Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday October 05 2019, @04:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the fake-news dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Rights groups, tech companies, academics and journalists opposed the law, which they say threatens free speech.

A "fake news" law, decried by academics, activists and tech giants, has gone into effect in Singapore, despite warnings that the measures could be used to stifle dissent and free speech in the South East Asian island country.

The law, which was passed by Singapore's parliament in May but took effect on Wednesday, gives government ministers powers to order social media companies to put warnings next to posts authorities deem to be false, order some content to be removed and in some cases block websites deemed to be propagating false information contrary to "public interest".

In April, shortly before the bill passed, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, said the legislation was an "essential part" of fighting fake news and hate speech. 

[...] Over 170 academics signed a letter saying the legislation had been fast-tracked without proper input from "key civil society actors."

The law is "likely to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and academic freedom in Singapore", they said.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2019, @03:07AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2019, @03:07AM (#903270)

    First off, Singapore has no 1st ammendment. So there's no situation with people there ignoring the law when they pass this.

    I think something may need clarification here. Just because Singapore "has no 1st amendment" doesn't necessarily mean that Singaporeans don't have these rights. In fact, one of James Madison's principal objections to inclusion of a bill of rights amendment was that any attempt to enumerate individual rights risked the implication that other, unnamed rights were unprotected. [wikipedia.org] If I'm following you then you are suggesting that if some right is not explicitly granted then that right does not exist; I will note that this view does seem to have popularity in some quarters. I think Madison would disagree. Just some food for thought.

    Personally, I don't much like the idea of putting up warnings on content. The real issue is that too many people don't seem to have the wherewithal to evaluate the information they are consuming. Consequently, too many people are too easily manipulated by peddlers of propaganda. Also, I suspect for many people the truth of the matter under discussion is merely secondary to winning an argument. The thinking goes who cares if this propaganda is correct so long as it advances my agenda or political party? I'm not yet sure how to counter that issue as no amount of fact-checking is going to persuade them away from their position.