Careless Whisper* - George Michael

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966**

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

In recent times, many bloggers in M'sia have been speaking out against the legal suit taken against 2 prominent local bloggers by a local newspapers alleging defamation.

What concerns me more is the fact that many of these bloggers prolly have no idea what the suit is all about. All that matters to them is that 2 bloggers have been taken to court for statements made by them in their blogs - and they say that this is going against every bloggers' right to freedom of expression. What disappoints me more is that many of these people are themselves human rights activists.

Let's get one thing clear - there are very few absolute rights i.e. rights to which there are no exceptions and limitations to. For example, Article 19 para 1 as reproduced above allows everyone to hold an opinion. One may think that the government is corrupt, or that Beckham is overrated, or that Nazism is not wrong, or that Christians are stupid. They have the right to hold such opinion.

However, freedom of expression is not such a right - and human rights activists should know better! Article 19 para 3 above lists out the restrictions. Article 20 lists out even more restrictions.

These people also forget that there is another right involved in this case - the right for anyone to litigate any matter in Court. That right too has its limitations but i won't go into detail here. But what this means is that the local newspaper has every right to take anyone to court if it thinks that it has a valid claim against them. If at the end of the day, they have been found to abuse their right to take out such a case eg. they commenced the law suit out of malicious intent, the bloggers have every right them to demand for costs and damages.

This is the legal process of the land - and of many if not all other modern democratic nations. Who are the bloggers to limit the right of anyone to commence a law suit if they have a legal and valid right to do so?

I know that many would be saying now that the local newspapers do not have a valid and legal right - but it is unfortunately not for us to judge, but for the Judge to do so - that is why they are called judges!!! ;-P

So to those who are making a lot of complaints about this legal case, may i humbly suggest that they do the following things first before saying anything:-

1. Find out the details of the case;
2. Learn up the laws on defamation;
3. Form your opinion, by all means - but as the matter is already filed in Court, let the legal process run its natural course.

I think it is unfair that the solicitors of the newspapers are receiving flak for taking up the case. I have had previous dealings with the particular lawyer and have utmost respect for him. He is just doing his job. Let's not get personal with him or the firm he is from.

If anyone would like to read a good and IMHO fair comment on the matter, read the editorial by TheSUN here. I have read it and reread it and is of the view that it is legally sound and makes sense. Unfortunately, a particular human rights activists had blasted the newspaper for that editorial and made many criticisms which in my view are uncalled for, personal and unfair. This is the law of the country, a country which believes inter alia in the Rule of Law.

Ideally, the case filed should deal only with whether the alleged statements are defamatory in nature - and should not add any limitations to any bloggers' freedom of expression in his/her blog.

Yes, we bloggers should jealously guard against any attempts to curb our right of freedom of expression - but that does not make us immune to any legal proceedings for any careless statements made which in law amounts to defamation or anything which falls under the restrictions listed in Articles 19 and 20 as referred to above.

**Kindly note that while Malaysia has not ratified this Covenant, it is nevertheless generally accepted as the benchmark of Civil and Political Rights in the world today

*Arguably, one of the best songs of all times, if not the best! Interesting to note that in Capital FM's top 500 songs of 2006, Careless Whisper came in no. 1 again!!!