What's the fuss?
I did not really follow the on goings on what Aims were trying to do, to regulate the internet, when the govt is talking about liberalisation. What Aims is trying to do and what the govt is trying to do appear to be contradictory. One argument is that you need rules before you can run free. Quite true. But rules are aplenty and is all we got. We have rules and laws against sedition, scandals, libels, pornography, false or misleading information and also the mother of all laws, ISA. What more do we need? The only area that is really troubling the authority is political openess. How much can one say against a political party, in this case the ruling party. The simple line to be drawn, or has always been there, is truth and facts. If you are telling the truth, then why fear the truth, why ban the truth? Admittedly, two persons' truth may disagree, my truth against your tooth. Often such things will be a matter of interpretation or opinion. But the truth must be the truth and not the tooth. So what is the big fuss? We should know better. My position thus, is still the same. There are already enough rules and laws to regulate the internet. And everyone is responsible for his postings and can be hauled up by the law or another party to answer for his rambling. A little fine tuning of the current laws may be necessary to take into account this new technology, terminology and how it works. What the blogging community should worry about is how the laws are to be applied and whether they are fair and just. Then again, how to be fair and just when what is fair is in the eyes of the beholder or the one holding the big stick? Can the opposition party organise a cycling event? Oh yes. But would it get a permit to go ahead?