Tuesday, January 23, 2007

the stench of hypocrisy

Okay, forget everything I said in the last post.

Since you guys are really interested, let me humour you. The story goes, two blogger dudes wrote something and NST didn't quite like their articles. So, NST sues them for defamation. Now, this wouldn't be our problem, except for the fact that people are complaining that this is a bad day for blogging and it infringes on democracy and free speech and all that fanciful moo-lah. The problem is, when people complain they are usually biased and have already picked their sides long before they even bothered arguing this matter in their head.

Now, if you spare a little thought and think about it, if you support free speech and democracy, the logical step forward would be to support Papa Smurf. But then surely, the same must apply for NST? Surely they have the right to sue, and as long as they are acting within the legal boundries then what is the problem with all this?

Or, you could be like me and be against this free speech mumbo jumbo. I don't believe these so-called social commentary bloggers should be allowed to spread rubbish through and sort of media. Neither do I believe that anybody should have the right to sue somebody who displeases them. Screw so-called 'democracy'. I believe that people do not know how to act appropriately and hence everybody should be kept in check on a very tight leash.

So you take your pick. You are either for free speech and support the fact that both parties should be able to act as they please so as long as they do not break any laws, or you are against free speech and believe that everybody should just sit down and shut up. The key point here is that you have to choose. There is no half-way house. You can't choose free speech and democracy and then complain that NST are being idiots, when actually all they are doing is exercising their legal right - whether they eventually win or not is a secondary issue.

Which then brings us to the next point of "what the hell is going to happen if NST wins the court case?"

It would actually be a horribly bad thing if NST does win because that would mean that in the future, one of you idiots could actually sue me for offending your silly ass. If and when that happens, who should we blame? The answer is simple. You blame the idiots who started this suing game, and you blame the idiots who crossed the line in the first place.

But be fair - if you must crucify somebody, crucify them all.

Labels: ,

z0mg rationality!!

that's why ppl won't bother to understand this post ;)


no, they won't bother to understand it because it's not very pleasant once they do. we'd much rather be ignorant than have to accept the cold, hard truth.

there is no such thing as free speech, that's for sure.


vincent, i left a reply in the previous post. didn't see this one. you must also understand that i am not some big jeff ooi fan. i think he is actually a trouble maker. but NST should use other ways to respond to his claims. a big corporation intimidating the little man is just not the way it should be done. especially with our malaysian courts' track record for unsafe decisions in decisions concerning government-related agencies.

lishun - free speech exists in degrees. over here, we have very little free speech. we cannot let this be taken away. as i said earlier, free speech works as an important check and balance on the government.


Fuck all that free speech big corp against little guy nonsense.

Halo, you defame someone, that someone has every right to sue you. doesn't matter where you do it, if that someone has a case, he has every right to sue.


Damn, all I wanted to say has been said.

I enjoy fucking people up on my blog, very much like you. Sometimes I forget that people have feelings, which is probably why our stats are so low.

Heh, but I don't care. I'll continue shooting people as long as I can.


eyeris, allow me to reiterate what i said in the previous post here:

"vincent, are you familiar with the law of defamation?

if you are, you will realise that NST doesn't have much of a case.

you should also realise that the usage of the court as a means of intimidation is NOT a legal right. it is an abuse of process. but somehow, as this country works, for example how abdul razak baginda could have been freed on bail, i expect the court to find a case where there isnt one.

further, the right of free speech is a HUMAN RIGHT, not a legal right."

so, instead of using vulgarities you make your point, try using reason.


you're right in saying that we have very little free speech and that we should strive to keep it.

that's precisely why there shouldn't be any sympathy for those who say thoughtless things that lead to us losing whatever little we have.

there's a difference between keeping the government in check and being plain stupid.


I'm going with the 'everyone should sit down and shit up' option.

Everyone except me of course.


Post a Comment

<< Home