Why I dissented to the Bloggers’ proposals on the Regulation of Hate Speech on the Internet

June 21, 2008 by admin
Filed under: Internet & Media 

Written by Ng E-Jay
20 June 2008

On 18 April, a group of 13 bloggers, which included myself, submitted a paper to the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts entitled “Proposals for Internet freedom in Singapore”.

The paper outlines the various defects in current media laws and regulations governing internet content in Singapore, such as instituting vague restrictions which gives authorities too much leeway in interpretation of the law, conferring arbitrary power on the Media Development Authority (MDA) to penalize owners of websites that in its judgment have violated MDA’s own rules, and the regulation of political content which is unjustified in principle and unenforceable in practice.

The paper proposes ways of addressing the defects in current laws and regulations with respect to 3 main areas: (a) political expression, (b) racial/religious hate speech and (c) sex & violence.

I fully agreed with the sections on political expression and sex & violence, but I did not agree with the recommendations put forth in the part on racial/religious hate speech.

The section entitled “Regulation of Hate Speech on the Internet” proposes that Sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code be repealed and replaced with new legislation that is more specific to the act of inciting others to cause injury to another class of people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion or the absence thereof, gender and sexual orientation.

The paper explains the rationale for repealing Sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code as follows: “Where the threat is merely of promoting hatred between different racial or religious groups, the laws become less difficult to justify. This is even more so in the case of laws that criminalise offending the racial or religious feelings of others. In these situations the threat to the community is not immediate: there is usually time to manage any fallout. In such circumstances, to allow the social goal in maintaining harmony to trump over the right to freedom of speech and expression will make nonsense of that right.”

I disagree with this analysis.

The issues of race and religion are very personal and sensitive. History has shown time and again that when people deliberately promote hatred between racial or religious groups through the use of vulgarities, propaganda, insults, or even hate speech masquerading as constructive dialogue, the reaction from the communities involved can be swift, and unfortunately, sometimes with severe consequences. This is especially true when the social climate is in a volatile period, for example, in times of economic stress or just after a successful terrorist attack. Refer to Indonesia during the Asian Financial Crisis and in the US just after Sept 11, 2001.

In my opinion, the whole point of the paper on Internet deregulation is to advocate for freedom from laws that are unjustified in principle. The regulation of political content such as Section 33 of the Films Act (Cap 107) which prohibits the making, distribution and exhibition of party political films, and Section 78A(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218), which regulates election advertising on the Internet, are examples of laws which are not only unjust, but which the authorities have selectively applied on political opponents in order to unfairly suppress the voices of political dissent.

The laws criminalizing the promulgation of religious and racial hate speech, however, are not unjust. That is why I dissented to the proposal to repeal Sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code.

Tags:

Comments

5 Comments on Why I dissented to the Bloggers’ proposals on the Regulation of Hate Speech on the Internet

  1. The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 23 Jun 2008 on Mon, 23rd Jun 2008 11:12 am

    2. [...] Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform – Yawning Bread: Key concerns about internet deregulation emerge at forum – Singapore Patriot: Internet Content Consultative Committee – Journalism.sg: Why we need a bottom-up internet content consultative committee – Singapore Patriot: Political Films and the Ruling Party – Simple is the Reason of My Heart: Community Moderation: Thoughts from the Internet Regulatory Reform Seminar – The one dimensional island: Internet deregulation seminar – Sgpolitics: Why I dissented to the Bloggers’ proposals on the Regulation of Hate Speech on the Internet [...]

  2. Gabriel Sim on Mon, 23rd Jun 2008 12:06 pm

    3. E-Jay,

    Sometimes laws are not unjust but they can be weilded unjustly or creatively.

    As long as the laws in singapore are written in such ambiguious and broad-sweeping ways, there will always be an opportunity to clamp down on free expression.

    The protection of freedom of expression is not to grant immunity against punishment. It is to safeguard against governmental abuse of power to curb dissident voices.

  3. ssrr on Mon, 23rd Jun 2008 10:45 pm

    4. Look at it this way, take the example of peaceful protests – no one can guarantee peaceful protests won’t turn violent and riotous. Therefore let’s retain laws that curb protests. But the laws not only shut off protests, but also other forms of activism and expressions that a healthy society must have. That is the issue.

    For a society and people to progress, there must be space for the occasional errors and hiccups bound to happen. Only then can learning take place and progress be made. It is akin to one step backwards but two or three steps forward. The reverse position is to err on the side of caution and shut down this space. This effectively curbs discussion, minds go to sleep or in cower in fear, and no one learns anything.

    Because issues of race and religion are so personal and sensitive, there is more reason they should be discussed without fear of being criminalised or accused of hurting others’ feelings. That would be the mature way to go about it.

    I read S.298 and 298a and feel that the danger lies less with the wordings or specifics of the statutes. Instead it is the people administering justice in our less-than-independent judiciary that we should be worried about.

  4. johnnylikesdemocracy on Tue, 24th Jun 2008 11:29 am

    5. E-jay,
    it sounds like you are becoming quite block headed with this issue.

  5. The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 26 on Sat, 28th Jun 2008 11:04 am

    6. [...] Seminar [Recommended] – The one dimensional island: Internet deregulation seminar – Sgpolitics: Why I dissented to the Bloggers’ proposals on the Regulation of Hate Speech on the Internet – Simple is the Reason of My Heart: The Economics about Banning Political Films [Recommended] – [...]

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