly invoked defences, such as justification and fair comment. Through this study, the researcher proposes improvements to the existing legal framework to ensure greater alignment with the needs and challenges posed by digital defamation in the context of social media.
Keywords: Defamatory videos, parody, social media, defamation claims, freedom of expression, tort of defamation
Full text: PDF
References
1. Ahmad Masum, & Md Rejab Md Desa. (2014). Media and the libel law: The Malaysian experience. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 155, 34–41.
2. Ahmad Shamsul Abd Aziz, Rusniah Ahmad, & Nazura Abdul Manap. (2014). Urusan yang wajar sebagai suatu dalihan dalam permasalahan hak cipta dan kebebasan bersuara. 1 Legal Network Series (A), 1–23.
3. Ainun Najib, Umar Umar, Abim Bhakti, Prika Fatikasari, & Aminah Kauthar Zawawi. (2024). Regulation on freedom of expression on social media in Indonesia and Malaysia. Journal of Indonesian Constitutional Law, 1(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.71239/jicl.v1i1.20
4. Akdeniz, Y., Walker, C., & Wall, D. (2000). The Internet, law and society. Longman.
5. Azian Muhamad Adzmi, & Norliza Saiful Bahry. (2020). Social media participation: Empirical study among adults in Klang Valley (Malaysia). Dlm. Dr. Christos Karpasitis & Christiana Varda (Pyntg.), Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Social Media, ECSM 2020 (hlm. 1–10). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited Reading (ACPIL), UK. https://doi.org/10.34190/ESM.20.014
6. Barendt, E. (2009). Freedom of expression in the United Kingdom under the Human Rights Act 1998. Indiana Law Journal, 84(3), 851–866.
7. Barendt, E. (2007). Freedom of speech (ed. ke-2). Oxford University Press.
8. Batza, C. (2016). Trending now: The role of defamation law in remedying harm from social media backlash. Pepperdine Law Review, 44, 429.
9. Reputasi Ellie musnah, dituduh penagih dadah. (2025, 20 Februari). Berita Harian. https://www.bharian.com.my/hiburan/selebriti/2025/02/1363778/
10. Bhat, P. I. (2015). Comparative method of legal research: Nature, process, and potentiality. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 57(2), 147–173. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44782499
11. Borger, J. P, Brackman, R., Ellinghoe, D. A., Howard, A. P., Jorstad, E. E., Scoville, A. L., Stapleton, L. L, & Stembridge, P. R. (2004). Recent developments in media, privacy, and defamation law. Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal, 39(2), 557–596.
12. Bunt lwn. Tilley & Others [2006] EWHC 407.
13. Dato’ Dr Low Bin Tick lwn. Datuk Chong Tho Chin [2017] 5 MLJ 413.
14. David Syme lwn. Canavan [1918] 25 CLR 234.
15. Eka Nugraha Putra. (2022). Criminal defamation and freedom of speech in the Internet age: A study for Indonesian democratic values [Maurer Theses and Dissertations, Indiana University of Bloomington]. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/etd/113/
16. EI Hana, N., & Sabri, O. (2021). Expressing one’s opinions freely on politicians using parodies: Effect of the sources of political parodies (user‐ vs. media‐generated parodies). Psychology & Marketing, 38(10), 1670–1685. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21484
17. Elton John lwn. Guardian News & Media Ltd [2008] EWHC 3066.
18. Feldman, D. (2002). Civil liberties and human rights in England and Wales (ed. ke-2). Oxford University Press.
19. Henry Wong Jan Fook lwn. John Lee & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 231.
20. Houlton & Co lwn. Jones [1910] AC 20.
21. Hutcheon, L. (2000). A theory of parody: The teachings of twentieth-century art forms. University of Illinois Press.
22. Kenyon, A. (1996). Defamation, artistic criticism and fair comment. Sydney Law Review, 18, 193–215.
23. Imaduddin Suhaimi. (2021). Media arbitration schemes: Addressing the backlog of defamation cases in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 16(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2021.11
24. Khairul Anuar Abdul Hadi, Ikmal Hisham Md Tah, & Ahmad Zainuddin Hassan. (2021). Kebebasan akademik di dalam roh perlembagaan persekutuan. GADING (Online) Journal for Social Sciences, Special Issue KONAKA (Bahasa Melayu), 24(3), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.24191/gading.v24i02.280
25. Khairun-Nisaa Asari, & Nazli Ismail Nawang. (2015). A comparative legal analysis of online defamation in Malaysia, Singapore and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Cyber-Security and Digital Forensics, 4(1), 314–326.
26. King, J. H. (2008). Defamation claims based on parody and other fanciful communications not intended to be understood as fact. Utah Law Review, 3(4), 875–946.
27. Levinson, L. (2017). Adapting fair use to reflect social media norms: A Joint proposal. UCLA Law Review, 64, 1040–1078.
28. Lux, E. (2021). Twitter, parody, and the first amendment: A contextual approach to twitter parody defamation. Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 41(1), 1–38.
29. Luypaers, M. (2024). If parody does not prickle it does not work: Reflections on the interpretive challenges of dark parody in the Dutch and South African Courts, Open Library of Humanities, 10(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.16995/olh.16695
30. Macmillan, F. (2020). Speaking truth to power: Copyright and the control of speech. Dlm. O. Pollichino, G. M Riccio & Basini, M. (Pnyt.), Copyright and fundamental rights in the digital age (hlm. 6–27). Elgar Online. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788113885
31. McAlpine lwn. Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342.
32. Menghini, J. (2024). The digital evolution of parody: The purpose of online parody in copyright law and freedom of expression [Disertasi, Università di Bologna]. https://doi.org/10.48676/unibo/amsdottorato/11180.
33. Mohamed Apandi Ali lwn. Lim Kit Siang [2022] 5 MLRH 611.
34. Mohamed Azwan Haji Ali lwn. Sistem Televisyen (M) Bhd & Ors [2000] 7 CLJ 498.
35. Naslund, J. A., Bondre, A., Torous, J., & Aschbrenner, K. A. (2020). Social media and mental health: Benefits, risks, and opportunities for research and practice. J Technol Behav Sci, 5(3), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-020-00134-x
36. Nazli Ismail @ Nawang. (2012). Bloggers as amateur journalists and their position under the regulatory system of the press in the UK. Jurnal Undang-undang dan Masyarakat (JUUM), 16, 79–82.
37. Ozsungur, F. (2024). Doctrinal research method in law. SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5259219
38. Perian, S. (2025). The law of defamation in Malaysia: Essential elements, defences, and remedies. Current Law Journal, (A)I, 1–13.
39. Prayitno, K. P., & Bawono, I. R. (2023). Cyber defamation through the media: Comparative study of Indonesia, South Korea and Malaysia. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 17(2), 147–165.
40. Reputasi Ellie musnah, dituduh penagih dadah. (2025, 20 Februari). Berita Harian. https://www.bharian.com.my/hiburan/selebriti/2025/02/1363778/
41. Roodra, H. (2023). The impact of social media on defamation laws: A study on the implications of social media platforms on defamation laws and the need for reform. Indian Journal of Law & Legal Research, 5(2), 1.
42. S Pakianathan lwn. Jenni Ibrahim [1988] 2 MLJ 173.
43. Salleh Buang. (2020). Defamation law: A primer. Sweet & Maxwell.
44. Sarmiento, G. M. (2020). Parody: thoughts and proposals for its interpretation in Colombia. Revista la Propiedad Inmaterial, 29, 215–240.
45. Scardino, D. (2002). Liberty and Defamation. Communications Lawyer, 20(3), 3–5.
46. Sinha, N., & Jagawanshi, P. (2020). The stance of parody under copyright law. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 3(2), 50–63.
47. Tahir Hamzah. (2025, 21 Julai). SHOWBIZ: Ellie Suriaty rejects Imran Bard’s apology video. The New Straits Times. www.nstp.com.my
48. Tamiz lwn. Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68.
49. Todd, J. (2016). Satire in defamation law: Toward a critical understanding.
50. Review of Litigation, 35, 45–69.
51. Ujhelyi, D. (2022). Political parody in Hungarian copyright law. Medias Res - A Journal on Press Freedom and the Rules of the Public Sphere, 1, 49–65. https://doi.org/10.59851/imr.11.1.4
52. Warren lwn. Green [1958] DLR 255.
53. Weir, T. (2006). Tort Law (ed. ke-2). Oxford University Press.
54. Willows lwn. Williams [1951] 2 WWR (NS) 657.
55. Wong Yoke Kong & Ors lwn. Azmi M Anshar & Ors [2003] 6 CLJ 55.
2. Ahmad Shamsul Abd Aziz, Rusniah Ahmad, & Nazura Abdul Manap. (2014). Urusan yang wajar sebagai suatu dalihan dalam permasalahan hak cipta dan kebebasan bersuara. 1 Legal Network Series (A), 1–23.
3. Ainun Najib, Umar Umar, Abim Bhakti, Prika Fatikasari, & Aminah Kauthar Zawawi. (2024). Regulation on freedom of expression on social media in Indonesia and Malaysia. Journal of Indonesian Constitutional Law, 1(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.71239/jicl.v1i1.20
4. Akdeniz, Y., Walker, C., & Wall, D. (2000). The Internet, law and society. Longman.
5. Azian Muhamad Adzmi, & Norliza Saiful Bahry. (2020). Social media participation: Empirical study among adults in Klang Valley (Malaysia). Dlm. Dr. Christos Karpasitis & Christiana Varda (Pyntg.), Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Social Media, ECSM 2020 (hlm. 1–10). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited Reading (ACPIL), UK. https://doi.org/10.34190/ESM.20.014
6. Barendt, E. (2009). Freedom of expression in the United Kingdom under the Human Rights Act 1998. Indiana Law Journal, 84(3), 851–866.
7. Barendt, E. (2007). Freedom of speech (ed. ke-2). Oxford University Press.
8. Batza, C. (2016). Trending now: The role of defamation law in remedying harm from social media backlash. Pepperdine Law Review, 44, 429.
9. Reputasi Ellie musnah, dituduh penagih dadah. (2025, 20 Februari). Berita Harian. https://www.bharian.com.my/hiburan/selebriti/2025/02/1363778/
10. Bhat, P. I. (2015). Comparative method of legal research: Nature, process, and potentiality. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 57(2), 147–173. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44782499
11. Borger, J. P, Brackman, R., Ellinghoe, D. A., Howard, A. P., Jorstad, E. E., Scoville, A. L., Stapleton, L. L, & Stembridge, P. R. (2004). Recent developments in media, privacy, and defamation law. Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal, 39(2), 557–596.
12. Bunt lwn. Tilley & Others [2006] EWHC 407.
13. Dato’ Dr Low Bin Tick lwn. Datuk Chong Tho Chin [2017] 5 MLJ 413.
14. David Syme lwn. Canavan [1918] 25 CLR 234.
15. Eka Nugraha Putra. (2022). Criminal defamation and freedom of speech in the Internet age: A study for Indonesian democratic values [Maurer Theses and Dissertations, Indiana University of Bloomington]. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/etd/113/
16. EI Hana, N., & Sabri, O. (2021). Expressing one’s opinions freely on politicians using parodies: Effect of the sources of political parodies (user‐ vs. media‐generated parodies). Psychology & Marketing, 38(10), 1670–1685. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21484
17. Elton John lwn. Guardian News & Media Ltd [2008] EWHC 3066.
18. Feldman, D. (2002). Civil liberties and human rights in England and Wales (ed. ke-2). Oxford University Press.
19. Henry Wong Jan Fook lwn. John Lee & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 231.
20. Houlton & Co lwn. Jones [1910] AC 20.
21. Hutcheon, L. (2000). A theory of parody: The teachings of twentieth-century art forms. University of Illinois Press.
22. Kenyon, A. (1996). Defamation, artistic criticism and fair comment. Sydney Law Review, 18, 193–215.
23. Imaduddin Suhaimi. (2021). Media arbitration schemes: Addressing the backlog of defamation cases in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 16(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2021.11
24. Khairul Anuar Abdul Hadi, Ikmal Hisham Md Tah, & Ahmad Zainuddin Hassan. (2021). Kebebasan akademik di dalam roh perlembagaan persekutuan. GADING (Online) Journal for Social Sciences, Special Issue KONAKA (Bahasa Melayu), 24(3), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.24191/gading.v24i02.280
25. Khairun-Nisaa Asari, & Nazli Ismail Nawang. (2015). A comparative legal analysis of online defamation in Malaysia, Singapore and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Cyber-Security and Digital Forensics, 4(1), 314–326.
26. King, J. H. (2008). Defamation claims based on parody and other fanciful communications not intended to be understood as fact. Utah Law Review, 3(4), 875–946.
27. Levinson, L. (2017). Adapting fair use to reflect social media norms: A Joint proposal. UCLA Law Review, 64, 1040–1078.
28. Lux, E. (2021). Twitter, parody, and the first amendment: A contextual approach to twitter parody defamation. Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 41(1), 1–38.
29. Luypaers, M. (2024). If parody does not prickle it does not work: Reflections on the interpretive challenges of dark parody in the Dutch and South African Courts, Open Library of Humanities, 10(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.16995/olh.16695
30. Macmillan, F. (2020). Speaking truth to power: Copyright and the control of speech. Dlm. O. Pollichino, G. M Riccio & Basini, M. (Pnyt.), Copyright and fundamental rights in the digital age (hlm. 6–27). Elgar Online. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788113885
31. McAlpine lwn. Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342.
32. Menghini, J. (2024). The digital evolution of parody: The purpose of online parody in copyright law and freedom of expression [Disertasi, Università di Bologna]. https://doi.org/10.48676/unibo/amsdottorato/11180.
33. Mohamed Apandi Ali lwn. Lim Kit Siang [2022] 5 MLRH 611.
34. Mohamed Azwan Haji Ali lwn. Sistem Televisyen (M) Bhd & Ors [2000] 7 CLJ 498.
35. Naslund, J. A., Bondre, A., Torous, J., & Aschbrenner, K. A. (2020). Social media and mental health: Benefits, risks, and opportunities for research and practice. J Technol Behav Sci, 5(3), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-020-00134-x
36. Nazli Ismail @ Nawang. (2012). Bloggers as amateur journalists and their position under the regulatory system of the press in the UK. Jurnal Undang-undang dan Masyarakat (JUUM), 16, 79–82.
37. Ozsungur, F. (2024). Doctrinal research method in law. SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5259219
38. Perian, S. (2025). The law of defamation in Malaysia: Essential elements, defences, and remedies. Current Law Journal, (A)I, 1–13.
39. Prayitno, K. P., & Bawono, I. R. (2023). Cyber defamation through the media: Comparative study of Indonesia, South Korea and Malaysia. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 17(2), 147–165.
40. Reputasi Ellie musnah, dituduh penagih dadah. (2025, 20 Februari). Berita Harian. https://www.bharian.com.my/hiburan/selebriti/2025/02/1363778/
41. Roodra, H. (2023). The impact of social media on defamation laws: A study on the implications of social media platforms on defamation laws and the need for reform. Indian Journal of Law & Legal Research, 5(2), 1.
42. S Pakianathan lwn. Jenni Ibrahim [1988] 2 MLJ 173.
43. Salleh Buang. (2020). Defamation law: A primer. Sweet & Maxwell.
44. Sarmiento, G. M. (2020). Parody: thoughts and proposals for its interpretation in Colombia. Revista la Propiedad Inmaterial, 29, 215–240.
45. Scardino, D. (2002). Liberty and Defamation. Communications Lawyer, 20(3), 3–5.
46. Sinha, N., & Jagawanshi, P. (2020). The stance of parody under copyright law. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 3(2), 50–63.
47. Tahir Hamzah. (2025, 21 Julai). SHOWBIZ: Ellie Suriaty rejects Imran Bard’s apology video. The New Straits Times. www.nstp.com.my
48. Tamiz lwn. Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68.
49. Todd, J. (2016). Satire in defamation law: Toward a critical understanding.
50. Review of Litigation, 35, 45–69.
51. Ujhelyi, D. (2022). Political parody in Hungarian copyright law. Medias Res - A Journal on Press Freedom and the Rules of the Public Sphere, 1, 49–65. https://doi.org/10.59851/imr.11.1.4
52. Warren lwn. Green [1958] DLR 255.
53. Weir, T. (2006). Tort Law (ed. ke-2). Oxford University Press.
54. Willows lwn. Williams [1951] 2 WWR (NS) 657.
55. Wong Yoke Kong & Ors lwn. Azmi M Anshar & Ors [2003] 6 CLJ 55.
Published
2026-01-30
How to Cite
MOHD FAUZI, Nik Amalin A'yuni; HASSAN, Kamal Halili.
The Use of Parody Videos in Defamation Claims.
Kanun: Jurnal Undang-undang Malaysia, [S.l.], v. 38, n. 1, p. 1-28, jan. 2026.
ISSN 2682-8057.
Available at: <http://jurnal.dbp.my/index.php/Kanun/article/view/9224>. Date accessed: 30 jan. 2026.
Section
Articles
