Are bloggers really at risk of the law?

The following was sent to Today Voices. Naturally, since it is really a commentary about something in the paper.

Impt thing to note is that I've never seen the distinction between what goes into mainstream media and online media. As long as the content is similar and addresses roughly the same people, anything goes.

Enjoy...

* * * * *

I read with some interest the article by Ang Peng Hwa, “Sending bloggers to school” (Today, Aug 22, 2006).

I applaud his good intentions to help Singapore bloggers find their way around cyberspace without stumbling over the perils of state law. While I have some misgivings about the advertorial propensity of his article, I take it with a pinch of salt and good faith that he has the interests of his fellow citizens at heart. However, I am concerned about three points that he has raised.

The first has to do with Ang’s suggestion that, as long as a blogger writes nice, he would stay out of trouble. Unfortunately, one need not go on a tirade of obscenities to get into trouble. Would even the average Singaporean give credit to someone who raves and rants without facts or even a good idea to support his dissatisfaction? Those who get carried away with their words would eventually have their words carried away as well.

Indeed, of greater concern are those who have a reasonable word to speak. This can take the form of humour, sarcasm, or just plain fact-stating. These voices challenge authority, not without good reason – or at least with a logical point of view. They have the potential to convince and “mislead”. They would be the most susceptible to running afoul of the law, should the authorities choose to respond as the final arbitrator.

Sadly, it is this group of writers who can offer a different perspective and encourage lively debate. They might spout half truths, but half truths would be enough just to raise a few more questions, some of which might prove to be the turning point in uncovering the real truth. My fear is that, when Singaporeans hold back their half truths – usually based purely on a guess and a prayer, fueled with a lot of unhappiness – until they are quite sure they have the full truth, the energy of the debate would have been lost.

My second concern has to do with Ang’s statement on the amateurish nature of our online writers. The infantile nature of many Singapore bloggers has been quite well documented, not the least online. Yet, Ang’s belief that “because bloggers are non-professionals, they are likely to stumble into the pitfalls of writing” begs an immediate clarification.

Of course, not all online writers are journalists, and just as well to say that some of them were or still are. The question is, do you have to be professional writer to be a blogger on the good side of the law? Apparently not, since a lot of our schoolgirls and boys can dedicate their blogs to relatively flamboyant, frivolous and some downright farcical pursuits, all with a healthy dose of language enough to put a blush on our “rules” on obscenity, yet still get away with it. Why, some of them are even hailed as celebrity bloggers by one of our local online newspapers.

Indeed, flak might just as well go to those who are well versed with the law, but for some reason choose to push the boundaries. Incidentally, these might be the same bloggers who hold only half truths and desire debate. Indeed, this would be a more accurate distinction between a professional and non-professional writer in Singapore. The “professional” is bound by the requirements and constraints of his job, usually as a new worker, while the “non-professional” feels that the limits can be tested. I believe this to be what mrbrown has done, which got him into trouble.

This idea of pushing boundaries brings me to my third point – are the pitfalls that Ang suggested really to do with flouting the law? For sure, we have the obvious cases of racists bloggers charged under the Sedition Act. But we also have good reason to suspect that online writers might err outside of the legal boundaries, and I’m not just referring to those who were slammed by their fellow bloggers for remarks made against our foreign workforce.

All our acts and law relating to media content and usage are readily available online, and it doesn’t take a genius, media professional or even a “kiasu” guess to make some sense of it and know when to toe the line, or else.

The more uncomfortable issue is the out of bound (OB) markers. Local film maker and blogger Martyn See has lamented that “these boundaries, already amorphous as they are, are constantly shifting back and forth, catching off-guard just about anybody with an opinion deemed contrary to “national interest.”” Are OB markers the greater concern for online writers, rather than the word of law? To quote a household-name blogger, what exactly is a “persistently non-political podcast”?

Evidently, our online writers need to stay out of trouble, if for no other reason than to keep the demand for open debate alive. Having a clearer understanding of the law will help. Yet, the battle to stay afloat will always be a frustrating game of shifting spotlights and shadows, until we can accept bloggers for the very different craft they practice. Only then will the authorities realise that “violence” towards bloggers – legal or otherwise – would never be as effective as responding directly in their own playing field. N