Rojak and Cocktail: Freedom without responsibility is anarchy

"We do not censor the internet and that's our policy, but they [bloggers] must understand that there are also laws on defamation and sedition, for example,"

- Abdullah Ahmad Badawi

Bloggers are liable for defamation — just as in other forms of communication, lawyers and other experts said.

Kuala Lumpur Bar chairman Lim Chee Wee said statements on the Internet were simply writings in a different medium.

"You can call them blogs, online forums, websites, they’re all subject to the same defamation laws if offending statements are published," he said.

Law expert Prof Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi said there was no doubt the rules of defamation applied to blogs and Internet forums.

"The definition of speech covers every form of communication in whatever form, written or symbolic. There is no doubt that bloggers are subject to the same rules."

"In fact we tend to give people much more freedom to defame because we have no privacy laws unlike most Western countries."

Lawyer Datuk Dominic Puthucheary, who has represented a major local publication against defamation, said, "Our laws on defamation should be governed by Article 10 of the Federal Constitution which provides for freedom of speech, unless limited by Parliament."

There is no law restricting people on the content of their blogs, he said. But "if something is either spoken or written in a permanent form, it is liable for defamation according to basic common law".

"A defamatory statement against a private person is actionable," he said.

"When it comes to public interest issues and the conduct of public officers, it is not defamatory in some jurisdictions unless there is reckless disregard for the truth. But it is still an open question here."

Lawyer Nahendran Navaratnam agreed that legislative changes were needed "to ensure that protection is given both to bloggers and those who are the subject of discussion on the Internet".

National Union of Journalists president Norila Mohd Daud said it was logical that defamation laws would apply to blog postings.

"Right now our laws do not cover blogs or online forums, but I think it’s simple logic that a defamatory statement can reach the public via any medium, by newspapers, magazines or the Internet."

Norila also agreed that bloggers had to exercise caution on their websites.

"It is true that bloggers have to be responsible. You can express your opinions but we have to see it from the point of view of the people who are named," she said.

Meanwhile, The Sun warns the Dangers of misusing blogs.

Defamation and libel can be described as an injury to the reputation or character of someone resulting from false statements. Defamation is an attack, albeit false and, or malicious on one's good name. It exposes or subjects one to odium, hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or causes one to be shunned or avoided.

In short, defamation/libel can be described as words - written or spoken - tending to lower an individual or organisation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.

Our laws protect every citizen from harm to their reputation by false and derogatory remarks. It is enshrined that every citizen can seek redress if they believed that they have been defamed. Over the years, many media organisations have found this out the hard way. Sloppy and even malicious reporting have resulted in payouts and dents to the organisations' reputation and credibility.

The defamation suit filed last week by The New Straits Times Press (NSTP) and several of its executives against two bloggers on the internet has once again brought the issue to the fore, but with a twist.

The blogging community and even some NGOs have labelled it as an attempt to curb freedom of expression over the internet. Some have even described it as going against the government's guarantee of no censorship on the internet.

It further claimed that It is the message, not the medium, that is the issue here.

Were the articles/postings that appeared in the two blogs defamatory? The plaintiffs have to prove to the court that they were.

If they are proven to be defamatory, they would be defamatory whether they appeared over the internet, published in newspapers or broadcast over radio and TV. And if they were not defamatory, they were not, regardless of the medium they appeared in.

It is a fallacy to assume that defamation laws don't operate in cyberspace just because the government said it would not exercise censorship. And it would be dangerous.

Non censorship is not a licence to break the laws of the country. The internet and blogging have empowered ordinary citizens to express themselves. Those of us who value the power we now have, must do our utmost to ensure it is not abused.

Yes, bloggers should unite, but unite against those who misuse the blogs because they are the real threat to the future of blogging.

Fellow blogger Susan Loone responds ; "Dangers of Abusing Bloggers"

They say we are misusing blogs, well they must be experts in the game of “misuse” and “abuse” because newspapers these days are often “misused” to serve the powerful and mighty. This is VERY dangerous.
Such an article could only come about due to falling popularity of newspapers, as compared to blogs. Blogs have become the bearer of free speech, creative and investigative journalism, much to embarrassment of newspapers, who are now being perceived as nothing but state organs and propaganda machines. Many bloggers have continued to maintain their independence and their integrity, despite having to operate their blogs in their own free time, without pay and without fat bonuses.

Meanwhile Marina M pleading all bloggers :

"Ok, let's put this conversation up front and centre, shall we? Our blogbros Jeff and Rocky are being sued, as you all know. We may not all agree with everything they say but that is not the point. The point is, this sort of heavyhanded intimidation is an impediment to democracy because it impedes freedom of speech and limits our people's access to alternative views about current events. It insults all of us because it assumes that we cannot come up with the 'right' opinion if we are allowed to see althe different perspectives on a particular subject. It is a blatant form of censorship."
- Marina M : ' Blogger fight back "