Hello, people!

Recently, there's been a lot of a push to say that Malaysia is a place where speech is being suppressed and you can't express your opinion, but I want to know how you genuinely feel about it.

Do you feel that you have freedom of speech in Malaysia?

Please vote in the poll and let me know how you feel as well!

.

It would be arrogant to the degree of a lie to say that I make policies, but it would be an understatement to the degree of a lie to say that I am not heard or that I have had no interaction with policymakers that has materially shaped policies.

It is also a little presumptuous for you to say that someone is only worth interacting with if they are a policymaker or to tread in the direction of saying people who ask questions about policy are only worth talking to IF they are policymakers, don’t you think?

Nice for you to exercise your freedom of speech.

Now consider reflecting on why you’ve chosen to make the comment that you did ya.

it depends on the topic. some topics u can freely discuss and u have reasonable freedom in it (for example, economy, non r&r items)

but, there are certain topics, u can't have constructive discussions and/or critic at all - for example 3Rs

oh please, just because you need to be careful by commenting on 3R issues doesnt mean you got your right retracted.
freedom of speech is always there with repercussion if you are not careful.
but then, we cant even curse at the police officer so yeah a certain degree was surely blocked from your freedom of speech probably due to the cultural influence in our society

Is there really a need for a poll on freedom of speech, when the TS will delete a post that they do not like?

Oh, the irony!

Yeah, definitely not. I hope that discussion will become more nuanced though! I'm going to share a piece about this pretty soon, and I hope it'll be a good contribution into the national conversation. I don't think we'll start discussing the 3R's by any means, but I think it's definitely worthwhile for people to know about what they are and why people consider them sensitive to talk about!

Yes, absolutely - I've heard people say different things ranging from "freedom of speech doesn't exist" to "there is freedom of speech", but the best way I can think about it is from a probability standpoint.

I would say you have freedom of speech in a country where the likelihood of you being caught for something that you say that does not amount to incitement or harm is very low. In Malaysia, I think that we definitely have 3R restrictions for sure. Even nowadays, when you bring in private platforms, the question of freedom of speech has been muddied. In the US, freedom of speech legislation applies primarily to criticisms of the government, which the US protects very strongly. On the other hand, when it comes to speech within private platforms and also within companies, there is no such protection.

In the US, where First Amendment protections exist, it is interesting to think about the police officer case that you mentioned earlier. In the US, swearing against a police officer is often thought of as something that the police should be able to tolerate because they are in a unique capacity and force of the law and therefore must be subject to a higher degree of tolerance. But the reality is that they can bring you in for disorderly conduct, interfering with police duties, and otherwise. Whether that negates your freedom of speech or not depends on how you define freedom of speech in the first place. If freedom of speech was only ever your ability to say something, then I would say that all jurisdictions around the world already had freedom of speech.

Obviously NO. This doesn't even only apply to basic topics such as 3R, but in business practices such advertising where competitive advertising (the mention of a business's competitor) is prohibited or heavy regulated to the extend that such action is deemed outright illegal.

Freedom of speech is not without repercussions. remember that. Its not a license to spew nonsense.

Seeing MY, we are not like Assad's Syria that you will be jailed / tortured for commenting on the Gov. So at least its something.

This post has been edited by MegaCanonF: Dec 16 2024, 12:34 PM

Competitive advertising is not prohibited but restricted under Trade mark law. There are some requirements to be reached in order to establish the defense of competitive advertising.

Can I take it from you that you think trade mark law on competitive advertising is too restrictive that it hinders ones' freedom of speech?

But i think the use of trade mark are more of commercial activities, not so much of personal opinion or expression.

if they got arrested due to freedom of speech, they hit a jackpot

Some people interpret freedom of speech as TOTAL freedom, and that is never the case.
The law of any country so far as I know will always have some topic that cannot even be approached, by virtue of their own history & circumstances.

Even Norway, Iceland, Sweden who generally have a decent reputation for these things have their own prohibitions. No absolute freedom exists.
Also people's opinion of free speech is usually based on the prohibition of the topic of THEIR interests.

A better question IMO is where do we rank on the relevant scores & indexes that study said rights,
but even then it's flawed because the 'measuring ruler' for them is based on values from their own countries which is not exactly a universal truth.

It is his right to ask your purpose and state his reasons and for you to belittle that statement shows the elitist mindset of those in corridors of power - want to know what the people think but then make statements that inflame the regular people.

Agree.

the facade of freedom of speech exists, if they dont agree with your speech, your the problem.

Commercial or not, it's important to acknowledge that such laws are created by humans, which reflect an underlying intent to suppress. Freedom of speech is not limited to personal opinions. It encompasses the rights to share truthful information, even in commercial contexts. The belief that this has no impact on freedom of speech arises from a norm created by the already restrictive status, which only sustain the erosion of such rights.

You want to test your freedom of speech, without using 3R, then start a discussion about economy, capitalism, feudalism, and communism. No need to fake news and gaslighting, just use facts.

Some /k did ask about capitalism, yet my posted topic about economy was 'lost'. Not even filed away in business section or real world issues.

I agree with what you said.

However, I invite you to view the law from the perspective that it represents a compromise among the rights of various parties, especially when each party believes they hold the sole truth.

Expression of opinion on certain mark do not typically happen in a trade mark 'use'.

I find it interesting how you concluded that I was in the ‘corridors of power’ or that you somehow connected it to ‘elitism’ when there wasn’t any suggestion of that in my writing, or that the person I responded to was one of the ‘regular people’, whatever that means.

You sound like you are woke and just unhappy + looking for an argument lol.

Do you think someone intentionally deleted it?

se7en is king of LYN.
se7en can do whatever.

Buddy, laws ONLY aim to balance competing rights. But they often tip the scale toward protecting trademark holders at the expense of free expression.

The distinction you make about 'use' is also kinda artificial, which reflects your cautious statement of 'do not typically happen'… Because opinions and truthful statements about a mark, even in commercial settings, are integral to keeping public informed and shouldn't be dismissed as part of a legal compromise.

I also noticed you are very careful with your wording.

I think we need to have an agreement on these two views first.
1. Advertising is a very specific medium of communication. Advertisement is not a good medium to fulfill certain communication tasks. I am not talking about law and restriction on advertisement is good, but I think we need to understand why is advertising regulated from the first place.
2. The 'use' of trade mark is also a very specific principle to consider. Trade mark has its purpose and not every mentioning of a mark is an infringement.

In so far, I don't see 'opinions and truthful statements about a mark' 'to keeping public informed' outside of 'trade mark use' in an 'advertisement' are compromised in terms of freedom of speech.

There are many 'commercial settings' where you can express your 'opinions and truthful statements about a mark' 'to keeping public informed'.

I assume this general statement doesn't relate to the fact that it is still, simply, a form of expression, be it from individual or organization regardless of purposes.

You may believe it is out of fairness. I believe the degree in which it's being regulated stems from a society with cultural and political restriction.
Ambiguous point, but no need to split hair. Trademark law allows mentions outside "trademark use," in reality, businesses here avoid mentioning competitors or sharing critical opinions in ads due to fear. The question is where does this fear come from? The line between "mentioning" a mark and "using" it can also be blurred, making highly regulated trademark law a pretty good tool for advocating people to just STFU. If I contrast this to the US, you'll learn that their regulator FTC (Federal Trade Commission) even encourages comparative advertising.

Not that uncommon.

An environmental organization called Save River was sued by a logging company in Miri, for the #StopTheChop campaign and their statement audited turns out to be true. Even though eventually, the big corporation decided to withdraw their lawsuit for whatever reason, it happened.

https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/lat...pp-co-responds/

Or something closer to a for-profit creative commercial. A lawsuit filed against McCurry restaurant that was never a mark infringement to begin with.

https://theedgemalaysia.com/article/counsel...-tussle-mccurry

You take away the commercial context and look purely at expression, we're left with people's ideas and opinions stifled on a large or individual level, not just from regulation, but also out of fear for the consequence here.

Sure

I'm sorry but are we still talking about competitive advertising here and in specifically in relation to the right to exercise ones freedom of speech in such context?

As far as I am concerned, my comment is only on competitive advertising from the beginning.
Are the two cases you mentioned related to competitive advertising?

I'm afraid I might need to consider whether I want to commit to commenting outside of this context.

You can choose to ignore the cases. The principle applies across the board. Expression gets stifled. Fear of consequences keeps people silent. Topic of thread.

I specifically pointed out how different places have different views in competitive advertising, and how drawing the line between commercial activities and personal opinion/expression is simply artificial as commercial context involve opinions and criticism, still fundamental to free speech.

A trademark law, when overly restrictive do hinder freedom of speech. Expression is really not inherently limited by context.

I'm glad you bring up a US case, as the discussion is still within common law jurisdiction.
I did not reply to this point because as I have stated from the start, competitive advertising is restricted and not prohibited.

I re-invite you to see that advertising is a very specific medium of communication. It is highly regulated and ill-suited for a debate for, say 'statement of truth'. Even in the US, as you mentioned, competitive advertising is subject to strict restrictions.
Again, I assert, my statement applies to advertisement, specifically competitive advertising here.

Your claim seems interesting, and commonly heard, to be honest. However, it represents a slippery slope, and every stage needs to be proven. At least on the basis of this claim—specifically about competitive advertising—it seems flimsy to me.
Alas i am not knowledgeable enough to comment on anything other than competitive advertising.
Perhaps another time, when the occasion is more opportune, I might revisit this intriguing topic.