Monday, November 07, 2005
Bloggers code of conduct?
One blogger was threatened recently with a defamation suit. Two others are being charged with sedition. Now the rest are wondering what other laws they should be aware of.
The answer, according to the Media Development Authority (MDA), is: Any relevant laws of the land.
But even the law abiding may come under the eye of the authorities.
Under the regulatory framework, Internet content providers, including web authors, are automatically licensed under the Broadcasting Act and must comply with the terms and conditions of the licence or they will not be able to broadcast online.
Those whose websites contain materials for the "propagation, promotion or discussion" of political or religious issues relating to Singapore can be required to register with the authorities.
This law has been invoked before. In 2001, civil society activist Tan Chong Kee was asked to register himself when his Sintercom website, one of Singapore's most popular forums on current affairs at the time, caught the attention of the media authorities seven years after its creation. Shortly after this, citing personal reasons, Dr Tan shut down Sintercom.
Although personal web pages are exempt from licensing, if a blog propagates, promotes or discusses political issues, the law kicks in.
This begs the question: How do you define such a blog?
It is a tough judgement call, said Singapore Internet Research Centre executive director Randolph Kluver.
"If one out of 100 posts is on a political issue, is that a political blog? No. But as those numbers go up, at what point do you draw the distinction?" he said.
Then there is the puzzle of what a political issue is.
For example, Dr Kluver pointed to the broader social significance of the National Kidney Foundation episode. The ensuing outcry in blogs and online discussion groups over the courtroom revelations were manifested, in some cases, as a proxy for a deeper desire to see transparency and accountability in Singapore as a whole.
So, when does the public donor become a political blogger and one who may be required to register?
MP Zainudin Nordin, a member of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Information, Communications and the Arts, offers a distinction. It is one between opinion and advocacy.
"If the Government were to launch ComCare to help the needy and someone said the scheme was rubbish, well, that's his opinion. But if he said, 'Let's all gang up together and demonstrate against it', he's standing for something. He's politicising it," he said.
His viewpoint is reflected in MDA's Internet industry guidelines, which state that web pages that promote political or religious "causes" are automatically licensed.
An echo of this approach is also in the Government's view of "crusading journalism" as unhealthy. While blogs are online diaries, the MDA told Today that with regard to political content on websites, "current rules applicable to the media will continue to apply". In general, that means nothing which is against "public interest or order, or national harmony or which offends against good taste or decency".
There is still room for bloggers to manoeuvre, though.
Even the Sedition Act rules that it is not seditious to show that the Government has been "misled or mistaken in any of its measures" or to "point out errors or defects in the Government … or in the administration of justice" with a view to remedy such errors.
Citizens can also persuade others to effect changes in Singapore through lawful means.
Whither now for bloggers?
Media and civil society researcher Russell Heng believes a blogger who feels strongly about an issue should "say it and not regret it", while Mr Zainudin advises, "when in doubt, refer to the authorities".
Perhaps, however, the real issue is not what to say or not to say.
Looking at the three bloggers in the news now, Dr Kluver suspects the point is that bloggers should be fully responsible for what they say.
That way, bloggers have nothing to be afraid of. - TODAY/sh
This article is taken from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/analysis/view/168564/1/.html
The answer, according to the Media Development Authority (MDA), is: Any relevant laws of the land.
But even the law abiding may come under the eye of the authorities.
Under the regulatory framework, Internet content providers, including web authors, are automatically licensed under the Broadcasting Act and must comply with the terms and conditions of the licence or they will not be able to broadcast online.
Those whose websites contain materials for the "propagation, promotion or discussion" of political or religious issues relating to Singapore can be required to register with the authorities.
This law has been invoked before. In 2001, civil society activist Tan Chong Kee was asked to register himself when his Sintercom website, one of Singapore's most popular forums on current affairs at the time, caught the attention of the media authorities seven years after its creation. Shortly after this, citing personal reasons, Dr Tan shut down Sintercom.
Although personal web pages are exempt from licensing, if a blog propagates, promotes or discusses political issues, the law kicks in.
This begs the question: How do you define such a blog?
It is a tough judgement call, said Singapore Internet Research Centre executive director Randolph Kluver.
"If one out of 100 posts is on a political issue, is that a political blog? No. But as those numbers go up, at what point do you draw the distinction?" he said.
Then there is the puzzle of what a political issue is.
For example, Dr Kluver pointed to the broader social significance of the National Kidney Foundation episode. The ensuing outcry in blogs and online discussion groups over the courtroom revelations were manifested, in some cases, as a proxy for a deeper desire to see transparency and accountability in Singapore as a whole.
So, when does the public donor become a political blogger and one who may be required to register?
MP Zainudin Nordin, a member of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Information, Communications and the Arts, offers a distinction. It is one between opinion and advocacy.
"If the Government were to launch ComCare to help the needy and someone said the scheme was rubbish, well, that's his opinion. But if he said, 'Let's all gang up together and demonstrate against it', he's standing for something. He's politicising it," he said.
His viewpoint is reflected in MDA's Internet industry guidelines, which state that web pages that promote political or religious "causes" are automatically licensed.
An echo of this approach is also in the Government's view of "crusading journalism" as unhealthy. While blogs are online diaries, the MDA told Today that with regard to political content on websites, "current rules applicable to the media will continue to apply". In general, that means nothing which is against "public interest or order, or national harmony or which offends against good taste or decency".
There is still room for bloggers to manoeuvre, though.
Even the Sedition Act rules that it is not seditious to show that the Government has been "misled or mistaken in any of its measures" or to "point out errors or defects in the Government … or in the administration of justice" with a view to remedy such errors.
Citizens can also persuade others to effect changes in Singapore through lawful means.
Whither now for bloggers?
Media and civil society researcher Russell Heng believes a blogger who feels strongly about an issue should "say it and not regret it", while Mr Zainudin advises, "when in doubt, refer to the authorities".
Perhaps, however, the real issue is not what to say or not to say.
Looking at the three bloggers in the news now, Dr Kluver suspects the point is that bloggers should be fully responsible for what they say.
That way, bloggers have nothing to be afraid of. - TODAY/sh
This article is taken from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/analysis/view/168564/1/.html
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]