Sound or unsound it is one more opinion among many. In law, as in any other mental field it is also a matter of interpretation. If things were so clear cut then cases would not drag for decades.
The issue of the degree of intellectual freedom in a society where we must live harmoniously with others is a matter of debate in all circles and law has not yet found any sure answer to this. Like many other contemporary issues such as euthanasia, this kind of intellectual vandalism and mental disfigurement is a relatively new phenomenon for modern law that has so far been used to dealing with only raw and crude things. But with an increasing subtlisation of human consciousness, the collective mind of the race is being challenged by these test cases.
What has happened and has been happening so far is not necessarily an indication of what may happen in the future. Certain cases are precedences in themselves. This may well turn out to be one.
If physical and psychological hurt are cognisable offences, then why not this one. One may be deeply emotionally hurt by a certain misrepresentations of things and public figures with whom one is identified. This identification may be, often is much deeper than family bonds. Strange that only a family member can represent and not an aggrieved person! the very definition of family needs to change and enlarge itself.
Besides, this is not a case of defamation alone but a deliberate and malified misrepresentation of facts, a falsification of things and law needs to take cognisance of it. Perhaps it will if the time has come and if man is ready for the change. Or else we may have to go through another few decades of struggles and blows before we wake up. Let us hope that good sense prevails and as a test case law shows its deeper and psychic sensitivities and not just a blind rule and norm.
If the hour has come for a greater Truth and Light to manifest in every sphere, then well, everything is possible. 'It is the hour of the incalculable'... and that Mr N obviously does not understand.