Without naming anyone, the actor also alleged that the person who has been making such remarks for a long time also has been following her to functions, and mentioning her name in various instances in front of the media without her consent.
Published Jan 06, 2025 | 10:37 AM ⚊ Updated Jan 06, 2025 | 10:37 AM
Honey Rose. (Instagram)
Malayalam actor Honey Rose on Sunday, 5 January, took to her social media account to issue a statement against the trolls and harassers who target her with double-meaning jokes.
Without naming anyone, the actor also alleged that the person who has been making such remarks for a long time also has been following her to functions, and mentioning her name in various instances in front of the media without her consent. She further claimed that the way the person mentions her in front of the media insults her modesty.
She further stated, “People close to me are asking whether I am enjoying or accepting the double-meaning expressions that have been made by a person for a long time. As if in revenge for my refusal to go to functions, the person in question deliberately tries to attend the functions I attend and mentions my name in the media wherever possible in a way that insults my modesty.”
View this post on Instagram
Honey Rose further questioned if having money power allows anyone to insult a woman, “I inquired whether a person could insult any woman out of arrogance for having money and whether the Indian legal system does not provide any protection against it.”
Speaking of legal action, Honey Rose noted, “I learnt that his actions prima facie constitute the crimes of speaking against women with sexually coloured remarks and following them with the same intention under the Indian laws.”
The Malayalam actor claimed that, while she chose to ignore such remarks previously, it didn’t mean she was incapable of taking action, “Personally, I tend to ignore such awful remarks from mentally disturbed people with contempt and sympathy, and it does not mean that I am incapable of responding to them.”
She added, “One person’s interpretation of personal freedom does not include the freedom to insult the personal freedom of another.”
