logo
#

Latest news with #CommunicationsAndMultimediaAct

Unconstitutional to criminalise offensive speech made online, rules court
Unconstitutional to criminalise offensive speech made online, rules court

Free Malaysia Today

time8 hours ago

  • Politics
  • Free Malaysia Today

Unconstitutional to criminalise offensive speech made online, rules court

The Court of Appeal ruled that the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the previous iteration of Section 233 of the CMA violates the Federal Constitution. PUTRAJAYA : The Court of Appeal has unanimously struck down as unconstitutional the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the previous iteration of Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA), which criminalises the online transmission of offensive comments. Justice Lee Swee Seng said the words violated Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution, read together with Article 8. He also said that a charge of offending and annoying a third party could not be construed as going against public order. 'We find that the impugned words of 'offensive' and 'annoy' are not a permissible restriction to the freedom of expression under our Federal Constitution. 'We therefore strike down that particular provision as constituting an offence (against the constitution),' he said in partly allowing the appeal by activist Heidy Quah to nullify the previous version of Section 233. Also on the panel hearing the appeal were Justices Hashim Hamzah and Azman Abdullah. The bench made no order as to costs as the issue at hand was a constitutional matter. Lee, who is now a Federal Court judge, said today's decision would have a prospective effect, meaning that parties in ongoing criminal proceedings under the old law could leave it to the trial judge to decide. The government passed an amendment to the CMA last year, adding the words 'grossly offensive' in constituting an offence. The amendment came into effect this February. Senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin appeared for the government, while lawyers Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, A Surendra and New Sin Yew represented Quah. Counsel Lim Wei Jiet held a watching brief for the Clooney Foundation for Justice and Suaram. The bench also directed Liew to file a formal application to stay the decision pending the government's filing of an appeal to the Federal Court. Lee said that in a society like Malaysia's, citizens are supposed to 'give space to one another' by appreciating and accommodating their views, thoughts and ideas on a range of topics. The judge said some might use loud and lambastic language to express their views, while others might take a more scholarly and subdued tone in agreeing to disagree. 'The virtual community has a way of restoring equilibrium and even equanimity when the line has been crossed. 'To create more offences in the virtual space would be a retrogressive step bordering on needless censorship just because some people's ideas may not be so palatable,' he said. He also said that Section 233 of the CMA provided no standards as to what amounted to offensive or what would amount to an intent to annoy. 'When all types of speech could potentially be offensive if a single person finds it so, then freedom of speech has become illusory and enforcement becomes arbitrary.' Lee added that free speech would be deterred as the offence under Section 233 carried a fine of up to RM50,000, a maximum one-year jail term, or both, upon conviction. He said that would be disproportionate to the legislative aim of the CMA. 'To silence speech that is true just because some may find it offensive and annoying would be akin to using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.' Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA had made it an offence for a person to make, create, solicit or initiate the transmission of any online comment which was 'obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with the 'intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person'. The civil action by Quah, the founder of Refuge for Refugees, challenged the validity of the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the provision. In July 2021, Quah was charged in the Kuala Lumpur sessions court with posting offensive online comments on Facebook highlighting the alleged mistreatment of refugees at immigration detention centres. In April 2022, the sessions court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal from a charge of improper use of network facilities. This was after the trial judge accepted a preliminary objection that the charge was defective as it did not comply with the requirements of Section 233 of the CMA. She then filed a civil action for a declaration that the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the provision were invalid and contravened two fundamental human rights safeguarded by the constitution. Her suit was, however, dismissed by the High Court.

Don't shoot the messenger: Appellate Court says ‘offensive' online remarks to ‘annoy' can't be a crime in Malaysia
Don't shoot the messenger: Appellate Court says ‘offensive' online remarks to ‘annoy' can't be a crime in Malaysia

Malay Mail

time14 hours ago

  • Politics
  • Malay Mail

Don't shoot the messenger: Appellate Court says ‘offensive' online remarks to ‘annoy' can't be a crime in Malaysia

The Court of Appeal ruled that it is no longer a crime to post 'offensive' online remarks intended to 'annoy', declaring such provisions in Section 233 of Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 unconstitutional. The judges said the law gave no objective standard for what is offensive, warning it could criminalise truth and stifle free speech under the Federal Constitution. The decision only applies to ongoing and future cases, with activist Heidy Quah's legal challenge succeeding, while the government may still appeal to the Federal Court. PUTRAJAYA, Aug 19 — The Court of Appeal today unanimously ruled that it is no longer a crime in Malaysia to make 'offensive' online comments with the intention to 'annoy', and struck down parts of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998's Section 233 that had criminalised 'offensive' and annoying online speech. Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng, chairing a three-judge panel, said the court found these words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in Section 233 to be unconstitutional, as they go against the Federal Constitution's Article 10(2)(a). 'We find the impugned words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in Section 233 constituting an offence to be violative of Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution read with Article 8. 'It is not a permissible restriction to freedom of speech under our Federal Constitution,' he said, before striking down or making these two words in Section 233 invalid. 'We declare this decision to have prospective effect, so as not to resurrect the past,' he added. The Court of Appeal's decision's prospective effect means it will only affect ongoing or future court cases involving the crime of 'offensive' online speech intended to 'annoy' under Section 233, and will not affect past cases where the court had decided on whether those charged are guilty or not of such crimes. In reading the broad grounds of his judgment, judge Lee pointed out that there may be some people who feel offended and annoyed even when what is spoken is the truth, and cautioned against making it a crime to speak the truth. 'A premium should be given to truth, and the fact that some truths may be unpalatable does not justify criminalising the messenger merely because some masses of the people do not like the message,' the judge said. Among other things, the judge said that there is no uniform standard in society on what is 'offensive', and what a person finds offensive may not be offensive to another person in a diverse society. The judge said Section 233 does not give any standards on what would be 'offensive' or what would be an 'intent to annoy', and said freedom of speech becomes illusory and enforcement becomes arbitrary when all types of speech could potentially be 'offensive' if a single person feels it is offensive. The judge cautioned that this would result in every speech having to be 'sanitised' — whether it is true or not — to avoid committing a crime under Section 233. Without an objective standard on what is 'offensive', the judge said regulating online civil discourse would become a 'euphemism' for the authorities to police and censor undesirable speeches, which he said would result in a 'chilling effect' over the right to freedom of speech and expression which is protected under the Federal Constitution's Article 10(1)(a). The judge pointed out that if online remarks are found to be untrue, a person can still be charged under the CMA's Section 233(1) for making comments that are false with intent to abuse, threaten or harass another person. The two other judges on the panel today are Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah. When asked by reporters if the Malaysian government will be appealing today's decision, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin said he would be seeking instructions on whether to file an appeal at the Federal Court. Lawyers Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Surendra Ananth, New Sin Yew and Nur Izni Syazwani represented activist Heidy Quah in her successful constitutional challenge today against the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in Section 233. Lawyer Kee Hui Yee held a watching brief for the Malaysian Bar, while lawyers Lim Wei Jiet and Nevyn Vinosh Venudran represented Clooney Foundation for Justice and Suara Rakyat Malaysia in assisting the Court of Appeal as amicus curiae. While the Court of Appeal's decision today has effectively removed the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' from Section 233, there is now a newer version of Section 233 that uses the words 'grossly offensive'. MORE TO COME

MCMC probing clip of ‘influencers' giving homeless man food waste
MCMC probing clip of ‘influencers' giving homeless man food waste

Free Malaysia Today

time06-08-2025

  • Free Malaysia Today

MCMC probing clip of ‘influencers' giving homeless man food waste

MCMC said the dissemination of content that demeans or insults the dignity of individuals is unethical and contributes to the normalisation of inhumane behaviour. (MCMC pic) PETALING JAYA : The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) is investigating a video of a group of individuals, believed to be influencers, giving food waste to a homeless person. In a statement, MCMC said it takes a serious view of content that exploits marginalised groups for 'cheap entertainment' and to drive engagement on social media platforms. 'The dissemination of content that demeans or insults the dignity of individuals is unethical and contributes to the normalisation of inhumane behaviour in society,' it said. 'The public is reminded not to share or upload any provocative content that could disturb public order,' MCMC said, adding that it launched the probe after public complaints about the video. The internet regulator said that the sharing of offensive, false, or threatening content may be subject to action under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, which provides for a two-year jail term, a fine of RM500,000, or both, upon conviction. A social media user yesterday apologised for a publicity stunt in which he and two others had given a homeless man a packet of rice with chicken bones. The purported social media influencer said the homeless man had agreed to help him and his friends with the video, and that the trio had later bought him a full meal with two pieces of fried chicken. The initial video, which has since been deleted, sparked a backlash from netizens with calls for an investigation, including by Semambu assemblyman Chan Chun Kuang.

Shah Alam preacher arrested after wife claims he shared sex videos of her and his other spouses
Shah Alam preacher arrested after wife claims he shared sex videos of her and his other spouses

Malay Mail

time05-07-2025

  • Malay Mail

Shah Alam preacher arrested after wife claims he shared sex videos of her and his other spouses

KUALA LUMPUR, July 5 – Police have reportedly arrested a preacher following allegations by his second wife that he distributed intimate videos involving her and his other spouses. New Straits Times reported Shah Alam police chief Asst Comm Mohd Iqbal Ibrahim saying the woman lodged a police report on June 16, leading to the arrest of the suspect and the seizure of two mobile phones and a laptop. 'Initial investigations found that the mobile phones contained several sex videos involving the suspect and his wives, as well as compromising images of several other women,' he said. The man was remanded for four days and has since been released on bail. The case is being investigated under Section 509 of the Penal Code, Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, and Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act 1955.

Man charged over YouTube post on GISBH probe
Man charged over YouTube post on GISBH probe

Free Malaysia Today

time13-06-2025

  • Free Malaysia Today

Man charged over YouTube post on GISBH probe

Norizan Yahaya was charged under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. (Bernama pic) KUALA LUMPUR : An online health food seller pleaded not guilty in the sessions court here today to a charge of posting offensive content on the authorities' investigation into GISB Holdings Sdn Bhd (GISBH) on his YouTube channel last year. Norizan Yahaya, 62, was charged with making and transmitting content deemed offensive with the intent of annoying others via YouTube account 'Zam Yahaya Official' between 2pm and 6pm on Sept 15, 2024. The content was accessed at the cyber and multimedia crime investigation division of the commercial crime investigation department at the Bukit Aman police headquarters in Wangsa Maju at 8pm the next day. Norizan was charged under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, which carries a maximum fine of RM50,000, imprisonment of up to one year, or both upon conviction. An additional fine of RM1,000 may be imposed for each day the offence persists after conviction. Deputy public prosecutor Muhammad Amir Hannif Ahijman proposed bail of RM10,000 in one surety. However, Norizan's lawyer, Asiah Abd Jalil, asked for a minimal bail amount on the grounds that her client was the sole breadwinner supporting an unemployed wife and not a flight risk. 'My client sells health food online and earns approximately RM2,000 a month. He has five children, two of whom are at university,' she said. Judge Norma Ismail granted bail of RM7,000 in one surety and fixed July 11 for the next case mention.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store