Bloggers' Spectrum As Diverse as Journalists'

I had monitored some landmark developments in Blogsworld with fascination, and this so-called infant Fifth Estate - is it self-acclaimed? -- in my eyes is no different really from its earlier brother, the Fourth Estate. In fact, some jounalists are members of both Estates; I believe I am one such. I also must from the outset declare that this Post is based on my about-two yaers as a Blogger, but some two decades-plus as a Journalist.

When JeffOoi's and Rocky'sBru suits for defamation filed by The NSTP and related parties became public knowledge, I surfed as widely as practical for the range of views as expected on an issue that is from "uncharted waters", as described by one of the two protagonists involved, quite similar to the territories I had travelled.

Today after much rumination, I declare that I agree mostly with the writings and thoughts well put forth by three of my regular discourse mates, namely johnleemk, 2020freelunch and xpyred whom I often tease "minus da d".

Herewith, without his permit which I unabashedly assume is granted -- because we are agreed we exchange mentor-mentee roles since we "befriended" each other over several G7 meetings -- I reprise in FULL this Y&A seventeen-year-old's insightful article. Just one dimwitnitpicking -- Please spell the 'internet' thus "Internet", willya, mentor mind!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Uploaded after 12.44pm Jan 22, 2007
TIMEline stated here for a certain purpose which is privi to Myself!
Intimated to JohnLeeMK~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Taking A Stand Against Defamation and For Freedom of Speech
Home >> Articles >> Malaysian Socio-Politics >> Taking A Stand Against Defamation and For Freedom of Speech

The New Straits Times Press has sued Jeff Ooi and Ahirudin bin Atan (Rocky) for defamation. Although I believe Jeff and Rocky should fight this case, and will stand with them, I will not be supporting the Bloggers United movement - because I believe in the importance of defamation laws.

Written by johnleemk on 11:07:24 am Jan 21, 2007.


Taking A Stand Against Defamation and For Freedom of Speech

The recent spate of lawsuits by the New Straits Times Press against two bloggers - namely Jeff Ooi and Rocky - have caused much consternation in the blogosphere. After all, these are the first lawsuits of their kind in Malaysia. The general response has, justifiably, been that these lawsuits will only stifle criticism and dissent. While agreeing with this sentiment, I feel that a broader and more objective view should be taken - one based more on reasoning than on a kneejerk reaction.

I will not be placing that ubiqitious "Bloggers United" tag on this site. This is not because I fear government reprisal, or because I am going to back down from taking a definite stand on Malaysian politics and governance. It is not even because I oppose free speech - if anything, I am in strong agreement with the stand taken by Bloggers United for greater freedom of speech, particularly on the internet. The main reason I will be avoiding joining this campaign is simply because:

*Like the recent opposition decision to boycott the Batu Talam by-election, this campaign will be completely ineffective and useless - we all know from past experience how the government will ignore any attempts to point out its errors.

**I believe that the possibility should remain open for people to take legal action against defamatory statements made on the internet - something that Bloggers United has been rather ambiguous about (at first glance, they seem to actually want this possibility to be cut off).


Cyberspace allows us a lot of freedom. It permits us to say whatever we like about anything. But as Jeff Ooi loves to say, we must remember that the internet does not operate in a legal vacuum. Even if we want to ignore the draconian laws concerning sedition, etc. (we would be particularly justified in doing so, since the government has publicly promised it will not censor the internet), we cannot ignore the laws concerning things like defamation. Every civilised country permits an individual or organisation to sue if its reputation has been unfairly slandered or libeled by an inaccurate or non-factual statement. It would be a travesty to, for whatever reason, permit open defamation on the internet.

Of course, de facto considerations will prevent major individuals or organisations from suing small-time bloggers for defamation. Any damages that could be gained would be little, and the publicity would be terrible. Most bloggers would (hopefully) have the sense to remove libelous material rather than to fight for the freedom to defame. And for big-time bloggers? Well, they should know the risks that come with posting defamatory material - if they can't take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen.

Note that I am not saying we should tolerate a clamping down on freedom of speech through the mechanism of defamation suits. What I am saying is that we on the internet do not have the right to post what we like. Even if we refuse to steer clear of those dangerous waters, such as posting seditious material, we must at least have respect for the laws of slander and libel.

If the bloggers being sued for libel have not written anything libelous, they should have nothing to fear. Having read both Jeff's and Rocky's blogs, I feel that there is nothing that any court could seriously accept as libelous. A right-thinking judge would throw the case out of court. This would make it clear that while there is room for reasoned and factual discourse, there is no room for defamation. While there is freedom of expression, there is no freedom to defame.

Some people might suggest that defamation laws would have a chilling effect on discourse in the blogosphere. Well, yes, I think that's the point. The point of defamation laws is to keep your mouth shut unless you are willing to stand by the facts of what you have said. You cannot go around accusing people of corruption or wrongdoing without having any facts to back you up. The internet is not a free-for-all. We are responsible for what we write. If you refuse to accept this responsibility, then don't write. It's better not to spread ill-founded gossip and avoid tainting the whole blogosphere.

Having said all that, I agree fully and completely with the sentiment that we must stand for freedom of speech in the internet on Malaysia. But, in doing so, let's please not stand for the freedom to slander and libel. We have a responsibility as authors of content to check our facts and establish the truth before spreading rumours and accusations.

For now, I feel that it's more important to ask the courts to be fair in their judgement. Jeff and Rocky will be let off by any reasonable and independent judge - so let's push for the judge(s) hearing the case to be free from any fear or favour on their part. They must be impartial and independent from external influence, and judge the case solely on its merits. By upholding the rule of law, we will preserve a blogosphere that is more able to express its views and disseminate factual information, while suppressing those who taint the name of the blogosphere by spreading wild and unfounded accusations. Libel and slander should never be tolerated by any society - not even in the name of freedom of speech.

There is one more thing I have to say: I am with Jeff and Rocky all the way on this one. I believe that they have done no wrong, and defamed no one, and I hope the New Straits Times Press gets thrashed in court. We have the right to not be defamed - and also the right to fight frivolous lawsuits. Let's fight this one.



DESIDERATA:

I am taking a breather before I add a PS, especially with reference to the two points cited by johnleeMK, marked * and **. (Timed now @12.50PM)

PS resumed @6.00pm:

My experience tells me the spectrums of membership in both the established fourth and emerging fifth estates are wide ranging, and they sometimes do overlap if the individuals interests concide. By and large, it's unlikely they form the same fields and so it's a false assumption from the start to create a We versus Them opposing sides like two football teams.

Human failings often propel many individuals to align themselves with the attitude:
My enemy's enemy is my friend. It may not be a good analogy, but I'd cite the warm reception PAS gave to former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad, yes, the right word is "embracing" a former political nemesis, after giving him labels I won't even deem appropriate to repeat here. After he stepped down from Office and began to attack PAS' well-defined enemy, the incumbent Prime Minister and his administration.

As a Blogger, I would live with the reality that the Blogers' realm is freer -- therefore brings along with it many opportunities, also higher risks -- for discourse. The risks are multiplied many times when you attract the kind of Commenters who shoot their mouths off in the www as quickly as the cowboys and bandits in the older www -- wildwildwest.

The spectrum of the press membership is more controlled, and hence not so wild; plus the mainstream media in Malaysia has been well tutored on the limits they can go, hence it's self-censorship to safeguard their bread&butter more than the motivations arising from Best Journalism Practice.

WHICH LEADS DESI up to johnleemk's two poonts...

*Like the recent opposition decision to boycott the Batu Talam by-election, this campaign will be completely ineffective and useless - we all know from past experience how the government will ignore any attempts to point out its errors.

**I believe that the possibility should remain open for people to take legal action against defamatory statements made on the internet - something that Bloggers United has been rather ambiguous about (at first glance, they seem to actually want this possibility to be cut off).

* I may not be as "dismissive" as johnleemk on the first point about the ineffectiveness and uselessness of the Opposition's boycott of the Batu Talam by-election. But I don't blame fellow Malaysians' cynicism in general about the Government's pronounced statemments of promoting a free, and open society, a responsible, accountable and clean government.

** I endorse johnleemk's second point. Bloggers United was budded in the immediacy of a need to show solidarity with two fellow Bloggers facing DEFAMATION SUITS. The motivation is to be lauded, but there is also justification for other Bloggers to hold reservations what this movement wearing the Unity badge is all about. Just as the Barisan Nasional under its unity badge shouted by its component parties headed by UMNO, is it a safe assumption the movers and shakers of Bloggers United are dreaming of the same noble VISION OF A COMMON COURSE of "One for all, All for one"?

I have CAUSE FOR CONCERN, as articulated by johnleemk, for Jeff Ooi -- whom I have saluted as Blogosphere taiko and is chiefly responsible in motivating this scribe into Blogging about two years ago -- and Akhiruddin Atan,, who I became acquainted with at the National Press Club years back when, in the suits they are facing against a corporate and its related officers. It is indeed a David vs Goliath scenario. But any recation, proactive or otherwise, is best left to the individual Bloggers and Readers to decide.

At the end of the day, even Desi and his closest Blogger-mates might be of differing political affiliations, but we can sit down to exchange views, and then decide for ourselves which vehicle we want to emabrk on to travel that political path. And frankly, in Malaysia, it's the POLITICS that colours most of our walks in daily life. Blogging -- or working in the MSM -- is just one of the evening, or morning, paths we engage in for maintaining some variety, or sanity, in our lives. Or just to earn that B&B, throw in some kaya when there is a bonus fed by the generosity of the corporate tycoon.

Some have poltics and/or blogging in their blood. Others may not.