Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 500

Summary: - Freedom of those operating television and radio broadcasting stations and equipment to present and transmit audiovisual materials of various kinds reaching the public or particular groups thereof. Its restrictions. This must not extend to infringing persons' dignity, private lives, or religious beliefs. Violation thereof. Its implication. The person responsible must be held accountable as the perpetrator of the offence of insult, defamation, or affront, as applicable, and must be held liable to compensate for harm suffered by others. Rule: The purport of Articles 11 and 13 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 reaching the public or particular groups thereof is restricted by the requirement that this not extend to infringing persons' dignity, private lives, or religious beliefs. Otherwise, the person responsible must be held accountable as the perpetrator of the offence of insult, defamation, or affront, as applicable, and must also be held liable to compensate for harm suffered by others. It is established that ascertaining the true nature of words of insult, defamation, or affront depends on what satisfies the trial court through its understanding of the facts of the case, without review 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 discussion 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—inserted the respondent's name into the ongoing discussion without any justification requiring it. The three of them took turns sarcastically commenting on the economic entities he owns and with which he and his family are associated. They attributed to him that he buys press workers with his money, and sarcastically invited him to provide them with work at the channel he owns in return for fantastic salaries. They stated that he would not object, provided that they did not criticize personalities they identified by name who were associated with him. They also attributed to him the recording of the account of a female figure who had lived through the events of 1938, and that he strove desperately with another woman who possessed facts about the Al-Rumaila area, which had been a haven for corruption and houses of prostitution. The judgment concluded that what was broadcast through the television channel in this manner was with its director's approval and involved disparagement, belittlement, and insult of the respondent personally, infringing his dignity beyond permissible criticism. This established the element of fault on the part of the appellants in the two appeals and their liability to compensate him for the harm he suffered as a result. Since this was a reasonable inference by the judgment, supported by the record and sufficient to sustain its ruling, the challenge against it on this ground amounts to no more than argument concerning matters within the trial court's exclusive assessment, which may not be raised before the Court of Cassation, and is therefore inadmissible.