[HN Gopher] Man fined for sharing a Facebook link ruled as defam...
___________________________________________________________________
Man fined for sharing a Facebook link ruled as defamation in
Singapore
Author : donohoe
Score : 247 points
Date : 2021-04-14 11:10 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (restofworld.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (restofworld.org)
| adventured wrote:
| The US is heading in this direction.
|
| In the US they're now sending police officers to your door to
| interrogate you if you merely criticize the authoritarian
| monsters in DC on social media, including Ted Cruz and Alexandria
| Ocasio-Cortez (to name two recent prominent examples of this
| phenomenon). That chilling assault on speech will get drastically
| worse during the new War on Domestic Terrorism campaign that is
| underway.
| stuff4ben wrote:
| Source? I'm calling BS. You can criticize anyone you want here.
| You start making threats and THEN that gets investigated.
| jessaustin wrote:
| This took me literally ten seconds to find:
|
| https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/ca-podcaster-gets-visit-
| from-p...
|
| [EDIT:]
|
| I couldn't find anything similar about Cruz in a couple of
| minutes, mostly because the search term "Cruz critics" is
| massively dominated by stuff about his ill-advised Cancun
| trip.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Makes me wish I had a global enough reach to troll the
| Singaporean government. More of the wold should have protections
| such that people under a government are free to say all sorts of
| things about their elected leaders (except to incite violence or
| death threats of course but you know basic free speech).
| mewse-hn wrote:
| 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.
|
| Strange times.
| throwaway823882 wrote:
| > 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.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"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.
| andrepd wrote:
| 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.
| russianbandit wrote:
| > imagine a society where people are actually held accountable
| for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net
| good?
|
| Who decides that it's bullshit though? The government? Or maybe
| interested-party-backed "fact checkers"?
| mewse-hn wrote:
| Court
| yifanl wrote:
| Well, unless you hold the opposite position where nothing is
| bullshit and everything is equally valuable, _somebody_ has
| to be able to decide.
| 3np wrote:
| Not if you subscribe to the idea that things without or
| even net negative value should be legal to share.
| yifanl wrote:
| I will claim that after a certain negative threshold,
| some things should not be legal to be share in all
| forums.
|
| Accepting that, it becomes a question of where do you
| draw that line.
| ihyfhgyfhth wrote:
| I would surmise the traditional belief of western
| philosophy thusly:
|
| 1) I do not have perfect knowledge. 2) Good, or at least
| better, ideas will implicitly produce better results over
| long periods. 3) It is immoral to control the lives of
| others. 4) Therefore, people can argue for ideas they find
| compelling, and people are free to choose what they think
| is best. 5) Furthermore, people must bear the consequences
| of their decisions.
|
| A further part of this system was that it was necessary for
| society to be structured such that individual choices do
| not have an outsized impact on others. This required that
| the apparatus of the state have specific constraints. It
| was quite a remarkable belief system, and much has been
| written about it over centuries.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > A further part of this system was that it was necessary
| for society to be structured such that individual choices
| do not have an outsized impact on others
|
| Technology has changed that rather dramatically.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Okay, but we still have systems in place that routinely
| make decisions based on determinations about factual
| statements. There are obvious ones, like determining
| whether someone murdered someone else, or determining how
| much money someone made for the purposes of taxation. We
| don't just throw up our hands and say "sure, maybe there
| is objective reality out there, but even if there is,
| _who could possibly decide what is real_?"
| pessimizer wrote:
| The government. This is basically a _lese-majeste_ case, so
| the person you 're criticizing has the authority to declare
| the criticism slander.
| ValentineC wrote:
| > _The government. This is basically a lese-majeste case,
| so the person you 're criticizing has the authority to
| declare the criticism slander._
|
| Not true. Defamation suits still have to go through due
| process in the courts.
| _up wrote:
| 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.
| Wohlf wrote:
| Nutritional science is particularly bad. Trans fats were
| considered the healthy alternative to saturated fats, salt
| has been made a boogeyman on shaky gorunds, eggs have flipped
| between being considered healthy and unhealthy a few times,
| and the food pyramid/low fat movement pushed carb heavy diets
| that contributed to the obesity epidemic.
| bsimpson wrote:
| This tweet spoke to me:
|
| > all this "believe experts" dogma is legit indistinguishable
| from the rhetoric of evangelical christians. ffs please just
| go to church and leave science to the skeptical assholes.
|
| - https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1381237434512502784?s=
| 2...
| TameAntelope wrote:
| This implies the experts are giving their opinions in the
| same style as church leaders, which is blatantly false, and
| probably a little dangerous to equate.
|
| "Believe the people who will explain themselves to a degree
| you'll understand, and who change their opinion when new
| information is presented." is a more complete way of
| expressing that thought. There are other ways of expressing
| that thought, I wouldn't be surprised if `pg has an essay
| on this.
|
| Skeptics are right to be skeptical, but what "skeptic"
| usually means in modern culture is, "intransigent". The
| line between healthy skepticism and dogmatic rejection of
| basic reasoning has blurred substantially.
| rorykoehler wrote:
| You still shouldn't trust anyone expert or not. If they
| write a paper read it and incorporate its findings into
| your understanding of the world but don't take what they
| say as gospel. This is what most people get wrong about
| experts.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| The experts mostly aren't giving advice on the same way
| as your local church, but people that say "experts say X"
| are.
| Paradigma11 wrote:
| And yet, there are people with limited resources, time or
| intellectual abilities for which this is not feasable.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| But didn't the expert write the paper? how do I trust
| what's in that paper anyway? Shouldn't I replicate the
| results myself first before I make any changes to my
| beliefs? But then again, how do I trust my own results,
| someone could have tainted them, or the experiment itself
| could include bias or just be poorly constructed to
| eliminate confounding variables, which would of course
| result in an outcome that isn't useful!
|
| A better option would be to eschew certainty. Stop trying
| to "know" things, and get comfortable making decisions
| based on an incomplete understanding of information.
|
| It's really this obsession with certainty that keeps
| getting people into trouble.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think you're correct to say that you shouldn't take
| what experts say as gospel. But every individual's time
| and resources are limited; if I had to verify the result
| of everything I read from first principles, I would be
| doing literally nothing else with my life (no time to eat
| or sleep, either).
|
| People need to do their best to judge how trustworthy a
| source is, and make their own decisions, but remain open
| to conflicting information if their trustworthy sources
| are later found to be wrong. And people also need to
| accept that any decision they make based on that
| information isn't 100% certain.
| bsimpson wrote:
| Well said
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Thanks, I'm thinking particularly about the hay anti-
| vaxxers are making about J&J right now, for some reason
| the whole situation bothers me.
| syshum wrote:
| >>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
| sneak wrote:
| > _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.
| jariel wrote:
| " for spreading bullshit disinformation"
|
| 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.
| ipnon wrote:
| 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.
| gamegoblin wrote:
| FWIW the population of Canada is only 6x Singapore, so
| definitely bigger but not irreconcilably larger.
|
| I think one of the bigger things that makes Singapore so much
| easier to govern with consensus is the density. It's 5.7
| million people packed onto a 30x20km island. There isn't much
| in the way of urban/rural divide or of different federal-
| level divisions having competing resource concerns, etc.
| leadingthenet wrote:
| Maybe city states aren't that bad of an idea, after all.
| dilippkumar wrote:
| 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.
| perennate wrote:
| > 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.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
| kelnos wrote:
| I very much believe that intent matters, and should matter,
| but the problem with intent in a legal setting is that often
| it is incredibly difficult to prove intent, and the defendant
| just has to say "I never intended it to mean that; I was
| thinking $INNOCENT_THING when I said it" to inject some doubt
| into the proceedings, often enough doubt to avoid a guilty
| verdict.
| perennate wrote:
| I agree that there needs to be a balance. I'd argue that US
| defamation law is close to the "right" balance, by making a
| stronger case needed to prosecute defamation against public
| figures (like public officials or celebrities), and by
| focusing not exactly on intention but on whether the
| defendant within reason could have believed the statement
| was true.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| Singapore is a different culture, and they see public
| figures differently.
|
| Being disrespectful to your boss, and those higher up the
| authority chain, is a strong cultural taboo. Authority is
| respected. It's complicated for us Westerners to
| understand, and totally goes against how we view the
| world and our place in it. But that's the culture, and
| changing it because it doesn't agree with ours would be
| wrong.
|
| So yes, the US defamation law is right for the US. It's
| probably not right for Singapore. I'm not sure
| Singapore's actual law is "right" - this article and the
| popular support for the defendant in this case shows it
| may not be. But that doesn't mean they would be better
| off with the US version.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| 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
| PS15,000 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...
| gowld wrote:
| Is Sharing (or sharing a link!) the same as Publishing?
|
| The law needs to be updated for this nuance.
|
| Is giving a magazine (containing a defamatory article) to a
| friend Publishing?
| nindalf wrote:
| A retweet is visible to the public. A magazine shared to a
| single person doesn't have the same effect. The practical
| difference between publishing and private sharing with
| friends was about the greater reach of publishing. Social
| media means everyone has the same reach as a publisher,
| with some of the same responsibilities.
| pjc50 wrote:
| 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.
| ValentineC wrote:
| > _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._
|
| The defendant, Roy Ngerng [1], is often portrayed in
| Singapore media as a troublemaker, and has been the subject
| of multiple defamation suits.
|
| Politicians in Singapore's incumbent party seem to mainly use
| defamation against politicians, activists, and the media, and
| very rarely against a random person on the street.
|
| It seems to boil down to the government needing to protect
| their integrity, as former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said
| in a 1999 interview [2]:
|
| > _There are many critics of the PAP in Singapore. They are
| not all hauled up before the judiciary. Political opponents,
| so long as they keep within the law, don 't need safeguards.
| They do not have to appear before the judiciary. 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. By defamation, I mean if somebody
| says the minister is on the take or is less than honest. If
| he does not rebut it, if he does not dare go before the court
| to be interrogated by the counsel for the other side, there
| must be some truth in it. If there is no evidence, well, why
| are you not suing?_
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Ngerng
|
| [2] http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/interview/goh.cho
| k.t...
| grumple wrote:
| 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.
| astatine wrote:
| I think the test here could/should be of visible and definite
| authorship. A NYT article, with a byline, shared removes the
| onus from the disseminator. If the article is wrong, the
| liability goes back to the original author. A share with
| unknown provenance puts the responsibility on the person
| sharing. Libel stops with the sharer in this case!
| michaelmrose wrote:
| This may have a chilling effect on communication wherein
| sharing is more akin to bringing up a thing you want to
| talk about rather than making a definitive statement. A big
| problem is that a baseless lawsuit can still cost the user
| tens of thousands of dollars.
|
| Also if the purpose is to reduce the amount of blatant lies
| and misinformation I don't know that it would be very
| helpful as it seems like most of it actually has a byline
| just not one that any reasonable person would trust.
|
| Forcing users to check for a byline and nothing else to
| avoid accidentally opting in to financial destruction
| wouldn't help much. Your idea needs expanding.
| evolve2k wrote:
| > I think the test here could/should be of visible and
| definite authorship
|
| I see an additional test for the sharer as to whether
| they had reasonable expectation of knowing the
| information they were sharing was false and misleading.
|
| Sharing from "Totally True News" (where sensational
| articles have no author and no source are quoted); that
| "you as a public figure are drinking the blood of
| babies."
|
| Comes to mind as probably valid ground to seek redress
| for defamation.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| What if totally true news has a listed author even if he
| is a lunatic and lists sources even if they are awful. We
| ought to teach kids in school how to identify this but if
| we define in law which are good sources or which can get
| you sued into poverty we are in putting into effect a
| prior restraint on speech.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Disseminating defamatory material is legal __provided you did
| your due diligence__. Whether taking the journalist at face
| value is due diligence, I don't know.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_dissemination
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Does sharing a NYT article mean "look at this article I
| believe to be true" or does it mean "look what the NYT
| said"?
| grumple wrote:
| Is disseminating a link to defamatory material illegal?
| Should it be? In this case, it was a link, not the content
| itself, which was shared. If Facebook added an excerpt, I
| would think liability falls to Facebook.
|
| Also note that I'm more interested in what is moral/just,
| not legal according to any specific system, since this is a
| discussion about laws which vary across nations. The
| American/English system isn't necessarily ideal.
| nindalf wrote:
| Sounds great in theory. In practice I, like most people,
| only do the due diligence on stories I disagree with. When
| a story confirms my biases, I accept it at face value. I
| don't even realise I'm doing it. It's not a conscious
| decision.
|
| I recently found a subreddit where people had shared an
| article from a newspaper with a decent reputation. The
| story _strongly_ implied that the government had engaged in
| crony capitalism. 96% upvoted, all the comments castigating
| the government. Normally I would have agreed and moved on.
| I certainly wouldn 't have spent time fact checking an
| article that I agreed with. Except it was about something I
| knew a bit about (solar energy). The article was wrong and
| misleading. Perhaps even "fake", considering how many
| people had been misled.
|
| When I tried to correct the record on the same subreddit,
| there was huge pushback. People nitpicked my fact check to
| death. It got a small fraction of the upvotes and comments
| the original fake/misleading article did.
|
| None of those people did the due diligence, like you want
| them to. All of them took a journalist working for a
| reputable newspaper at face value. Should they all go to
| jail now for upvoting and commenting?
| dahfizz wrote:
| There's a lot to unpack here...
|
| Defamation is not a criminal offense. Nobody goes to jail
| for defamation. You can be sued for damages from
| defamation in civil court.
|
| I never said what I wanted, or gave any opinion. I'm just
| adding a bit of color to the conversation by stating
| relevant facts. The accusatory tone is not very conducive
| to interesting discussion.
|
| More to your question, I highly doubt upvoting a reddit
| post counts as dissemination / publishing. The comments
| people wrote could themselves be defamatory, but I also
| doubt a reddit comment will cause demonstrable damages to
| a person's reputation. There has to be damages for you be
| sued, otherwise there is no reason for the suit.
|
| I don't know the article you are referring to, but
| something to the general effect of "The government did a
| bad thing" is not defamation either. Again, you have to
| cause demonstrable damages to an individual for them to
| win a suit against you. If the article was something
| closer to "The government did a bad thing, This is the
| person responsible, This is where he lives, Let's get him
| fired", or if the reddit comments were of that flavor (as
| they often are), the case for defamation is a little
| stronger.
| ValentineC wrote:
| > _Defamation is not a criminal offense. Nobody goes to
| jail for defamation. You can be sued for damages from
| defamation in civil court._
|
| Since we're in a thread about Singapore...
|
| Criminal defamation [1] is a thing here. :)
|
| [1] https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871?ProvIds=P4XXI_499-
| ska wrote:
| > What about newspaper stands that sold the libelous paper?
|
| What about the case that you shared it after it was shown
| that the story was made up, and it can be proved that you
| knew this at the time?
|
| What about the case that we find out the reason that the
| article was made up was that you fed the writer false
| information, in order to shield yourself from prosecution?
|
| Bright line distinctions are difficult.
| jdc wrote:
| 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.
| AuthorizedCust wrote:
| > _If you accept defamation laws..._
|
| 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.
| bhupy wrote:
| What you're proposing here doesn't scale. What if everyone
| decided that there's no value in justifying the legitimacy of
| the next steps following the existence of laws _they each_
| saw has harmful? If everyone did that, there would be no laws
| left to enforce...
| retrac wrote:
| The suggestion that defamation should be generally legal is
| somewhat outside the norm, as far as I know.
|
| If I start a campaign, billboards and all, saying that my
| doctor is a pedophile once convicted of rape in Australia who
| has been also implicated in organ trafficking (when she's
| actually very wonderful) then I should be held liable for the
| damage to her career and reputation, at a minimum.
| btilly wrote:
| It is interesting that you specify Australia there. As
| articles like https://www.wsj.com/articles/australia-tries-
| to-shed-status-... indicate, Australia has a reputation for
| being one of the easiest places in the world to sue for
| defamation.
|
| Australian views on this should therefore NOT be taken as a
| norm.
| the_local_host wrote:
| I'm not a lawyer, but I think the USA has a reasonable
| position on how much defamation should be tolerated.
|
| Slander and libel are illegal, but the threshold at which
| the law takes effect depends on how public the target is.
|
| As such care has to be taken when making statements about a
| private citizen, e.g. "Mr. X is [something horrible]", but
| one can say almost anything about a public figure like the
| president, or senators, without fear of legal trouble.
| ghaff wrote:
| The legal libel standard for public figures from NY Times
| v. Sullivan and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts is that
| you need to be able to prove "actual malice" (rather than
| something merely being untrue) which is of course hard to
| do because it speaks to intent.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| "Public figure" does not mean "elected official". It
| means literally anyone who publishes (makes something
| public) themselves. So anyone with a social media
| following is a public figure. If you have to worry about
| being defamed, then you are already outside the
| protection of defamation law.
|
| There's also the concept of a "limited-purpose public
| figure", which means that just commenting on something
| can make you a public figure in certain contexts. For
| example, if you were to merely say that I was a
| pedophile, you probably have defamed a private
| individual. However, if you _replied_ to this post with
| something like, "You probably just think defamation law
| is good because you're a pedophile that doesn't want to
| get caught"; defamation law could take your side. After
| all, I joined this particular controversy by commenting
| on it, that makes me a limited-purpose public figure. So
| even if you're not a public figure, it's very easy to
| accidentally become one.
| genericone wrote:
| Careful with that though, as we saw with the covington
| kids, if powerful interests want to slander AND libel
| you, they will drag you kicking and screaming into the
| spotlight. Now you are a public figure, now you are fair-
| game, but they've always seen you as fair-game, they just
| needed to manufacture justification.
|
| And that's just how minors are treated.
| kelnos wrote:
| That's absurd, though. It's pretty easy to determine when
| someone passes the threshold from private/unknown citizen
| to public figure. If the alleged slander/libel happened
| before that point, it shouldn't matter that they've since
| gained notoriety.
|
| Based on your example, I guess that's not how it always
| works, but there's no reason in principle why the laws
| and legal standard around it could not be fixed to be
| more fair.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Outside the norm? I don't think so, it's perhaps not the
| majority current but it is a pretty large one.
| inetknght wrote:
| You think it should be legal to make up complete lies
| about people and not have repercussions?
| TimPC wrote:
| 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.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _sharing an article resembles saying "I heard that X"_
|
| That can absolutely be the basis for slander and defamation
| though.
| emodendroket wrote:
| > 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.
| disneygibson wrote:
| From 1993 but apparently still relevant:
|
| > 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/
| eunos wrote:
| > Disneyland with the Death Penalty
|
| The state with Disneyland has death penalty though (Fl & Cal)
| even thought Cal put it under moratorium.
| staticman2 wrote:
| Sure but the owners of Disneyland don't decide who to
| execute. Gibson is using a metaphor.
| cocoland2 wrote:
| 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)
|
| 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.
| refurb wrote:
| A few thoughts:
|
| - 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.
| weswpg wrote:
| Good comparison to Western restrictions on slander or libel
| because Singapore is one few countries to actually have a an
| "anti-fake news law" which many in the West desire and it
| absolutely proves the fear that it can very easily be abused
| [deleted]
| Causality1 wrote:
| _"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.
| hyko wrote:
| On balance I'd rather just put up with chewing gum on the
| pavement thanks.
|
| I wouldn't even visit this place.
| xbar wrote:
| Why does Singapore continue to win the #1 spot on the World
| Economic Forum's global competitiveness report if the regime is
| so authoritarian?
|
| https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-competitiveness-repor...
| seriousquestion wrote:
| The WEF is itself promoting a kind of authoritarian or
| totalitarian approach.
| andrepd wrote:
| Why would an association of the wealthiest capitalists in the
| world not give a rat's ass about democracy as long as the $$$
| is flowing? Is that what you're asking?
| coldtea wrote:
| Because the World Economic Forum cares for global
| competitiveness, and pro market propaganda (when it serves its
| controllers interests), not for democracy...
| tootie wrote:
| They are very disciplined and targeted in their
| authoritarianism. It doesn't pervade daily life the way it does
| in China. They have free and open communication with the world.
| They have a vibrant consumer economy and a genuine
| multicultural society. They apply censorship and repression
| with a scalpel, not a broadsword. Law-abiding citizens reap a
| lot of rewards from living in a society like that and are
| willing to look the other way at the occasional arrest for
| being outspoken.
|
| I spent some time there and met a bunch of locals from
| different backgrounds. Some were outright enthusiastic about
| the authoritarian government and thought the ends justified the
| means. Some (Malay folks in particular) chafed at the enforced
| rigidity of the society, but they still had comfortable lives.
| jessaustin wrote:
| I lived in Singapore around 2000, and my experience was the
| same as you describe.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Because as it turns out, democracy is orthogonal to having a
| productive country and competitive market. The belief that one
| is required for the other was one of the big lies of the second
| half of 20th century.
| screye wrote:
| It is actually far worse than that.
|
| No non-colonial democracy has managed to go from
| underdeveloped to developed since WW2.
|
| SK, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Chile and Malaysia all had
| their key growth during authoritarian regimes. Many later
| transitioned to democracies, but that's easy when the hard
| part is done.
|
| Sadly, I reached this when desperately looking for a
| democratic country for India (my home country) to emulate as
| a model. As a believer in democracy, I would love to be
| corrected. But my research indicates that Demovracy does
| truly have a shoddy track record at spurring development.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| Botswana have done very well given their geography, as have
| many of the Eastern Bloc states (Estonia and the Czech
| Republic both spring to mind.)
|
| In that region, actually, democracy seems to have
| correlated positively with economic growth.
| Toutouxc wrote:
| Czech person here, I have to agree. During the soviet era
| my country, a pre-WWII (even post-WWII, as the Czech part
| of Czechoslovakia has only seen very light fighting)
| industrial powerhouse, was reduced to an underdeveloped
| dwarf. Thirty years later I'm living in a modern country,
| typing on a MacBook, receiving healthcare, paying my
| taxes with corruption only noticeable at the highest
| levels of the hierarchy (politicians, union leaders),
| certainly not throughout the country.
|
| I believe this has to do with the proximity of other
| developed and modern countries, economically, but also
| culturally. To put it bluntly, nobody wants to do
| business with a bunch of cavemen.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Czech Rep. here.
|
| A lot of our original industrial development prior to
| 1900 was done in conditions of very limited democracy.
| Only wealthy people and the middle class could vote
| before 1907. (After that, franchise was extended to all
| men over 24.) Prior to that, you had to pay some minimal
| yearly taxes in order to have a vote, which excluded
| majority of the population.
|
| After 1989, a large element in our prosperity was
| geographic proximity to Germany. Germans outsourced a lot
| of production to the Visegrad states. It definitely
| helped grow our GDP, but it also puts sorta-kinda ceiling
| on it. The most valuable parts of the entire production
| chain are still back in the West and they are not going
| to move abroad.
|
| BTW Viktor Orban is a great friend of the German
| investors and they protect him quite a bit as well. It
| seems that investors do not care about local state of
| politics much, only about stability.
| paganel wrote:
| > The most valuable parts of the entire production chain
| are still back in the West and they are not going to move
| abroad.
|
| Related to that, it does seam than whenever Skoda the
| brand is about to surpass the models of its parent
| (German) company, Volkswagen, the powers that be decide
| that that behaviour should stop immediately.
|
| The most recent example is the Mk2 Skoda Superb, which
| imho was miles ahead in terms of style above the Passat,
| and further back the Mk1 Skoda Octavia was also miles
| ahead in terms of reliability compared to anything that
| the VW brand had.
| mbroncano wrote:
| Another good example of the same is SEAT.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| In Botswana, part of the credit goes to the discovery of
| diamonds.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| That, and a small, controllable population.
|
| I agree, the Botswana example is not exactly what India
| is looking for given the history there. To this day, the
| TSwanna have not diversified from diamonds. They have no
| industrialization to speak of.
| screye wrote:
| A very large (62 + 18 = 80%) [1] part
|
| [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/T
| ree_map...
| dragonsh wrote:
| At the same time there are counter examples of North Korea,
| Zimbabwe, Pakistan and India (since 2014) a authoritarian
| rule bring more economic downfall with concentration of
| power and wealth in the hands of selected few.
|
| Indeed the most interesting example in this is India where
| growth, prosperity and position on human development index
| became better when it was free than at present when it is
| partly free.
|
| China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan grown exponentially not
| due to authoritarian rule but due to the hard work of their
| people and in the belief that with hard work they can
| change life (very much embedded in Confucius teachings).
| The only thing government did was not to come in the way of
| the people to have better life through hard work.
| morelisp wrote:
| > China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan...
|
| Orientalist bullshit in the extreme. Politically and
| economically speaking, you could not name four more
| different countries.
| screye wrote:
| There are leaps of logic here that do not compute.
|
| For one, I would not trust any news that comes out about
| India right now. Both sides of reporting are so heavily
| colored by ideology, that most reports might as well be
| pledges of allegiance rather than sources of information.
| India's biggest boom came during 1991 (liberalization)
| which was a failure of democracy pushed through during a
| political and economic crisis. (Domestic terrorist
| assassination of popular leader + IMF threatening India
| to liberalize against popular opinion).
|
| If anything, the economic failures of Modi showcase the
| problems of large democracies. It always devolves into
| populism and procedural in-action, where major changes
| can only be done by stealth; and thus haphazardly.
|
| > North Korea, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and India
|
| It has to be a cruel joke to mention India with 3 failed
| military states, when it has one of the the strongest
| election commissions in the world.
|
| > concentration of power and wealth in the hands of
| selected few
|
| Given that India was run by 1 family for 60 years, the
| burden of Proof is on you to show that the current Govt.
| has a greater concentration of wealth. India has always
| had a concentration of power in a few hands. It's just
| that the current bearers of that power are disliked by
| western elites.
|
| PS: I do not particularly love Modi. His economic
| policies have been shoddy and I would prefer someone less
| tied to a narrow view of hinduism. But, the Indian
| opposition right now is more incompetent than fish
| climbing a tree.
|
| ________________________
|
| > Confucius teachings
|
| > government did was not to come in the way of the people
| to have better life through hard work.
|
| Could not be farther away from the truth. Each of these
| govts inserted themselves strongly into personal life and
| their growth came during a short duration of strong
| authoritarianism.
|
| Japan (A world superpower in 1945 with high HDI) and
| China (as large as large govt) should be the last
| countries to be referenced for the point you are making.
| patrickk wrote:
| South Korea expanded rapidly during a military
| dictatorship in the 1960s and 1970s[1]. A large chunk of
| of their economy was (is??) tied to huge conglomerates
| with major ties to the government known as Chaebols[2].
|
| > The only thing government did was not to come in the
| way of the people to have better life through hard work.
|
| At least in the case of South Korea, that is demonstrably
| false. There were, and are, lots of links between these
| large, successful international Chaebols and the
| government. Without government support, and protectionist
| measures shielding them from foreign competition it's
| unlikely they'd have grown as large and successful as
| they are today (similar to China today blocking foreign
| Big Tech companies from operating in China, to grow their
| own national champions).
|
| I know less about the other Asian economies you mention,
| but the "East Asian Model"[3] runs contrary to what you
| say about hard work alone.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_model
| dragonsh wrote:
| Chaebols of South Korea are same as big conglomerates and
| top 1% in USA who control livelihood of majority of
| Americans. So this will mean that USA is same as South
| Korea driven by America first policy.
|
| USA foreign policy and access to market is also dependent
| on America first policy driven by large conglomerates not
| very different from those in South Korea, China and
| Japan. Recently there are ample examples where USA
| restricted market access when it's own conglomerates are
| in trouble (using some flimsy excuse in the name of
| security and national interests).
|
| Besides reading some report please spend time in those
| countries and you will know an average citizens
| commitment to hard work in general (don't make exception
| as rule). Prosperity do not come due to government policy
| but due to hard work of majority.
| diveandfight wrote:
| > China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan grown exponentially
| not due to authoritarian rule but due to the hard work of
| their people and in the belief that with hard work they
| can change life (very much embedded in Confucius
| teachings).
|
| The assertion here is that "Confucian values" led to
| these countries economically developing from un-developed
| to developed economies. Yet earlier you state the
| "counter example" of North Korea being an authoritarian
| regime that brought about economic downfall.
|
| So, "Confucian values" + authoritarian regime = economic
| growth (SK)
|
| "Confucian values" + authoritarian regime = economic
| stagnation (NK)
|
| ?
|
| These are two nation-states that had literally the same
| culture prior to mid-20th wars; if we're focusing on the
| "Confucian values" part of a culture.
|
| What is the actual argument here? Or is this some ancient
| Chinese wisdom/Confucius say bulls*t?
| dundarious wrote:
| I haven't read the book, rather I've only seen a long talk
| he gave on the topic, but Ha-Joon Chang's "Bad Samaritans:
| The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of
| Capitalism" believes the crucial component is not
| democracy, but rather modern incarnations of capitalism
| (let's just call it neoliberalism).
|
| He argues that the US in particular became so wealthy in
| huge part due to it's non-free trade practices (while still
| being relatively democratic). Countries may liberalize
| later in development, but not before building their own
| industrial base, etc. My memory is quite hazy on the latter
| part -- I should read the actual book. However I can
| recommend seeking out his viewpoint.
|
| Edit: his book is not so much a critique of capitalism, as
| a critique of free trade orthodoxy for developing nations.
| hackflip wrote:
| I think of democracy like a diversified portfolio. Putting
| all of your money into one stock can go either incredibly
| well or incredibly poorly, depending on what the one stock
| is.
|
| Diversifying the portfolio is the safest option; it may not
| yield the highest returns, but it also never yields the
| lowest returns.
| vkou wrote:
| > Diversifying the portfolio is the safest option; it may
| not yield the highest returns, but it also never yields
| the lowest returns.
|
| If we wave our hands and discount all the failed
| democracies (that turn into autocracies, or fall apart in
| civil wars), and if you think that the difference between
| India's development in the past 30 years and China's
| development in the past 30 years is just a matter of
| 'it's not the highest returns...'
|
| One's GDP/capita grew from $300 to $10,000, the other
| from $300 to $2000 in that timespan. That's not a
| difference of 'not the highest returns', that's a
| quantitative difference between remaining in poverty on
| one hand, and a hundreds of millions of people living
| Western lifestyles on the other.
|
| I think it's safe to say at this point that the historic
| record indicates that democracy and economic development
| are likely to be orthogonal.
| Roark66 wrote:
| You forgot Poland. It never had colonies. It was destroyed
| completely in WW2. Then exploited by the communists until
| there was no almost no economy left in 1989.
|
| By today's standard Poland of 1989 can definitely be
| described as an underdeveloped country (annual gdp per
| capita $1700 usd - but the majority of population lived on
| a lot less). Infrastructure in shambles. Major roads and
| rail links designed not along North-South as the country's
| economy needs, but East-West to facilitate transfer of
| Soviet army if needed. Fast forward 30 years and things
| look pretty much developed. A big chunk of it was thanks to
| EUs money(since 2004), but one could argue access to local
| market for Western companies repaid them the expense many
| times over...
|
| Sure there are issues with the quality of the democracy
| (specially inability to modernise juidiciary in last 30
| years), amount of emotional arguments in public discourse
| etc, but overall IMO it is a good example of a democratic
| country that managed to make the standard of living a lot
| better for its citizens.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I grew up in Ostrava, close to the Polish border. Poland
| in the late 1980s and early 1990s was a fairly poor
| country. There were massive shortages of stuff in shops,
| a serious inflation (I remember looking at a 500,000
| zloty banknote in a mixture of awe and dread) and a black
| market that was doing its best and worst to keep people
| supplied somehow.
|
| Polish economic miracle is incredible. Warsaw looks like
| a Manhattan built on a steppe, and living standards of
| ordinary Polish citizens have gone through the roof in a
| single generation.
| leppr wrote:
| _> But my research indicates that Demovracy does truly have
| a shoddy track record at spurring development._
|
| First step is to stop referring to "democratic republics"
| as "Democracies" with a capital D. That's a popular misuse
| of the term that rulers love to abuse. It's fair to call it
| newspeak.
|
| Voting every 5 years for 1 entity to rule a whole country
| does not make a government democratic. It's merely an
| escape hatch, a stopgap to tyrannical rulers. It prevents
| the worst, but doesn't prevent the typical government
| cronyism.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| It's sad, but it seems to be true, and knowing the truth is
| always better. We can like and promote democracy without
| marketing it as something it isn't, and if we're not afraid
| to identify areas where it isn't competitive, we can find
| ways to mitigate that.
| dukeyukey wrote:
| While not underdeveloped, huge swathes of Eastern and
| Central Europe have seen tremendous economic growth since
| the collapse of the Soviet Union and the institution of
| liberal democracy through the region.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| _To whom will monuments be built a century from now? Among
| them, perhaps, will be Lee Kuan Yew. He will be remembered
| not only as the first prime minister of Singapore, but also
| as the creator of authoritarian capitalism, an ideology set
| to shape the next century much as democracy shaped the last.
|
| It was, after all, to Singapore that Deng Xiaoping came
| before enacting his far-reaching economic reforms in China.
| Until then, capitalism and democracy had seemed inextricably
| linked. Now the link is broken._
|
| - Slavoj Zizek
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/088ee78e-7597-11e4-a1a9-00144feab.
| ..
| riffic wrote:
| In Star Trek (TOS: "Patterns of Force", "Whom Gods
| Destroy"), Lee Kuan is the name given to a historical
| political despot on Earth sometime between the mid-20th and
| the 23rd century.
|
| https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Lee_Kuan
|
| _This character was only mentioned in dialogue._
|
| _Lee Kuan shares naming elements with Lee Kuan Yew, the
| first Prime Minister of the newly independent Singapore in
| the 1960s. Lee established a hybrid form of governance with
| democratic and authoritarian elements._
| vondur wrote:
| This is true. So long as the government is run by capable
| people who are looking out for the greater good. This was
| Rome under someone like Caesar. But you can also end up with
| a Nero or Commodus running things.
| pydry wrote:
| These reports are aimed at foreign investors. They don't
| particularly care about what locals have to deal with.
| beervirus wrote:
| It's very trendy and progressive in the US these days to want to
| put restrictions on the First Amendment. Most of the people who
| champion that cause have _no idea_ how shitty things can get
| without free-speech protections.
| [deleted]
| Nasrudith wrote:
| It is Singapore what the fuck did you expect, liberty and a
| respect for personal rights? Really anybody following thosr
| authoritarians for precedent is already too far gone.
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| it's a common theme among "smart-cities" marketers and
| cybersecurity wonks to cite Singapore (and other exotic one-off
| social structures) as role models for everyone else.
|
| Singapore likes to paint itself as open and its locals even
| believe it (the reference for contrast is Johor Baru or Medan
| which are ofc hard to compare). But it's just the effect of
| their own propaganda and brain washing (heavy censorship in
| film and art). When I lived there (90ies) you could sill buy a
| cane in the corner shop who were sold with the sole purpose of
| whipping and conditioning their kids.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| > 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..
| ValentineC wrote:
| >> _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._
|
| [1]
| http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/interview/goh.chok.t...
| Clewza313 wrote:
| Well, no, the defamatory allegations here were quite clearly
| bullshit. (The 1MDB scandal brought down the Malaysian PM in
| question and a lot of dirty laundry has been aired, so if there
| was substance to them, we'd know by now.)
|
| But the original source was a Malaysian blog, and suing them
| across the border would have been pointless.
| tus88 wrote:
| Meanwhile in the UK people have been sued for liking defamatory
| tweets...
| lefstathiou wrote:
| 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.
| TedShiller wrote:
| Even showing a smiley face in Singapore is illegal now. Look it
| up, I'm not making this up
| ValentineC wrote:
| News article for anyone interested:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/23/world/asia/singapore-smil...
| akmarinov wrote:
| "fined almost $100,000 for sharing a Facebook link ruled as
| defamation against the prime minister." is the dangerous
| precedent
| ScalaFan wrote:
| in a private facebook group!
| ValentineC wrote:
| Wait till you hear about the Singapore government suing the
| current prime minister's estranged [1] nephew for a private
| Facebook post [2].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_Oxley_Road#Dispute_over_
| the...
|
| [2] https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/li-shengwu-
| fined-s1500...
| Aeolun wrote:
| If their goal was to portray the character of Singapore and PM
| Lee in a good light, they have failed _spectacularly_.
| pgt wrote:
| > "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."
| Barrin92 wrote:
| 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.
| jariel wrote:
| Criticizing the government is not lying.
|
| 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...
| Barrin92 wrote:
| You're not engaging my actual argument at all. Criticism of
| the government can obliviously be based on lies. It depends
| entirely on what your accusation is based on. Why is a court
| deciding on whether an accusation is true or not corrosive to
| freedom? Why is it corrosive to discourse? How do you have
| discourse without having an arbiter of truth?
|
| You don't just need principled institutions that don't lie,
| you need principled people that don't lie. Why do you think
| institutions are supposed to be held accountable but citizens
| are not? Why is a government official supposed to be punished
| if they lie to the public, but a person on Facebook isn't? In
| either case lies are undermining social trust.
|
| These questions require actual answers rather than platitudes
| about freedom or dogma.
| jariel wrote:
| I'm engaging directly in your argument:
|
| "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."
|
| If the determination of the truth (i.e. what is a lie or
| not) is established by the 'authority', then there's no
| basis of credibility in your statement.
|
| It's naive to suggest we live in a magical world wherein
| the truth and falsehoods can easily be determined, or that
| statements can be even themselves deemed conclusive.
|
| "The Prime Minister Engaged in Fraud"
|
| "It looks like the Prime Minister Engaged in Fraud"
|
| "The Prime Minister was motivated to commit Fraud by this
| circumstance, and I suspect he did"
|
| Now tell me, which one of those is 'lies and slander'?
|
| How is the determination of 'fraud' even made?
|
| On the basis of a court ruling?
|
| How can someone speculate about malicious activity and do
| the reporting, the work which often leads to more material
| investigations in the first place, if it's illegal?
|
| "Why do you think institutions are supposed to be held
| accountable but citizens are not? "
|
| I didn't remotely say that or imply that, but
| 'institutions' - i.e. the Judiciary, the Press,
| Legislative, Bureaucracy, Academia are held to higher
| standard because there's a proportionality to their claims
| to legitimacy: if John Smith wants to say 'The PM is a
| fraud' - it means something different than when the 'Paper
| of Record' says 'John is a Fraud'.
|
| "These questions require actual answers rather than
| platitudes about freedom or dogma."
|
| Freedom of Expression is not a 'dogma' or a 'platitude' -
| it's fundamental to the well being of society which is why
| they are entrenched in every constitution of the modern age
| i.e. EU, Canada, USA etc..
| supernova87a wrote:
| 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.
| ValentineC wrote:
| > _But they don 't have major drug problems or homeless on the
| streets._
|
| 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...
| supernova87a wrote:
| Yes, though I qualified it as "major". In some US cities,
| it's almost one homeless person _per bench_.
|
| And in other parts of the US, everyone has a family member or
| knows someone with a family member suffering from drug
| addiction.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| > For example, you are not allowed to say that any particular
| race is "better" than another
|
| And yet I think one racial group of citizens was banned from
| the Air Force until a decade or so ago.
| supernova87a wrote:
| I had not heard of that, that is interesting to know. Well,
| the government certainly still does make mistakes. It is not
| infallible by any measure.
|
| Are you speaking of the restriction on conscription of Malay
| citizens? Which would naturally preclude them from being in
| the Air Force in similar numbers? Or some worse actual policy
| of exclusion?
| 77pt77 wrote:
| > Are you speaking of the restriction on conscription of
| Malay citizens?
|
| I believe it was that, yes.
| ValentineC wrote:
| > _Which would naturally preclude them from being in the
| Air Force in similar numbers? Or some worse actual policy
| of exclusion?_
|
| The prevailing theory is that they're more likely to have
| kin in neighbouring Malaysia.
|
| Singapore is perpetually fearful of being annexed by
| Malaysia. (These days, it's more like propaganda to keep
| mandatory conscription relevant.)
| [deleted]
| tacostakohashi wrote:
| This isn't a "dangerous precedent", it's just more of the same
| from a regime that's been doing this for decades.
|
| 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.
| fredgrott wrote:
| maybe we should all crowd share the article to setup the regime
| failing to combat such a public protest?
| Clewza313 wrote:
| 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.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Even in the US, disseminating defamatory material is itself
| defamation. Clicking the "share" button definitely counts as
| dissemination IMO.
|
| There is an innocent dissemination defense [1], but that
| requires you to show you did due diligence to avoid
| defamation.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_dissemination
| toast0 wrote:
| How does defamation law intersect with section 230?
|
| > No provider or user of an interactive computer service
| shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any
| information provided by another information content
| provider.
|
| This applies to users who quote or forward a message as
| well as to sites that host a message. But there are some
| exceptions to section 230, and law is complex, so I may
| have missed something about defamation.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The same way DMCA 512 intersects with contributory
| copyright infringement. The only difference is that CDA
| 230 has no notice-and-takedown regime for defamatory
| content.
| sroussey wrote:
| It does not apply to users who make such actions. Only to
| the service provider.
|
| Section 230 is like one sentence, btw. It's
| interpretation has a long and complex history now though.
| javagram wrote:
| According to
| https://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/where-
| retweeting-...
|
| " under a plain reading of the statute it is clear that
| retweeting falls within the confines of Section 230's
| immunity [...] Unsurprisingly, Reid's attorneys signaled
| that she intended to argue just that in response to the
| complaint filed against her. Faced with the prospect of
| this hurdle, the plaintiff promptly dropped Reid's
| retweet cause of action from the suit, although she has
| maintained her claims against Reid for allegedly false
| statements made after the retweet."
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It does not apply to users who make such actions. Only
| to the service provider.
|
| It absolutely does reply to users foe actions which
| merely effect the visibility of materials others have
| posted, like simple retweets, provided they have an arms-
| length relationship with the original poster (if they
| actively solicited the submission and then retweeted it,
| that's potentiallt different.)
| hunter2_ wrote:
| So if defamation law says an individual _cannot_
| disseminate information written by others, but section
| 230 says an individual _can_ do so without repercussions,
| which of those takes precedence?
|
| Aside: retweeting doesn't obviously expose a URL, but in
| the similar scenario of dissemination by actual URL, I
| wonder if slugs therein would change things because then
| the downstream participant is actually themselves writing
| defamatory words.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > So if defamation law says an individual cannot
| disseminate information written by others
|
| It doesn't.
|
| It says that in certain cases, they would by so doing be
| liable as a publisher of thr defamatory content.
|
| > but section 230 says an individual can do so without
| repercussions
|
| Section 230, with some exceptions, says that neither the
| service provider _nor_ other users will be consider
| publishers of material submitted by a user. So, any
| liability they would have as the publisher of that
| material does bot exist, so long as the other conditions
| set for Section 230 safe harbor apply.
| mountainb wrote:
| It is actually similar to the test for defamation in US law.
| Public figures just have a much harder time prevailing as
| plaintiffs in the US due to the precedent of NYT v. Sullivan.
| Even if you rereport a defamatory statement you can also be
| liable.
|
| Singapore has an opposite standard for public figures. In the
| US you can defame or libel public figures and our precedent
| considers first amendment concerns to be exculpatory in most
| circumstances. E.g. I can say "Cillary Hinton killed Beffery
| Jepstein" without being held liable for defamation, although
| if I made the same type of accusation against a nonpublic
| figure like my neighbor that caused actual damages, I could
| be lose my shirt in any state court for defamation. I could
| also be held liable for defamation if I was merely restating
| what I had heard elsewhere or read in a libelous article.
| That is not a valid defense. There have indeed been
| defamation cases involving Facebook posts that resulted in
| substantial judgments or costly settlements here in the US
| (example: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/facebook_co
| mment_lea...)
|
| As some others have said, just because another country has
| different standards around a body of law doesn't necessarily
| mean that their interpretation is right and ours is wrong.
| The American interpretation of the first amendment and its
| applicability to defamatory statements against public figures
| could change, and it wasn't the same as it is now in previous
| eras of American history. NYT v. Sullivan is not the
| Constitution or one of the tablets handed down to Moses: it's
| a lot easier to reverse.
| gowld wrote:
| > "That is extraordinarily rare to have a private
| defamation suit result in a recovery of that magnitude,
|
| and that case was a statement, not a reshare.
|
| Also, the parties to the lawsuit were involved in a dispute
| over control of a business, making it more complicated.
| dvlsg wrote:
| Certainly an interesting (for lack of a better word) slippery
| slope.
|
| Could upvoting this hackernews article count as defamation?
| It's not the same as sharing it, but it would still make the
| original article more visible to more people.
| kelnos wrote:
| Good question. And going back to the original example,
| would liking a Facebook post with the information also
| count, as that would signal to FB's algorithms that it
| should be promoted more?
| jboynyc wrote:
| 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/
| ValentineC wrote:
| POFMA (the law described in the parent link) is a different
| (and IMO, unreasonable) law aimed at shutting down fake news.
|
| The person in the linked article was being sued for
| defamation.
| jboynyc wrote:
| Oh, you're right! I just realized I misread the paragraph
| about POFMA. Thanks for clarifying.
| andrepd wrote:
| 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.
| pgsimp wrote:
| It's a pity as it ranks #1 in this site about economic
| freedom: https://www.heritage.org/index/
|
| I wonder if there are better lists that sort countries by
| actual freedom?
| ashconnor wrote:
| Singapore always scores poorly on press freedom indexes [1]
| probably because the Government owns a huge chunk of the
| media via MediaCorp and uses defamation laws to silence
| political opponents [2].
|
| I'm always surprised that Singapore ranks so highly in
| economic freedoms as the government is linked to around 20%
| of the companies listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange and
| has a massive hand in public housing [3].
|
| [1] - https://rsf.org/en/singapore
|
| [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chee_Soon_Juan#2002%E2%
| 80%9320...
|
| [3] -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_and_Development_Board
| tacostakohashi wrote:
| I think it says a lot about how simplistic those sorts of
| "ease of doing business" / "economic freedom" surveys
| are.
|
| Singapore is great by most metrics that are simple to
| measure, like how many pages a tax return is, how fast
| the broadband is, how many channels of hi-def television
| there, how reliable the trains are, how long you have to
| wait in line to get a driver's license, etc, etc.
|
| However, those are actually very superficial, and more
| subjective, and ultimately more consequential metrics
| aren't captured. Things like whether the broadband is
| censored or not, whether there's anything interesting on
| TV, whether the locale around any two train stations are
| any different, how much a car costs once you have your
| license and whether there's anywhere interesting to
| drive...
|
| Singapore is a poster child for what happens when you
| just manage and optimize all the easily measured metrics.
| dheera wrote:
| What do you define as "actual" freedom? In Singapore I
| don't have to worry about getting shot or anti-Asian
| physical attacks, and the public transit system means I can
| get around just fine even when I am not medically fit to
| drive, and don't have to worry about insane healthcare
| expenses. Freedom is relative.
| jumelles wrote:
| It shouldn't be hard to find a better source than the
| Heritage Foundation.
| cletus wrote:
| 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.
|
| [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52765838
| [deleted]
| andrepd wrote:
| Funny thing about China:
|
| > Lee's programs in Singapore had a profound effect on the
| Communist leadership in China, who made a major effort,
| especially under Deng Xiaoping, to emulate his policies of
| economic growth, entrepreneurship, and subtle suppression of
| dissent. Over 22,000 Chinese officials were sent to Singapore
| to study its methods.[90]
| jessaustin wrote:
| Very interesting; reminds me of this one:
|
| https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/nazi-germanys-
| am...
| stared wrote:
| Right now in Poland, a writer is facing up to 3 years in prison
| for calling the president "a moron":
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/23/polish-writer-...
| tim333 wrote:
| The funniest one was Erdogan/Gollum
| https://news.sky.com/story/court-orders-gollum-
| examination-i...
|
| where the guy got convicted with a suspended sentence and
| then acquitted.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-14 23:01 UTC)