Currently, Internet service providers like SingNet and StarHub, which provide the Internet access with which users go online and commit defamation, are protected from defamation lawsuits under the ETA. -- REUTERS
GIVE limited protection to those running blogs, forums and other publicly editable content sites from defamation lawsuits to help free and responsible speech flourish online.
Currently, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are given legal immunity to such lawsuits, provided they comply with a 'take down' notice to remove the offending materials.
Such protection, said the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (Aims), will at one stroke solve two problems: unmeritorious lawsuits against content hosts who are not responsible for the defamation to begin with, and overzealous censorship by content hosts worried about such prosecution.
Since the Internet 'is potentially a medium of virtually limitless international defamation', aggrieved parties are more likely to sue 'borderline defendants with very little role in the dissemination of the defamation simply because the creators ... may be difficult to locate or anonymous', the report said.
Singapore's defamation law allows aggrieved parties to sue not just the source of the defamation, but also other parties within the 'chain of publication'.
Currently, Internet service providers like SingNet and StarHub, which provide the Internet access with which users go online and commit defamation, are protected from defamation lawsuits under the Singapore Electronic Transactions Act (ETA).
But it is not clear whether content hosts where the defamation is displayed like say, citizen journalism site Stomp or the popular HardwareZone forum, are similarly covered.
Aims acknowledged though, that so far, no one has actually sued an online intermediary, whether an ISP or a content company, for defamation, so the law is untested.
Nonetheless, this 'ambiguous and uncertain' position means content hosts 'have little incentive to continue carrying, hosting or linking the allegedly defamatory material, and may in the face of a complaint err on the side of caution' and simply remove the offending material.
This, the report said, 'may lead to abuse by persons who wish to have truthful but unfavourable material removed'.
The recommendation: offer content hosts limited protection, similar to the ISPs.
ISPs are immune from prosecution as long as they comply with a 'credible and authenticated' request from the party allegedly defamed, and remove the allegedly defamatory material upon getting this request. Such a request is called a take-down request.
Beyond this, it suggested the introduction of a 'put back' regime, allowing users to force content hosts to reinstate of the original, allegedly defamatory material.
This, it said, would 'prevent abuse of the take-down regime as a means of censoring speech'.
Lawyers and those within the legal community who are part of Aims or who were consulted for the report include Attorney-General's Chambers principal senior state counsel Charles Lim; Supreme Court senior assistant registrar Tan Ken Hwee; National University of Singapore law faculty dean Prof Tan Cheng Han; and NMP and Yahoo!'s legal counsel, Mr Siew Kum Hong.
