MALAYSIANS MUST KNOW THE TRUTH fully support INTERNET BLACKOUT DAY - 14 August 2012.
We want the UMNO/BN government to STOP Section 114A of the Evidence Act , which is an END TO INTERNET FREEDOM.
Note : We will only publish important news tomorrow.
WHY?
Earlier this year, amendments to the Evidence Act 1950 was passed by Parliament, radically changing how Internet users or service providers can be subject to legal or criminal action.
In a nutshell, legal experts believe that amendments to Section 114A will mean that anyone, including the government, can initiate legal or criminal action against social network users, website owners, mobile device owners or WiFi network service providers over content posted by other individuals.
In other words, if one were to post defamatory comments on a blog, the blog owner might end up getting sued or be charged with criminal defamation.
Malaysiakini believes that this law is unjust and is easily subject to abuse.
"These changes to the law are a mockery to the principle of innocent until proven guilty. We believe that the government is using this subtle change to erode freedom of speech online.
"Malaysiakini calls on all Internet users to stand against these amendments," saidMalaysiakini chief executive officer Premesh Chandran.
Malaysiakini is participating in Centre of Independent Journalism's Internet Blackout Day browser pop-up campaign to highlight this unjust law to its readers and the public.
For further details, visit the official campaign website.
FAQ on the 114A
Is this a new law?
No, it's an amendment made earlier this year in the Evidence Act. Previously, when someone was charged with sedition for a blog post, the public prosecutor had to prove that Mr/Ms X actually wrote the offending post on his/her blog. Now, if Mr/Ms X claims that he/she did not upload the post, he/she has to prove it.
It's unclear how one would prove that one did not put up the offending posting. Even if we say that someone has hacked the site and put up the errant posting, there is no way to prove it.
The same applies for WiFi networks. If someone in your house uses your WiFi which is registered under your name to make a post, you will be charged unless you can prove that someone else in your house did it.
Does it affect website owners and blogs, too?
In a nutshell, legal experts believe that amendments to Section 114A will mean that anyone, including the government, can initiate legal or criminal action against social network users, website owners, mobile device owners or WiFi network service providers over content posted by other individuals.
In other words, if one were to post defamatory comments on a blog, the blog owner might end up getting sued or be charged with criminal defamation.Malaysiakini believes that this law is unjust and is easily subject to abuse.
"These changes to the law are a mockery to the principle of innocent until proven guilty. We believe that the government is using this subtle change to erode freedom of speech online.
"Malaysiakini calls on all Internet users to stand against these amendments," saidMalaysiakini chief executive officer Premesh Chandran.
Malaysiakini is participating in Centre of Independent Journalism's Internet Blackout Day browser pop-up campaign to highlight this unjust law to its readers and the public.
For further details, visit the official campaign website.
FAQ on the 114A
Is this a new law?
No, it's an amendment made earlier this year in the Evidence Act. Previously, when someone was charged with sedition for a blog post, the public prosecutor had to prove that Mr/Ms X actually wrote the offending post on his/her blog. Now, if Mr/Ms X claims that he/she did not upload the post, he/she has to prove it.
It's unclear how one would prove that one did not put up the offending posting. Even if we say that someone has hacked the site and put up the errant posting, there is no way to prove it.
The same applies for WiFi networks. If someone in your house uses your WiFi which is registered under your name to make a post, you will be charged unless you can prove that someone else in your house did it.
Does it affect website owners and blogs, too?
Yes, website owners now become responsible for all comments made on the site.
But isn't it good? We shouldn't be condoning defamation and slander online.
Malaysiakini does not condone defamation and slander online. Take our public forum as an analogy. If someone said something defamatory during Debatkini, should Malaysiakini be held accountable, or should the person who makes such a statement be held to account?
It should be the person who makes the comment who should be held liable, not the site owner.
What will be the impact of the amendment?
All websites, WiFi hotspots and homes and offices will have to stop people from using the Internet to post comments. People will be more afraid of speaking up. If the number of people speaking up online reduces, it's easier to charge and jail the rest.
But isn't it good? We shouldn't be condoning defamation and slander online.
Malaysiakini does not condone defamation and slander online. Take our public forum as an analogy. If someone said something defamatory during Debatkini, should Malaysiakini be held accountable, or should the person who makes such a statement be held to account?
It should be the person who makes the comment who should be held liable, not the site owner.
What will be the impact of the amendment?
All websites, WiFi hotspots and homes and offices will have to stop people from using the Internet to post comments. People will be more afraid of speaking up. If the number of people speaking up online reduces, it's easier to charge and jail the rest.
Saudara-saudara dan Saudari-saudari Yang Di Hormati
ReplyDeleteBahawa MCA Gombak pegurusi YIP KUM FOOK dan anaknya Yip Jiun Hann (Permuda MCA Gombak) bukan sahaja menggunakan kuasanya menghisap wang KUIL BUDDHA SAMNAK SAMBODHI(Thai) No: 19 Jalan 38 Taman Desa Jaya, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Tetapi lebih dahsyat, ialah menipu wanita-wanita dan merosakan keluarga orang lain. Mereka sebenar-benarnya orang yang jahat dan tak bermoral
Saya mengemukakan kesal yang benar ini, tujuan ialah harap orang ramai, khasnya wanita dapat mengambil perhatian supaya jangan terjerat oleh manis-manis mulutnya akhir akan meninpa kerugian dan kesakitan yang besar
马华公会鹅唛區会主席叶金福律师与马华公会鹅唛區会叶君瀚青年圑長, 不但无耻的利用KUIL BUDDHA SAMNAK SAMBODHI(Thai) No: 19 Jalan 38 Taman Desa Jaya, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.宗教之名捞取权和私利之外, 叧一大罪悪是, 他们仗着权势, 甜言蜜語, 誘骗良家少女, 骗财骗色, 三妻四妾, 破坏别人的家庭. 父子两人, 无悪不做, 实是大色狼, 大老千,缺德的败娄.
今天我把实事公告大家, 是希望公众, 特别是良家少女, 要多多小心, 提防这一娄假面具的佛教徒, 以免一失足成千古恨.
Brother And Sister Of the respectfully
That YIP KUM FOOK, MCA Gombak chairman and his son Yip Jiun Hann (Youth MCA Gombak) they are not only used of power to suck Temple’s money of SAMNAK SAMBODHI BUDDHIST TEMPLE(Thai) No: 19 Jalan 38 Taman Desa Jaya, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. But far worse, they are cheating women and make people family broken. They truly wicked and immoral
Bring forward. I regret that this is true, the purpose is to hope for public, and especially women take care not to be trapped by the end of sweet mouth will override of great loss and pain