JEFF OOI’s Commenter EATS UMBLE PIE; SCREENSHOTS to REMOVE Offensive Comments ASAP & Insert Additional WARNING; SUN Screws up - APOLOGY REPORT

It looks like the victim in this saga has extracted his “pound of flesh” and the commenter has eaten his “humble pie” and Screenshots has undertaken to have additional warning and extra burden to moderate the offensive comments. Interactions with others do occur, yet none occur what you do not attract or draw to you by your writings.

Once again Jeff has wriggled himself out of this confrontation. Will the Malaysian blopsphere be the same again?

The Sun in its print edition has highlighted the apology (see below) which can be deemed “offensive”. The bold headline states

“Author of offensive blog post apologises”
Is the author of the "blog post" or author of the "comment" apologising?

Shouldn’t it be “comment” instead of “blog post”. The author of the comment is IImran and the apology is from him. Jeff is the author (publisher) of the blog post and in the mediation results he gave an undertaking to publish the apology. So did Jeff apologises as the Sun make it out? High time you shoot a email and demand an apology or at least a correction.

Some notes on the evolvment of the eating umble pie meaning.

The original umbles were the innards of the deer: the liver, heart, entrails and other second-class bits. It was common practice in medieval times to serve a pie made of these parts of the animal to the servants and others who would be sitting at the lower tables in the lord’s hall.

As James Huston explains in Humble Pie, the original dish dates back to 16th Century England and was called "umbles pie" — a meat pie made from deer umbles (the heart, liver, and miscellaneous innards). These less desirable meats would be taken home by the huntsman who killed a deer for a nobleman, while the nobleman would get the venison.

The umbles would be baked into a pie to create a modest dish suitable for a poor man. To eat umble pie meant that you acknowledged your place in the social pecking order. A few centuries changed "umble" into "humble" and also brought about a significant change in meaning. Today, "to eat humble pie" refers to a change in one's circumstance, usually involving an admission of error and-or the making of an apology.

Humble pie (HUM-buhl pi) noun; Humiliation in the form of apology or retraction. Often in form of the phrase "to eat humble pie.". From the phrase, an umble pie, transformed by folk etymology by resemblance to the word humble. The phrase an umble pie itself was made by false splitting from a numble pie. Numbles or nombles are edible animal entrails. The words came to us from Latin via French.

This is a steak pie and the receipe is here

Question Time: Why Internet gangsterism must remain illegal
By P Gunasegaram

The explosion in Internet usage and the spawning of web logs or blogs have brought about the proliferation of an insidious phenomenon — Internet gangsterism, the systematic and organised intimidation, ridiculing and harassment of a person on the web.

The insidious thing about it is that it uses the notion of freedom of expression to perpetuate the aims of the blogger and those who make comments on his blog. There is clear attempt to intimidate the target by abuse, bullying, name-calling and the use of obscenity.
This is done with little or no fair comment on the opinions expressed by the targets and the actions they have taken but by a stream of invective raised against the person for an opinion he holds or an action he has taken.
I have been a victim of this kind of abuse for opinions that I have expressed in these and other columns and I use my own experience to explain why such bloggers and commentators should never be put above the law — despite all their lobbying to comment in complete anonymity and facilitate comment without restriction. They and those who facilitate such comment should be accountable for their actions, just like anyone else.
A blogger is one who posts web logs on the Internet and the mechanism he employs is a blog which has an Internet address. He assumes ownership of the blog and is in effect its publisher.
There are bloggers who don't use comments at all and there are those who use comments by their readers. In the latter category, there are two kinds — those who moderate or vet the comments before posting and others who only do so after they are posted or not at all.
The problem is with the last type. Some bloggers insist that this is vital for the development of the Internet but, really that's not true. Many famous blogs don't allow comments or moderate comments before they post them.
The development of the Internet is not at all dependent on a very small group of people who want the "freedom" to post comments about others as they wish, anonymously. The bloggers want immunity from the law for these anonymous postings, although they use the blog to publish these comments and distribute it to a wide audience.
My experience with this Internet gangsterism started after I wrote an article earlier this month for our sister publication theSun titled the "Myth of Mahathir's Invincibility" which basically argued that neither Mahathir nor anyone else was invincible once they lost their power.
One blogger, Jeff Ooi, who claims ownership of blog Screenshots and who has been billed the most influential blogger in Malaysia, commented — unflatteringly — about the article. No big deal. But he let through a comment — which he had clear opportunity to remove — which said this:
"Somebody, please shoot this Gunasegaram for good. The issue brought up by Tun Dr Mahathir is genuine and should be tackled. This fu**ed Gunasegaram is lending a helping hand to the Administration from having to tackle this issue." It was signed off Ilmran.
I was shocked by the nature of the posting which was a threat, used bad language and was defamatory. Ooi removed some of the offensive parts after I sent him a strongly worded personal email but gave me no reply or assurance that there would be no repeat of such threats and bad language. I lodged a report — not to the police although I was entitled to — but to the Communications and Multimedia Content Forum (CMCF), an industry body set up under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1988. theSun reported it.
That opened the floodgates. Ooi accused me of trying to shut him up instead and said that readers "should be accorded their rights of dissent". He invited readers to comment. In effect, it turned out to be a vilifying event as commentator after anonymous commentator made indecent, obscene, false, menacing and offensive personal comments against me.

They ignored the fact that I had the right under the law to do so under a mechanism set up under the CMCF, a body which Ooi is ironically a member of. Ooi has repeatedly argued that he cannot be responsible for the comments made in his blog. But that runs contrary to established law which holds publishers responsible as well.
Let me just quote from the Communications and Multimedia Act. (There are, of course, criminal and defamation aspects in other Acts but are not dealt with here). Section 211 states:

No content applications ser-vice provider, or other person using a content application service, shall provide content which is indecent, obscene, false, menacing, or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person.

A person who contravenes section (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both and shall also be liable to a further fine of RM1,000 for every day or part of a day during which the offence continued after conviction.

Even during a private mediation by the CMCF for Ooi and me to come to an amicable settlement, Ooi has chosen to go public on his blog. He has seriously misrepresented mediation proceedings to elicit support from his faithful gang of commentators whom he has invited to comment and who have shown yet again that they cannot self-regulate themselves. Offensive and defamatory content continued to be posted.
Predictably, most commentators did not want moderated comments. Why would they when they have had the freedom of making all sorts of comments and insinuations, anonymously as cowards are likely to, with no accountability whatsoever? (If you ask a murderer, would he not like murder legalised?) And why should they when they have a so-called champion who thinks falsely that he has the right to disseminate indecent, false and offensive content?

Some commentators suggested that taking action against commentators and bloggers will push them underground and force them to set up operations overseas where they can't be traced. So be it — let them go underground because that's where they belong.
The point is, no one should be subject to threat, abuse and obscenity because of views they hold and legal actions they have taken. Everyone has the right to protection under the law.
There is no censorship on the Net but anyone who posts something or allows someone to post it is responsible for the posting. This is not about undermining freedom of expression but protecting it by making people responsible for the comments they make and publish.
In the same way, we cannot expect gangsters in the physical world to self-regulate, we cannot expect gangsters in the virtual world to regulate themselves. Gangsterism — concerted threats and intimidation, name-calling, obscenity, and defamation amongst others — should not be tolerated, not even on the Internet. The law says so.

P Gunasegaram is group executive editor of The Edge.

Reader IImran's apology

Mailbag; From: IImran
To: jeffooi.screenshots@gmail.com
Date: Aug 28, 2006 9:30 AM
Subject: Unreserved Apology to P Gunasegaram

Jeff,

I've been thinking these few days.

Jeff, I hope you can allow this email on your blog, at any time that you feel appropriate, and also extend this to P Gunasegaram.

Somebody remarked, "ular menyusur akar tak akan hilang bisanya." I want to get this 'shooting' over with. And I believe you too. I am willing to forgo my ego for the sake everyone involved; you, your blog, and fellow readers.

Not that I have not stated this before through my second email, but maybe it was not proper enough to be regarded as one.

I hereby extend my unreserved appology to P Gunasegaram for the possible extreme interpretation of the comment that I left on "Screenshots" blog.

I advise all those who, somehow, got incited by my comment on the said blog to lay down whatever weapon they have and leave P Gunasegaram.

The comment that I made on the blog should not be used to go against Jeff. In my opinion, Jeff have given the readers including me, and avenue to discuss matters of interests. And as can be seen through comments by others on the blog, not everyone condone my writing and this can be simplified to show that Jeff and the readers are in fact an example of a mature online community bent on self-moderation.

I, however, stand by my comment: I believe the issues raised by Tun Dr Mahathir are genuine and I could not help to wonder why the Administration is "beating around the bush." I believe that mainstream newspapers, like The Sun and The Edge, should not be used and perceived as an instrument to cast bad light on Tun Dr Mahathir's character and undermine the validity of his allegations.

Again, I also appologise to Jeff and fellow readers, for this mess that I created on your blog.

Thanks Jeff, for the space.
--
yb, IImran.
----------------------

CMCF Mediation Report

BACKGROUND to the Saga

Report lodged against internet website

PETALING JAYA: theSun and Nexnews Group Executive Editor P. Gunasegaram yesterday lodged a complaint against an internet website for carrying a posting inciting people to do bodily harm to Gunasegaram over an article he wrote.

The complaint was made to the Communications and Multimedia Content Forum of Malaysia (CMCF), an industry body set up under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1988 that is tasked with monitoring contents and handling complaints.

Gunasegaram had written an article "The Myth of Mahathir's Invincibility" that appeared in theSun on Wednesday. The website concerned had on the same day reproduced the article and solicited reaction. Several people responded and someone who identified himself as "IImran" suggested that Gunasegaram be shot for his views on Mahathir.

Nexnews Group Editor-in-Chief Ho Kay Tat said: "The website concerned is moderated by blogger Jeff Ooi who we hold responsible for allowing the posting "Somebody, please shoot this Gunasegaram for good" to appear on his website.

"While we have no problem having anyone debate, discuss or even challenge what Gunasegaram wrote and indeed many people have - threat of bodily harm is another thing altogether and should be taken seriously," said Ho. "It was irresponsible of Ooi to allow the posting on his website. We do not understand what motivated him to allow it."

Gunasegaram had yesterday morning also written to Ooi demanding that he remove the threat from his website. The posting, which was there for over 24 hours, was subsequently removed.

Ho said it was decided that a formal complaint to CMCF should still be made because there should be no repeat of such internet postings on that or any other website.

"The internet is not a lawless entity where people can do anything they want," he said. "It is still subject to the laws of the country."

He added that as a newspaper group, Nexnews supports freedom of speech and freedom of expression but a threat to hurt someone is criminal intimidation, not freedom of expression.

"Freedom of expression does not extend to inciting people to cause harm to someone else," Ho said. "Indeed, the threat to Gunasegaram was clearly meant to shut him up. Those of us who cherish freedom of expression should be abhorred that a website that claims to be a champion of free speech saw it fit to allow someone to make that threat."

GoTo TOP (Main Page)