From a Singapore Angle

The background: part 1, 2, 3. ST "latest news" (Oct 7) has the outcome: Koh was sentenced to jail for a month, and Lim was sentenced to jail for a day and fined S$5,000. (The max either could have gotten is up to three years jail and and a fine of $5,000.) Also from ST:

During sentencing, senior district judge Richard Magnus said Koh's comments, which contained vulgarities, were 'particularly vile'. He said it was necessary for the court 'to make it clear that such an offense will be met, upon conviction, with a sentence of general deterrence.'

Warning young Singaporeans about the dangers of such comments, the judge said: 'Racial and religious hostility feeds on itself. Young Singaporeans ... must realise that callous and reckless remarks on racial or religious subjects have the potential to cause social disorder, in whatever medium or forum they are expressed.'

Reuters has also picked up the story; and so has Global Voices Online.

More analysis from Mr. Wang, who notes that though neither got anywhere near the max, "there is considerable disparity between Koh's and Lim's respective sentences"--indicating that although they committed similar offences, one "made much more extreme remarks and therefore received a heavier sentence." On the racist remarks themselves:

The Straits Times did not tell us what Koh and Lim actually wrote. In a way, this is a pity, because if bloggers knew what Koh and Lim actually wrote, then bloggers themselves would know what they should not write. As it is, these two cases will produce some unnecessary "chilling effect" on bloggers erring grossly on the side of caution. On the other hand, the Straits Times probably made a considered decision not to report the specifics of Koh's and Lim's remarks, as these remarks are offensive to begin with, and probably contain words not generally considered polite enought to be printed in a newspaper.

Elsewhere, Libertas doesn't think much of the deterent effect of a one day jail sentence:

...jailing person for a single day would seems to have little or no deterrent effect on the individual. If he had the temerity to post such racist remarks online, would spending one day in a cell force a mindset change? "Sentence of general deterence"? The government should work on why he would say such things rather than view this as an open and shut case. Its definitely symptomatic of a larger problem, one which will go undetected until it tears the very fabric of our multireligous multiracial society.

Perhaps. But if he does it again, there will at least be grounds for imposing a harsher punishment for a repeat offence. (update: This is what the judge said in his ruling: "The quantum of sentence on each of the accused persons, therefore, varies according to their level of blameworthiness. The court will not hesitate to impose appropriate salutary and stiffer sentences in future cases.'")

Interestingly, Shaun, who thinks that the "best way to deal with the problem is not through the criminal system", something "that should only reserved for advocation of violence" is calling for extending the use of the Sedition Act:

I figure maybe it's better to go with the flow and propose the following legislative change instead. So I propose we extend the protection of the court to other minority groups and use it to protect society from the potential of social discord. Since women have the Women's Charter and maids have s. 73 of the penal code (basically increases the penalty by 1.5 times), I say we use the Sedition Act against homophobes.

...as they come in...

update: More links available from tomorrow.sg. Meanwhile, everyone's favorite mainstream newspaper also has more stuff out today (ST Oct 8), including a "feel good" one ("Bloggers say they have many Muslim friends", by Ben Nadarajan) that recounts how Benjamin Koh and Nicholas Lim have Muslim friends who are forgiving. Just one bit:

Lim submitted his own letter to the court, apologising for his conduct... [He] said he has many close Muslim friends and had the 'privilege of enjoying their hospitality during festive and family occasions'.

He said he realises his actions have hurt these friends' feelings. 'I have asked, and have been fortunate to receive, their understanding and forgiveness since.'

Lim also recounted a conversation he had with a friend, who asked if he felt even more prejudiced towards Muslims after he was charged. 'I was taken aback at first, but after some soul searching, I realised I harbour none of such feelings at all,' he wrote. 'If anything, this episode has shown me the true depth of understanding, acceptance and capacity for forgiveness that the Islam faith and all other good religions practise.'

They call this a "teachable moment". (TODAY has a similar report; see also Libertas.)

More importantly: ST also reproduced District Judge Richard Magnus's "landmark ruling", which contains an explanation as to "why the Act was used, for the first time in nearly 40 years". Mr. Wang has the lowdown (a must read); and he highlights the significant fact that the principle of offence was rather explicitly invoked in the ruling:

The right to propagate an opinion on the Internet is not, and cannot be, an unfettered right. The right of one person's freedom of expression must always be balanced by the right of another's freedom from offence, and tampered by wider public interest considerations.

This recalls an earlier (but brief) discussion we had (see this, scroll down; and also in the comments). In brief, there are two recognized limitations to freedom of expression--to prevent harm, or to prevent offence (for a full discussion of the "harm principle" and "offence principle" in the context of the freedom of speech, see this), with the latter being more controversial than the former.

When the three were first charged, I was under the impression--given the pronouncements of various ministers who commented--that it is primarily the potential for causing harm, i.e., the possibility of stirring inter-racial hatred, creating distrust and animosity between the races, inciting conflict and hostility, etc., that motivated the charges against the plantiffs. I was thus mildly surprised at the explicit mentioning of "offence" as a factor. Not that the issue of harm is not present--in fact, it is quite prominent in the ruling. Consider what the Judge said (I've highlighted the parts that relate more to issues of "harm" in red, and those that related more to issues of offence in black):

Young Singaporeans, like the accused persons before this court, may have short memories that race and religion are sensitive issues. They must realise that callous and reckless remarks on racial or religious subjects have the potential to cause social disorder, in whatever medium or forum they are expressed...

The right to propagate an opinion on the Internet is not, and cannot be, an unfettered right. The right of one person's freedom of expression must always be balanced by the right of another's freedom from offence, and tampered by wider public interest considerations.

It is only appropriate social behaviour, independent of any legal duty, of every Singapore citizen and resident to respect the other races in view of our multiracial society.

Each individual living here, irrespective of his racial origin, owes it to himself and to the country to see that nothing is said or done which might incite the people and plunge the country into racial strife and violence. These are basic ground rules...the Sedition Act delineates this red line on the ground. The two accused persons have crossed the red line by wantonly breaching these ground rules.

Looking at the whole passage, it does seem to be me that harm is still the more important driving factor. The wording of the ruling suggests that "offence" is meant to relate specifically to peculiar conditions in "our multiracial society" in which "race and religion are sensitive issues". In particular, the mentioning of the plantiffs' "short memories" appears to be a way of saying: do keep in mind that people have shed blood in this country over race and religion before--and in that specific sense, these are "sensitive issues". I am no lawyer--so any correction would be most welcomed--but it does seem to me that the ruling need not be read as endorsing a full fledge "principle of offence" as a limitation of the freedom of speech; rather, we are in the region of something that is quite historical-context sensitive here (see also the comments section).