Reading the ST (May 15)
Let's see now, what interesting ST(I) articles are there today that might edutain me. First, a couple about the the Shanmugam Murugesu case, specifically the "publicity stunt" that his lawyer pulled. I'm sure others will have more intelligent things to say about that than I. Moving on. Woah...a trinity of articles about Philip Yeo and A*Star--that's one week behind TNP. Still, better late than never. But if you are going to talk about "blogging responsibly" (below), perhaps the ST could set some much needed example by not quoting its sources wrong?
Which brings us to...the whole gaggle about blogs and the internet. There's one under the "Click" section about the Singapore version of Craig's List ("Craig's World" by Wong Sher Maine). Nice. After using the list both in the San Francisco Bay Area and in Toronto, I would love to see it grow in Singapore. Another one in "Click" about a blog: "Crap & Such: For your infrequent dose of bull" by JL LT (jllt.blogspot.com), here introduced as "the new Xiaxue", to be more precise, "the less vulgar version of Xiaxue - the Singaporean blogger who won the Best Asian Weblog last year." Heh. Well, better this in the national press than, say, more CZ.
Ahh, two articles about "blogging responsibly". Very necessary, you know, after all the toss up over some chemical test-tude thingy it's time bloggers learn that they are not beyond the law, that they must blog responsibility, et cetera. The short one is actually from a blogger, one Ephraim Loy ("Bloggers must act responsibly" under "Talk"), who has this to say:
The other article is longer and by an actual ST person: "Blog no evil--Libel laws and angry readers make bloggers regret their online rants", by Ng Mei Yan, under "Gen Y" (is this the article advertised in yesterday's paper? Should be, as no others seem to match the description; unless there are things I am not getting via STI.)
So what does it say? Blogs are not genuinely private because "everyone can see it", which also means that "the law of defamation still applies". Even if the stuff is password protected, once it leaks out, you might still be liable. The internet is international: if what you write can be read in country X, then you can be sued in country X--even if you are posting in country Y. "Fair comment"--i.e., when "the facts that support the comment are true and that it was made without malice" are kosher. And--this is the best one--"a person does not have to be of a minimum age to be charged", and so on. And the law is not the only thing that the blogger has to be concerned about--there are the other netizens as well. All very informative--if you are encountering the blogosphere for the first time, that is.
And then there are the mandatory quotes from the big two: "veteran blogger Lee Kin Mun" (a.k.a. Mr. Brown), who offers sound advice: "I think the most important guideline is if you are prepared to put a strong statement out there, be prepared to receive a strong statement back and be prepared to defend it when people criticise, or be able to take the criticism with a thick skin." Now if only some parties will actually criticise, instead of, say, threaten to bring suit. I am speaking hypothetically, of course.
And Wendy Cheng (a.k.a. Xiaxue), whose dictum is requoted:
addendum: (May 16 1110 -0400) JeffYen explores the insights of the the Xiaxue Doctrine and compares it to the Powell Doctrine.
EDIT: (The rest transferred to a new post)
Which brings us to...the whole gaggle about blogs and the internet. There's one under the "Click" section about the Singapore version of Craig's List ("Craig's World" by Wong Sher Maine). Nice. After using the list both in the San Francisco Bay Area and in Toronto, I would love to see it grow in Singapore. Another one in "Click" about a blog: "Crap & Such: For your infrequent dose of bull" by JL LT (jllt.blogspot.com), here introduced as "the new Xiaxue", to be more precise, "the less vulgar version of Xiaxue - the Singaporean blogger who won the Best Asian Weblog last year." Heh. Well, better this in the national press than, say, more CZ.
Ahh, two articles about "blogging responsibly". Very necessary, you know, after all the toss up over some chemical test-tude thingy it's time bloggers learn that they are not beyond the law, that they must blog responsibility, et cetera. The short one is actually from a blogger, one Ephraim Loy ("Bloggers must act responsibly" under "Talk"), who has this to say:
While blogging encourages one to speak up - which is a good thing and what the Government advocates - there has to be a limit. Bloggers should be educated on ethical blogging methods to prevent them from inadvertently breaching the laws. Perhaps the authorities can address this issue, to prevent other such cases? It's time Singaporeans took a responsible approach to blogging.I am speaking fellow blogger to fellow blogger here: why are we looking to (of all things) the government to solve our every problem? Two, lest anyone think that all this talk about "blogging responsibly" is new, let me point you to something posted by Ivan two weeks ago.
The other article is longer and by an actual ST person: "Blog no evil--Libel laws and angry readers make bloggers regret their online rants", by Ng Mei Yan, under "Gen Y" (is this the article advertised in yesterday's paper? Should be, as no others seem to match the description; unless there are things I am not getting via STI.)
So what does it say? Blogs are not genuinely private because "everyone can see it", which also means that "the law of defamation still applies". Even if the stuff is password protected, once it leaks out, you might still be liable. The internet is international: if what you write can be read in country X, then you can be sued in country X--even if you are posting in country Y. "Fair comment"--i.e., when "the facts that support the comment are true and that it was made without malice" are kosher. And--this is the best one--"a person does not have to be of a minimum age to be charged", and so on. And the law is not the only thing that the blogger has to be concerned about--there are the other netizens as well. All very informative--if you are encountering the blogosphere for the first time, that is.
And then there are the mandatory quotes from the big two: "veteran blogger Lee Kin Mun" (a.k.a. Mr. Brown), who offers sound advice: "I think the most important guideline is if you are prepared to put a strong statement out there, be prepared to receive a strong statement back and be prepared to defend it when people criticise, or be able to take the criticism with a thick skin." Now if only some parties will actually criticise, instead of, say, threaten to bring suit. I am speaking hypothetically, of course.
And Wendy Cheng (a.k.a. Xiaxue), whose dictum is requoted:
I know the people whom I criticise are not going to come after me and sue me. I don't write about companies and they are the ones that will sue.And then it hit me: the mainstream media misquotes/misrepresents bloggers--Mr. Brown, Mr. Miyagi, Singapore Ink (above)--and the likelihood is that it won't be sued. It would seem that the mainstream media--consciously or otherwise--applies the Xiaxue doctrine...
addendum: (May 16 1110 -0400) JeffYen explores the insights of the the Xiaxue Doctrine and compares it to the Powell Doctrine.
EDIT: (The rest transferred to a new post)
Permalink |
|
| 
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home