Censoring The Internet Is Illegal
28 August 2008 | 1,518 viewsIn instructing ISPs to block access to Malaysia Today, MCMC chief operating officer Sharil Tarmizi argues that:
“We are governed by the Communications and Multimedia Act (1998) which allows us to take preventive measures and advise our license holders (such as ISPs) when a service user may be contravening national laws,” he said.
Under Section 263 of the Act, a licensee must “use his best endeavour” to prevent his/her facilities from being used to violate any law in the country”. [Malaysiakini]
So what law has Raja Petra been found guilty of violating? Which specific parts of Malaysia Today has been found to be in violation of the law?
MCMC must state these things clearly and specifically.
But it can’t, because Raja Petra has not been found guilty of anything that would allow MCMC to act within the law.
And the law does not empower MCMC to block access to Malaysia Today (which is an act of censorship), even if Raja Petra has been found guilty.
You know why?
Because the law — specifically Section 3 of the Communications and Multimedia Act — that MCMC must adhere to states that:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet.
That clear enough, MCMC?
You cannot invoke Section 263 to legalise censorship because Section 3 says that you cannot construe any provision in the Act as permitting censorship.
In other words, as far as censoring the Internet is concerned, no provision of the Act is open to such interpretation.
Therefore, MCMC has acted outside of the law in instructing ISPs to block access to Malaysia Today.
The instructions themselves are illegal.
YES, if Raja Petra is found guilty of violating the law for publishing certain content on Malaysia Today, MCMC can then instruct him to remove the content in question.
The act of ordering the removal of specific content from Malaysia Today is NOT censorship.
The act of blocking access to the website IS.
20 Responses to “Censoring The Internet Is Illegal”
1 koolgeek 28 August 2008 @ 2:02 pm
How can netizen take legal actions against MCMC?
Is there a way we can take them to courts? This cannot allowed to take precedence.
2 KISS 28 August 2008 @ 2:20 pm
I thought there was a court order ordering RPK to take down the articles?
http://www.seapabkk.org/newdesign/alertsdetail.php?No=930
Has it been taken down?
3 walla 28 August 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Even Judge Dredd couldn’t have said it better. A perfectly constructed piece, executed with almost mathematical precision, from one of the most seminal and sharpest minds of this nation. Syabas, young and smart Malay man. Me no prouder than to know your mind.
Meanwhile it is instructive to ponder how come they rush this through without inspecting the very statutes they are supposed to know in advance of their rash action. Just as the way that Hamid tried to make it sound so natural why the DNA Bill is suddenly a parliamentary imperative despite the PAS assemblyman providing cogent arguments that the whole matter is full of tricky issues. And they said they had it on the plate for over two years.
4 tsbdre 28 August 2008 @ 2:29 pm
I reckon this will be the first step by the govt of the day to block everything in the cyberworld, issues the powers-that-be presume are not in favor of them. Depa ni apa pasal? Ingat rakyat semua bodoh ka? My 2 cents worth, revoke or annul the MCMC Act. Then we’ll see whether the rest of the world will even acknowledge us anymore. Apa punya gomen daaa…
p/s: Lepas ni, all that we get too read over our overpriced internet connection: Utusan,BH and all the asslicking MSM…duhhhh… i just hope they dont block the porn sites…kalau depa block jugak,tak tau la….kena pi carik copy of Mona Gersang…:))
tsbdre
5 anomie 28 August 2008 @ 3:02 pm
This can interpret as follow;
1) Those MCMC flers are sycophantic stooges – jaga periuk nasi s’ja
2) Badly trained in interpreting agreement clauses – hp6 ‘dropout’ graduates, getting jobs via know-whos thus has to jaga periuk nasi!
So with personnel like that how do U expect MCMC to keep to the task?
Gaji buta s’ja again.
Bolihland memang bolih!!!!!!!
6 khensthoth 28 August 2008 @ 3:56 pm
We need to bring about an action against the government and the MCMC:
The people of Malaysia v. The Federal Government of Malaysia and the MCMC.
That would be something great. Ordinary Malaysians – you CAN sue the government. It’s just that it’s rarely done in Malaysia, and even more rarely are these cases won by the plaintiff. We, however, need to be different.
7 Add-oil-to-fire 28 August 2008 @ 5:28 pm
Wonder what is PAS stand on this issue? Do PAS support RPK’s website? If they do………..
What MCMC is saying is that RPK’s site is more dangerous then all the porn sites add together. MCMC only block RPK’s site but not the porn sites. If PAS can support RPK’s site, are they also supporting the less ‘dangerous’ sites………….
Just something for thoughts….
8 ivanyeo 28 August 2008 @ 6:38 pm
Aiseh, you are the man! I have said that reading what you write is much akin to eating some freshly fried kachang puteh! How great flavour! Rockysbru said that our negara might as well tell google to bugger off! Great nation we have!
9 mca74justice 28 August 2008 @ 10:50 pm
http://www.mca74justice.blogspot.com
No Evidence? Just Swear!
A word to Saiful, Tajol Rosli, Najib on all this swearing business: It is patently obvious that when all else fails (i.e. when you DON’T have evidence), you SWEAR!
mca74justice
Posted by mca7forjustice at 7:22 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Devolution Not Advancement (DNA) Bill!
Permatang Pauh shows that it is not about DSAI anymore. It is about realising that we as a nation is standing on the cusp of a new identity as a nation of Malaysians. It is about realising that we the citizens of Malaysia want justice to be done. It is about realising that the democratic institutions, and the people we elected into Parliament, do not abuse the powers entrenched in the system to victimise a single person. It is about realising that if the DNA bill gets passed in its present form, it is not just DSAI’s human rights that will be trampled upon, but ANY of our human rights can be trampled upon willy-nilly by the supposedly democratic institutions that were set up to protect us! And this includes the human rights of any UMNO or MCA or MIC MPs or Senators that have run afoul of the elitist few that holds the power to yield the DNA sword!
Think: how incredible it is that the BN Government is so fearful of one man that they are willing to create a new law in an effort to snare him, after failing to get him to submit his DNA! Syed Hamid’s denial that this is so despite it being so painfully obvious, once again makes the BN Government the laughing stock of the international community, lurching Malaysia towards Mugabe-style (mis)leadership!
Yes, this DNA Bill have shown that the Malaysian Parliament has Devolved Not Advanced (”DNA”) as a transparent and accountable democratic institution!
mca74justice
Posted by mca7forjustice at 6:59 AM 0 comments Links to this post
10 tired 29 August 2008 @ 12:55 am
Will we see the resignation or retirement of Kodomo Lion, for yet another bungle? Could he single handedly destroy the MSC? Hmm …
11 jt 29 August 2008 @ 9:37 am
My daily fix is Malaysia Today, Susan Loone, Aisehman, Screenshots & People’s parliament. How annoying and upset when I could not access MT for days now, and getting angry. All the more reason for us to get rid of brainless BN!!
I love your articles, Aiseh. You are one progressive talented Malaysian, unbiaised, informative, non-racist and I like and support your views too.
12 Bigjoe 29 August 2008 @ 9:38 am
The most immediate hurt is that Google will drop plans to built their data center in malaysia..
13 BMalaya 29 August 2008 @ 10:15 am
wah, bab banning-banning cepat saja MCMC buat kerja. How about breaking TMnet’s monopolistic hold on the wired ISP market for a change? How about asking Sialcom and Maxshit to provide better coverage and speeds instead of just talking about it while their subscribers pay a bomb?
Bolo punya olang.
14 michael wong 29 August 2008 @ 6:27 pm
RPK’s site has been blocked again……
15 MCMC, Government vs Us « BJ Thoughts… 29 August 2008 @ 7:31 pm
[...] Aisehman said:- [...]
16 kent 30 August 2008 @ 2:11 am
oh rpk’s site being blocked?
I am not aware of that! I am accessing it ok la.
Try this link
http://mt.harapanmalaysia.com/
or this
http://mt.m2day.org
Now, MCMC needs to issue another 38 letters to block these or more. brilliant people we have there at the top of MCMC and government.
I think after failing to block it, they will say: that proves democracy and freedom of speech is alive in Malaysia!!? wtf?
btw, is MCA for justice? They dont do shit when racial sentiment is stoked in PP election. stop talking cock.
17 Godfather 30 August 2008 @ 10:50 am
They look at you in the face and say “so what?”. So what if it is illegal ? Just because we say so ? Nah, they have the AG, the Judiciary all sewn up, and any legal action against the government is just going to be futile.
This is why the den of thieves must be removed.
18 juslo 30 August 2008 @ 5:26 pm
u sound like a lawyer, Aisehman…
“Under Section 263 of the Act, a licensee must “use his best endeavour” to prevent his/her facilities from being used to violate any law in the country”. [Malaysiakini]
So what law has Raja Petra been found guilty of violating? Which specific parts of Malaysia Today has been found to be in violation of the law?
MCMC must state these things clearly and specifically.”
yeah, can the MCMC just decide that what Malaysia Today carries r ‘illegal’?? r they the COURT now?? i thought they keep saying u r innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty (IN COURT)?!?!!
n if the court has not decided that RPK is guilty of anything, (his cases in court still not yet decided, right??) how can the MCMC simply JUMP TO CONCLUSION?
i wonder if that is something they have power to do under the law?
looks like MCMC is even more powerful than the courts now…
19 rocky 31 August 2008 @ 7:49 pm
censor for what..stupid fellows la.this is not like newspaper la, you can tarik the lesen one. people can set up mirror sites. and the more they shut it down, the more credible Malaysia Today gets. what our leaders will do to stay on power. we wil not let them turn this into Zimbabwe so that they can stay in power.
Makkal Sakthi!!!
20 Truth Seeker 4 September 2008 @ 2:47 pm
FOLKS, CAN DEMOCRACY ACTUALLY GUARANTEE US FREEDOM???
CAN WE LEARN SOMETHING FROM THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE ….
read on
————————————————————————————
What’s the Meaning of ‘Freedom’? …. But don’t ask a politician!
by Rep. Ron Paul
“Man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts”.
- Ronald Reagan
We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different. George Orwell (picture above right) wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words are “often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language.
As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good. The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect preexisting rights.
Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents? A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shi’ite theocracy. Shi’ite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future.
They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-Western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government. Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens.
Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King. Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less. The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth.
To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive?and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government. The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength.
Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state? but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity. Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us.
We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists. Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.
Leave a Reply