Project Petaling Street Blog

Funny, don't see anyone complaining when it is about heaping lavish praises.

Point is, the following statement sucks big time.

"And in some cases, throlls use blog commenting systems to spread a message that only they think is right."

- Yvonne

I suppose bloggers are not spreading messages. No sir, they are just writing objective pieces of fact-laden viewpoints aimed at demonstrating the intellectualism and rationality of the bloggers themselves while trying to master the fine art of subtle insinuations.

Bloggers can take up the responsibility by just SHUTTING DOWN THE COMMENTS. If you are too lazy to moderate your own space, don't get the police to do it for you. If you want the commentators be aware of their responsibility, do not give them the false sense of anonymity.

Intimidation works fine too, I am sure.

chez, did you read 'goodman's comment? Sure, some throlls do not deserve our attention, but what goodman wrote was more than just throlling.

You obviously don't understand the notion of freedom of speech.

You want the right to say what you want, and at the same time want other's opinion to be censored, ie "If I don't like what you say, I complain to the police and get your thrown into jail" or something. You justify it by saying that the other guy is "irresponsible".

Now, who decides what is "irresponsible" ? Obviously some someone must be the judge of things, and judgement will be made based on some very subjective criteria.

Tell, me.... what would you do if you suddenly hear that a lot of people think that your blogs are irresponsible, and want to shut you up?

Think carefully about this.... there are literally, millions of people out there in conservative cultures who think that all bloggers talk too much and should be shut up completely.

Are you sure you want formal judgement and censorship of any sort to be imposed on what someone says? Or would you rather that such ideas be expressed, and then be discredited in the court of public opinion?

The moment you invoke formal control of media, you set a precedent. These things tend to snowball and very soon, the police will have to right to investigate everything you say because somebody made a compaint.

Eg. If I were an ultra-conservative, I could lodge a formal complaint against you for talking too much about stupid things, raising too many issues that you are not supposed to raise as a woman, not studying, and not getting the permission of your father to publish what you write. I can also further complain that women should not be given the right to blog because their place is in the home, both literally and figuratively. You should not even be heard. Now, this is a perfectly valid assertion in many conservative socisties all over the world.

Are you sure you want the authorities involved here? Or would you not prefer that whatever blogging community involved, handle it in its own way?

Freedom of speech comes with it, a certain responsibility. Of that, you are right. But the responsibility is that of the community to regulate itself through consensus and not through authoritative fiat.

All freedoms (of speech, expression, movement, etc) are hard earned and fought for, and very very easily lost. There will always be those selfish powers who want to be, and who will do anything to achieve their selfish goals and ends. The easiest way to achieve this and remain in power, is through intimidation, censorship, and impediment of social discourse, ie. shut-up everyone regardless.

If someone says something that you find offensive, you must never ever resort to the invocation of central authority. You will basically be asking for, and legitimizing censorship through authority. This path once taken, can only slide into the chasm of forfeiture of all freedoms. This door once opened, can only pave the way for all sorts of unwanted restrictions in expression and thought.

There will always be those with opinions from the fringes whose ideas will be forever anethema and in apparent contradiction to common sense and consensus.

We must not censor these people, because these are their opinions, and they have the right to express their opinions just the same as anyone else.

If you don't like what they say, then you either discredit them through cogent argument or consensus, or restrict them from expression from you individual blogs. You must never ever call the police. Even better sue them.

Think about it this way. Salman Rushdie said some really weird things that offended a lot of people. Which should have been the "best" way of responding ? Through Fatwa? Thrown him in jail? Or sue the pants off him?

Or more telling.... Do you think Salman Rushie should have had the write what he wrote? Should he be forever banned and censored? Given that he offended so many people in such an arrogant and insensitive way, should he be allowed to write anything like that again?

Then ask yourself again... Should goodman be censored?

i agree with chez and freedie... and also viveice who made a comment in peter's blog.

i was thinking too on the part of who decided that what was written was 'irresponsible'. are we suppose to judge for everyone that, eg, oh, his comments will incite racial hatred, so drastic action need to be taken.

it's like when we complain so much about the movie censorship, where the censorship board snipped off kissing scenes and voilent scene. we complained so much like we are matured enough to handle those scenes, it won't affect us so much so that we also resort to voilence and so on.

then some comments appears which YOU deem irresponsible, but what about others? they may not find anything wrong with the comments at all, or they read it and they are matured enough NOT to believe in it or not to get 'incited' by it. even if there IS someting terribly wrong with the comments, it is only HIS OWN opinion, and he is entitled to it, and yes like what freddie pointed out, discredit him through cogent argument or consensus and not taking drastic actions.

we are already shut off from reading people's opinion freely expressed in the mainstream media and we don't want that to happen in the blogosphere or internet in general.

Hmmm... hey thanks everyone for the feedback. This is one heck of a learning experience for me. At first, I felt that its really odd to go blasting off comments like what Goodman did, all of a sudden, especially in conversations that are totally unrelated to his words. But on the other hand, we have no right to stop him from expressing himself unless we're another ISA bureau, and we certainly don't want that on the internet.

But whatever it is, this was sure interesting since he kept many of us thinking. Thanks everyone!

*phew*
Thank god we aren't all toasting the roasting. Thank god we aren't all succumbing to the 'herd instinct' Thank god not all bloggers (and their readers) are morons. Thank god we aren't all seduced by sensationalism. Thank god for circumspection.
Why magnify what really deserves to be diminished? Trash belongs to the bin.

Not all of us are bloggers, and blogger or not, we are not and aggregated representative of the many voices in the nation. This means that our experiences, thoughts and opinions cannot be generalized, and we should be careful and void working with the assumption that what's heard is the only thing that's out there.

From time to time, a medium that claims to be representative of the people's voice actually serves a very narrow community. The good news and the bad news is that even within a very homogenous community, we can still find differences. The blogosphere is made up of individuals who sustain their own spheres of social reality. Collectively, it is trying to partake in the social construction (and deconstruction) of what you and I believe as "real" - a habitual domain of the various estates.

By influencing others, it is also being influenced at the same time. Afterall, many bloggers and their readers are now suddenly faced with the choice of making a stand when confronted by issues that they normally would not have to respond to at all, if not for the blog-byte (or newsbite). So the process of shaping begins. Imagine an individual as an unpolished stone in its state of innocence. It has less corners and is unremarkably dull in its shape. But through the concious and careful sculpting and cutting, a stone gains edges and a polished surface. The process is not new. Adults are are capable of a more refined argument and appreciation of details because they acquire the eyes to discern them. We expect it of ourselves and others, some call it maturity.

Unfortunately, blogs are like fastfood joints of opinion-shaping. You do not have the luxury of waiting a few years before deciding if abortion should be legal. In the face of overwhelming exultations on the merit of abortion, you might be forced to go along (because so "many" agrees) or you have to deposit an opposing point of view and fight it (to test the validity of the arguments). Either way, you are forced to engage or drown in the stampede.

However, individuals have the luxury to keep up the march or give up. In the long run, we wouldn't even remember "good man" was the sorry excuse for the application of Sedition Act on internet speech. We won't even remember Peter Tan (except his fans, of course). It makes us think if there is any private speech at all left online, because everything we type in this internet space is now public domain, and we will all be held liable for it.

I don't believe in thanking god. I believe in common sense and basic human decency. But I will say amen to what percolator has said anyday.

Why shouldn't people be held liable for what they say on-line? It is justa another medium, just like a magazine, newsletter, TV, or simply public speech.

In thin context, I think Goodman has the right to say anything he wants. Then, if UMNO or whoever does not like it, they should sue him in court. Goodman can then file a countersuite or some other response.

Whatever it is, all transactions should be transparent, open, and any judgement left to a court of law, or the court of public opinion.

My 2 cents (without repeating what I commented in the BlogHerald and in my blog).

I hope you read in full what the 'Good Man' said, which is indefensible on many accounts:

- he claimed 1 race to be the source of all manner of disgusting serious crimes (those that make me vomit) and social ills
- he claimed another race to be superior
- he claimed the entire race as lazy, stupid, incapable baboons
- he claimed 1 race to be the impediment to racial harmony, and wanted this 1 race to be "chucked in to dustbins of history" (genocide?)

How anyone can defend his right to say the above, and to say that many people agree, is truly beyond me.

I think, Goodman has the right to say all that and more, if he wants to. And about anyone or any group. If you don't like it, you can either ignore him or sue him for his pants and all he is worth, ie. make him accountable.

Whether something is defensible or indefensible, is strictly a matter of opinion. If you say he does not have to right to say what he says, then someone else can say that you don't have the right to say what you say.

Freedom of speech is a double edge sword. You get all kinds of nonsense being said along with words of substance.

Censorship is also a double edge sword. You get all kinds of abuse along with appropriate filtering.

Bear in mind, if the rest of the world had its way, a lot of what former prime minister Mahathir had to say about neo-colonialism and western condescension of the east, and George Soros being a moron, etc., would have been censored. He was torn to shreads for saying all those things. Ultimately, it turned out that he (Mahathir) had very strong cases.

Also remember that Mahathir got into a lot trouble with his own people when he publish his book "The Malay Delima". That is just an mild indication of the extent of how much censorship can restrict your right to speak your mind.

So, which do you prefer? That everyone has to right to say what they want (including nonsense), or censorship based on someone's opinion (who may not agree with your own)?

Freddie, I was refering to the fact that there are laws that prohibit this particular kind of speech (it is called hate-speech), be it online or offline.

I am saying that the speech is without a doubt racist (it is indefensibly so), and let's be clear that whether it is offensive depends on the reader (subjective), but whether it is racist depends on the speech itself (objective). As such, it has broken the law. It is that simple.

My opinion on this is not relevant. The law is.

Freddie, you have to understand what freedom of speech has its limits, as even in the most liberal country (USA) the modern First Amendment law is constantly defining and re-defining those limits. For example, the speech must not be inflammatory towards any race, religion, and/or against the interest of national security and public order/well-being.

The presumed right to freedom of speech is not universal and all-encompassing. Furthermore, the presumed right to freedom of speech offers no overriding protection if the speech breaches any of our existing laws.

totoro, Thanks for offering that discerning perspective.

Censorship is by definition, effected through executive action based on law. Nobody can censor anything you say, unless there is a law that allows censorship. Hence, the law is by definition, the antithesis of the notion of free speech.

To effect total free speech, is then by definition, not to have any law regulating what can and cannot be said. This is a utopian situation that will not be practical.

In recent times, we see more laws being created that impose on restrictions on free speech. The most obvious being the result of the London bombings. Tony Blair now wants anything spoken or written which incites violence or encourages intercommunal hate or otherwise deemed by the authorities as a security threat, to be prosecutable offence.

So yes, freedom of speech is not a universal right. It is at best, a utopian notion that must be fought for, but at the same time curtailed when abused (hate-speech, inciting violence, etc).

So, some line must be drawn, but...
Where do you draw the line?
Who do you trust to draw the line?

Freddie, to expound on that particular topic could take days or possibly beyond our lifetime.

Let's get back to the topic at hand. Goodman is if effect spamming and trolling several Malaysian sites. That is annoying.

2nd, the content of the spam probably breached the Sedition Act. The police has legal right to arrest for this reason alone.

Now, as for the legal ramifications of 3rd party comments posted on our blogs, the fear of which drove Peter to report this case to the police, I do feel was a bit unjustified. In this, I mean the fear of legal backlash on Peter and others.

By cross-posting to multiple sites, our Goodman removed the responsibility from any single site owner alone.

If Goodman had started his own blog advocating his speech, then it is much more difficult to take offline, and anyone who finds it offensive can either (1) ignore it or (2) report it to the police (if we are grossly offended).

However, if it was posted on blog or forums within our control, then there is a 3rd option, which is to remove it - and that's as simple as clicking a 'delete' button.

And if this option is readily available, I do not see the need to fallback to option (2).

What I see in this blogosphere is definitely a lot of concern and fear with regards to our legal liabilities, but without any truly solid justification and reasoning for having such fears.

Do we really need to be so worried? In this case, we are unnecessarily implicating ourselves with a lot of what-if's.

Some keep talking about the gomen inciting fear as a tool for censorship, but from what I see we did this to ourselves, without the need for any help from the gomen.

By publishing Goodman's comments in the papers we have unwittingly helped him propogate his speech. By involving the authorities we now have the Information Ministry policing us for undesirable content.

Oh well. Que sera sera.

There are multiple points your raised here.

On the issue of spamming and throlling, that is certainly annoying and given it's nature, it can only be construed as a nuisance, regardless of the content of the message. Throlling is not about free speech, but more about trespassing and incumbering and public nuisance.

On the issue of what to do about it, I agree with you. I can't understand why Peter doesn't simply press the delete button. I mean, it is so obviously offensive, so why not just trash it.

I also agree with you in that by getting the authorities involved, bloggers are simply demonstrating that they can't handle situations and need the helping hand of the censor - ie. asking for it.

I'm not sure if any act of sedition can be proven, because the act only covers action taken in Malaysia. Strictly speaking, if the author and message originated outside Malaysia, no law has been broken. Also, I believe that the web-server also resides outside Malaysia. So technically, no action by anyone was taken in Malaysia, apart from readers reading some blog. (Assumes that Goodman sent the message from outside Malaysia).

The most interesting point you raised is the point on fear. I never thought of it that way, but you are probably right. Even when bloggers blog, there will be a overriding fear that someone will be offended, or some law transgressed. That however, is a separate topic.

It really begs the question why there is technology in the first place to moderate comments in blogs.

Some of us are confusing the freedom we have in the internet, and the rights that goes with it. To many bloggers, the virtual space offered to others (other than themselves) is a priviledge, not a right. Why should any blogger be responsible for the crap you say? At the end of the day, the bloggers (for those within the reach of the Malaysian authorities, at least) are the ones who will feel the whack. Who do you think the bloggers are? They are just human like you, they have families, work and lives to live too. So stop expecting them to be champions for something that you should fight for.

So, where does the Malaysian jurisdiction begin or end for you, the Malaysian internet user?

The first to go will be the Malaysian websites. Those that falls under the aforementioned long arm of the law will find themselves under scrutiny. The more attention you get, the heavier your responsibility, it seems. It goes back to the earlier days of SangKancil mailing list. Opinions, thoughts and commentaries are circulated as private speech. Very much like the old days, except faster, cheaper and with a very much larger mass-mailing capacity.

Unfortunately, the very people we are trying to engage, which is the ignoramus masses, will not be possible. This will be similar to the registration of blog readers or commentators. There is simply no such space in the web any longer because the ones sitting on a cyber-real estate are coming to the decision that they "own" that space.

It is a classic problem and this act of ownership of internet real estate is not limited to bloggers. It is called social evolution - the internet is trying to rise from its own chaos. There are those who argue that because they have created the platform, work the site, maintained it, etc etc etc it is their right to its ownership.

The interesting bit is whether the site becomes a private or public space. You know, if what is illegal offline is illegal online, I wonder if all this gathering in virtual space counts as illegal assembly. Would we have to apply permits if we call an assembly in chatrooms?

If physical assembly is the crucial recipe, then what is to deny us the same application in the instance of public and private speech? Contrary to many Malaysians who believe that the internet and the real world are the same, the cyberspace is actually a unique medium. O'Brien (see links) included secret to the mix, but the point is what I have been trying to yell at you guys for some time now - the real world and the virtual world have very different boundaries. Does the internet spell the end of private speech? How can we keep free speech alive, when there is no way to keep it at all by the definition of our some enthusiasts for law and order?

http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2003/10/14/obrien_on_public_private_and_secret_discourse.php

http://www.oblomovka.com/entries/2003/10/13#1066058820

Now that most of us are now focusing on the sedition act, it is already admitting the remarks of "Good Man" as evidence for its malice intent.

Well, let me just put it this way, I WISH THE SAME LAW CAN BE APPLIED TO INFORMATION POISONING ON THE INTERNET, BLOGGER OR NO BLOGGER. But I won't support it, why? Because I do not agree with our laws who threatens to send people to jail for being stupid.

chez, I've been trying to point out that bloggers are not and will not be responsible for what someone else says on their blogs, as long as the blogger is sensible enough to moderate.

I believe most Malaysians understand the Internet as vastly different from the real world, which is why we have new laws and codes to govern the cyberworld in Malaysia. It's a unique and delicate situation, and because the government is committed not to have internet censorship, then stronger measures must be taken to curb abuse, especially if it's originating from Malaysia. (especially due to it's worldwide reach at the click of a button)

To draw a parallel to physical assembly is nonsensical. We DO know the difference and the real implications. Philosophical debate does not change that fact.

The point is that free speech (or expression) cannot and should not be abused to incite hatred, defame others and diminish our social and moral values. And yes, there are laws that govern information poisoning on the Internet.

Being stupid is no defense against the law. We see instances of stupid actions that lead to loss of life, to loss of property, etc. That does not mean they do not have to bear the consequence of their actions.

As for cyber ownership, you own it if you own the server serving the page to the Internet. If you use hosting services, you're renting. But regardless of the argument, what you write and post online, is owned and copyrighted by you.

"The point is that free speech (or expression) cannot and should not be abused to incite hatred, defame others and diminish our social and moral values."

- totoro

Since you want to put it this way, lets decide if one abuse warrants another. I have always decided that hate speech is everywhere, and we can only nip the ones with the biggest reach / audience. I mean, there is an aggregate here which decides the "abuse" of speech. I can be talking to my brother about how communal the Chinese are, or to three of my friends, or to my colleagues for that matter - would it constitute public speech?

I mean, try to look at it this way, lets say I make a statement that the Chinese, in the most positive sense possible, are very very communal creatures and we have lots of evidence for that. However, I cannot talk about it unless I package the vocabulary that will not offend others. I mean, there is two component in "hate speech", you must be able to decide on its hateful and malicious intent, and you must alse make sure whether it is a speech.

God forbid I apologize freely if anything I write incites violence, hatred or make a man, woman or child cry. I simply do not think I have such powers. Lets be honest totoro, this social responsibility and bloggers only came about because some blogs have gotten under the microscope. You know, animals under close observation will manifest vastly bizzaire behaviour. This is what we are looking at.

Would anyone give a hoot about a passing comment in a regular blog? No, only those with a strong sense of awareness in its self-importance do. We are all concious creatures, and some of us has gotten to be more concious of the hanging sword of damocles. This is an act of self preservation by some bloggers who needs the protection. It just so happens that the fool that came along at an opportune moment is called "Good Man".

Some of you are suggesting that all we have to do is deny "Good Man" his priviledge of using the podium of others and get one of his own. That way, he can bear full responsibility for what he has said. I am saying that "Good Man" should be responsible for what he says, wherever he is, but it is not the bloggers who have the right to prosecute him. The bloggers obviously do not want to be responsible, but instead of moderating their own space, they decided to go on the offensive and gave IP information to the police.

Now, who owns this IP information? Did I give mine to Mack to do as he pleases, judging by whether I am behaving? I wish bloggers would lodge a police report for every spam they've got though. That way probably we can strike some fear of god into those spammers.

It is an obvious error, imho. The bloggers have options, which they could delete the nick and offending comment, block the user from commenting ever again, or issue a warning to whoever that is using that IP that it shall go to the police. I am not too sure of any of the above because everything happened so fast that bang it is in the papers and now the entire matter is in the hands of the police. No use crying over spilt milk, I suppose. What we have to make sure now is how our bloggers are going to respect our privacy and anonymity.

You will claim that we have nothing to fear as long as we are on the right side of the law. But can I trust bloggers, again, to decide whether what I say is on the "right" side, or the "wrong" side? Man, will I even get an e-mail warning me that I will be banned? Will I even get an e-mail warning that my IP information will be given out faster than Santa Claus on Christmas day?

It used to be that the legal authorities will have to pry it loose from the hands of Malaysiakini and the likes. Now that some bloggers are volunteering such information, it sure makes the cyberspace a much safer place.

Just remember, you are not anonymous. There is no anonymity online, and when some blogger invades your privacy by plastering your face, your day-job and your employer in the net, we have to trust him doing it for some nobler cause that we the common people can't understand.

Chez, the moment you drag the JO/PM issue into this comment section, I lost the interest to debate this further (regardless of whether I agree or disagree). Take this elsewhere, maybe your own blog.

You provided the links earlier, but yet can't tell the difference between private conversation and public speech (anything on the Internet)?

And for God's sake, your IP address is not private information. If you want privacy, stop posting.

Dear totoro,

An IP address is public information, but that's if I send you that information. Of course, we need an IP address or I can kiss the internet goodbye entirely. Unfortunately, you still don't get it, the issue here is privacy, anonymity and security.

If your ISP tries to trace you for legal reasons using your IP address, that's perfectly fine. Afterall, there is probably sufficient evidence that has warranted police action. Many websites, such as blogs, also log IP addresses. However, what gives our friendly bloggers the joy to release any of our IP address and track our digital trails? With no proper privacy policy, it would be more honest for bloggers to admit that there is no anonymity and whatever we give are not bound by any promises of privacy.

This means that for us internet users, anonymity and privacy is something we have to be vigilant about, and not make the mistake of assuming it as a given. I have yet found a need for encryption services or other forms of hiding my IP address, because its abuse is yet to be a problem. We accept a lot in good faith, and we have, so far, no grouses as to how we are being treated. Unfortunately, the recent actions of some bloggers turning over user information to the authorities over a suspicion of sedition has gotten me thinking and learning more.

Surely, there is no total anonymity or privacy. That's impossible. However, what we can work on is how our personal information is being used, drawing boundaries and rules of engagement. It would be great if we can have some level of privacy, even if it is not total.

While the bloggers are trying to protect themselves, all I am yelling about is for the non-bloggers to realize that they have to learn to protect themselves too, and that include making sure website owners come clean to what they do with our IP address and the circumstance in which they will hand it over to a third party, with or without warning or our foreknowledge. I am seeking a clarity of procedure, accountability and avoiding the same ugliness that has happened with "Good Man" and "Anwar".

Surely, bloggers now have learned enough about responsibility. So, instead of investing in more ambiguity in which the bloggers will try to regulate their content to some imaginary standard of decency, at least let the bloggers come out clearly to state what they will do with comments they can't handle.

I'm sorry to say that in this case, it isn't the throll that appears to want all the attention. It's the bloggers that actually filed police reports, and had themselves plastered on page one.

As much as we disagree with others, what gives us the right to think that what 'good man' should be shut up?

As long as the most influential blogger (and posse) goes on his crusade to expose 'phoniness', he's only doing himself and the whole Malaysian blogging community by helping our Kementerian Dalam Negeri do their cyber-policing to achieve their aims of shutting us up.

Bloggers want an audience, in fact, as large an audience as possible. So what is wrong with using a throll incident to crank up readership?
Sensationalism sells, and if you want to get in on the business, then you gotta play the game the way professionals do.

It is good that some people think that Goodman should be shut up. Otherwise, if everybody agreed with everyone else, there would be nothing to talk about.

What's "throlling"? Is that the same as "trolling"? Did they change the term when I wasn't looking?

GEEz i think you guys should relax, and get of your buts and go outside... theres a thing called life and sun