Takedown policy should be safety valve for news portals, says ex-judge

 

A former Federal Court judge suggested that the Bar Council propose a law amendment to improve the takedown policy for online publications.

ADS

Speaking at a forum in Kuala Lumpur today, Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal cited Malaysiakini's case in 2021, where a Federal Court panel found the news portal guilty of contempt of court.

This was despite it having taken the steps to delete readers’ comments that were deemed contemptuous upon being notified by authorities.

Harmindar said this was an “unfortunate case” and the takedown policy should serve as a “safety valve” for online news sites.

"... because otherwise, what is the use of the takedown policy? The takedown policy exists in many countries. All right, it's like a safety valve.

"If, accidentally, some comments come about and the publisher realises to their horror that this is depreciatory, derogatory, insulting, and so on, then there is an avenue they can take it down and maybe apologise or whatever.

"So that's unfortunate, but that's authority now. So, maybe, the committee can look into improving the takedown policy and make it tighter so that courts will be bound by that," he said.

Malaysiakini’s RM500,000 fine

Harmindar was among the five speakers at a forum held by the Bar Council's Civil Law and Law Reform Committee earlier today, entitled 'Defamation law reform: Revisiting the Defamation Act 1957'.

The event was organised to discuss a proposal being drafted by the committee to reform the Act, which has not been amended since its inception over six decades ago.

Malaysiakini was fined RM500,000 for contempt of court on Feb 19, 2021.

The Federal Court bench ruled in a 6-1 majority decision that Malaysiakini is liable for contempt of court over readers’ comments posted on the June 9, 2020, article titled "CJ orders all courts to be fully operational from July 1".

ADS

Disclaimers not good enough

Meanwhile, the forum also discussed the news portals’ responsibilities towards contributors' articles.

This followed a question from the floor whether online publications can be absolved from being held liable for defamation by merely putting up a disclaimer that an article is the author's personal opinion.

On this, Harminder believed online portals cannot hide behind such disclaimers, as they are the ones publishing the article.

"I think that's insufficient. You cannot put a clause like that and then hope for the publisher to escape.

"No, I don't think so. That's my view, (but) I could be wrong," he said.- Mkini