By: Ovindi Vishmika
April 15, Colombo (LNW): A seemingly innocent TikTok video by Sri Lankan content creator Kalathma Hitihamige has gone viral for all the wrong reasons, igniting a national conversation around defamation, digital accountability, and the responsibilities of influencers in the age of social media.
The video, which invited followers to share their “most controversial celebrity stories,” quickly exploded in popularity. What began as a fun interaction aligned with an international TikTok trend rapidly turned into a digital free-for-all, with users posting unverified allegations against some of Sri Lanka’s most recognisable public figures.
Within days, the video had surpassed two million views and attracted over 20,000 comments, many of which included tagged names and shocking claims ranging from infidelity to serious criminal accusations. The aftermath has sparked legal warnings, media analysis, and a broader examination of how online content can intersect with real-world consequences.
From Light-Hearted Trend to Legal Concerns
In her public statement released across social media platforms, Kalathma attempted to clarify her intentions. “When I originally posted the video, I wasn’t asking for gossip,” she explained. “The first few comments were lovely — someone even mentioned meeting me at a kottu shop. It was all harmless fun at first.”
But as the video gained traction, the tone of the comment section shifted dramatically. “People started dropping names and making allegations,” Kalathma said. “As the creator, I understand I have a responsibility to filter out harmful comments. And I did — at first. But when a video blows up and hits over 20,000 comments, it becomes impossible to moderate everything in real time.”
Her statement has done little to calm the debate. Some are calling her actions irresponsible, while others argue she merely provided a platform — and should not be blamed for how others used it.
The Law of Defamation Resurfaces
The fallout from Kalathma’s video has shone a renewed spotlight on Sri Lanka’s defamation laws, particularly in the context of social media ,a legal domain that is often dormant, yet powerful. While Sri Lanka famously repealed criminal defamation in 2002, civil defamation remains very much alive. Under the law, a person can be sued for damages if they communicate false information that harms someone’s reputation — whether through print, broadcast, or online media.
Legal experts point out that the comments on Kalathma’s video, while not authored by her, were published under her account — making her potentially liable. The law also accounts for defamation by innuendo, meaning even vague implications can be considered defamatory if they’re clearly understood by the public.
Legal professionals involved in the case say the plaintiffs are not suing Kalathma for her own words, but for “publishing” defamatory content — in this case, by providing the platform and failing to remove the damaging comments once alerted.
“It’s not just about what you say, it’s also about the space you create,” noted one Colombo-based media lawyer. “Platforms that enable defamatory content — even unintentionally — may face legal scrutiny.”
However, the concept of publication is key. Once defamatory content is made available to a third party, legal liability can follow. And this is where the situation gets murky. Is Kalathma, as the creator and publisher of the post, legally responsible for the comments made by others? Could she — or TikTok itself — be held liable?
Could Kalathma Be Sued?
According to legal experts, it is technically possible for someone to bring a defamation claim over comments made on social media, provided the necessary legal criteria are met. If someone’s reputation is harmed by comments published under a creator’s post, the creator may be held liable for failing to moderate or remove harmful content—especially if they were aware of its presence.
Despite this, Kalathma may have some legal defences. One is the innocent dissemination defence, which applies when someone publishes material without knowing it is defamatory. She may also claim that the comments represented fair comment or opinion, not statements of fact. These defences are often used in media cases but could extend to social media as well.
To file a defamation lawsuit in Sri Lanka, the plaintiff must first send a Letter of Demand, which gives the accused an opportunity to apologize or settle. If not resolved, the plaintiff can proceed with filing the case in a District Court, usually where the defendant resides or where the publication occurred.
Penalties for defamation are purely financial. Courts can award compensation ranging from Rs. 50 million and upwards, depending on the severity of the harm. In high-profile cases, amounts can go even higher.
Most importantly,Defamation does not require a direct accusation. Even hints, jokes, or memes that clearly point to a specific person can be considered defamatory under Sri Lankan law.
Digital Fame Meets Legal Reality
Kalathma’s case underscores the challenges faced by young creators navigating digital fame without the guidance or resources that traditional media professionals typically rely on. With audiences larger than some mainstream media outlets, TikTok creators are functioning as de facto broadcasters — often without understanding the legal implications of their content.
Critics argue that Kalathma should have deleted the video or disabled comments once the situation escalated. In her defense, she posed a difficult ethical question: “What if some of these allegations are true? What if there are real victims who need a digital trail, a space where their stories are seen?”
Nonetheless, she made it clear that she does not endorse, confirm, or deny any of the claims made in the comment section.
A Wake-Up Call for Online Responsibility
Whether or not legal action is taken, the incident has become a case study in the risks of virality. In an era where public reputations can be damaged in minutes by anonymous users, the responsibilities of digital creators are growing. Sri Lankan internet users are now grappling with the tension between free speech and reputational harm — especially when truth and accountability are uncertain.
Kalathma’s experience may well serve as a cautionary tale for content creators across the country. In her own words: “I know I’ve gone viral for the wrong reasons. But I hope to use this platform for something better moving forward.”
As the digital landscape evolves, so too must the laws, norms, and ethics that govern it — before the next viral post sparks a bigger storm.
