The Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) has released a paper entitled “Engaging New Media – Challenging Old Assumptions”. This objective of this paper is to provide a review of the increasingly complex social, ethical, legal and regulatory issues have arisen as a result of the rapid growth of new media such as the Internet, and recommend appropriate changes to legislation.
In the paper, AIMS dealt with four time-sensitive issues:
AIMS recommended liberalizing Section 33 of the Films Act that prohibits the making, distributing and exhibiting of party political films. The ban on party political films is too wide-ranging and stifling as the definition of a party political film could cover any film that touches on politics or government policies. Furthermore, technology has out-paced the law and has made it unenforceable, and potential threats to society, like the exploitation of race and religion for political purposes, are already dealt with via other legislation.
AIMS suggested the authorities could narrow the scope of the law to only prohibit political films that are clearly misleading, with an independent advisory panel to decide what distinguishes the misleading film from those that should be considered to be valuable and in the main, harmless to society as a whole.
Another option advanced by AIMS was to repeal Section 33 of the Films Act altogether, but impose the restriction of the distribution and exhibition of party political films during elections period under the Parliamentary Elections Act, in order to manage “risks” associated with political films.
Yet a third option was to repeal Section 33 in phases in order to provide the time needed for an objective evaluation of how a complete repeal might actually work in practice.
My personal opinion is that AIMS is being overly cautious and is still unable to divest itself of the climate of fear that the PAP has instilled in Singaporeans with regards to the Internet and political films in particular.
Government regulation should indeed be used only as a last resort, not merely because the freewheeling nature of the Internet renders much legislation unenforceable in practice, but more fundamentally, because the Government should respect the right of citizens to freedom of speech and expression. Many of the current laws governing political content on the Internet are not only unenforceable in practice, but are also unjustified in principle.
In my opinion, only a complete repeal of Section 33 of the Films Act is acceptable. Furthermore, it is unreasonable and unconscionable to allow an arbitrary committee formed by the Government to decide whether a film is misleading or not misleading. The onus is on the public and on private researchers to make that conclusion, and EVEN SO, whether a film is deemed misleading or not should not be used as a justification to infringe on the right of a person to produce and distribute it.
Any Government-formed committee with the power to decide whether a political film is misleading and to ban it on that account will bring us right back to square one.
Currently, political campaigning (or election advertising) by political parties, candidates, election agents and registered persons on the Internet via podcasts, vodcasts, blogs and social networking sites (e.g. Facebook) during the General Elections is not allowed as these activities are not prescribed in the “positive list” under the Parliamentary Elections (Election Advertising) Regulations.
AIMS recommended extending the positive list for Internet election advertising, in the sense of changing the Parliamentary Elections Act to allow, during an election period, videos or recordings of live events, such as election rallies, party press conferences and constituency tours, and broadcasts of party manifestoes and stories already aired over radio and TV.
Under present regulations, individuals can discuss political issues, blog, post podcasts for political purposes, or carry on election advertising during the election period, but the MDA still has the authority to compel registration, under the Class License Scheme, for those whom it deems “persistently propagate, promote or circulate political issues relating to Singapore”. These registered individuals, also known as “relevant persons” under the Parliamentary Elections Act, would not be permitted to provide material on the Internet that constitutes election advertising during elections period.
AIMS recommended the removal of this registration requirement for individuals who provide discussion of political or religious issues relating to Singapore through the Internet. I fully agree with this stand. However, AIMS stated that the registration requirement for websites belonging to registered political parties should be retained to ensure accountability, especially during elections period, as political parties need to adhere to a “positive list” for online elections advertising.
In my opinion, the registration requirement under MDA’s Class License Scheme should be removed even for political parties, and Section 78A of the Parliamentary Elections Act should be completely repealed, in the interest of protecting free speech. This section of the Parliamentary Elections Act provides leeway for the authorities to discriminate against different political parties. If such happens, it would render the political process extremely unfair.
In the arena of online defamation, AIMS said that given the volume of material on the Internet, it is impractical for Internet intermediaries to exercise much control over Internet content. It is potentially a medium of virtually limitless international defamation. Claimants are more likely to bring actions for defamation against borderline defendants for Internet defamation because those who are more directly involved in publishing the material may be difficult to locate or may be residing in a foreign jurisdiction.
Currently, Section 10 of the Singapore Electronic Transactions Act confers immunity from civil and criminal liability to network service providers in respect of third-party material to which they merely provide access. The phrase “network service providers” does not apply to content hosts. As regards to liability for criminal defamation, a content host may be liable for defamatory remarks posted by a third party if he has knowledge of the defamatory remarks and that they are harmful to reputation.
AIMS recommended that the relevant authorities consider enacting legislation to confer limited immunity upon online content intermediaries such as Internet content hosts and aggregators in respect of civil and criminal liability for defamation with regards to third party content where such intermediaries have acted in good faith. Immunity should be subject to the obligation of the intermediaries to take down defamatory content on receiving a credible and authenticated request from the person allegedly defamed.
The full report by AIMS can be downloaded here.
In the paper, AIMS dealt with four time-sensitive issues:
- e-engagement (or how the Government can use new media to better interact with the public),
- the regulation of online political content,
- the protection of minors, and
- intermediary immunity for online defamation.
- Government regulation should be used as a last resort, because using laws as a first measure to deal with online problems is unwise as the Internet and its users are continuously evolving and can creatively route around laws and regulations, especially if they are not well thought-through.
- “Free-for-all” is not feasible, because many dangers lurk in cyberspace and there should be regulations that society can call upon to address such dangers. The key issue is what kind of regulation can allow us to harness the benefits of the Internet while minimising the potential for harm. Where the risk of harm is high, there should be legislation. Conversely, where the risk of harm is low or moderate, the imposition of legal controls should be avoided.
- Shifting the focus from regulation towards engagement: Traditionally, the Government’s regulatory efforts have been focused on containing extremist and harmful content. Moving forward, the emphasis should be on leveraging on the opportunities that the Internet provides for enhanced communication and engagement between the public and Government.
- Community participation is key: The sheer amount of content available on the Internet makes it impossible for any one agency to monitor and regulate it efficiently. The wider community has a role to play in fostering a conducive online environment.
AIMS recommended liberalizing Section 33 of the Films Act that prohibits the making, distributing and exhibiting of party political films. The ban on party political films is too wide-ranging and stifling as the definition of a party political film could cover any film that touches on politics or government policies. Furthermore, technology has out-paced the law and has made it unenforceable, and potential threats to society, like the exploitation of race and religion for political purposes, are already dealt with via other legislation.
AIMS suggested the authorities could narrow the scope of the law to only prohibit political films that are clearly misleading, with an independent advisory panel to decide what distinguishes the misleading film from those that should be considered to be valuable and in the main, harmless to society as a whole.
Another option advanced by AIMS was to repeal Section 33 of the Films Act altogether, but impose the restriction of the distribution and exhibition of party political films during elections period under the Parliamentary Elections Act, in order to manage “risks” associated with political films.
Yet a third option was to repeal Section 33 in phases in order to provide the time needed for an objective evaluation of how a complete repeal might actually work in practice.
My personal opinion is that AIMS is being overly cautious and is still unable to divest itself of the climate of fear that the PAP has instilled in Singaporeans with regards to the Internet and political films in particular.
Government regulation should indeed be used only as a last resort, not merely because the freewheeling nature of the Internet renders much legislation unenforceable in practice, but more fundamentally, because the Government should respect the right of citizens to freedom of speech and expression. Many of the current laws governing political content on the Internet are not only unenforceable in practice, but are also unjustified in principle.
In my opinion, only a complete repeal of Section 33 of the Films Act is acceptable. Furthermore, it is unreasonable and unconscionable to allow an arbitrary committee formed by the Government to decide whether a film is misleading or not misleading. The onus is on the public and on private researchers to make that conclusion, and EVEN SO, whether a film is deemed misleading or not should not be used as a justification to infringe on the right of a person to produce and distribute it.
Any Government-formed committee with the power to decide whether a political film is misleading and to ban it on that account will bring us right back to square one.
Currently, political campaigning (or election advertising) by political parties, candidates, election agents and registered persons on the Internet via podcasts, vodcasts, blogs and social networking sites (e.g. Facebook) during the General Elections is not allowed as these activities are not prescribed in the “positive list” under the Parliamentary Elections (Election Advertising) Regulations.
AIMS recommended extending the positive list for Internet election advertising, in the sense of changing the Parliamentary Elections Act to allow, during an election period, videos or recordings of live events, such as election rallies, party press conferences and constituency tours, and broadcasts of party manifestoes and stories already aired over radio and TV.
Under present regulations, individuals can discuss political issues, blog, post podcasts for political purposes, or carry on election advertising during the election period, but the MDA still has the authority to compel registration, under the Class License Scheme, for those whom it deems “persistently propagate, promote or circulate political issues relating to Singapore”. These registered individuals, also known as “relevant persons” under the Parliamentary Elections Act, would not be permitted to provide material on the Internet that constitutes election advertising during elections period.
AIMS recommended the removal of this registration requirement for individuals who provide discussion of political or religious issues relating to Singapore through the Internet. I fully agree with this stand. However, AIMS stated that the registration requirement for websites belonging to registered political parties should be retained to ensure accountability, especially during elections period, as political parties need to adhere to a “positive list” for online elections advertising.
In my opinion, the registration requirement under MDA’s Class License Scheme should be removed even for political parties, and Section 78A of the Parliamentary Elections Act should be completely repealed, in the interest of protecting free speech. This section of the Parliamentary Elections Act provides leeway for the authorities to discriminate against different political parties. If such happens, it would render the political process extremely unfair.
In the arena of online defamation, AIMS said that given the volume of material on the Internet, it is impractical for Internet intermediaries to exercise much control over Internet content. It is potentially a medium of virtually limitless international defamation. Claimants are more likely to bring actions for defamation against borderline defendants for Internet defamation because those who are more directly involved in publishing the material may be difficult to locate or may be residing in a foreign jurisdiction.
Currently, Section 10 of the Singapore Electronic Transactions Act confers immunity from civil and criminal liability to network service providers in respect of third-party material to which they merely provide access. The phrase “network service providers” does not apply to content hosts. As regards to liability for criminal defamation, a content host may be liable for defamatory remarks posted by a third party if he has knowledge of the defamatory remarks and that they are harmful to reputation.
AIMS recommended that the relevant authorities consider enacting legislation to confer limited immunity upon online content intermediaries such as Internet content hosts and aggregators in respect of civil and criminal liability for defamation with regards to third party content where such intermediaries have acted in good faith. Immunity should be subject to the obligation of the intermediaries to take down defamatory content on receiving a credible and authenticated request from the person allegedly defamed.
The full report by AIMS can be downloaded here.
