Slashdot Mirror


New Cyberbullying Evidence Rules May Go Too Far

An anonymous reader writes "The Malaysian Government has recently passed an amendment to their Evidence Act that has been designed to hold cyber bullies accountable for their malicious tirades on blogs or Facebook Walls. Unfortunately, the amendment has been worded such that 'If your name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting yourself as the author, you are deemed to have published the content' and 'If a posting comes from your Internet or phone account, you are deemed to be the publisher unless the contrary is proved.' What these raft of amendments have done is shifted the burden of proof to the accused. One is considered guilty until proven innocent. Even the simple act of posting an offending message on a friend's Facebook Wall could get that friend, and not the original poster, into trouble with this law. Although the amendments were initiated by good intentions, a conspiracist can see how easily this law can be misused to curb dissent in Malaysia."

22 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Rights? Right. by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 5, Funny

    Indeed, so the solution is to post something defamatory about the king using a picture and the name of one of the politicians or lawlords who passed this bill, then they'll be able to see the obvious flaw in their plan.

    --
    Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
  2. Why the difference by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I still don't get why people seem to insist on different laws for "cyber" something versus "in real life" something. Bullying is bullying. Threats are threats. Adjust your existing laws accordingly, but they should cover both things the same way.

    1. Re:Why the difference by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because with "cyber" bullying, the nerds are on equal or better footing. We can't have that.

    2. Re:Why the difference by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can put someone down, harass them, etc, on-line exactly the same way you can in person. Punching someone in the stomach is assault, not bullying, and I assume that they already have laws for that. Just because the bullying doesn't involve assault does not make it less damaging.

    3. Re:Why the difference by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can put someone down, harass them, etc, on-line exactly the same way you can in person.

      No you can't. You cannot turn off a real bully by clicking your mouse.

    4. Re:Why the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Online bullying may have analogues to real life bullying but they are not equivalent. While assault may be something different than bullying, in real life there is an implied threat of immediate assault which may make one more hesitant to just walk away. Online is just not the same even if it is a bad thing.

    5. Re:Why the difference by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2

      I can understand what leads to laws such as this, or the recent NY attempt to eliminate anonymous posting. I don't entirely support the logic, but I can understand it:

      We've always had the ability to be anonymous in our insults. We can shout our insults from the crowd or dress up in white robes and a hood to attend the KKK rally. But the major difference is that in those cases, we are not so easily free of the consequences of our actions. It is easy now to post pretty much anywhere under a false or nonexistent identity, and to rarely have to face any consequences. Yes, it's easy (or it should be) for someone to ignore the comments, but that isn't the point -- it's more about being willing to take responsibility for what you write and say. If real names were attached to the things we all said, many people would think twice about saying them. (As I recall there were some studies a few years back that demonstrated just that).

      So to directly answer your question:

      I still don't get why people seem to insist on different laws for "cyber" something versus "in real life" something.

      I think that they're trying to put them on equal footing in a way that they presently are not (it's easier to insult/bully online then in 'real life'; this law and those like it seek to change that.

      Like I said, I don't entirely support this logic as it can lead to a lot of abuse in the end. But I can understand how they arrived there.

    6. Re:Why the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Walk away? The bullies LET you walk away?

      What fantasy world is this where someone can just walk away from their tormentors and not be followed and attacked?

      On Facebook, you can block people. In real life, you're stuck with them.

    7. Re:Why the difference by WillDraven · · Score: 2

      You can't "turn off" a cyber bully either.

      True, you may be able to ignore their posts, but you can't stop them from spreading hurtful lies (or hurtful truths) to everybody else in your social circle. You can pretty well destroy someones life by making accusations of pedophilia, beastiality, etc.

      Even if you can sue them for slander and win, your life will be pretty difficult when your potential employers google you and see "John Q. Target has been accused by several local farmers of sexually assaulting their livestock."

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    8. Re:Why the difference by WillDraven · · Score: 2

      My point is you don't even have to own a damn computer to get cyber bullied or slandered.

      First of all, who said that cyber bullying means the person doing it doesn't know you in real life?

      And even if none of your friends believe what's been said about you, that doesn't help if your unemployable for anything more than minimum wage jobs because on the internet your name is synonymous with "raper of animals." You cant just tell the people who won't hire you that they're being stupid and have them go "Oh you're right! Sure, we would love for "John the Sheepfucker" to be our chief engineer. Welcome aboard!"

      "Pretend the problem doesn't exist" is almost never the correct solution to anything.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    9. Re:Why the difference by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      I still don't get why people seem to insist on different laws for "cyber" something versus "in real life" something. Bullying is bullying. Threats are threats. Adjust your existing laws accordingly, but they should cover both things the same way.

      Because there are twp properties about the Internet that do not apply to local life as we're used to.

      1) The internet memory is infinite, and forever. Attempts to wipe the memory result in it being more spread out and diverse (aka Streisand Effect). Once something is put on it, it's impossible to take down. To do otherwise requires some sort of DRM, and we know how effective that is.

      2) The internet is global. What was once a simple scrawl on a bathroom wall is now a broadcast heard from Timbuktu to Antartica.

      These two, taken together, mean that the damage from simple cyberbullying is far greater than it ever was.

      Hell, think of the Romney "Gay Hazing" incidents. We can't tell the truth because it lies only between a few people and memories are fragile. However, had it happened today, it's an indelible record that the whole world will know about.

      There's an Onion piece about "the last electable President" because he doesn't use any form of social network or the Internet and is some redneck from some small town no one's heard of and thus has no scandal to possibly contaminate his leadership.

      Hell, if you're a kid being bullied on Facebook - print out those posts. If you're down in the dumps 10-15 years from now, you can probably sue the heck out of your bullies for making you unemployable by all those things they said so many years ago. It might work. Or hey, maybe use it to draw up scandals in the future.

  3. Basic Overview by JabberWokky · · Score: 5, Informative

    For anybody who wants a basic overview of Malay law regarding these matters, there's an issue of the Malayan Law Journal (actually an article supplement) that covers this in language easily understood by the layperson (and it's also in English, to boot). The PDF is located here: http://jeraldgomez.com/pdf/7cd40a1889d4539feffda786372ff33b.pdf and I would point you to page 3 (page 4 of the PDF).

    Basically, they are based on English Common Law, and signed the UDHR, but have a history of legislation that allows detention without trial, originally designed to combat communism.

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    1. Re:Basic Overview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      red commies, capitalists, terrorists, hooligans, pedefiles, Jews, etc. etc.

      Any law that removes freedoms guaranteed in the constitution for the purpose of fighting any specific "undesirables" because these are "special circumstances", is a law that will be used to crush dissent, "wrong" opinions, and generally keep people in power in power. These are all slippery slope laws that have no business in modern societies.

      "Special circumstances" are what the courts are for, not politicians.

  4. Re:Rights? Right. by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Yeah, there's one in every crowd. This was a report about one teacher yelling at one student. The /. article however is about a government action.

    SPENCER, NC â" A North Carolina high school teacher was captured on video shouting at a student who questioned President Obama and suggesting he could be arrested for criticizing a sitting president.

  5. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure, and when I steal a screwdriver from your unlocked garden shed, you should be held legally responsible when I later break in to your house to stab some sense in to your head. Do we really want requirements for holding online accounts to be akin to owning guns?

  6. Re:Rights? Right. by Jesus_C_of_Nazareth · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's Thailand, but don't let that put you off avoiding Malaysia as a holiday destination. Malaysia has Islam has its state religion, but claims to offer freedom of religion. Now, as you can imagine I don't agree with Islam, yet I'm sanguine on the whole thing. Sure, I spent the best part of a day nailed to a tree for these people, and they then go off following some schizophrenic local warlord. Sorry, that seems really ungrateful to me, and don't get me started on those Mormons and their crazy notion that they'll one day become space gods.

    They have freedom of religion, yet by law Malaysians of a certain ethnic original are automatically Muslims. Under some pretty common interpretations of Islam, to leave Islam is to be invite death. Yes, great freedom of religion there. Next time I come to Earth I'll sure want a nice holiday before I get back to work. I know Thailand and Malaysia are pretty low on the list of places I'd like to visit, and so they should be for anyone not wanting their money to support these guys who make my old neighbors in Nazareth (you know who you are!) seem progressive by comparison.

    They tend to forget these things in their tourism adverts. To be fair, the U.S. rarely mentions the genital groping TSA when looking for tourists, and they rarely publicize the notion of "constitution free zones" wherever Bush/Obama decide that discarding freedom in the face of a marginal and unlikely threat is the right thing to do. Perhaps Spain is where I'll head to. Good food (the olives in Heaven are disappointing) and wines, and the women are exceptional if you can stand the tempers.

    --
    JC
  7. Re:Rights? Right. by shentino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's not a bug, it's a feature.

    Replace "you" with "politician with an axe to grind" and "lawlord" with "dissident"

  8. Re:Rights? Right. by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is that the online version of "stop hitting yourself"?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re:Rights? Right. by just_a_monkey · · Score: 2

    But then why do they feel they need the law? If almost no-one will defame the king, isn't it easier to just, say, ignore the fools that don't love him?

    --
    How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
  10. Re:Rights? Right. by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    Not at all, we just had a politician who committed what might, to the untrained eye, look like fraud, but she's been held to account and it turns out it wasn't fraud at all, it was an "oversight"

    In Malaysia, corruption is so rampant that they actually spent 250 Million local currency (about 100 Million USD) to raise 3,000 cows

    When that matter was exposed, that female politician, the one who got the generous 250 Million gift, insisted that she's not guilty of anything

    And in deed, she was NOT guilty of anything - for in Malaysia, as long as you are a part of the ruling elite, you can corrupt away and the authority will use the word "oversight" to explain away how the money was lost

    After that, case closed !

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  11. Malaysia? by gelfling · · Score: 2

    It will be used exclusively against people who criticize Islam.

  12. Re:In Malaysia, the authority is the final judge by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

    Fair enough, but Obama is also guilty of murder and the people who are sent to Gitmo are also guilty until proven innocent and no such proof is even allowed. We also use torture in the US. Does Malaysia?

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.