Should bloggers be silenced with legal taunts?

I had to quote Mr Tony Pua of Democratic Action Party (Malaysia) as a start, in which he says; “Differences in opinion is however, no excuse for the restriction on freedom of expression”. (This is the full article.) Malaysia has seen a rejuvenation in its political scene through effective bloggers participation in one way or another, but how will it affect changes in the economic sense remains to be seen.

Bloggers being threatened with legal suits are not uncommon. Most of which, have bowed down to these legal threats because the eventual funds required for a legal suit can be costly for one to bear. Bloggers are usually lacking the deep pockets like those of Governments and corporations, before one is proven guilty beyond doubts. Significantly, the threats on bloggers seemed to become a standard template for many.

I have come across many individuals whom have either spoken directly or written online - blogging is a democratic expression. Although we can continue to conduct an autopsy to better define “blogging”, I would choose to believe the general notion that blogging DOES affect social opinions. A first in Malaysia, it can even change the results of a political election as we have seen in Malaysia. One question in mind though, are we beginning to abuse the law for self-servicing purposes?

Although many bloggers have been threatened with legal suits (example this, this, and even death threat), the recent threat issued on SSL prompted me to examine the context of the threat, and whether a legal threat is the most appropriate option to unanswered queries. Also, I have drawn my own conclusion (even though Singapore and Malaysia Penal Code differs slightly) as to whether a graphical presentation is sufficient to prove a case of defamation.

I feel that legal threats issued to silence critics is a SERIOUS breach of freedom of speech, especially when corporate interests are involved. Some time back, I wrote that freedom of speech should not be abused and that some form of self-censorship should be practiced. Freedom, comes with responsibility that is. However, if legitimate queries and doubts are being raised in the process, I am more aligned to the common sense that self-censorship should not exist anymore.

If bloggers in UK are turning libel laws into a laughing stock, some company must have done it - Malaysia style. Why do I say so? Although SSL did not represent the bulk of bloggers considering that he is also a loyal publisher (even with a legal threat slapped in his face), his poll result tells us that he is not the only one doubting the payment structure.

I think, any Web 2.0 companies should be fully aware of the environment of blogging if they so choose, to tap on the resources. Blogging in this case, is pretty volatile. Today, you can have 100 supporters. Tomorrow, you can have 90 supporters turning into dissented individuals. Such volatility will require such companies to be more tactful with how members are being handled. What’s worse? The trend is picking up, such to a point where some companies showed little interest in resolving doubts of consumers.

In addition, too much “control” on bloggers is not a good thing either. Remember, these are their blogs and not yours. Companies should refrain from “controlling” the contents of the blogs they have chosen to engage. It really says a lot on integrity and transparency. Afterall, if bloggers are responsible for their own writings, shouldn’t companies or Governments be responsible for their own actions too? Citing the recent political changes in Malaysia again, silencing bloggers may possibly see the whole agenda backfire in your face. Will that happen to companies more often in times to come?

Now, I am not advocating the challenging of the law. I am just saying, that should one be precise and objectionable with queries, then one shouldn’t be afraid of being sued. Whether a set of doubts should be answered or not, is on its own merits. Therefore, the inability to answer queries does NOT automatically deny the Rights of a blogger in asking.

Where are bloggers going to find a voice? Should bloggers be restricted from posting any remarks, even if it’s negative in a genuine way? Or should there be a separate law to protect bloggers from such legal threats, in the event that they are not in works of libel?