I would like to refer to Scott South's letter and his perspective of freedom of speech in Malaysia. Firstly, I would like to state that I am not a lawyer but I am sure that the standard and burden of proof for defamation varies from country to country, not to mention the definition of freedom of speech as embedded in various countries' constitutions.

If the cases against Jeff Ooi and 'Rocky' were to proceed, it would establish legal precedence and help define the boundaries and parameters of 'free speech' one way or another. In that sense, they are agents for free speech.

However, what troubles me is the journalism surrounding their defamation suits. I have read some news reports from various sources but I am still in the dark as to the exact nature of the postings or comments made that triggered these defamation suits.

Again I stress again I am not a lawyer and I assume there is some law against repeating the offending posts verbatim but should not the Malaysian public be entitled to know the general outline of the allegedly defamatory material in order to form a personal opinion as to whether the lawsuits are an encroachment on freedom of speech or otherwise?

As for the near-monolithic Malaysian press, I would agree that there is a somewhat heavy-handedness towards pro-government bias but not to the rabid extent that the government is almost never criticised and opposition cast in extremely negative overtones, unlike some 'totalitarian' (Scott's definition) island state.

The Internet here still continues to thrive and collects robust opinions from foreigners and Malaysians alike, that would never make it into mainstream publication. They run articles that are factual in nature and host columnists aligned to their own political ideology, which they are entitled to. This is my own assessment of freedom of speech of Malaysia in general.