Ang's reply to "Blogging past the grey areas"

Here is Ang Peng Hwa's reply to my letter - sorry if it takes some searching in the Today's PDF mode, but I can't seem to get the text version, which is usually a direct link.

I'm glad that Mr Ang has clarified on what I now see as a shared view that being nice online does not always mean staying safe, or vice versa for that matter.

Still, my only discomfort is that the law and OB markers are never that clearly defined, as Martyn See's brush has suggested and which I have quoted. My contention is that the law has been "OB marked" as well, no less by the authorities who wish to wield them. I feel the main problem is that OB markers are never defined, which makes it rather easy, I challenge, for a potential defaulter to fault along them in the "application of the law", which as Mr Ang puts it is never easy for legal greens to grasp.

I'm also wondering if Mr Ang's seminar participants were more concerned about the exact word of law, or the areas where its application might suddenly pop out as OB and bite them hard. Sure, some cases are quite well defined, such as the cases of our “racists bloggers”, but not so clear for mr brown’s last foray in Today, which drew a thumbing-down from MICA and some suspect a chastisement from Today.

Of course, correct me if I'm wrong, please. However, there is no short way to define or debate on such a touchy issue. I would prefer a bit more time for a proper study – if only I can find the time…Mr Ang, no hard feelings for this - all purely for academic openess, and I appreciate your respond immensely! N