AIMS’s paper on Engaging New Media — a summary of their position on online political content, and my take on it

August 30, 2008 by admin
Filed under: Internet & Media 

Written by Ng E-Jay
29 Aug 2008

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:

  • 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.

AIMS stated that its work was guided by four key principles:

  • 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.

In the arena of online political content, AIMS said that while current laws in this area might have been effective in curbing the excesses of irresponsible speech, they may also unduly limit the use of what can be a valuable, and probably indispensable, channel of communication.

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.

Tags:

Comments

5 Comments on AIMS’s paper on Engaging New Media — a summary of their position on online political content, and my take on it

  1. singapore casket pte ltd on Mon, 1st Sep 2008 3:59 pm

    2. community moderation bites the dust…..next

  2. Y2K on Mon, 1st Sep 2008 6:22 pm

    3. Many things were said and many things were done. However, as a historian and the director general of the FILB. This is how I shall write it. Community moderation was once mooted. It was resisted vehemently by the brotherhood and at the end of the day, it was successfully derailed on merit. Our net is as free as it can possibly be. This is how I shall enter the account into the annals of history.

    Best Regards

    Y2K

  3. Malcolm on Tue, 2nd Sep 2008 9:42 am

    4. The blogger thirteen should have co-opted Darkness and gang from the word go. The brotherhood are just very lethal. You dont screw around with that sort of intellectual fire power. You really have to be either stupid or just plain dumb. Darkness made so much noise it became clear to me, it will just be so impossible to make the whole idea fly, not even with the likes of cherian george and some personalities from the LKY school. The brotherhood are not afraid of those kampung heroes. If you roll ten, they will roll out twenty. That is how they fight. First they destroy your reputation. After than they will move to dismantle your credibility and finally when that is in tatters, they will proceed to marginalize you by co-opting a higher authority. The question I cannot figure out is there are thirteen people so who was the rocket scientist who came up with the idea to boycott them in the first place? As it turned out, it was bad strategy. I mean you can even tell from the AIMS video posted in youtube, the only reason why those professors in AIMS dont want anything to do with CM was bc they dont want this fellow on their case. Next time just get them on board. Its a lesson that the net can all learn from. Exclude them and they will take you to the cleaners for six pence.

  4. Find Out Whether AIMS is Screwing The Right Hole? « JUST STUFF on Tue, 2nd Sep 2008 1:51 pm

    5. [...] AIMS’s paper on Engaging New Media — a summary of their position on online political content, an… [...]

  5. The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 36 on Sat, 6th Sep 2008 10:58 am

    6. [...] don’t need no regulation – Sgpolitics: AIMS’s paper on Engaging New Media — a summary of their position on online political content, an… – Journalism.sg: Don’t ban websites, AIMS panel advises Government – Rambling Librarian: [...]

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