Picture created by an American blogger on the issue of protecting First Amendment rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish religion (the "Establishment Clause") or prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.While the rest of you were busy sipping on tea/coffee, depending on your appraisal, a handful were down at MediaKorp last Wednesday to state their views on whether blogging should be controlled. A debate based entirely on where the line should be drawn. Keling Kween and I were down at MediaKorp representing the panelists on behalf of the KLKindred.
Now, what we were aware of was that 8 others would join in to wrangle this issue out. 5 in a team, we were expected to battle each other out on where the line should be drawn along with how much of a freedom we should take up in hand. But what we weren't aware of was that Barathi and Yuvaneswari [of previous Ms. Vasantham (in)fame] appeared as guest speakers to relate how blogs have affected them. This left us in uncertainty.
Were we there to talk about the freedom one should take in hand when blogging or were we there to defend ourselves as to why such comments were thrown at them during the Miss Vasantham beauty pageant proceedings? What was the agenda? In my opinion, their unexpected visit actually defied the objective of the proposed subject. Barathi had earlier questioned the host, unaware that we have connections everywhere watching every move, on who the guy was from KLK who wrote the post about the Vasantham girls [he was attempting a major paper in uni FYI]. Upon hearing it this minutes after they had posed the question, I knew very well this whole subject was heading a one way direction. Immediately, I expected an 'attack' and 'defend' session. [Oh well, we're all footy players anyway. Another day, another game]
The 'intended' debate was to tackle issues such as social responsibility, limits to freedom of speech and the use of vulgar language. Didn't look pretty much that way when the recording eventually got on its way. Much wasn't talked about social responsibilities nor limits to freedom of speech nor the use of vulgar language. Most of the show was spent arguing over the whole Miss Vasantham saga. A 30 minute episode had a one hour debate going on about why such comments were thrown at the girls.
We had to repeat time and again what we pen down in words are what we truly feel about a given subject. It's all about your perception. You can't take it cause you have a heart of butter and our words seem like a hot knife through it. We can't do anything about it. That's as far as you go. I believe that freedom of speech is the authorization handed to an individual to mention what one wishes to. Of course, we ain't just sitting behind the computer typing remarks. If there was any predicament arising from what we wrote, readers were given the rights to state their opinions in the comments. Else, get through to us VIA the links on this blog.
At the end of the day, after all was said and done, I don't think we owe anyone any explanation nor any apology for what we blog about. We feel like this, we blog this. If we have to restrict our point of view, then I think the word "freedom" has been mistaken. And a point I'd like everyone to take note. We in KLK don't just sit behind computers and type. We also come out and speak up when it's required. And like we have said on TV which will be aired pretty soon, we have the guts to state our opinion. At the same time, we also have the guts to face the repercussions. It's not like we blog under an anonymous identity or moniker and go underground.
On asked if blogging should be controlled, I agreed that it should to a certain extent. The vulgarities. Not the content that we're dealing with. But then again, if I am one who uses vulgarities even while speaking, then there is nothing wrong in me using vulgarities while blogging cos thats just me. What I blog is what I am. When there is no 'KNNBCCB!', there is no point in expressing a really agonizing or censure feeling. As for the content, I believe that everybody should be given the right to state their opinions. The definition of blog states that it's an online diary, I don't think anyone needs to worry about what they'll write about in their diary.
Now, what we were aware of was that 8 others would join in to wrangle this issue out. 5 in a team, we were expected to battle each other out on where the line should be drawn along with how much of a freedom we should take up in hand. But what we weren't aware of was that Barathi and Yuvaneswari [of previous Ms. Vasantham (in)fame] appeared as guest speakers to relate how blogs have affected them. This left us in uncertainty.
Were we there to talk about the freedom one should take in hand when blogging or were we there to defend ourselves as to why such comments were thrown at them during the Miss Vasantham beauty pageant proceedings? What was the agenda? In my opinion, their unexpected visit actually defied the objective of the proposed subject. Barathi had earlier questioned the host, unaware that we have connections everywhere watching every move, on who the guy was from KLK who wrote the post about the Vasantham girls [he was attempting a major paper in uni FYI]. Upon hearing it this minutes after they had posed the question, I knew very well this whole subject was heading a one way direction. Immediately, I expected an 'attack' and 'defend' session. [Oh well, we're all footy players anyway. Another day, another game]
The 'intended' debate was to tackle issues such as social responsibility, limits to freedom of speech and the use of vulgar language. Didn't look pretty much that way when the recording eventually got on its way. Much wasn't talked about social responsibilities nor limits to freedom of speech nor the use of vulgar language. Most of the show was spent arguing over the whole Miss Vasantham saga. A 30 minute episode had a one hour debate going on about why such comments were thrown at the girls.
We had to repeat time and again what we pen down in words are what we truly feel about a given subject. It's all about your perception. You can't take it cause you have a heart of butter and our words seem like a hot knife through it. We can't do anything about it. That's as far as you go. I believe that freedom of speech is the authorization handed to an individual to mention what one wishes to. Of course, we ain't just sitting behind the computer typing remarks. If there was any predicament arising from what we wrote, readers were given the rights to state their opinions in the comments. Else, get through to us VIA the links on this blog.
At the end of the day, after all was said and done, I don't think we owe anyone any explanation nor any apology for what we blog about. We feel like this, we blog this. If we have to restrict our point of view, then I think the word "freedom" has been mistaken. And a point I'd like everyone to take note. We in KLK don't just sit behind computers and type. We also come out and speak up when it's required. And like we have said on TV which will be aired pretty soon, we have the guts to state our opinion. At the same time, we also have the guts to face the repercussions. It's not like we blog under an anonymous identity or moniker and go underground.
On asked if blogging should be controlled, I agreed that it should to a certain extent. The vulgarities. Not the content that we're dealing with. But then again, if I am one who uses vulgarities even while speaking, then there is nothing wrong in me using vulgarities while blogging cos thats just me. What I blog is what I am. When there is no 'KNNBCCB!', there is no point in expressing a really agonizing or censure feeling. As for the content, I believe that everybody should be given the right to state their opinions. The definition of blog states that it's an online diary, I don't think anyone needs to worry about what they'll write about in their diary.
10 comments:
There is very clear demarcation between writing journals for your private viewing, and keeping an online one. A blog essentially becomes a publication - communicated to a third party. There is a clear private-public distinction, and this cannot be ignored.
In Singapore, freedom of speech and expression is a constitutionally protected right (Article 14 (1)(a)). However, the freedom of speech/ communication which our Constitution protects is not absolute. It allows for Parliament to restrict that right in the interest of the security of Singapore, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality etc (Article 14 (2)). Basically, we may proceed on an assumption of freedom of speech, then turn to the law to discover established exceptions to it - i.e the common law torts of libel and slander *Defamation Act (Singapore)*
Libel – written
Slander – spoken
Both collectively known as 'defamation'.
Nevertheless, even with such a right enshrined in our Constitution, gotta admit that we still have one of the most stringent laws in this area, and strictest (almost oppressive) media controls which follows as a result.
Defences to defamation which defendants can avail themselves to in a defamation suit in Singapore are perhaps not as extensive as they should be when compared to other common law jurisdictions. Just one example -. The ever-infamous Section 14 of the Defamation Act which severely restricts political expression by precluding the defence of qualified privilege. *coughjbjeyaretnamcough* You may proceed to read Point 6 of the Singapore Declaration of Commonwealth Principles, 1971 and see the glaring inconsistency.
But I digress. We are nowhere near political.
Coming back to defamatory words, I’m not sure how Singapore case law defines those, but given Singapore law is British-spawned, I’m guessing (though please correct me if I am wrong) they are:
(1) if it is likely "to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule" - Parmiter v Coupland (1840) 6 M&W 105; 151 ER 340
(2) "Would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?" - Sim v Stretch 2 All ER 1237, 1240 (HL)
(3) Would it lead people to shun and avoid the plaintiff? – Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures Ltd (1934) 50 TLR 581
Interesting to note is also the fact that we use a "objective reasonable persons test" but there is an absence of a jury system made up of laypersons to tell us what is reasonable.
To prove that you have been defamed, you have to essentially prove that the defamatory statement was in fact made by that person, referring to you (so, you must have been identifiable in that statement) and that it was defamatory in the eyes of an objective reasonable person such that it would injure his or her reputation. And of course, it would need to have been published to a third party (eg. via weblog such as klkillahs>.
Also, seditious remarks are certainly actionable (See: Sedition Act, Section 3) as you all already know. So, in this manner, our freedom of speech/ expression is restricted as well (arguably with good reason).
***Possible defences for klkillahs***:
Justification : ensure the veracity of your claims (and can prove it in court)
- In Oz, minor factual inaccuracies are allowed as long as they do not change the character of the claim. It just has to be true in substance.
- In SG, it’s somewhat similar. The addition being – where there have been some factual inaccuracies, these inaccuracies should "not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges." In plain words, if you state truths (provable facts) that hurt them, you’re safe. But if there were untruths amongst your claims that materially injured their reputation, they can sue your sorry ass.
Fair Comment> : These are to be made in public interest. Include opinions or views on books, art, music as well as the going-ons of public figures. So, an expression of opinion is fair comment if that particular opinion was related to facts that can be or have been proven true. This is important. Though, it’s hard to define exactly what is public interest. I am guessing that if you wish to prance around on stage to be judged by a panel of three on national TV, I think it’d be foolish to assume they’d be the only 3 who are judging you. If the girls choose to open themselves up for public viewing, then they should be open to public criticism as well. As for its limits.. you have your moral and legal ramifications.
And the rest just don’t apply to you guys :)
We can trumpet all day about the goodness freedom of speech/ expression brings – how it enhances our humanity, autonomy and democracy etc. But it sure as hell doesn’t stop the law from placing a muzzle over us.
Well as the people claiming "victim" are very select and few in number and all hail from the same programme, we have not tripped the limits.
"I think it’d be foolish to assume they’d be the only 3 who are judging you. If the girls choose to open themselves up for public viewing, then they should be open to public criticism as well".
shantini: are you a lawyer? i think we need you!
AH-NEH:
Actually, you should be especially wary of that. I’ll break it down for you. The person intending to sue you has to establish 3 elements:
(1) Publication – communicated to third party (someone other than the plaintiff)
(2) Defamatory meaning – too lengthy to discuss & far too tedious to apply.
(3) Identification
• The test: Would the ordinary recipient think that the plaintiff has been identified?
• Person need not be named explicitly
• Ordinary person includes someone who knows the plaintiff and would be able to identify him/her upon encountering the publication
• Can even be unintentional
“people claiming "victim" are very select and few in number and all hail from the same programme”
Here is a class of people, i.e girls from MV. A cause of action can only arise if the individual members of that class are identifiable as individuals.
"If a man wrote that all lawyers were thieves, no particular lawyer could sue him unless there was something to point to the particular individual" (old UK case)
BUT: In my opinion, the MV girls are too small a class, too limited. In any other situation, I’d say that was pretty risky coz of dot-point #3 above. Reference to a large class of people, by making a sweeping statement, for example, that “All Singaporeans are gluttons”, would not attract a defamation suit as such. However, coz it’s the MV girls in question and they are of public interest, in my opinion, you’ve got that as your defence (as stated in my previous comment).
It’s fine to express an opinion on a matter of public interest. Such matters invite comments. Eg. Reviews about art, performances, movies and sporting matches. It is in the public interest that this comments or reviews happen.
The MV girls sashayed all over the place before an audience, before national TV with the primary objective of being judged. Not just by a panel of three, but by the rest of the nation whom these girls relied upon to cast votes via sms. They WANTED to be judged by one and all. Much like your Singapore Idols who strived to impress and wanted to be judged as well. And judged they were, rather harshly might I add, to their faces, in the papers, on the internet, about how inferior or untalented they were. Similarly, the MV girls chose to place themselves under public scrutiny and so, scrutinize we did. It was an open invitation for the rest of us to comment, compliment and critique.
All I can say to them is, a little thick skin never hurt anyone.
Moving on. Some matters of pertinence, just for your future reference and because I am so bored:
• Bane & Antidote: Make an accusation, then remove the sting of the accusation by saying it was false, or perhaps providing an express disclaimer – WILL NOT NECESSARILY BE AN ANTIDOTE. So be wary.
• Rumours: publishing that a rumour exists can say there is a substantial meaning (depends on context). But sometimes baseless rumours can be reported without conveying a defamatory meaning. So, be wary again, coz the area is so grey here.
• Jokes & vulgar abuse: In context, they can convey serious defamatory meanings. Interestingly, if the words were spoken in jest or as mere vulgar abuse, they may not be found defamatory.
KELING KWEEN: Next hurdle’s obtaining my practicing certificate. To be a *qualified* lawyer who’s able to practice and dispense qualified advice, I not only need the LLB (my last sem) but that cert as well, so I hope you guys will just take what I’ve said as a guideline and not as gospel truth. That’s my disclaimer right there!
KLKlass la Shantini. KLKlass.
Phweeet weeet!
can i have a last min tuition with u? i am having a co. law exam test tmr... being an accountant ... words isnt an easy thing fer me...
well ritten praba.
and shantini: awesome stuff la. jaw drops to e ground !
everyone: thought I'd help since it was a contentious issue.
azzy: ur exam must be over now, sorry! hope it went well :)
shantini....
it sucked... but thanks anyways... better luck next time for me..
Post a Comment