What is the new MDA licensing framework trying to regulate?

I don’t understand what exactly is the MDA licensing framework trying to do. Under the new licensing framework, websites are required to remove objectionable content within 24 hours. Objectionable content may include those that undermine racial and religious harmony or go against good taste. OK, content that undermine racial and religious harmony are pretty straight forward and easily identifiable. And we don’t need a new licensing framework for this. We have existing laws that deal with this.
And what is the definition of “good taste”? Who gets to decide what is “good taste” and what is “bad taste”?
MDA keep saying that an example of objectionable content is the Innocence of Muslims video. Firstly, MDA didn’t have any trouble getting YouTube to block the video from Singapore IP address. Google complied with the take down notice within 24 hours without the new licensing framework. And most importantly, the new licensing framework doesn’t include YouTube. So what exactly is this licensing framework trying to regulate?
Another example of objectionable content is the gory images of two brothers killed in a car accident in Tampines Avenue 7. The question is, out of the 10 websites that falls under the new licensing framework, which one of them published the photo? If I’m not mistaken, none of them published the photos. Instead, the photos were published on Twitter and Facebook. And by the way, as far as I understand, MDA did not issue a take down notice to those sites that published the photo. Bloggers and responsible netizens are the ones who urged everyone to stop circulating the photos and report to Twitter and Facebook when they see it. So there is no need for the new licensing framework.
And MDA is also not clear about their definition of a news website. What is a news website and what is a blog? You can argue that Yahoo Singapore is a group blog and not a news site.
Minister Yaacob Ibrahim and Minister Tan Chuan-jin kept saying that the regulations are meant to cover news sites, not blogs unless the blog evolved into news sites. This is a very vague definition. What about Singapolitics, The Online Citizen, Public House and The Breakfast Network? Are you able to clearly define which is a blog and which is a news website? And if they are news website, why aren’t they part of the new licensing framework? The definition need to be clear so that it wont be subjected to misuse.
MDA said that the new licensing framework would place online news sites “on a more consistent regulatory framework with traditional news platforms which are already individually licensed”. But why do we need to do it? Everything that the licensing framework aims to achieve is already covered by existing law. So what exactly is the licensing framework trying to regulate?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *