Stirring again
Roy Ngern has some valid points :
It's an excuse. "Secondly, what exactly constitutes defamation? Leong did not write the article. Nor did he promote the article with any of his own comments or opinions. In other words, it was a "blank" share. Is this really defamation? After all, he was in no position to verify the truth of the article. He also complied with the take down notice. The only thing he did not do was issue a public apology. A refusal to apologise is not defamation in itself. Has everyone who "shared" the article been similarly prosecuted? Not that I am advocating lawsuits but if it is indeed the case that only Leong is being singled out - then we have to ask why this is the case? Last but not least, I note that the Straits Times (ST) has printed a rather misleading headline. It's headline said "PM Lee sues financial adviser Leong Sze Hian for defamation". This is not entirely true. The ST headline makes it seem like it was Leong who was behind the offending article when in reality, he merely shared it. Is this not misrepresentation on the part of ST? Further, this article is in the "premium" section of ST which means that the general public may not be able to read beyond the misleading headline. Does this not make Leong seem like he is guilty of something that he isn't? Could this be tantamount to defamation on the part of ST as well? Arguably if Leong had the deep pockets to pursue a lawsuit, he could as well?"