Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 198

Summary: - The freedom of those operating television and radio broadcasting stations and equipment to present and transmit audiovisual materials of various kinds that reach the public or particular sections thereof. Its restrictions. This must not extend to anything affecting persons’ dignity, private lives, or religious beliefs. Contravention thereof. Its consequence. The person responsible must be held accountable as the perpetrator of the offense of abuse, defamation, or insult, as the case may be, and must be held liable to compensate for the damage suffered by others. Rule: The purport of Articles Eleven and Thirteen of Law No. 61 of 2007 concerning Audiovisual Media indicates that the freedom of those operating television and radio broadcasting stations and equipment to present and transmit audiovisual materials of various kinds that reach the public or particular sections thereof is restricted in that it must not extend to anything affecting persons’ dignity, private lives, or religious beliefs. Otherwise, the person responsible must be held accountable as the perpetrator of the offense of abuse, defamation, or insult, as the case may be, and must also be held liable to compensate for the damage suffered by others. It is established that determining the true nature of words of abuse, defamation, or insult rests upon the trial court’s satisfaction, based on its understanding of the facts of the case, without supervision by the Court of Cassation so long as it has not erred in applying the law. That being so, the challenged judgment, after considering the content of the dialogue in the program broadcast by the television channel managed by the second appellant in Appeal ..... of 2014, Civil, concluded that the remaining appellants in the two appeals—the program presenters—had gratuitously introduced the respondent’s name into the ongoing dialogue, and that all three took turns commenting sarcastically on the economic entities he owns and with which he and his family are associated. They attributed to him that he buys people working in journalism with his money, sarcastically invited him to provide them with work at the channel he owns for fantastical salaries, and stated that he would not object to this provided that they did not criticize personalities associated with him whom they identified by name. They also attributed to him the recording of the account of a female personality who had lived through the events of 1938, and that he had struggled desperately with another woman who had facts about the Al-Rumaila area, which had been a haven for corruption and brothels. The judgment concluded that what had been broadcast through the television channel in this manner had been approved by its manager and contained disparagement, belittlement, and insult to the respondent personally and affected his dignity beyond permissible criticism, thereby establishing the element of fault on the part of the appellants in both appeals and their liability to compensate him for the damage he suffered as a result. Since this was a reasonable inference by the judgment, with an established basis in the papers and sufficient to sustain its ruling, the objection to it on this ground amounts to no more than an argument concerning matters within the trial court’s independent assessment, which may not be raised before the Court of Cassation, and is therefore inadmissible.