The tweet cited by the article says that the charge investigated was “insult”. There may have been a multistep misunderstanding here, because they seem to have found information (elsewhere, not in the cited tweet), and in loose discussion the “insult” section is within what is broadly described as “defamation laws”, though it is not the specific offense of “intentional defamation” (Section 187) nor is it roughly within the scope of “defamation” as that term is usually used in English (as both “intentional defamation” and the separate offense of “malicious gossip” [Section 186] would be), but its the closest broad category of law with a common name in English.
Comments
The tweet cited by the article says that the charge investigated was “insult”. There may have been a multistep misunderstanding here, because they seem to have found information (elsewhere, not in the cited tweet), and in loose discussion the “insult” section is within what is broadly described as “defamation laws”, though it is not the specific offense of “intentional defamation” (Section 187) nor is it roughly within the scope of “defamation” as that term is usually used in English (as both “intentional defamation” and the separate offense of “malicious gossip” [Section 186] would be), but its the closest broad category of law with a common name in English.