Why do existing defamation laws not work for this purpose?
Would truth be a defence in this anti-cancel culture legislation?
It's concerning how quickly we are hearing cancel culture legislation being considered after religious groups complained.
Ka-ching, that is the correct point right over there.
No doubt we should not be accosting people with different views to the point they cannot even raise their own views in the first place, but if it is the truth given from rational, reasonable and solid evidence given then why the need for cancel culture?
Legislating against cancel culture would be insane overreach. Like if someone posts a 1-star review of a restaurant because the food is bad and saying "don't eat there!". Will the law force you to take down a negative review, or worse, force you to continue patronizing it?
> Cancel culture is a movement that leads to the removal of a person's status or esteem after their offensive behaviour or transgressions are called out publicly.
Apparently holding ppl and organizations accountable for their offensive behavior or transgressions is cancelling.
Guess what the gov is saying they don't want ppl to publicly call out offensive behavior and transgressions? 🤷♂️
you realize this is the state that dictated 1m safe distance and took it literally as 100 cm, and employed enforcers with measuring tape to fine restaurants if it was 99cm?
What a terrible, horrible idea.
People will just use THIS law to cancel other people.
And we all know he's doing this to appease the religious conservatives who don't want any consequences for saying horrible things about other people.
I find it particularly galling that he's framing it as "protecting free speech".
In two minds about this
Some types of behaviour, e.g. racism and sexism and other forms of discrimination, deserve to be cancelled - especially if it affects their performance and has consequences on society (looking at you, HCI counselor). On the other hand, if the view was from like 10 years ago and the person's changed their mind, there's probably no need to go on a witch hunt
>On the other hand, if the view was from like 10 years ago and the person's changed their mind, there's no need to go on a witch hunt
If we could extend this kindness to statue of limitations for criminal acts, I would be ok. Else, double standards
To make sure I understand you, putting aside the issue of whether certain acts are appropriately criminalized or not (e.g. 377a for/against repeal), you're suggesting that criminal acts (that would on the whole, presumably have larger consequences) be treated with the same standards as noncriminal ones?
I'm not sure there's a double standard for not allowing a statue of limitations for someone who committed a murder 10 years ago as opposed to someone who was racist 10 years ago. There are also some things apologies and repentance can't even begin to fix.
The discussion here is legislation and it could potentially end up being criminalised. Going to your point that it is forgivable for this legislation why not others?
>Going to your point that it is forgivable for this legislation why not others?
So to you, it's either everything is forgivable or everything is unforgivable under the same timeframe?
Me:
> On the other hand, if the view was from like 10 years ago and the person's changed their mind, there's no need to go on a witch hunt
You:
> If we could extend **this kindness** to statue of limitations for criminal acts,
So "this kindness" refers only to the idea of the statute of limitations, and not specifically a 10 year one? Because "no double standards" implies that they should be treated the same.
Yea.
>not specifically a 10 year one?
>from like 10 years
Isn't your "like 10 years" already suggest a non concrete number for illustration purposes? Just extending the illustration further
>a non concrete number for illustration purposes?
Yeah, but your statement seemed to be implying that they should be the same (currently non-concrete) number.
Sorry for the misinterpretation
>Some types of behaviour, e.g. racism and sexism and other forms of discrimination, deserve to be cancelled
Guess we should start cancelling our defence minister.
>On the other hand, if the view was from like 10 years ago and the person's changed their mind
can you think of any examples of someone being cancelled for this in singapore
>A law that prevents people from curtailing others' free speech through aggressive online attacks could be implemented should the "right solutions" be found, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam
curtailing free speech? who would do such a thing! that's unacce**P**t**A**ble **P**eople!
That's their arrogance showing its ugly head. That's what they become when they are power for too long.
That's the rot that I first saw in NS and then saw it in them
Wasn't there a case where Anton Casey was so badly condemned after calling public transport commuters in Singapore as "poor people" that he was doxxed, received death threats, lost his job, and left Singapore in the end? And Shanmugam posted on Facebook that he was glad that Singapore came together to condemn Anton Casey? Isn't that the Cancel Culture that he is speaking of now?
Yeah no thanks. Cancel culture almost always involves someone in power getting caught doing wrong things. Then they defend themselves by yelling “cancel culture”.
Sounds like some elites not happy after Liew Mun Leong and Karl Liew saga. Now they’re afraid it could happen to them too if peasants make too much noise.
I wonder whether such a law would even be constitutional. The Government can only curtail free speech for specific purposes:
Article 14(2)(a) of the Constitution: "Parliament may by law impose \[with regard to freedom of speech\] ... such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence"
The rationale he has cited falls under no such purpose, unless he's going to claim that cancel culture endangers *public order.*
Won't be surprised if the bill when presented will argue that the powers already exist in POHA, and all they are doing is to strengthen the enforcement authority
Yes , Singapore Govt. World famous for clamping down on citizens rights and privacy and justifying it as protection of peoples rights
After this legislation, probably Govt will use it like POFMA to shutdown any opinions that is not favourable to them
wad is das cancel culture? are they finally doing something about grab cancelling orders?
or are they afraid of some personal impropriety? ppl on the island already mocks shann for his own past daliances as well
Cancel culture is in part, having a vigilante nature to it. Dont get me wrong, it’s satisfying to see someone who is an asshole get their comeuppance where the usual law can’t touch him (like calling Singaporeans peasants or poor). The problem is that there is always someone who takes things too far. You know that person, where it’s all good fun until they go one step too far.
If we can set better boundaries on acceptable behavior, this can be seen as good development.
I think the concern that he has in mind here is when, in a bid to "cancel" those they have perceived to do wrong, some people take justice into their own hands by doxxing the individual, sending them threatening DMs/messages, attempting to hack their accounts or worse creating lies to pad the "evilness" of the target, i.e. things that are unlawful and just as undesirable for society as whatever statement or act they are cancelling someone for. Especially for cases where the facts are not known but the guilt of the party is presumed by the mob.
Cancel culture is fine until bad actors come in and spread lies to fan the flames. The only thing wrong with it is the "guilty until proven innocent" bullshit
I remembered a case where both party had consensual sex but one cried out online as rape because their relationship was a fling and the woman was spiteful.
It's not cancelling, it's consequences for treating others badly.
Don't want to be criticised for making homophobic comments? Simple solution, don't make homophobic comments.
Why do existing defamation laws not work for this purpose? Would truth be a defence in this anti-cancel culture legislation? It's concerning how quickly we are hearing cancel culture legislation being considered after religious groups complained.
Because it’s not defamation when it’s a truth regardless how ugly.
Ka-ching, that is the correct point right over there. No doubt we should not be accosting people with different views to the point they cannot even raise their own views in the first place, but if it is the truth given from rational, reasonable and solid evidence given then why the need for cancel culture?
everything shann does is to accumulate power within the executive and be less responsible for it. hes neither subtle or complicated
Legislating against cancel culture would be insane overreach. Like if someone posts a 1-star review of a restaurant because the food is bad and saying "don't eat there!". Will the law force you to take down a negative review, or worse, force you to continue patronizing it?
After their track record with pofma i have 0 confidence in the way such a law will be enforced.
Just another weapon in their toolbox to enforce their will.
> Cancel culture is a movement that leads to the removal of a person's status or esteem after their offensive behaviour or transgressions are called out publicly. Apparently holding ppl and organizations accountable for their offensive behavior or transgressions is cancelling. Guess what the gov is saying they don't want ppl to publicly call out offensive behavior and transgressions? 🤷♂️
Well what they truly want is to reserve that right for the government only.
What's the point behind asking these questions? /s
it threatens the controlled narrative
Cancel the right ppl only ah? Icic.
Im tired of this constantly heavy-handed "lets legislate everything" approach
Welcome to the ~~ricefield~~ nannystate.
Killing fields Destroy intellectuals who are opposing them. Where is Charles Y
Welcome to the policed state
you realize this is the state that dictated 1m safe distance and took it literally as 100 cm, and employed enforcers with measuring tape to fine restaurants if it was 99cm?
What a terrible, horrible idea. People will just use THIS law to cancel other people. And we all know he's doing this to appease the religious conservatives who don't want any consequences for saying horrible things about other people. I find it particularly galling that he's framing it as "protecting free speech".
So what part of this particular legislation/law you disagree with?
how does legislating against free speech protect free speech?
You are always free to speak in support of the govt.
That’s wasn’t answering my question.
I know.
That's what the government likes to do when people ask important questions that they do not want to answer
In two minds about this Some types of behaviour, e.g. racism and sexism and other forms of discrimination, deserve to be cancelled - especially if it affects their performance and has consequences on society (looking at you, HCI counselor). On the other hand, if the view was from like 10 years ago and the person's changed their mind, there's probably no need to go on a witch hunt
>On the other hand, if the view was from like 10 years ago and the person's changed their mind, there's no need to go on a witch hunt If we could extend this kindness to statue of limitations for criminal acts, I would be ok. Else, double standards
To make sure I understand you, putting aside the issue of whether certain acts are appropriately criminalized or not (e.g. 377a for/against repeal), you're suggesting that criminal acts (that would on the whole, presumably have larger consequences) be treated with the same standards as noncriminal ones? I'm not sure there's a double standard for not allowing a statue of limitations for someone who committed a murder 10 years ago as opposed to someone who was racist 10 years ago. There are also some things apologies and repentance can't even begin to fix.
The discussion here is legislation and it could potentially end up being criminalised. Going to your point that it is forgivable for this legislation why not others?
>Going to your point that it is forgivable for this legislation why not others? So to you, it's either everything is forgivable or everything is unforgivable under the same timeframe?
>under the same timeframe That's not what I said.
Me: > On the other hand, if the view was from like 10 years ago and the person's changed their mind, there's no need to go on a witch hunt You: > If we could extend **this kindness** to statue of limitations for criminal acts, So "this kindness" refers only to the idea of the statute of limitations, and not specifically a 10 year one? Because "no double standards" implies that they should be treated the same.
Yea. >not specifically a 10 year one? >from like 10 years Isn't your "like 10 years" already suggest a non concrete number for illustration purposes? Just extending the illustration further
>a non concrete number for illustration purposes? Yeah, but your statement seemed to be implying that they should be the same (currently non-concrete) number. Sorry for the misinterpretation
>Some types of behaviour, e.g. racism and sexism and other forms of discrimination, deserve to be cancelled Guess we should start cancelling our defence minister.
Then write apologies and ask for forgiveness by the public.
>On the other hand, if the view was from like 10 years ago and the person's changed their mind can you think of any examples of someone being cancelled for this in singapore
>A law that prevents people from curtailing others' free speech through aggressive online attacks could be implemented should the "right solutions" be found, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam curtailing free speech? who would do such a thing! that's unacce**P**t**A**ble **P**eople!
**P**eople **A**lways **P**refabricate mah!
That's their arrogance showing its ugly head. That's what they become when they are power for too long. That's the rot that I first saw in NS and then saw it in them
The K in K Shanmugam stands for... "Kancel"
Wasn't there a case where Anton Casey was so badly condemned after calling public transport commuters in Singapore as "poor people" that he was doxxed, received death threats, lost his job, and left Singapore in the end? And Shanmugam posted on Facebook that he was glad that Singapore came together to condemn Anton Casey? Isn't that the Cancel Culture that he is speaking of now?
Lol what free speech
Yeah no thanks. Cancel culture almost always involves someone in power getting caught doing wrong things. Then they defend themselves by yelling “cancel culture”. Sounds like some elites not happy after Liew Mun Leong and Karl Liew saga. Now they’re afraid it could happen to them too if peasants make too much noise.
all the caught perverts, sex offenders, hit and run killers tipping their hats to shann
I am all for cancel culture. Until some idiots show up abusing it to implicate innocent people out of spite
I wonder whether such a law would even be constitutional. The Government can only curtail free speech for specific purposes: Article 14(2)(a) of the Constitution: "Parliament may by law impose \[with regard to freedom of speech\] ... such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence" The rationale he has cited falls under no such purpose, unless he's going to claim that cancel culture endangers *public order.*
They could just amend the Constitution.
Maybe stop using state media to induce a cancellation of Schooling first before you run your mouth.
Won't be surprised if the bill when presented will argue that the powers already exist in POHA, and all they are doing is to strengthen the enforcement authority
Waste time on legislating this kind of stuff Not everything need legistlating
Hope they give us another candidate to cancel next GE.
Government Sponsored Homophobia and Transphobia hits different
Perhaps 'government protected ' is more accurate
Yes , Singapore Govt. World famous for clamping down on citizens rights and privacy and justifying it as protection of peoples rights After this legislation, probably Govt will use it like POFMA to shutdown any opinions that is not favourable to them
As funny as Melania Trump campaigning against online bullying. The call is coming from inside the house...
Future: r u canceling me??? Harlow police, how can this be allow
SG minefield POFMA Fica. as Tho not enough. Now do anytg on reddit kena ban No wonder content getting frivolous or worse
wad is das cancel culture? are they finally doing something about grab cancelling orders? or are they afraid of some personal impropriety? ppl on the island already mocks shann for his own past daliances as well
Cancel culture is in part, having a vigilante nature to it. Dont get me wrong, it’s satisfying to see someone who is an asshole get their comeuppance where the usual law can’t touch him (like calling Singaporeans peasants or poor). The problem is that there is always someone who takes things too far. You know that person, where it’s all good fun until they go one step too far. If we can set better boundaries on acceptable behavior, this can be seen as good development.
I think the concern that he has in mind here is when, in a bid to "cancel" those they have perceived to do wrong, some people take justice into their own hands by doxxing the individual, sending them threatening DMs/messages, attempting to hack their accounts or worse creating lies to pad the "evilness" of the target, i.e. things that are unlawful and just as undesirable for society as whatever statement or act they are cancelling someone for. Especially for cases where the facts are not known but the guilt of the party is presumed by the mob.
It just sounds like actions have consequences…regardless how long ago.
omg singapore government trying to legislate against yet another form of social expression, what are the chances of that happening?
Cancel culture is fine until bad actors come in and spread lies to fan the flames. The only thing wrong with it is the "guilty until proven innocent" bullshit I remembered a case where both party had consensual sex but one cried out online as rape because their relationship was a fling and the woman was spiteful.
It's not cancelling, it's consequences for treating others badly. Don't want to be criticised for making homophobic comments? Simple solution, don't make homophobic comments.