All those cases were against the people who actually said something (supposedly) defamatory. The precedent here is that merely sharing a link to something somebody else wrote now also qualifies as defamation.
It's well known that Singapore is not a free country. Many people idolise it for being supposedly a success story in economic development. Which is fine in itself I guess, but what many people do is then jump to pretend that Singapore is not an authoritarian country, in an attempt to justify other areas in which it had success.
Here's a helpful explainer of the law being applied here (as well as data on additional cases where it was used since its introduction in 2019): https://pofmaed.com/explainer-what-is-pofma/
I seem to be on the other side of the consensus here on HN.
If you accept defamation laws (and defamation laws are a thing in Singapore and many other places), then the question is whether you actively participated in the creation or dissemination of slander (again, assuming that creation and dissemination are both illegal).
We in the tech world have optimized various mechanisms to enable sharing information- we have gotten so good at it that our users don’t pause for a moment and think about their responsibility they bear when hitting that share button.
It’s like picking up cleanly packaged meat from the grocery store or filling up on gas from a gas station- the experience is so clean and polished that one doesn’t really think about where the meat/crude oil is coming from and what it means to be paying for it.
I think the courts held that one is responsible for what they share. It isn’t “merely” sharing a news article on facebook - the person had to decide to hit that share button.
Now, there are a lot of things wrong with this. But most of the problems come from having some defamation law to begin with.
I take issue with the law itself, but this interpretation of it doesn’t bother me.
IANAL, and I don’t know if dissemination is somehow different from creation in defamation cases. I expect it has to be - otherwise “Mr. X is a pedophile” can be illegal while “I heard that Mr. X is a pedophile” isn’t. Which seems dumb if one’s intent was to make defamation illegal in all ways.
> then the question is whether you actively participated in
There is another important question: intention. In the US, "for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case in the United States, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth" [1].
It seems to me that most of the problems come not from having the defamation law to begin with like you said, but from the law applying even to defendants who believed the information they were creating or disseminating was true.
Let's say the NYT publishes an article about the president. You, believing it to be an accurate representation of facts, share the article. It turns out the NYT writer made it all up. Do you think it's reasonable to punish you for libel?
What about newspaper stands that sold the libelous paper?
I think it's clear this ruling is totally incompatible with a free press and free speech. Only the original source should be held accountable.
Uneven enforcement is a problem in and of itself. Doing nothing to a thousand people and then slamming a fine like this on one guy is not conducive to rule of law.
But this is Singapore, it's not a very free country.
And there is the problem. While you propose an interesting academic question, the chain of events starts from a law that I see as harmful. Therefore, there's no value in justifying the legitimacy of the next steps.
Republishing libellous content can indeed be defamation. I don't know the details for his case and IANA but retweeting/sharing can land you in hot waters not only in Singapore but also in the UK for instance:
"In 2013, a defendant named Alan Davies was ordered to pay £15,000 in settlement after retweeting a Sally Bercow tweet that suggested Lord McAlpine, a former leading Conservative politician, had committed child abuse." [1]
"Defamation is apparent when one person publishes a statement or material about another person that is untrue and is damaging to the claimant’s reputation or likely to cause such harm – this is the case even if the defendant has simply republished a statement made by another." [1]
There seems to be an argument to be made that sharing an article resembles saying "I heard that X" where X is the contents of the article. It seems a bit dumb to have the heard that distinction and not apply it to sharing on social media. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that by sharing an article a person is asserting they consider everything in it to be unquestionably true. It generally means they found something they heard/saw interesting.
It's also worth mentioning that the shared article claimed that Malaysia, under former Prime Minister Najib Razak, had signed unfair deals with Singapore in return for help to launder stolen funds, so this is a big allegation.
However, a guy has to wonder what the odds are of the state levying such a fine in defence of an ordinary citizen.
> IANAL, and I don’t know if dissemination is somehow different from creation in defamation cases. I expect it has to be - otherwise “Mr. X is a pedophile” can be illegal while “I heard that Mr. X is a pedophile” isn’t. Which seems dumb if one’s intent was to make defamation illegal in all ways.
It is different. Opinion is also exempted. I don’t think that’s dumb at all. Otherwise it would be impossible to report on a controversy without risking a lawsuit.
I've visited Singapore and it's a beautiful country but it's commonly understood they achieved their status through an authoritarian government.
I'm struggling with my opinion about this case - imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good?
On the other hand, powerful politicians suppressing dissent with crippling lawsuits tramples all over free speech and open debate. I'm from Canada so we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA but it is vital to democracy to be able to have discussions freely.
What I do think is that the penalty in this case was much too large for simply sharing a link, citizens must be able to criticize their public figures without fearing a penalty that is some multiple of their annual salary, and the average person can't be expected to have a fact checking department on staff to verify every link they share with their social media friends.
Doctors told people smoking is healthy in the past. Harvard apologized for pushing sugar as healthy 60 years ago. Flat Earth was the accepted truth at some time, and Round Earthers considered nut jobs. Not being able to questioning anything "science has settled", would basically kill advancement.
Yes, it would be great to not have people spread bullshit information. But how would you accomplish it? By having "official fact-checkers" censoring information, but that's an appallingly terrible idea, many times worse than the current state of affairs. So the imperfect situation we have now is preferable to another many times worse.
>>imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good?
That largely depends on who is choosing what is "disinformation", normally if government (or corporations) is involved "disinformation" normally becomes "things that we do not like" which would not be a net good
You're comparing apples and oranges. What works on the micro political level (Singapore) doesn't necessarily work at the macro political level (Canada). This is also why I can vote for Republicans in the state government and Democrats in the federal government and still sleep soundly every night.
That being said the court case in question is draconian.
> imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good?
Sure, but who cares? Just doing what is a 'net good' isn't a good enough yard stick for whether you should actually do it.
Imagine a society where the weak or infirm are culled at [or before] birth. Wouldn't that be a net good? (Answer: we already went there. Hitler thought the American idea of Eugenics was such a great idea that he made it a major priority of his government)
> we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA
A lot of places have movements where people want more free speech. Just like us. The difference is, we were lucky enough to actually succeed. And it really was luck.
There is this myth that we have always just naturally revered free speech. The reality is that our country has only recently evolved its position. Up until the early 20th century, Americans were regularly convicted for defamation of the government (or speech that wasn't in the government's interests), particularly through and after WWI. Then one Supreme Court justice changed his opinion on free speech, and set the whole country on a course to re-interpret the limits of the First Amendment. We can only legally say "Fuck the USA" during wartime, or even salute a Communist flag (at any time), because that one Justice changed his mind.
If one person changing their mind moved us forward, it could also go the other way. And the same could be true for your country.
> the average person can't be expected to have a fact checking department on staff to verify every link they share with their social media friends.
I think perhaps this is a misrepresentation of the requirement (that exists even in places like Singapore) that one be skeptical by default of any claim made by the media.
"Cui bono?"
Penalties for what the court system deems misinformation absolutely do not solve the problem: indeed they make it worse.
>"I'm from Canada so we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA"
I'm in Canada as well an while I do not like many things in the US when comparing to Canada I am absolutely on their side when it comes to things like freedom of speech and things like Bill of Rights.
Formally due to notwithstanding clause I do not think we have any rights at all as the government basically can override our rights any time it feels like. Sure it does not do it every other Monday but still it's been used something like 15 times and recently our provincial wizards like Legault and Ford just showed what does this Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms mean for them - apparently zilch.
There are several countries that make it a crime to disparage the rulers, even if you do it outside that country and even if what you post is true.
On top of Singapore this includes Qatar, Thailand and... China [1].
One effect of the Hong Kong "security" law China passed is that if you "undermine" the regime outside China and transit through Hong Kong airport, you can technically be arrested and tried under that law.
Singapore is a puzzle, a challenge to typical western democratic beliefs that certain things need to go hand-in-hand, or that restricting some rights are intolerable. It makes you question whether you're completely right about certain things.
They restrict freedom of speech in certain areas so that people don't get riled up by issues that only "cause trouble". But that means it's harder to question and expose some perhaps injustices. But they also mitigate that by having strong internal checks and government incentives to root out such problems.
They believe in equal opportunities, yet have some significant racially based laws and restrictions. For example, you are not allowed to say that any particular race is "better" than another. And certain things are allocated (by government) by race. But this restriction on speech / allocation helps keep the peace and prevent racial riots and animosity.
They have draconian drug policies. But they don't have major drug problems or homeless on the streets.
It's a small city, so some things are very peculiar to its situation and probably don't work elsewhere. And maybe there is a cultural aspect to tolerance for these rules too.
But whether you agree or disagree, Singapore makes you think twice whether you're right about your beliefs.
So the Singapore thing is only a puzzle for those who refuse to accept that Confucian values had been working pretty well as a political ideology for hundreds of years in Asia (until the world flipped upside down in the past two centuries).
For example, if you look more closely at Japan, while their politics is arguably more democratic, the culture has an obvious authoritarian slant as well. Mostly unnoticeable to foreigners but it's there. Some of what you described regarding Singapore also applies to Japan, albeit sometimes those things might be enforced culturally and not necessarily in law. (But then, look up their criminal conviction rate if you want to be scared.)
China is another example. People often have strong (and often irrationally emotional) opinions about politics in China, but I suppose we can agree that the past narrative about the Chinese government having to implement democratic reforms or perish has lost much credibility by now.
I mean, everyone has their own opinions about what is a "moral" way to run a country, but if we're talking about achieving objective results with Confucian-style-paternalistic-authoritarian governments, Singapore isn't really an exception. (In fact, it might be the only way East Asian countries know how to properly run a country. There's more to public administration than democratic elections)
I have no interest in mounting a defense for the Singapore government, I don't know what the truth is and have none of the facts outside of this article.
On the topic of libel, I do believe there should be consequences (perhaps not $100k but enough to strongly deter individuals and media) for spreading unsubstantiated claims / accusations that negatively impact someone's reputation. It takes a lifetime to build a reputation and can be destroyed on a whim - along with your career - without due process. The consequences of this can be devastating to people and their families for the remainder of their lives. It's not just sharing a link, damage is being done here.
I don't agree with the general tone of most of the comments at all. A lot of people seem to conflate holding people accountable for lies that damage other people's reputation or honor with authoritarianism or lack of freedom.
Letting that kind of lying go unpunished does not enhance freedom. It destroys discourse and it destroys people's respect for governance. If these laws were simply a tool for corruption, then Singapore would be the most corrupt, dysfunctional place on earth. It clearly isn't.
I think actually the opposite is true. When you let people libel and lie with impunity you destroy any respect for leadership, truth and politicians itself will stop holding themselves to any standard, because after all anyone can slander you anyway, so why even bother.
It seems to have become common in Western discourse to conflate truth with power. Any speech against individuals who hold a position of power is legitimate, any defense from people in position of power is illegitimate and tyrannical. This cannot be right because the end result is that no legitimate exercise of power is even possible. Someone who posts on Facebook is not automatically the hero of the people, and the Prime Minister is not automatically wrong.
To the contrary, government control of the 'truth' is quite corrosive to freedom, discourse and everything else.
What we need are principled institutions that don't lie.
Edit - adding a reference [1]
"Those who criticize the government or the judiciary, or publicly discuss race and religion, frequently find themselves facing criminal investigations and charges, or civil defamation suits and crippling damages."
This is so sad , elected governments also try and do this. The most liberal state in India (higher on a lot of HR indices) , tried to add in a law and got slapped on the wrists (may be election time tactic)
This is the new norm , post something and disappear into thin air as if the poster did not exist , get trolled , threatened , coerced into apologies or be threatened with law suits (notorious cases like this https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/22/whitehat-jrs-founder-files...)
Cannot help but feel bad that "Man is born free ,everywhere he is in chains". Just cork up , and move on.
> "While Lee won the case, public opinion is a different matter. Leong crowdfunded the $100,000 in just 11 days, with over 2,000 people contributing amounts large and small."
- Defamation or slander is also illegal in the U.K. upon which the Singapore system is based. It’s much easier to be convicted of that in the U.K. than the US
- That said, I would agree that this is a pretty weak case with the convicted simply sharing a link to an article that contained false statements about the PM
- Having spent considerable time in Singapore I’m not sure I’d label them authoritarian - at least not in the way it’s commonly used.
- Legitimate elections are held although the ruling party has set up a system that is favorable to them holding power (though not impossible for them to lose)
- There is an underlying sense by the ruling party that Singapore as a system is not that stable so the govt actually works quite hard to stay on the people’s good side. Recently the govt admitted that Covid tracing data could be used for police investigations which contradicted prior statements and it did not go over well. The govt basically apologized for mishandling it and added additional protections (though didn’t back down entirely). It’s a bizarre system where the govt holds a lot of power but is very concerned about not having support.
So not excusing the lawsuit (because I think it’s a net harm) but adding some context.
Can any British people comment on libel laws in the United Kingdom? Libel is much easier to prove in UK compared to US. Do politicians try to use it to silence critics or media? Is it ever successful? Or do they show restraint?
Further: If anyone else can comment about libel in their own country (that is not UK/Singapura), please kindly comment. We are curious to learn more!
To be clear: I am not making a judgement about libel laws. It is a complex matter for each society to decide.
> His decision to sue Leong was one that he had arrived at after consultation with his lawyer
That speaks volumes. "I am probably corrupt, but definitely too lazy to chase the original source, because a) it will cost more, and b) I'm corrupt probably corrupt and the article is speaks the truth". I believe that the "b)" is more likely (let's see if he will sue me!!)
On the other hand, this politician doesn't care if a random guy in the UK has a negative and correct opinion of him, he cares that his people sit down and shut up while he goes about his (corrupt) business.
Another point towards this direction is that.. politicians usually sue somebody that defamed them, and then DONATE the proceeds to charities. Not this one I guess..
>> His decision to sue Leong was one that he had arrived at after consultation with his lawyer
> That speaks volumes. "I am probably corrupt, but definitely too lazy to chase the original source, because a) it will cost more, and b) I'm corrupt probably corrupt and the article is speaks the truth". I believe that the "b)" is more likely (let's see if he will sue me!!)
The Singapore government has set multiple precendents about ministers having to sue to protect their integrity [1]:
> But if they've defamed us, we have to sue them -- because if we don't, our own integrity will be suspect. We have an understanding that if a minister is defamed and he does not sue, he must leave cabinet.
“Any libel or slander of their character with respect to their public service damages not only their personal reputation, but also the reputation of Singapore as a state whose leaders have acquired a worldwide reputation for honesty and integrity in office and dedication to service of the people.”
Ah, so the Singaporean government is absolutely corrupt from top to bottom. Good to know.
[+] [-] tacostakohashi|4 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Jeyaretnam#Defamation_su...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chee_Soon_Juan#2002%E2%80%9320...
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/sep/03/pressandpublis...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2009/11/singapore-def...
Not a complete list, but that's the "precedent", not this.
[+] [-] Clewza313|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrepd|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jboynyc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fredgrott|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] suifbwish|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dilippkumar|4 years ago|reply
If you accept defamation laws (and defamation laws are a thing in Singapore and many other places), then the question is whether you actively participated in the creation or dissemination of slander (again, assuming that creation and dissemination are both illegal).
We in the tech world have optimized various mechanisms to enable sharing information- we have gotten so good at it that our users don’t pause for a moment and think about their responsibility they bear when hitting that share button.
It’s like picking up cleanly packaged meat from the grocery store or filling up on gas from a gas station- the experience is so clean and polished that one doesn’t really think about where the meat/crude oil is coming from and what it means to be paying for it.
I think the courts held that one is responsible for what they share. It isn’t “merely” sharing a news article on facebook - the person had to decide to hit that share button.
Now, there are a lot of things wrong with this. But most of the problems come from having some defamation law to begin with.
I take issue with the law itself, but this interpretation of it doesn’t bother me.
IANAL, and I don’t know if dissemination is somehow different from creation in defamation cases. I expect it has to be - otherwise “Mr. X is a pedophile” can be illegal while “I heard that Mr. X is a pedophile” isn’t. Which seems dumb if one’s intent was to make defamation illegal in all ways.
[+] [-] perennate|4 years ago|reply
There is another important question: intention. In the US, "for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case in the United States, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth" [1].
It seems to me that most of the problems come not from having the defamation law to begin with like you said, but from the law applying even to defendants who believed the information they were creating or disseminating was true.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
[+] [-] grumple|4 years ago|reply
What about newspaper stands that sold the libelous paper?
I think it's clear this ruling is totally incompatible with a free press and free speech. Only the original source should be held accountable.
[+] [-] pjc50|4 years ago|reply
But this is Singapore, it's not a very free country.
[+] [-] AuthorizedCust|4 years ago|reply
And there is the problem. While you propose an interesting academic question, the chain of events starts from a law that I see as harmful. Therefore, there's no value in justifying the legitimacy of the next steps.
[+] [-] mytailorisrich|4 years ago|reply
"In 2013, a defendant named Alan Davies was ordered to pay £15,000 in settlement after retweeting a Sally Bercow tweet that suggested Lord McAlpine, a former leading Conservative politician, had committed child abuse." [1]
"Defamation is apparent when one person publishes a statement or material about another person that is untrue and is damaging to the claimant’s reputation or likely to cause such harm – this is the case even if the defendant has simply republished a statement made by another." [1]
[1] https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/distinction-in-defamation-slan...
[+] [-] TimPC|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdc|4 years ago|reply
However, a guy has to wonder what the odds are of the state levying such a fine in defence of an ordinary citizen.
[+] [-] emodendroket|4 years ago|reply
It is different. Opinion is also exempted. I don’t think that’s dumb at all. Otherwise it would be impossible to report on a controversy without risking a lawsuit.
[+] [-] mewse-hn|4 years ago|reply
I'm struggling with my opinion about this case - imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good?
On the other hand, powerful politicians suppressing dissent with crippling lawsuits tramples all over free speech and open debate. I'm from Canada so we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA but it is vital to democracy to be able to have discussions freely.
What I do think is that the penalty in this case was much too large for simply sharing a link, citizens must be able to criticize their public figures without fearing a penalty that is some multiple of their annual salary, and the average person can't be expected to have a fact checking department on staff to verify every link they share with their social media friends.
Strange times.
[+] [-] _up|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] russianbandit|4 years ago|reply
Who decides that it’s bullshit though? The government? Or maybe interested-party-backed “fact checkers”?
[+] [-] andrepd|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] syshum|4 years ago|reply
That largely depends on who is choosing what is "disinformation", normally if government (or corporations) is involved "disinformation" normally becomes "things that we do not like" which would not be a net good
[+] [-] ipnon|4 years ago|reply
That being said the court case in question is draconian.
[+] [-] throwaway823882|4 years ago|reply
Sure, but who cares? Just doing what is a 'net good' isn't a good enough yard stick for whether you should actually do it.
Imagine a society where the weak or infirm are culled at [or before] birth. Wouldn't that be a net good? (Answer: we already went there. Hitler thought the American idea of Eugenics was such a great idea that he made it a major priority of his government)
> we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA
A lot of places have movements where people want more free speech. Just like us. The difference is, we were lucky enough to actually succeed. And it really was luck.
There is this myth that we have always just naturally revered free speech. The reality is that our country has only recently evolved its position. Up until the early 20th century, Americans were regularly convicted for defamation of the government (or speech that wasn't in the government's interests), particularly through and after WWI. Then one Supreme Court justice changed his opinion on free speech, and set the whole country on a course to re-interpret the limits of the First Amendment. We can only legally say "Fuck the USA" during wartime, or even salute a Communist flag (at any time), because that one Justice changed his mind.
If one person changing their mind moved us forward, it could also go the other way. And the same could be true for your country.
[+] [-] sneak|4 years ago|reply
I think perhaps this is a misrepresentation of the requirement (that exists even in places like Singapore) that one be skeptical by default of any claim made by the media.
"Cui bono?"
Penalties for what the court system deems misinformation absolutely do not solve the problem: indeed they make it worse.
[+] [-] jariel|4 years ago|reply
Why do you suggest that criticizing the government is BS and disinformation?
That's not what is made illegal.
Legitimate criticism is.
There's a world of difference.
[+] [-] FpUser|4 years ago|reply
I'm in Canada as well an while I do not like many things in the US when comparing to Canada I am absolutely on their side when it comes to things like freedom of speech and things like Bill of Rights.
Formally due to notwithstanding clause I do not think we have any rights at all as the government basically can override our rights any time it feels like. Sure it does not do it every other Monday but still it's been used something like 15 times and recently our provincial wizards like Legault and Ford just showed what does this Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms mean for them - apparently zilch.
[+] [-] cletus|4 years ago|reply
On top of Singapore this includes Qatar, Thailand and... China [1].
One effect of the Hong Kong "security" law China passed is that if you "undermine" the regime outside China and transit through Hong Kong airport, you can technically be arrested and tried under that law.
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52765838
[+] [-] supernova87a|4 years ago|reply
They restrict freedom of speech in certain areas so that people don't get riled up by issues that only "cause trouble". But that means it's harder to question and expose some perhaps injustices. But they also mitigate that by having strong internal checks and government incentives to root out such problems.
They believe in equal opportunities, yet have some significant racially based laws and restrictions. For example, you are not allowed to say that any particular race is "better" than another. And certain things are allocated (by government) by race. But this restriction on speech / allocation helps keep the peace and prevent racial riots and animosity.
They have draconian drug policies. But they don't have major drug problems or homeless on the streets.
It's a small city, so some things are very peculiar to its situation and probably don't work elsewhere. And maybe there is a cultural aspect to tolerance for these rules too.
But whether you agree or disagree, Singapore makes you think twice whether you're right about your beliefs.
[+] [-] hnfong|4 years ago|reply
For example, if you look more closely at Japan, while their politics is arguably more democratic, the culture has an obvious authoritarian slant as well. Mostly unnoticeable to foreigners but it's there. Some of what you described regarding Singapore also applies to Japan, albeit sometimes those things might be enforced culturally and not necessarily in law. (But then, look up their criminal conviction rate if you want to be scared.)
China is another example. People often have strong (and often irrationally emotional) opinions about politics in China, but I suppose we can agree that the past narrative about the Chinese government having to implement democratic reforms or perish has lost much credibility by now.
I mean, everyone has their own opinions about what is a "moral" way to run a country, but if we're talking about achieving objective results with Confucian-style-paternalistic-authoritarian governments, Singapore isn't really an exception. (In fact, it might be the only way East Asian countries know how to properly run a country. There's more to public administration than democratic elections)
[+] [-] ValentineC|4 years ago|reply
Singapore has homeless people [1]. They're sometimes homeless by choice or pride.
It's more obvious if one is out and about in the housing areas at night. I walk past one homeless person sleeping on a void deck bench every day.
[1] https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/about-1000-homeless-pe...
[+] [-] 77pt77|4 years ago|reply
And yet I think one racial group of citizens was banned from the Air Force until a decade or so ago.
[+] [-] lefstathiou|4 years ago|reply
On the topic of libel, I do believe there should be consequences (perhaps not $100k but enough to strongly deter individuals and media) for spreading unsubstantiated claims / accusations that negatively impact someone's reputation. It takes a lifetime to build a reputation and can be destroyed on a whim - along with your career - without due process. The consequences of this can be devastating to people and their families for the remainder of their lives. It's not just sharing a link, damage is being done here.
[+] [-] Barrin92|4 years ago|reply
Letting that kind of lying go unpunished does not enhance freedom. It destroys discourse and it destroys people's respect for governance. If these laws were simply a tool for corruption, then Singapore would be the most corrupt, dysfunctional place on earth. It clearly isn't.
I think actually the opposite is true. When you let people libel and lie with impunity you destroy any respect for leadership, truth and politicians itself will stop holding themselves to any standard, because after all anyone can slander you anyway, so why even bother.
It seems to have become common in Western discourse to conflate truth with power. Any speech against individuals who hold a position of power is legitimate, any defense from people in position of power is illegitimate and tyrannical. This cannot be right because the end result is that no legitimate exercise of power is even possible. Someone who posts on Facebook is not automatically the hero of the people, and the Prime Minister is not automatically wrong.
[+] [-] jariel|4 years ago|reply
To the contrary, government control of the 'truth' is quite corrosive to freedom, discourse and everything else.
What we need are principled institutions that don't lie.
Edit - adding a reference [1]
"Those who criticize the government or the judiciary, or publicly discuss race and religion, frequently find themselves facing criminal investigations and charges, or civil defamation suits and crippling damages."
[1] https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/12/12/kill-chicken-scare-mon...
[+] [-] xbar|4 years ago|reply
https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-competitiveness-repor...
[+] [-] akmarinov|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ScalaFan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cocoland2|4 years ago|reply
https://trak.in/tags/business/2020/11/24/5-yrs-jail-for-offe...
This is the new norm , post something and disappear into thin air as if the poster did not exist , get trolled , threatened , coerced into apologies or be threatened with law suits (notorious cases like this https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/22/whitehat-jrs-founder-files...) Cannot help but feel bad that "Man is born free ,everywhere he is in chains". Just cork up , and move on.
[+] [-] disneygibson|4 years ago|reply
> Disneyland with the Death Penalty
> We sent William Gibson to Singapore to see whether that clean dystopia represents our techno future.
https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/
[+] [-] Aeolun|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pgt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] refurb|4 years ago|reply
- Defamation or slander is also illegal in the U.K. upon which the Singapore system is based. It’s much easier to be convicted of that in the U.K. than the US
- That said, I would agree that this is a pretty weak case with the convicted simply sharing a link to an article that contained false statements about the PM
- Having spent considerable time in Singapore I’m not sure I’d label them authoritarian - at least not in the way it’s commonly used.
- Legitimate elections are held although the ruling party has set up a system that is favorable to them holding power (though not impossible for them to lose)
- There is an underlying sense by the ruling party that Singapore as a system is not that stable so the govt actually works quite hard to stay on the people’s good side. Recently the govt admitted that Covid tracing data could be used for police investigations which contradicted prior statements and it did not go over well. The govt basically apologized for mishandling it and added additional protections (though didn’t back down entirely). It’s a bizarre system where the govt holds a lot of power but is very concerned about not having support.
So not excusing the lawsuit (because I think it’s a net harm) but adding some context.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hyko|4 years ago|reply
I wouldn’t even visit this place.
[+] [-] throwaway2037|4 years ago|reply
Further: If anyone else can comment about libel in their own country (that is not UK/Singapura), please kindly comment. We are curious to learn more!
To be clear: I am not making a judgement about libel laws. It is a complex matter for each society to decide.
[+] [-] HenryBemis|4 years ago|reply
That speaks volumes. "I am probably corrupt, but definitely too lazy to chase the original source, because a) it will cost more, and b) I'm corrupt probably corrupt and the article is speaks the truth". I believe that the "b)" is more likely (let's see if he will sue me!!)
On the other hand, this politician doesn't care if a random guy in the UK has a negative and correct opinion of him, he cares that his people sit down and shut up while he goes about his (corrupt) business.
Another point towards this direction is that.. politicians usually sue somebody that defamed them, and then DONATE the proceeds to charities. Not this one I guess..
[+] [-] ValentineC|4 years ago|reply
> That speaks volumes. "I am probably corrupt, but definitely too lazy to chase the original source, because a) it will cost more, and b) I'm corrupt probably corrupt and the article is speaks the truth". I believe that the "b)" is more likely (let's see if he will sue me!!)
The Singapore government has set multiple precendents about ministers having to sue to protect their integrity [1]:
> But if they've defamed us, we have to sue them -- because if we don't, our own integrity will be suspect. We have an understanding that if a minister is defamed and he does not sue, he must leave cabinet.
[1] http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/interview/goh.chok.t...
[+] [-] Causality1|4 years ago|reply
Ah, so the Singaporean government is absolutely corrupt from top to bottom. Good to know.
[+] [-] TedShiller|4 years ago|reply