Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Stop Section 114A
Anyone who considers themselves as an internet user will come under the Section 114A. So, what is this Section 114A?
Section 114A is the newly introduced amendment made to Malaysia's Evidence Act 1950. It is a law that deals with harmful Internet content. It states that, owners, operators, hosts, editors, clients of a network or website, or owners of computers or portable devices, are deemed responsible for publishing or re-publishing contents available on networks, websites or on the devices involved.
Which means that anyone who is publishing seditious, defamatory or libellous content online and made it available to public can and will be swiftly hold by the law enforcement officials. The amendment is now operational since 31st July 2012.
Originally, the purpose of this amendment is to identify the individual responsible for the publication and dissemination of seditious material on the internet. However, due to the difficulties in the process of tracking and identifying the individuals involved, the amendment is now clearly assume the fault lies in the individual whose identity is used for the publication regardless of factors such as identity theft and computer hacking. Adding to that, the fault also lies in the parties providing the comments on blogs, forums and website operators even if the information is posted by others. Since most of the internet users are average users, it is an unacceptable burden to those who are wrongfully accused of publishing inappropriate content.
The internet is the place for sharing information without boundaries. It connects the whole world. Sharing information freely is one of the best way to ensures people are always supplied with accurate information. Therefore, people should use their freedom of expression does not matter in any form, including on the internet. Voice of the people must be heard. Therefore, if Section 114 is implemented, the principles of freedom of speech will be severely affected the people.
For a person who uses internet everyday and as a student, this is a very serious issue. In today’s world, “Information at Your Fingertips” is what makes the internet community alive and strong. Changing information and knowledge instantly is just the tip of the iceberg. Section 114A should be reconsidered and revised properly, it may or may not has the potential to be a good thing if it did not passed in haste and considers the public interest and participation.
Written By: Muhammad Muzzammil Bin Jamaludin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hai there, Assalammualaikum, Selamat Sejahtera and Salam 1Malaysia.
ReplyDeleteNice post you got there. I agreed that Section 114A under Evidence of Act 1950 is a burden to the internet user. However, I'm not very happy to say that this enactment are fully stopping people from sharing thought, ideas, and knowledge.
In my observation, if you just using the internet for educational purpose, I think there are 0.01% you'll be posting a defamatory, libelous or seditious content because most of it you are discussing about the facts, technical stuff and suggestion.
From my point of view, the people that are using internet to spread their political thought, addicted with trolling others, and obsessed with gossip are the most afraid to the Act 114A. They misused the term of 'Freedom of Speech' in order to simply accusing people, make fun of others and also persecute innocent people.
This is just my opinion from my observation, don't take it to hard. PEACE~~~
-Nur Syazwan Arasy-
Assalamualaikum.
ReplyDeleteBasically the act is a replacement and I agreed on that matter. The part on "Which means that anyone who is publishing seditious, defamatory or libelous content online and made it available to public can and will be swiftly hold by the law enforcement officials." is also true.
This act can be a plague in the internet community if this matter not thoroughly check. Also agreed from the comment above that most of the "afraid" people are that stated above. Also "freedom of speech" cannot been used as excused to stop this act. This act like other act also have it's pro and cons. Obviously a lot of people see more on it's cons rather then it's positive side.
Sincerely this is just my humble opinion.
-Adli Faisal-
True story, we (including myself) scold the government because suddenly making a decision without discuss with the citizens, then in the same way we are rushing making the decision to fully terminated this Act without looking forward at the better part of it. So, what is the difference of us from them?
DeletePeace~~ =)
Yes, I get about the educational purposes on the internet, but what about other purposes? There are times when people can't trust the news on televisions and they have to investigate and find their own sources from the internet. But, what if those sources providers who are trying to spread the truths about certain issues through the internet are burden by this amendment? For me, in the end, it's not the government's decision to choose what we can and cannot see on the internet, it's up to us to choose who or what to believe.
ReplyDeleteYes it is true that it depends on us to choose who or what to believe, but too bad, from what I see from the 80%-90% people around me, they only choose to believed what they think it is true. They said that mainstream media controlled by the government, however, they just taking all the information on the 'alternative' media to lightly and agreed with all the content without investigated it first. Why must they investigated the information from the 'controlled' media but easily spread the information from the alternative media that are 'not been controlled'? Let's think about it together shall we? hee~~
DeleteWhy must the sources providers who are trying to spread the truth be afraid of this Act if all the information are really true?? They have all the evidence so they can fight the government if they been accused. If we are on the right track, God always help us to revealed the truth. Not a single person, government or Act can stop us.
DeleteThe difference between mainstream media, which is said, "controlled by the government" and the internet "not controlled" is, the Internet gives us vast amount of choices about what to believe, instead of information being fed to us by "government controlled media".
DeleteWhat if, the similar concept of "government controlled media" is implemented onto the internet? Then everything is "controlled".
But not all the stuff in the internet are actually 100% free from being controlled. For example, most of the blog of alternative media are host by the opposition or their fanatics. do they really give all the bad information about their members who doing wrong things? do they at least give only one support to what have government sacrifice? All they do is against all the govenment idea and protect their members even they doing wrong things. its the same concept of governmnet controlled media except its the different medium. but the questions is..... WHY our people can except easily all the information from that side without thinking????!!
DeleteWhat the point of having a debated? The time is over already... hahahahaha....
ReplyDeleteI don't mind the dateline because the topic that been discussed is interesting. loll.
Deletethe discussion is quite interesting, although it's kinda bit late haha :P
Delete