What If The Fake News Is From The Other Side?

The above and the following are all from Malaysiakini, you can see the url links.

M'kini editor Steven Gan decried Anti-Fake News Bill as another tool of oppression

Gan, with CEO Premesh Chandran, recalled George Orwell dystopian novel '1984'

Orwell wrote, 'Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.’ 

Today, Malaysians on brink of losing that freedom

M'sia already has litany of laws have been used – and abused – to combat fake news

new law is more than just another layer of control by the government

death blow to sliver of democracy that we have

Fake news is now whatever government says it is. 

Two plus two do not make four, if the government says so. 

Anti-Fake News Bill is plunging country into Orwellian nightmare," he added.

Regressive legislation

Premesh condemned latest attempt to stifle freedom of media and speech

regressive law, to return Malaysia to age of information darkness

Those in power seeking to monopolise truth and falsehood through fear

“As Gan mentioned, there are enough laws to deal with the so-called fake news.

legislation, not so much aimed at curbing fake news, but to prevent dissemination of information which those in power might find uncomfortable.

“disheartening that administration that promised to take Malaysia forward is backpedalling on its pledge,” Premesh added.

hefty penalty - up to RM500k fine, up to 10 years' jail, or both 

defines "fake news" as "any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas".

The same hefty penalties also apply to those who provide financial assistance or abet in the production of "fake news"

Here is more from M'kini  

AFN 2018 once passed, wide reaching consequences on how information  published

application of the law is detailed in illustrations contained in Section 4 of bill:

(a) A offers false information to B, for B to publish the information in B's blog. B, not knowing that the information offered by A is false, publishes the information in his blog. A is guilty of an offence under this section, B is not guilty of an offence under this section.

(b) A fabricates an information by stating in an article published in his blog that Z, a well-known businessman has obtained a business contract by offering bribes. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

(c) A fabricates an information by stating in an article published in his blog that Z, a well-known businessman has obtained a business contract by offering bribes. B, knowing that the information has been fabricated, shares the article on his social media account. Both A and B are guilty of an offence under this section.

(d) A published an advertisement containing a caricature of Z depicting Z as a successful investor in an investment scheme knowing that Z is not involved in the investment scheme. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

(e) A publishes a statement in his social media account that a food product of Z's company contains harmful ingredients and is being sold to the public knowing that the production of the food has been discontinued several years ago and the food product is no longer sold to the public. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

(f) A creates a website impersonating a government agency's website. In the website, A publishes a guideline purportedly issued by the head of the government agency which requires the public to apply for a licence to carry out a particular activity. There is no such guideline issued by the government agency. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

(g) A gives a speech during a public forum held at a public place. In his speech, A informs that Z has misappropriated money collected for charitable purpose knowing that the information is false. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

(h) A holds a press conference where he claims that Z, an owner of a supermarket, will give out free gifts to the first one hundred customers of his supermarket on every first Saturday of the month knowing that Z has no intention to do as claimed by A. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

My comments :

We already have the really archaic Libel Laws - which in my opinion does more damage to our development as a society than ALL the other speech curbing laws that we have in this country. 

So we have the 

1. the Libel Laws
2. the OSA
3. SOSMA 2012
4. Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015
5. the NSC Act 2016
6. the Sedition Act 1948? 1960? 
7. the MCMC fellows ready to swoop down
8. the various Syariah Criminal Acts (applicable to Muslims)
9. now the Anti Fake News Act 2018
10. isnt there an act to oversee false advertising ?
11. have I missed anything else ?? 

all of which add up to pounce on anything that the folks in power deem as a breach.

My suggestion is when the Pakatan Harapan takes over, the Pakatan should use some of these Acts against all those people who have indeed been spreading fake news.  For most certainly too many folks have been peddling too much falsehood and fake tales.  

Most certainly the provisions of these various Acts can and will be applied to those erring folks.  (You know who you are ok). 

Why so many laws just  to monitor speech? 

Is our national security at such great threat just because people wish to speak freely? 

Was our economic growth sabotaged just because someone went to make a police report? 

Anyway folks,  we should all become more savvy in using social media.