This is how the internet help to cover up or expose the truths

[masgnoeL]

I wonder if the use of the internet is an asset or a liability when it comes to covering up or exposing the truths.

Let me give an example here. A STOMP user saw a policeman harrassing a beggar and took a video and post it to STOMP. An uproar ensured on the internet and the police came forward to give an explanation, perhaps an apology and warning to the policeman.

Another example, a STOMP user saw a prominent diplomat's son harrassing a woman and took a video and tries to post it on STOMP. Needless to say, STOMP, afraid of liability and defamation, clamped the expose and the matter ends there.

On the internet, freedom of speech equates to responsibility of speech. However, it may descend to witch-hunting and public lynching if handled irresponsibly.

Hence, medium like STOMP acts like a mediator where truth is moderated and depending on how STOMP moderation sees the scoop, it may investigate further for comments or it may just feel that it is too risky to publish the scoop in case of defamation or wrongfully exposing the wrong facade of the truth.

What do you guys think? Do we need an independent, unbiased, unafraid medium where the truths can be discussed and investigated and the internet become the jury and the executioner? Just like the "human flesh" netizens of China?

 

[Leongsam]

Hence, medium like STOMP acts like a mediator where truth is moderated and depending on how STOMP moderation sees the scoop, it may investigate further for comments or it may just feel that it is too risky to publish the scoop in case of defamation or wrongfully exposing the wrong facade of the truth.

Stomp does not have a monopoly when it comes to exposing the truth. If stomp tries to temper the facts, there are hundreds of other high profile websites that can easily rise to the occasion.

EG: When youtube pulls a video, I can almost always find it on liveleak.

 

[kuntakinte]

Another example, a STOMP user saw a prominent diplomat's son harrassing a woman and took a video and tries to post it on STOMP. Needless to say, STOMP, afraid of liability and defamation, clamped the expose and the matter ends there.

As I have been repeating, never, never, believe in the local media totally. Why? Kangaroo court will also favor PAP!! You may ask, what has it gotta do with the media ?

Plenty! The Kangaroo court in the process of favoring the PAPPIES, the Kangaroos want to appear as being fair and just. So, there is a lot of curbing for speaking against PAP which go against freedom of speech and the Kangaroo court had to tread carefully lest they are misconstrue of double standards or ruling - similar to 1 set of law for the rich and another set of law for the poor as mentioned by Suhbas.

So, if TRUE freedom of speech comes into play, the media and all media may report whatever they wish. When this happens, PAP will have a wonderful time telling more lies to cover up their lies. Typically, you have to cook up 1,000 lies to cover up 1 lie. Therefore, media like STOMP, part of SHitty PRess Holding?, has to practise self censorship in order not to go against their own master. In this case, the prominent diplomat could have links with the PAPPIES and publishing such things over the web will create problems for the PAPPIES.

 

[kakowi]

What defamation is there?

The video show a diplomat's son harassing a woman. So there is harassment. Where's the defamation?

Liability is a different matter. Even if you want to speak the truth, you better have adequate funds. Reference case: TT Durai's legal suits against the two men who spoke the truth about him.