THE Anti-Fake News Bill 2018 that Putrajaya has tabled today proposes a fine of up to RM500,000 or 10-year jail term for those found guilty of spreading false news.
Publications that reproduce “fake news” will also be charged up to RM100,000 for the offence and a further RM300,000 for every day the offence continues.
The bill defines publication as “any written publication or publication of similar nature… or substantial reproduction of such publication”.
The bill appeared to give authority to the courts to determine what is fake news, as it allows “any person affected by a publication containing fake news” to apply to the courts for removal of those articles.
The application to the courts must be accompanied by a police report and supporting documents.
The publisher of the alleged fake news also has recourse to set aside an application against him by applying to set aside the court’s order on the removal of the item within 14 days from the date the order was served on him.
However, if the court grants an order for removal to the government relating to “fake news which is prejudicial or likely to be prejudicial to public order or national security”, the bill says there is no recourse for the person or publication ordered to remove such content to apply to set aside the order.
The bill also gave several explicit examples of instances where fake news is produced, including reproductions of unverified allegations from blog posts.
“‘A’ gives a speech during a public forum held in a public place. In his speech, ‘A’ informs that ‘Z’ has misappropriated money collected for charitable purposes, knowing that the information is false.
“‘A’ is guilty of an offence under this section,” read the bill.
In another example, the bill said a person who publishes information that he or she did not know was false, will not be considered guilty of an offence.
“‘A’ offers false information to ‘B’, for ‘B’ to publish in his blog. ‘B’, not knowing the information offered by ‘A’ is false, publishes the information in his blog.
“‘A’ is guilty of an offence under this section. ‘B’ is not guilty of an offence under this section.”
Other examples are clear on a person’s guilt, if he or she knew that the information published and shared was expressly false. – March 26, 2018.
Comments
Posted 6 years ago by Dennis Da Menace · Reply
Posted 6 years ago by Peace Maker · Reply
Posted 6 years ago by Chris Sav · Reply
Posted 6 years ago by Tanahair Ku · Reply
Posted 6 years ago by Fadzil MohdSalleh · Reply