Internet freedom: Rights come with responsibilities. My response to a ST letter.

May 14, 2008 by admin
Filed under: Current Affairs, Internet & Media 

The Straits Times Online has published a letter in the online forum page written by Mr Mok Wing Tat.

Mr Mok’s letter concerns the proposals for Internet freedom submitted by a group of 13 bloggers (one of whom is me) to the Ministry of Information. Communications and the Arts. Mr Mok raised the issue of freedom versus responsibility on the Internet, and voiced his concerns about Internet discussions degenerating into insults and harassment, suggesting that where virtual speech has consequences in the real world, it should be subject to legal regulation.

Mr Mok’s letter is reproduced as follows, and my response to his letter is appended after it.

Mr Mok’s letter:

Internet freedom: Rights come with responsibilities

12 May 2008

I REFER to the proposals for Internet freedom sent by a group of 13 bloggers to the Ministry of Information. Communications and the Arts (‘Govt looking at lighter touch on the Net’, Thursday).

It is all very well to argue for rights and freedoms, as the group of 13 do, but the opposite side of the coin must also be emphasised. This is that rights come with responsibilities. We should also consider a Charter of Net Responsibilities for those who seek to promote political debate in cyberspace.

The Internet, while a valuable site of alternative informational flows, can degenerate into a forum which purveys innuendo and misinformation and a channel to incite hatred against those who espouse views some netizens may not like. Such uncivil methods of intimidation undermine democracy and free speech. Misinformation or spiteful attacks which are unrelated to an issue do not serve the goals of free and fair debate.

Free speech is not a good in itself; it is a means to various ends, like finding truth through political debate, tossing up a range of options to a problem so we can choose the best one, holding the Government to account by subjecting bad policy to critique, and promoting democratic debate, rather than self-indulgent rants, which is informed and reflective. Speech which ignores or harms these goals does not deserve protection and may warrant legal sanction, particularly when it clashes with other competing rights to reputation or racial and religious harmony, which benefit us all.

As Judge of Appeal V.K. Rajah noted in a public nuisance case: ‘Contempt for the rights of others constitutes the foundation for public nuisance. All persons have a general right to be protected from insults, abuse or harassment. Those who improperly infringe or intrude upon such a right to draw publicity to their cause, regardless of the extent and sincerity of their beliefs, must be held accountable for their conduct. The right of freedom of expression should never be exercised on the basis that opinions are expressed in hermetically sealed vacuums where only the rights of those who ardently advocate their views matter.’

We need a holistic approach to regulating the Internet. The bottom line is: Where virtual speech has consequences in the real world, it should be subject to legal regulation. In addition, those who argue for rights should demonstrate their good faith by setting forth the responsibilities that accompany liberties.

Mok Wing Tat

MY RESPONSE TO MR MOK’S LETTER:

I am one of the 13 bloggers who submitted the proposals for Internet freedom to the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts. I would like to respond the letter ‘Internet freedom: Rights come with responsibilities’ by Mok Wing Tat (ST, 12 May) in my personal capacity.

The proposals recognize that freedom comes with responsibility. The question is who should determine what is right and wrong on the Internet, and how society’s values should be enforced by the law. The proposals are concerned with the kinds of regulation that can allow us to harness the benefits of free speech while minimising the harm that free speech can cause.

The group believes that many of society’s legitimate concerns about the abuse of free speech can be addressed through community moderation. One possible approach is to organise a citizen-based Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3) which would issue recommendations whenever controversies arise regarding Internet content, for example, offering its views when content providers are alleged to have behaved irresponsibly. The objective over time is to subject Internet content to public debate, replacing intervention by the state with the peoples’ own judgment.

I personally believe that that as long as issues like race or religion are not involved, regulation of political content on the Internet is unjustified in principle and unenforceable in practice. The group as a whole believes that certain sections of the Parliamentary Elections Act regulating election advertising over the Internet during an election period should be abolished. Similarly, the section of the Films Act banning the manufacture and distribution of party political films should also be abolished.

Mr Mok is particularly concerned that free speech on the Internet often degenerates into insults and harassment. In real life, anyone who has been defamed or has suffered harassment can seek legal redress. I am of the opinion that laws that apply offline in the real world should apply equally online, but no further. The Internet should not be subject to regulation over and above those that apply in real life. Additionally, net users can protect themselves by maintaining anonymity. Net users like me who have voluntarily chosen to reveal their identities online have to be responsible for it.

Tags:

Comments

5 Comments on Internet freedom: Rights come with responsibilities. My response to a ST letter.

  1. Daily SG: 14 May 2008 « The Singapore Daily on Wed, 14th May 2008 12:41 pm

    2. [...] Posted by The Singapore Daily on 14 May 2008 We Don’t Need No Regulation – Sgpolitics.net: Internet freedom: Rights come with responsibilities. My response to a ST letter [...]

  2. Wayne TAn on Wed, 14th May 2008 11:38 pm

    3. If we wish to call ourselves a developed country – shouldnt best practice in the US and Europe be used as a benchmark?

  3. Darkness on Thu, 15th May 2008 2:11 am

    4. “The group believes that many of society’s legitimate concerns about the abuse of free speech can be addressed through community moderation. One possible approach is to organise a citizen-based Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3) which would issue recommendations whenever controversies arise regarding Internet content, for example, offering its views when content providers are alleged to have behaved irresponsibly. The objective over time is to subject Internet content to public debate, replacing intervention by the state with the peoples’ own judgment.”

    You ppl like to moderate so much, go and moderate yourself lah. We all never stop you ppl mah. Why you all so kaypoh and involve the rest of us? We never even ask for this medicine wot? Name me just one state in US and one country in EU got community moderation, not asking for 5 or 6 or even 4,3,2. Just one will do.

    Dowan lah.

  4. DOM the Clown on Thu, 15th May 2008 8:21 am

    5. To: Wayne

    LOL! Haven’t you heard of SELECTIVE BENCHMARKING???

    hiak! hiak! hiak!
    DOM

  5. SGDaily Roundup: Week 20 « The Singapore Daily on Sat, 17th May 2008 11:30 am

    6. [...] Responsibilities and Regulations – BHP: My Inalienable Right to Remain Anon – Sgpolitics.net: Internet freedom: Rights come with responsibilities. My response to a ST letter – Sam’s thoughts: Freedom in the Net (pun intended) [Recommended] – BHP: Past, Present and Future [...]

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!