Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this

In reference to Charter 2000-Aliran's warning that New Straits Times suits against popular bloggers Jeff Ooi and Ahirudin 'Rocky' Attan would stifle public discussion by Internet users, I would like to state that this is not necessarily the case.

What we require is a more responsible use of Internet with particular reference to blogging. When it is responsibly used, its credibility will be enhanced and more people will resort to the Net and blogs for sourcing information alternative to the mainstream.

As a civilised society dedicated to the rule of law and its equal application without discrimination as to race, religion and creed - the expression creed being inclusive of political affiliation or leanings - we cannot, with justification, deny the right of NST , its deputy chairperson Kalimullah Hassan and associates to exercise their rights to legal recourse against libel or defamation as long as they are of the opinion that their professional reputations have been maliciously injured. This, no matter of their political affiliation and leanings, which are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Whilst the Internet is free for those who want to disseminate the truth against falsehood, it is also a double-edged sword providing anonymity and unbridled leeway for just about anyone (whether a irresponsible rumour-mongerer, criminal, terrorist, etc) anywhere to fantasise, speculate or tarnish anyone with the object of destroying the target's repute and livelihood.

Whilst we value the important principle of freedom of expression, we also value the principle of protecting our reputation from being unwarrantedly and irresponsibly attacked without fairness or truth.

This position - that freedom of expression does not afford a carte blanche licence to abuse it by defaming others - is a settled one here and in the so-called First World countries.

In instituting the suits against the two bloggers, NST and Kalimullah and associates call to test the exact parameters of our law on defamation in the context of the Internet medium in this day and age. The line needs to be drawn, and we need to know that which applies to everyone equally under the law.

I totally reject the argument that a large institution like the NST , with vast media reach and financial muscle, should not be seen to be 'bullying' bloggers of lesser means and resources. This is, however, not the point. I would have thought that a large institution with vast financial resources would have a proportionately greater stake in protecting its professional reputation because, once lost, 'vast resources and finance' will correspondingly be also lost.

NST is a public-listed company and so is its holding company Prima Media Berhad. NST , therefore, has a duty to account to its shareholders - amongst whom include members of investing public - against derogation of its professional reputation that may have material and adverse effect on circulation and sales of its newspapers.

I also totally reject the argument that NST's suits are some kind of conspiracy or proxy fight waged by those within the ruling elite to stifle legitimate public criticisms and exposure of their shenanigans and peccadilloes.

Had there been such a subterranean motive, the suits would have been instituted against other more inflammatory blogs than (say) Screenshots whose host Jeff Ooi has been scrupulously deleting offensive and inciting remarks of his readers in adherence with the prescription of our Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.

Had there been such a motive, the authorities will find a more effective way of prosecuting offenders in the blogging community based on our existing criminal laws and the Communications and Multimedia Act rather than resort to any civil action based on defamation.

Knowing our protracted civil suit proceedings and congested court calendars, civil suits may, with different tiers of appeals to be exhausted, well take up to 10 years to resolve during which time - sufficiently long for two general elections to take place - the critical writings would have continued unabated inflicting damage in terms of voters' support.

The suits are, therefore, a matter pertaining purely to parties resolving their disputes inter se within the private realm that does not spill over to the larger public realm, as would otherwise have been the case had there been a wider concerted conspiracy by powers-to-be to curb freedom of expression of which these suits are a harbinger.

In respect of this dispute between parties within the private realm on the rights and limits to freedom of expression over the Internet, the question of how these competing principles and imperatives of free speech versus right to reputation may be simultaneously balanced, and where the boundaries of free speech may extend to before the right to one's repute begins, is a line for our laws of defamation to define and best left at this moment to the fair sense of our courts to arbiter.

If the two bloggers Jeff and Ahirudin have been writing the truth and making fair comments on matter of public interest within parameters of our law, they have nothing to be afraid of.

Today, NST and Kalimullah and associates may be suing bloggers to set the law and precedent which, who knows, one day will be the very same basis upon which bloggers or anyone of us will proceed to sue them back for defamatory remarks made by them or mainstream newsmakers in their respective online bulletins.

I don't, therefore, have at this moment a sense of foreboding that these legal suits are necessarily birds of ill omen settling over our robust blogging community and its activities.

ADS