Dear Editor,

I read in the media that Minister Daryl Vaz’s lawyer issued a “cease and desist” letter to popular social media vlogger Andre Stephens over a commentary pertaining to transfer of property owned by Stocks and Securities Limited (SSL).

The letter requested a public apology and included a number of terms to avoid a lawsuit. I did not watch the full video of Stephens nor do I follow him online or take him seriously. He is not a trained journalist, though many gravitate to his style, which they might find humorous.

If anything, what he does best is to provoke thought by asking pertinent questions. His blog is often likened to a classroom where he professes to be the teacher, sometimes wearing a turban. Is this a crime? Of course not, but with social media comes a certain level of responsibility similar to other media. At the same time we must be very careful how we censure people for having an opinion and sharing it to stimulate thought.

When people enter politics, they become public figures, and with that they must expect what comes with the territory, from flattery to ridicule, and even embarrassment.

While I don’t know the full details surrounding the transfer of the property, is it out of line to ask: How could the property be transferred when SSL’s assets should have been frozen? Even if the property wasn’t owned by SSL at the time, the company was still under investigation. All transactions would be closely monitored, even if SSL shifted from being a property owner to tennant. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong in asking these questions since the fraud involves multiple clients and US$30 million.

Even so, I don’t recall hearing Minister Vaz’s name being mentioned directly in the commentary. Vaz is a long-serving politician, who acted professionally by immediately issuing a public statement about his non-involvement in the transfer of the asset. he also said he had no prior knowledge about it since it involved his in-laws. He should’ve moved on and allowed the truth to prevail. If Stephens used a family photo including Vaz to show relatives he alleged were shareholders in a company, I don’t understand how this was illegal if the photo was already out there in the public domain.

When I think of Stephens, who has many followers, including some respectable Jamaicans, I think of American right-wing vlogger Candace Owens, who is all over social media discussing conspiracy theories and views. Owens, like Stephens, can be dramatic; she rarely discusses issues but focuses on public figures and gossips about their private lives, and in the era of social media, many people gravitate towards this.

I don’t believe Owens has ever been sued, even if she has been banned from entering some countries due to controversial statements. I personally don’t give Owens the time of day, I don’t follow her, although snippets of her vlogs will pop up here and there on platforms. At the end of the day public figures cannot block vloggers and their followers or deny their popularity; it is pointless trying to silence them unless they caused serious harm to one’s character which can be identified as defamation. It probably is more entertainment than anything else.

I didn’t know “perceived defamation” was a legal concept, and I am also confused about what Stephens must apologise for if he shared personal views; his platform is not a news outlet.

These days everything can too easily become the subject of a lawsuit, including things politicians say impulsively and in jest during campaigns. Let us not waste valuable court time and legal resources in an effort to kill free speech and deny people the right to have open dialogue and form opinions in search of the truth, law, order, and justice.

P Chin

chin_p@yahoo.com