As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on January 17, 2011 12:05 PM
1. Governments have often been accused of censoring unpleasant reports or books about them. Obviously this practice is not regarded highly by democrats everywhere. People believe that there must be some truth in the censored articles or publications, otherwise why should they be censored or banned.
2. Now we are seeing individuals, organisations and governments which have no power to censor also indulging in censoring unfavourable reports about them.
3. This they do by threatening to sue or suing the whistle blowers. The threat is intended to deter not only the particular individual but others also from uttering or reporting the same allegation. If the threat fails, then the matter is made a subject of libel action. Whether it becomes sub-judice or not the person is deterred from repeating the statements as it may prejudice the courts.
4. The affect of the libel action is to prevent the respondent from repeating the allegation. Effectively he has been censored, his right of free speech denied.
5. And if the court case can be prolonged, the censorship, or denial of the freedom of speech of the respondent will be effective in hiding the truth of the matter.
6. I am not a lawyer of course but I think the law is being abused to hide acts which may be criminal. Or it may be in order to prevent the public from getting the right information to make political decision.
7. I wonder whether the act to protect whistleblowers cover this thing or not.
1. Governments have often been accused of censoring unpleasant reports or books about them. Obviously this practice is not regarded highly by democrats everywhere. People believe that there must be some truth in the censored articles or publications, otherwise why should they be censored or banned.
2. Now we are seeing individuals, organisations and governments which have no power to censor also indulging in censoring unfavourable reports about them.
3. This they do by threatening to sue or suing the whistle blowers. The threat is intended to deter not only the particular individual but others also from uttering or reporting the same allegation. If the threat fails, then the matter is made a subject of libel action. Whether it becomes sub-judice or not the person is deterred from repeating the statements as it may prejudice the courts.
4. The affect of the libel action is to prevent the respondent from repeating the allegation. Effectively he has been censored, his right of free speech denied.
5. And if the court case can be prolonged, the censorship, or denial of the freedom of speech of the respondent will be effective in hiding the truth of the matter.
6. I am not a lawyer of course but I think the law is being abused to hide acts which may be criminal. Or it may be in order to prevent the public from getting the right information to make political decision.
7. I wonder whether the act to protect whistleblowers cover this thing or not.
