Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Proposed Rules Would Require Gov't Registration For Malaysian Press Sites

Posted by timothy on from the is-derek-zoolander-ready-to-deploy? dept.

Malaysia's Communications and Multimedia Minister Datuk Seri Dr Salleh Said Keruak has proposed mandatory government registration for web sites operating within Malaysia. This comes after the Malaysian government blocked the online Sarawak Report, and suspended a newspaper called the The Edge "for allegedly posting unverified information." Officials accused these news outlets of publishing inaccurate documents about a corruption scandal that linked the Prime Minister to 1MDB, a state-managed investment firm that reportedly lost billions of taxpayers’ money. ... The proposal to require news websites to register is seen by some as part of the government’s response to the rising outrage over the corruption issue.

13 of 39 comments (clear)

  1. censorship by Roodvlees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apparently if the government is criminal it tries to protect criminals instead of trying to prosecute them. Pretty much like in the US where Snowden revealed how much of the government are criminals, but instead of prosecuting those people they are allowed to attack Snowden, hoping people will ignore the actual crimes.

    --
    Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
    1. Re:censorship by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Do not attempt to summon up that which you cannot put down again.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:censorship by Roodvlees · · Score: 1

      One of the less obvious ways governments deal with pesky media is to get them fired. A law like this prevents those fired journalists to start their own news organisation so they can report the actual news, instead of just the party line.

      --
      Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
  2. "unverified information" . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    Doesn't that expression validly describe more or less the entire content of the Internet . . . ?

    Well, that and porn.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:"unverified information" . . . ? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Well, it has been reported that the internet can be used for something other than porn, but I haven't seen anything to verify those reports.

      Hell, I think I saw that report on NNN.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:"unverified information" . . . ? by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      And cats.

      The tubes would collapse without the cats filling them up.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    3. Re:"unverified information" . . . ? by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      It's only "unverified information" until approved by whatever political party is in power. Duh!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  3. Not like here... by MikeRT · · Score: 2

    Such a mandatory registration would not pass the first amendment, and even if the courts were cowed into accepting it, the government would have to face a public that is armed to the teeth compared to what Malaysia faces. The US is one of the worst societies in human history for its political class to say "let's see how far we can push the public."

    The reason why the Snowden thing worked for them is that Snowden went too far. He revealed a lot of information about how we deal with foreign targets, which a majority consider fair game. Had he stuck to the domestic programs, he'd have been hailed a hero by a majority.

    1. Re:Not like here... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The US is one of the worst societies in human history for its political class to say "let's see how far we can push the public."

      Holy fucking hyperbole. Apparently someone skipped medieval European history in school, also skipped history of China and SE-Asia while they were at it.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Not like here... by Roodvlees · · Score: 1

      Legislation much worse already has, it's done by giving it a nice sounding name. Like the patriot act is totally against the constitution. And the armed public is usually very much against things like free speech. Nazi Germany had plenty of militia's like the US has now, they where the first to start harassing Jews.

      Whom did Snowden help? Actually almost everything he revealed was about how western countries spy on their own, innocent, population. How the US pretty much stole money from it's allies by spying on their negotiators so they would get a better trade deal. How terrorists are totally paranoid about their security, so they use their own software, leaving these mass surveillance strategies almost useless against them. And thus how the benefits of the revealed programs have almost only been to steal money from allies or keep normal citizens silenced if they try to speak out.

      He was not hailed as a hero because idiots like you are happy to accept any lies proven war criminals tell you as truth.

      --
      Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
    3. Re:Not like here... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      To take just a single item:

      How the US pretty much stole money from it's allies by spying on their negotiators so they would get a better trade deal.

      Whatever gives you the notion that espionage is only done against enemies, not allies? Sorry, in the Real World (tm), a government spies on pretty much every other government that they can get away with as a matter of course.

      Because, after all, this year's ally may be next year's enemy (note the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as a classic example. Two years after it was signed, Operation Barbarossa began)....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Not like here... by smithmc · · Score: 1

      I certainly would not be in favor of such mandatory registration, but... where does it actually run afoul of the First Amendment? Would this actually be "abridging the freedom of speech or of the press"? Assuming, that is, that there were no restrictions (apart from those that already exist, e.g. incitement to riot) placed on the content published on the registered sites?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  4. Inspired by Singapore by romiz · · Score: 1

    Malaysia is the close neighbor of Singapore, where news are either provided by state-owned companies, or censored as soon as anything displeasing the state is published. As a result the incumbent government never lost a vote, and it is perceived as uncorruptible even when the wife of the prime minister is appointed to rule those state-owned companies.

    This can give some inspiration...