Malaysia Stages Internet Blackout To Protest New Censorship Law

redletterdave writes "Malaysian netizens, opposition politicians, well-known bloggers and non-governmental organizations staged an Internet blackout Tuesday to protest and raise awareness about legislation that could threaten free expression on the Web. According to Malaysia's Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ), the second of two amendments to the Malaysian Evidence Act of 1950, also known as Section 114A, 'enables law enforcement officials to swiftly hold someone accountable (PDF) for publishing seditious, defamatory, or libelous content online.' In addition, those accused of posting this kind of content will be 'assumed to be guilty until proven innocent,' which completely flies in the face of the typical logic of the traditional judicial process, which is 'innocent until proven guilty.' The CIJ warns that 'if allegedly defamatory content is traced back to your username, electronic device, and/or Wi-Fi network, Section 114A presumes you are guilty of publishing illicit content on the Internet.' The CIJ organized Tuesday's blackout, where participating sites blacked out their names and services with messages that read, 'This is what the Web could look like.'"

Comments

It's political. Period.

[el_flynn]

This is nothing more than political maneouvering by the ruling government.

It's been done before, and will continue to be done. Especially because a General Election is coming up. If you read that link I posted, it was reported that the Malaysian prime minister said "Whatever we do, we must put people first,". If that were truly the case, why wasn't that position taken in the first place before the law was passed?

Basically:
1. Pass draconian law
2. Wait for public outcry
3. Repeal draconian law
4. Look like a hero
5. Profit!

Re:It's political. Period.

[theRunicBard]

You don't know your memes. It goes Something Something ????? Profit! You make it sound like they know what they're doing.

Re:It's political. Period.

[tlhIngan]

It's been done before, and will continue to be done. Especially because a General Election is coming up. If you read that link I posted, it was reported that the Malaysian prime minister said "Whatever we do, we must put people first,". If that were truly the case, why wasn't that position taken in the first place before the law was passed?

Basically:
1. Pass draconian law
2. Wait for public outcry
3. Repeal draconian law
4. Look like a hero
5. Profit!

I'd say a lot of "democratic" countries are really false-democratic - if you really looked at how they operated, it's between authoritarian and dictatorship.

There are "elections" and people can "vote", however, if the vote strays too far to the "wrong" things ... happen. And yes, people are forced to vote, and it's probably fully auditable and all that.

Malaysia is probably the perfect scenario for this. I remember many years ago the Opposition was actually getting pretty strong and popular, so what happened? The leader got arrested on "sodomy" charges and "semen on mattress" evidence. So far, the case is "ongoing" (and I think I observed this over a decade ago). I think at one point the charges got "dropped" after he was too weak to continue the trial. End result - the official government wins because the voters couldn't really vote for a party whose leader was in jail, and is now too weak to reorganize and regroup the opposition party, so the official government party gets free reign.

A law like this can be easily passed - all the government has to do is show lots of evidence that the law is good, and basically hush and discredit those who oppose it. If it gets any traction, just jail the leader on questionable charges.

Re:First country that

[fustakrakich]

And it will look like Pearl Harbor did in 1941 if anybody tries.

So, how widespread was this blackout anyway? Did Google and Facebook and Microsoft join in?

Censorship

[Taco Cowboy]

Malaysia is an Islamic country

From Saudi Arabia to Malaysia to Iran to Bangladesh, we see a pattern --- Islamic countries aren't actually famous for their tolerance of free speech

But of course, not all countries that do not allow free speech are Islamic countries. North Korea and Cuba are not Islamic, but then, they are commies

I guess the commies are in bed with the Islamists on their quest to snuff out all free speech
 

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK apparently doesn't tolerate freedom of speech/press either. Just take a look at the earlier story about that guy who is getting four years in prison simply for posting text on his web site.

Re:Censorship

[xenobyte]

Troll alert...

Unless you have been living in a cave for the past 100 years you're wilfully ignoring facts... The communist countries wasted most of their money on preventing free speech and free thought, as well as free movement of its people. The rest was wasted on a stupid arms race they couldn't win. That was one of the primary reasons they failed.

For some reason Islamic countries are even more afraid of free speech, as well as free expression. The middle east almost melted down just because a local newspaper in the small country of Denmark (far, far away from the middle east) published some drawings of Muhammad. It's a very poor and insecure religion that fears open discussion about its premises and prophets, and this is usually due to real issues with these. I mean it is raised above any discussion that Muhammad was a pedophile when he married a 6-year old and consumated the marriage when she (Aisha) was 9 years old, but try mentioning this to a Muslim and you just might not survive the reaction.

Islam is a very violent religion, and any insult, no matter how insignificant, results in demands for blood, beheadings and worse, which of course explains the need for strong censorship in order to prevent roits and revolutions. But the issue is not the insults (which the censorship should prevent) but the mentality and reactions, and those are guided by the clergy (Imams). So they need to re-educate the Imams instead of imposing more censorship. That would solve many problems in addition to those relating to perceived insults, and open up for freedom of speech.

Re:Censorship

[erroneus]

Turkey is an Islamic country too. They don't have this problem. The problem isn't Islam. It's the jackasses who use Islam as an excuse. That said, we see the same crap in the US on a lesser scale you know. "Blue laws"? Religious crap getting in my way at every turn as far as I'm concerned.

And you don't have to be in a Muslim country to have your free speech threatened either.

It's easy to want to blame a particular religion especially when they speak a non-English language, often have non-white faces, and wear strange clothes. I actually tend to want to do that myself. The reality, though, is much different. There are probably more versions of Islam practiced than there are versions of Christianity. It's all the same crap when you break it down... if an interpretation doesn't agree with you, change it... fork it if you will.

I'm with you in that religion is to blame for a lot of broken thought and a lot of inhumanity. But at its core is humans... doing inhuman things.

Re:Censorship

[Mashiki]

Turkey is an Islamic country too. They don't have this problem. The problem isn't Islam. It's the jackasses who use Islam as an excuse.

Uh. You might want to pay a bit more attention to the world, back in 2008, when the Islamist's started rising to power they amended a bunch of stuff restricting free speech, and a bunch of other things. Hey guess what, you remember Egypt? Wanna guess what's happening there, or do I need to spell it out for you as the Islamists are rising to power there. Goodbye freedoms.

You can believe what you want, but the last time I looked. If someone took a glass filled it with piss and dumped a cruifix in it(let's not forget that it's already been an art exhibit too). You'll get some disgusted looks here in the west, and you'll probably get some people protesting you. Now you try that with a Koran, I'll bet you'll get your first death threat inside of 10minutes, and have your first riot inside an hour. And of course, you'll probably need to go into hiding. That's much more serious than say, oh ... drawing a cartoon.

Re:Censorship

[erroneus]

Religion is violent. Sexuality in a religious context is invariably screwed up and is invariably about women... controlling, limiting, branding and especially blaming.

Get over it. To me, one religion is pretty much as stupid as another. But be thankful too. We have a lot to thank religion for in our human societies.

1. ...

Okay I may have to post more on that later.. I can't think of any at the moment.

Re:Censorship

[rtb61]

All countries where the psychopaths in charge hide behind religion or enforced credo, hate free speech and persecute those that attempt it. This also extends to monarchical systems. Pointing out one religion over another is disingenuous and racist, well history has made it clear, as soon as politicians claim to the the interpreters of the 'national' religion abuse becomes rampant and in direct contradiction to the principles of the religion. Especially when then abuse takes on a core of sadistic sexual exploitation not only by those at the top but also by their core enforcers.

Christianity is only a less violent religion because it was forced to be one due to rebellion from within and breakdown of the religion into multiple sub-sects to break up the power of those exploiting the religion for their own purposes.

A prime example of current abuse of religion is by Paul Ryan who for years exposed the atheistic beliefs of Ayn Rand and objectivism which denigrates all Christian principles. Paul Ryan did this while claiming to be a devout Catholic a direct and blatant contradiction but one that does adhere to the principles of objectivism ie. it is acceptable to lie for personal advantage and whilst all religions are nonsense and for the weak and parasites, it is sound and acceptable to pretend to adhere to a religion if one gains personal advantage by doing so.

It is not the religion and never has been, it is it's pretend adherents who abuse religion for their own political, greed and lust based advantage basically the credo of Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

Re:Censorship

[MysteriousPreacher]

It is not the religion and never has been, it is it's pretend adherents who abuse religion for their own political, greed and lust based advantage basically the credo of Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

I agree with the rest of your post, but this reeks of the No True Scotsman fallacy. I don't want to pick on religion here, so I'll use the word "ideology" to group together religions, political movements and philosophies.

While ideology can indeed be vehicles for a despot's agenda, it does not follow that "true belief" can't lead to pretty terrible results! If we look at terrorists, are none of them driven by ideology? Are all Islamic terrorists not true believers, or perhaps they're abusing their religion or misinterpreting it? No, that's nonsense. Obviously some are using religion as a vehicle for another agenda, such as the various paramilitaries in Northern Ireland who seem to spend more time engaging in petty disputes and crime than in their stated mission. How about central American Marxist extremists who take to the jungle, to fight the government, and kidnap women for rape? I don't blame Marxism for that, but I do blame Islam when I see people doing what its holy books tell them to do. Are misogyny and homophobia abuse of Christianity? No, because it's a supportable interpretation of Biblical texts, and I blame Christianity when its used to defend such appalling stances.

Contradiction is part and parcel of most ideologies - Paul Ryan is not unusual. How is it that many Christians lead lives of luxury, contrary to the example set by Jesus and his disciples? It'd be reasonable to argue that amassing wealth and possessions is just as contradictory to the teachings of Jesus as objectivism is. Why do women play such an important role in the ministry of Jesus, and in the early church, yet later-on are shoved back in to the kitchen? Why are the majority of Catholic women using birth control? Why are some protestant denominations allowing homosexuals to minister, and why does any Christian church permit women to minister to men? Why does extreme socialism tend to resemble feudalism? To finish on an amusing note, how does the claimed rationalism egoism of Objectivism jibe with the "monkey see monkey do" behaviour of some of her followers, and how does its disdain for statism marry-up with Rand ruling the cult of Objectivism like a mad monarch?

Re:Censorship

[alexgieg]

Sexuality in a religious context is invariably screwed up and is invariably about women... controlling, limiting, branding and especially blaming.

I remember reading a thesis saying it more of a cultural phenomenon ultimately targeted at children by way of the women. The idea was that in societies were you can trust mostly everyone else as individuals, women were (and are) freer because you can trust your neighbor or the guy from that other family to self control and not come make your wife pregnant for you. On the other hand, on those were another person's word to you is worth shit if his clan leader as much as sneezes and men have no self control, you restrict your wife (a single person), because there's no way you can restrict everyone else. Middle Eastern societies follow the later pattern, and hence women over there have no freedom, the religion (or lack thereof) of the involved of secondary concern, so much so things were basically the same before Islam, and among followers of other religions. On the other hand, many Western ones are of the individualized trusting kind, and in those women are freer or actually free, the religion (or lack thereof too) of the involved also of secondary concern.

In short: place any religion, or none, on a given cultural context, and it'll be speedily adapted to that cultural context. The reverse also happens, with the religion changing the cultural context, but this is a much subtler process, and if a certain cultural aspect of the society is very entrenched (such as the total lack of mutual trust between non-clan individuals), it might not yield at all.

Re:Censorship

[hawkinspeter]

"Militant Buddhism" - now I've seen everything! I don't know how they can follow Buddhism whilst carrying out violence as I thought that non-violence is kind of their thing.

It amazes me that they can fight for the cause of non-attachment. It's like fighting for peace or screwing for virginity.

Re:Censorship

[Taco Cowboy]

Islam and Christianity use to be violent many many moons ago but so were non-religious people. Humans have evolved beyond that. Today Islam and Christianity are generally peaceful

 
Islam is "generally peaceful"?
 
  Bull farking shit !!
 
A religion that encourages its followers to kill people of other religion cannot be said to be peaceful. Not at all, not in my book !!
 

A review of Malaysia by an outsider

[Taco Cowboy]

If you still have doubt on the savagery of the regime that has controlled Malaysia for the past 55 years, read the following:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040712015617/http://www.waseda-coe-cas.jp/jcas/images/shinozaki_jocas.pdf