I think for posterity’s sake, I will, like luthien of licencetospill.net put up the discussions we’ve recently had, which have been great, so far.

If replies and counter-replies are forthcoming, I will update this page and keep it here, or make references arising from any comment to this post in this page (copy and paste lah, for ease of reading).

Warning: long!

Addendum: other views sought as well!! share your thoughts!

Context: see original post here @ Bloggers in sg: overexposure?

xpyre wrote:

with respect to writing whatever we please, i think some of us understand the concept of being responsible for what you write, say or commit onto any media. however, the logical consequence of being constantly on the lookout for whatever you say, slanderous or not, is tantamount to self-censorship to the extreme: in other words, if i have an opinion that may be drastically contrary to received opinion via the traditional media, i should either keep quiet or face the prospect of lawsuits coming my way. i suppose j. b. jeyaretnam and chee soon juan know exactly how this feels, and so too does anwar ibrahim, jeff ooi and a few other bloggers that have, in malaysia, been incarcerated for making comments the powers-that-be have found unpalatable (to understate the point).

true, perhaps i’m pushing the issue to a rarified level and should consider the phenomenon of the everyday blog. yeah, disclaimers are stupid, and look stupid, but speak of a very real fear of recrimination for comments made. and if those comments are bound to offend other surfers, your position is that they should obey the maxim: “if you’ve got nothing to say, keep your mouth shut”?

do you really believe this? it’s like an all or nothing proposition: either you allow comments that, in some instances, are plain talkcock-dunno-what-they-tok-about together with comments that are “worth reading” or you don’t allow any comments at all. which is it?

luthien replied

the point is, if you have something to say (that’s potentially harmful and “drastically contrary to received opinion via the traditional media”), but you have materials to BACK IT UP, then go ahead post away. that’s what traditional journalists practise anyway. the problem with bloggers is that many base their opinions on hearsay and that’s when it’s really better to shut up since you are relying only on unverified info. but if you still want to spill, then don’t name names.

on stupid disclaimers… i am only against that pompous disclaimer which says “leave if you don’t like what i write. this is my blog, it’s none of your business” (not those disclaimers which tell the media or people not to quote them). i know the fear is real er.. why, it has happened to me before! :) but the former disclaimer… you are telling people to IGNORE and insist they do when they obviously can’t because the Internet is a very public place. i notice many of these bloggers can tell people to mind their own business, but try to say something bad about them (in the name of freedom of speech), and you see them fighting back. they, too, cannot stand being attacked. it’s natural to retaliate. therefore, it is irritating to see such a disclaimer being used as a defence to back up something obviously flawed and inflammatory (that is, if the author has no material to back up!)

xpyre replied:

firstly, bloggers don’t pretend to be traditional journalists, freelance or otherwise. if we’re demanding a standard of veracity from bloggers akin to that which is demanded from traditional media it still amounts to the same thing: if a blogger has an opinion, suggestion, implication or worse, insinuation based on suspicion, said blogger must remain silent because the evidence to prove the veracity of statements is not forthcoming.

but i ask you: how many bloggers do you know make bald statements without either resorting to quoting articles or sources? most of what i’ve seen, either on singabloodypore or screenshots either quote sources and present speculative posts or outright carry out their own investigations, which is very very laudable.

for the rest of the bloggers around? it’s mostly all speculation! speculation, speculation and more speculation, whilst awaiting print journalists to come up with the facts — or to speculate what facts are obscured or omitted by print journalists.

the point is: they don’t pretend to present news; they pretend to present opinion, valid cogent or otherwise lor.

and here’s the rub, luthien: singaporean journalists have accused singaporean bloggers of infantilism (something i don’t quite understand), complaining that these very same bloggers are either not: 1) politicized or 2) “mature” in the postings etc like the americans seem to be. well it seems that if said journalists want singaporean bloggers to “grow up” as it were, we should turn all bloggers into part-time freelance journalists or they should just shut up lor.

what’s the point, then? i also dunno.. :p

as far as disclaimers are concerned, if they are used to provide permission to say whatever they like about another person, well, the internet being in the anarchic state that it is in, other offended people will respond in kind, precisely like what both of us are doing right now lol! seems to work for me; if they want to place disclaimers for bad behaviour, they should expect the same bad (infantile?!) behaviour from others lol.. :D

luthien replied:

the problem is xpyre, there are more blogs than paid publications. (one blog per second created ahem). while most are made up of “noise”, each still has its own audience. lousy publications may have zero readership but lousy blogs surely have at least four to five readers. but people slandered/libeled against won’t know they’re being badmouthed on so and so blogsome.com, there’s just no way of tracking. agree? so, if bloggers were to make snide remarks about someone simply because they are being malicious, then that is not being socially responsible.

like i said, i have nothing against people who want to make a strong, potentially explosive and controversial, opinion about someone or some issue as long as they don’t resort to personal attacks. i will be very sad the day bloggers are served the gag order for making constructive criticisms about something close to their hearts. i suppose it all boils down to respect and the way someone argues his points. some bloggers take the pains to argue logically and edit and re-edit their comments and postings to ensure clarity. and they don’t hide behind pseudonyms. this is good stuff. but on the other hand, there are cowards who would just rile and rant for the sake of sounding cool.

yes i agree that unlike traditional media (which don’t discuss topics like religion, faith, race etc) openly, blogs can provide alternative views to the mainstream content, to complement what’s lacking in traditional media, and fill the grey areas. when i say make opinion on verified info, i’m just being a tad conservative there. the thing is, many bloggers aren’t savvy enough in handling sensitive topics and end up writing crap and misinforming their readers (who could be just as blur or the sheep who have no opinion of their own but to believe wholesale what the bloggers are spewing). in short, like you said, many speculate and wait for the traditional media to do their homework. but babes, while waiting for speculations to materialise into either fact or fiction, someone’s there bleeding away. we will never know when Truth will finally prevail but we can’t be lynching someone for an indefinite period of time while waiting for the answer. very painful, hor! so i’d rather we err on the side of caution and exercise some responsibility in our commentaries.

on singaporean journalists accusing singaporean bloggers of infantilism… LOL, i don’t know. maybe the journalists are bored of being asked to cover blogs and all the read about is people lining up to buy 4d and strike Toto day in day out. i think they are ranting lah because the countrymen are so boring. LOL.

on disclaimers… doesn’t work. they’re just brainless banners that clutter a webpage. irritating to see them, like some sort of cult motto. bet some of the people don’t really know what they serve but put there because others have them. or maybe it’s part of a template and they don’t know how to get rid of it. bleah.

xpyre replied:

i guess i’m in general agreement, really, with what you’re said. we might be arguing about the same thing but on different aspects of it; the plain fact of the matter is: people have been making slanderous remarks for ages, the difference being that traditional media holds itself to a different standard of proof, truth or what have you.

does that in itself justify allowing bloggers to slander others? no, i don’t think so, but i’ll remind you that if we really want to talk about prosecuting slander on the internet, we’ll have to shut down maybe close to half if not all blogs on the internet.

no, i’m not making excuses to avoid the question (lol..), but consider the alternative ;)

the point i’ll make is that perhaps we should eschew demanding for mature bloggers and demand instead for mature readers.

in that regard, bloggers and readers of blogs should exercise a big dose of healthy skepticism when reading blogs, or really, when reading/consuming any newsbit.

i suppose we’ll have to wait and see how legislation plays out in the blogverse :p