Singapore Passes New Law To Police Fake News Despite Concerns

After an intense debate, Singapore's parliament has passed a sweeping "anti-fake news" bill despite concerns raised by journalists, academics and global technology companies over free speech and abuse of power. From a report: Legislators in the island-nation on Wednesday voted to grant government ministers broad powers such as the ability to demand corrections, order the removal of content, or block websites deemed to be propagating falsehoods contrary to the public interest. Penalties for not complying with orders include steep fines and jail time. Critics say the legislation grants arbitrary powers to government officials to determine what is deemed as fact, arguing that the private sector should be the final arbiter of what constitutes false and irresponsible statements. They say the answer lies in fact-checking websites, vigilance by tech giants such as Google, Facebook and Twitter and increased media literacy to help news consumers better distinguish between the plausible and the improbable.

Geez!

[lrichardson]

Won't be able to read any of Trump's speeches!

Re:

[kenai_alpenglow]

I realize you're just trolling, but think just a little: Is it right for the Govt to decide what is "true" and what is not? CNN/MSNBC/AP/NYT would all fall under "fake news" for the "OMG TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN SPY" constantly spread for the last 2+ years. (If a left-winger like Mueller couldn't find it/make it up, I'm sorry it was Fake News). But I would still be outraged if the Govt shut them down. How would YOU like to be shut down because the Govt disagrees with your beliefs?

Re:

[Shaitan]

And there you have it. A right lean (your choice of objection and omission of Fox tipped that clearly enough) that actually thinks the whole bill of rights matters. I'll add an Independent. Who else wants to join in not a bi-partisan but a non-partisan consensus opposed to this kind of policy? All it takes is one person at a time deciding that no matter what we disagree on or how passionate we are about it government censorship can't stand. The people who are supposed to serve and account to us do not deci

Re:It's about time

[alvinrod]

I realize this is a low grade troll, but neither you or anyone else is required to consume anything published by the media. The internet has made it particularly easy for anyone to publish their own content and the strong first amendment rights enshrined in the constitution make it damned hard for anyone to stop you from doing it.

Assuming you really believe this, would you want to hand the government the power to regulate the press when you know it's only a matter of time before the other party eventually comes back to power? If you can't answer that you would honestly be okay with the government having some authority when the people you would least want to exercise that authority are in power, then it probably isn't a good idea to grant the government that kind of control.

Re:

[kenai_alpenglow]

They're assuming that the other party will be prevented from getting power. Like other dictatorships world-wide, the democrats/socialists are likely correct.

Re:

[ljw1004]

Assuming you really believe this, would you want to hand the government the power to regulate the press when you know it's only a matter of time before the other party eventually comes back to power?

Yes I'd be happy to hand the government that power, since the actions of government ministers are subject to judicial review. There are a great many other powers already in the hands of government ministers that are also subject to judicial review and it seems to have been working mostly fine for hundreds of years (UK) and decades (Singapore) with no indication of being a slippery slope. Would I *want* to hand that power? - yes because I think the harms currently coming from a deregulated press are worse th

Re:

[mjwx]

I realize this is a low grade troll, but neither you or anyone else is required to consume anything published by the media. The internet has made it particularly easy for anyone to publish their own content and the strong first amendment rights enshrined in the constitution make it damned hard for anyone to stop you from doing it.

Likewise, companies can choose not to do business with you because of the view you expunge, again under those same rights that let you expunge such views.

If you find a lot of companies are refusing to do business with you because of your views, it's time for you to re-evaluate them.

Assuming you really believe this, would you want to hand the government the power to regulate the press when you know it's only a matter of time before the other party eventually comes back to power? If you can't answer that you would honestly be okay with the government having some authority when the people you would least want to exercise that authority are in power, then it probably isn't a good idea to grant the government that kind of control.

You are right, that is a low grade troll.

However there isn't really much you can do to prevent this except to participate in government. Singapore is basically a semi-dictatorship with the Lee family having effectively cont

"Liberal" Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberal Media is a fairy tale.

Whereas we have outlets like Fox News scaring people about caravans of rapists, murderers, diseased losers, and lowlife coming up here. Fooling people into thinking something that's just a border patrol administrative issue is a YUGE invasion and it's going to ruin their way of life.
Or doctors that kill babies when they are born (never EVER happens) or women who decide in their third trimester that - "M'eh, I change my mind - give me an abortion" (NEVER EVER Happens.) [For one

Re:

[bev_tech_rob]

Damn! Where are my mod points when I need them?

Very well put!

Re: Thanks, EU and illiberal "liberals"

[Type44Q]

illiberal "liberals"

There is, indeed, nothing actually liberal anymore* (in the John Locke sense) about "Liberalism;" the Powers That Be commandeered that shit long ago.

So-called "conservatives" aren't necessarily very conservative either (in the Jeffersonian sense); the idea that the government should be empowered to criminalize abortion is extremely liberal... in the Hamiltonian sense.

Re:

[sheramil]

The problem isn't the internet. The internet is a tool. The problem is what happens when you give this tool to monkeys. The existing internet is mostly fine as it is; what we need is a new civilization, not based on primates, who obviously can not be trusted with tools.

Humans are shit

[fluffernutter]

If you're not getting your news from accredited institutions, you have no idea what they are feeding you or why. Even when you do, you still have to read objectively. People have proven in the very short time since social media that they are not capable of taking responsibility for this. Philosophers have long written about how every individual has a responsibility to prevent lies from proliferating throughout society, now social media has heightened the importance of it.

Re:Humans are shit

[Brett Buck]

"Acreddited institutions"? I think you have put your finger on the flaw with your own argument.

Re:

[fluffernutter]

On the contrary, it underscores the necessity of it. People only look at they read on the surface. You have detected one spelling mistake and that's all you get out of what I wrote.

Re:

[Highdude702]

Whoosh..

Re:

[mjwx]

"Acreddited institutions"? I think you have put your finger on the flaw with your own argument.

Yep, even Fox News and Russia Today can get "accredited".

If you've got any interest in the truth, you need trustworthy sources. Trustworthy sources are ones that have a reputation for factual reporting, bias reduction, non-inflammatory language and style, source referencing as well as separating opinion and analysis from factual reports. The surest sign that a news source is trustworthy is how quick and ready they are to issue retractions to correct errata, whether this errata is "we misspelled 'loose' a

Re:Humans are shit

[kenai_alpenglow]

How do you get "accreditation"? The so-called "real" news organizations recently got it thrown in their face on how bad their journalism is. Why would you think a govt accreditation would be any better?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Its about government control and not fake news, saying that regal news is for idiots anyway and if the ICBMs start flying or meteor is on colliding curse you wont probably see anything anyway.

Peace

Re: Humans are shit

[DNS-and-BIND]

The accredited institutions are the ones who invented fake news and tried to fool us with it. It was the little people who had the real story. Did we forget already?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Assange is about as much a journalist as Eliot Rogers was a relationship counselor.

Not the ideal solution

[FeelGood314]

But the media traditional media is in big trouble and can't police itself. Good reporting is expensive and newspapers, the place where you could actually explain facts, have no money. The 24 hour TV news is more about entertainment than educating. Checking many facts is extremely easy today but newspapers laid off their fact checkers years ago. If a paper can't get a trivial math equation correct people lose faith in anything they say. In the absence of any trusted (reputable) news sources, the even mo

Re:

[kenai_alpenglow]

News Flash (really "Olds" flash): This has been going on for centuries. Read about the yellow journalism back in the 1800s. It puts the current "news" to shame. Regulation is NOT the answer.

Re:

[FeelGood314]

I am thinking about the past. Well maybe the last 45 years. Print journalism improved in quality from the late 70s to the early 90s. Different papers were definitely biased. In Toronto we had the right wing Globe and Mail and the left of communism Toronto Star, but the actual facts in the papers were well reported and the opinion pieces were clearly marked as editorial. Advertising revenue took off in the late 70s and peaked in the early 90s. With the Internet, I really doubt we need more than a few d

Re:

[Ogive17]

None of that matters anymore. Trump showed how easy it is to convince a large portion of a population that truth is fake. (yes, I realize the quality of journalism has been in decline for many years prior)

People believe what they want to believe, no amount of fact checking is going to change that anymore. Socially, we have devolved over the past few decades. When your leaders seek to strike out or defame anything that is seen as a negative towards them... well just research how that is working out f

Re:

[GLMDesigns]

Tim Pool and Laura Loomer do real journalism.

Tommy Robinson did real journalism.

You do not need to agree with them or their views to recognize that some things are simply not being shown by the MSM

Yes there are no-go zones for non Muslims in Australia - videos show as the police firmly escort her (Laura Loomer) away.

Hey how about the latest mass shooting that oops, is not being blared 24/7 on the MSM. St!t, it's not even being reported. I wonder why?

Oh, and who is kicking the MSM a$$.

Tim P

Re: Go Back To Your Shithole Country

[Type44Q]

Singapore learned how to treat their people from the English.

Unfortunately...

[LordHighExecutioner]

....the news that "Singapore passes new law to police fake news despite concerns" seems to be a fake news as well.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion