I can't help feel that there is a degree of poetic justice served, in spite of the fact I am against PM's action. The reason is that Alex Au, for all the hyped up claims by rights activists that he is a fighter for free expression, has his own form of bias and censorship.
Alex Au, just like the PAP, censors opinions that are not in line with his opinion. More importantly, he disguises his censorship with the fallacious idea that he wants to keep his website "clean", when in actual fact, it is just a guise to censor what he does not agree.
Has Alex's own cockiness and ego, which he opines himself to have a higher standard than other bloggers (and possibly about everyone else too), when it comes to presenting arguments to support his causes, led him to dig a hole he has fallen into?
Taking a look at Alex's cockiness -
Below is an image, which is a report from the ST (dated 5 Feb 2013), explaining Alex actually made it worse for himself by implying he only allows comments on his site to be approved if it meets his standard.
(click on image to enlarge)
Extract:
In Mr Au's case, PM Lee took issue first with the blogger's own post on the town council saga. But he also held Mr Au responsible for defamatory comments posted in response to his article.
Many of the more than 20 posts cited alleged corruption.
The lawyer's letter also cited Mr Au's moderation policy as evidence that he endorses the comments.
On his blog Yawning Bread, Mr Au says "comments are disallowed unless they satisfy the guidelines in the main", meaning they must be relevant, cogently argued and provide references for assertions.
The defamatory comments, the lawyer's letter charged, thus "contain statements which you subscribe to and endorse, in the sense that they satisfy you to be rational, reasonable and having basis in reputable sources".
Lawyers said the case showed that moderating online comments can be tricky.
Even without moderation, websites can be held liable for others' defamatory remarks.
But by giving the impression that he had exerted editorial authority over such comments, Mr Au could no longer use the defence of unintentional defamation, noted Mr Loh Kia Meng of Rodyk Davidson.
Lawyer Chia Boon Teck said Mr Au's policy "may make things worse for himself... (as) his purported moderation may unwittingly be lending credibility to the defamatory postings".
The next link is the "re comment" page on his site. Note the cockiness and condescending tone of arrogance, implying that only comments that meet his standards will be published. Stupidly, that means that all the comments that maligned PM Lee was endorsed by Alex, doesn't it? Stupid guy. Yawning Bread's "re comments page"
Alex is no supporter of free speech, censors opinion he does not like -
Alex purports to be fighting for free speech. That is not correct. He is only fighting for free speech when it comes to his pet causes - ie gay rights, LGBT rights, human rights. But no free speech or rights of religionists or others who do not agree with his opinion.
Here is an article I wrote about how hypocritical Alex Au can be. It is about how LGBTs feel they have a right to dictate what Sex Ed in schools should be, right after they themselves claim that MOE and parents should not dictate so! (Link - Liberals and LGBTs should stop forcing their ideals on others). In the article I wrote, I highlighted how Alex threatened to delete a post which he does not agree with. Extract below:
1. Appoints self as authority on "safe sex", overriding moral educators in schools, to the point of endangering schoolchildren
He uses his blog to promote use of condoms to school children, appointing himself as the "authority" on how to engage sex, in spite of the fact there are many families who are against liberal sex. He even has the audacity to down the school's authority. St Patrick’s patch 1: How to use a condom
His contention is that the school (St Pat's) got it wrong. He then takes it upon himself to "educate and correct" the situation, not even considering this is a Catholic school which has its own ideology about "safe sex". Take note of his audacious claim, purporting to have the moral right to teach other people's children - link.
Be warned: This post is meant as information for school students. I will not tolerate anyone hijacking this thread to add misinformation. So there will be a point when I will delete.
The "misinformation" he wants to delete is that the condom is not 100% safe. What is so humanistic about this ideology that you can be safe from HIV, if you wear the condom? Isn't that a fatal lie he is trying to tell school students, who are other people's children?
What's so humanistic about him, if he is willing to sacrifice the safety and health of other people's children, so that he can promote his liberal lifestyle of free and easy sex? Isn't this the kind of shady character that lurks on the internet, whom many parents fear will lure their children to experiment with strange men to have sex?
Note his eagerness to censor opinion that is not in line with his. On top of that, he justifies it as if he is the moral torch for adolescent boys in schools. Hellooo? A gay, claiming to be a moral torch for adolescent kids? Yes, isn't that the very kind of suspicious character every parent would like their children to stay away from?
Alex is so cocky, he sees himself a godsend angel, teaching young underage schoolboys how to have 'safe sex', when parents actually see him as a potential odious pedophile monster influencing their children with his unsavoury ideals!
Conclusion -
I have mixed feelings about PM's letter to Alex Au. On one hand, I feel that PM has gone overboard and that is against the very core of allowing free expression.
However, at the same time, I feel that it was about time that Alex be told in the face that he himself has been acting the very way he condemns PAP for - ie censoring opinion that he does not like in a very heavy handed way. Not to mention that same uncanny cockiness he displays (like the PAP), that he feels he is the saviour of humankind and the know-all.
Let's just say that every cloud has a silver lining.
==========
PS - I am not against censorship of ideas per se. I am against hypocrisy, ie. those who purport to fight for freedom of expression, yet set their own standards to censor others. If you want to censor, you shouldn't adverstise yourself as a campaigner for free expression. Simple as that.
As for myself, although I support free expression, I don't claim to be a fighter for that cause. If there is freedom of expression, that is good. If there is none, no big deal. The world won't end.
17 comments:
Lol ... one man's boldness is another man's cockiness. Of course, Sir, you are entitled to your prejudice.
The cockiness does not refer to boldness. It refers to his stupidity, putting up on his “re comments” page, that all comments will have to pass his “high standard” of filtering.
By saying that so, has he not actually admitted he endorsed every single comment made?
Why the stupidity, pre-admitting liability for the mistakes of others even before any comments are made, as well as relinquishing the argument that he does not realise those comments are made?
That’s what I highlighted, which is what the legal experts said, in my main post.
What boldness are you faking that doesn’t even feature in my article?
Dr Troll from down under is quick to defend his fellow gay and pedophile leaning friend. He thinks that teaching underage schoolchildren how to have sex is real cool and bold. That’s why he jumped to his defence so quickly.
Datuk Bear,
That's an interesting perspective from you. Well presented and argued. It shed some light on the on-going controversy esp about that character in the centre of the storm. I must agree with you that he's not an ideal role model or exemplary blogger.
I thought I was Dr Troll from down under? Last time I tried to express my opinion on this page, I was accused of being an anti-Islam Dr from down under. How many of us are there. Anyway with this whole Alex Au issue, you should suspend how much you hate the man for his advocacy for gay rights and think about his advocacy for the rights of foreign workers because this is what this case is about. Think about what he said on his blog, the substance of the alleged defamation and come to your conclusions without basing it on your personal dislike of the man. With regards to practicing moderation on the comments on his page, I think many sites, like TOC, do it too. With the volume that he gets, if he doesn't moderate, his comments section is gonna resemble TRE. It's his blog , give the man a break he can curate it the way he wants. Anyway to me there is no real difference between someone who deletes comments and someone who launches ad hominem attacks, character assasinations, bigoted insults and IP address threats on commenters who you disagree with you, rather than arguing about points. I mean seriously, calling people names as a method to win an argument is pretty primary school.
Doc, “how many of you” there are out there depends on how many alternicks you want to cook up and/or how many personalities you want to impersonate. Stop asking me questions which you know better than myself.
As for Alex Au, I do not hate the man. I question his hypocrisy, projecting that he is a freedom speech campaigner, yet proudly presents himself as someone who goes round only approving comments that “meets his standards”. That btw, is no diff from the very PAP he so condemns.
It makes me wonder why you jump to Alex’s defence so easily. I have made the same point about other people’s and org’s hypocrisy too. They include Siew KH, AWARE, Tan Wah Piow, Teo Soh Lung, F8, Maruah and even anti-death penalty campaign NGOs.
Why do you only appear when Alex’s name is quoted? Where were you when I said the same for the rest? Displaying that Alex truly is your gay idol you worship so much?
I have nothing against Alex’s moderation policy per se. I am highlighting what ST pointed out - ie by him stating that he only approves comments that meet his standards, he can no longer say that he was not aware such comments were posted. You have problem comprehending that point? I don’t this so. You, like Alex, pretend.
As for my own moderation policy, isn’t it bcos of your spamming odious porn links that is the reason? From the porn links you put up, I can tell you that you are a porn addict. You know a wide variety and range of links than the average guy. Also try telling me you have no gay tendencies when about nearly half the porn you posted in the past were gay links.
The diff between Alex and myself is that he projects himself as a fighter for free speech, but does not live up to his name. I, on the other hand, don’t claim to be so.
Note that unlike Alex, I do allow you, a troll, to have a say too. Are you asking me to be like him to boot you out?
Finally, if you want intellectual discussion, you should try to post one yourself. Yet to see one from you.
The spammer goes round impersonating people to make them look bad and he dares accuse others of character assassination. ^_^
Lol ... simply obnoxious!
Why do you see the splinter in someone's eye but not the log in yours?
IMO, it is the green-eyed monster in you that motivates your comments.
I have yet to see Alex's sort of analysis which is a boon to many readers in your post.
Why nit pick when you could well write a piece yourself, but you would rather not, preferring the relative safety of 'no comments'.
Alex sticks his next out in order to enlighten us for which many of us a truly grateful for his insights and very often enlightening analysis.
Rather than look at his strong points, yes he is not perfect no one is, you have chosen to magnified his minor flaws in comparison to the good he is doing.
Sour grapes?
"Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval."
This is found at the top of your page for comment. How does that differs from Alex's more specific reminder?
Spammer speaks as if his posts are so important he cannot wait for it to be approved. Barrie is right about him being most uptight when Alex is criticized but not so when others have also been criticized. His gay inclination is now very obvious. ^_^
You all are suffering from the Paradise Syndrome. See what the experts on page 2.
I'm afraid you are making the same mistakes as the lawyers. Approving comments that meet his standards does not imply that he endorses them. Just as with the practice of many other bloggers, it could simply mean that the comments are judged to be coherent, relevant to the topic, and do not contain insults and vulgarities. It's the same as newspapers publishing letters from the public, expressing views that are not endorsed by the newspaper itself.
You only need to look at a post Alex made sometime in 2010/2011 on minimum wage to see that the majority of comments disagreed with him.
I don't really care much of Alex Au but it's clear you are prejudiced against him. Stick to the topic on hand (in this case about the AIM saga and PM's law suit), and don't use past issues like gay rights and sex education to discredit him (because it's hard not to note that you are a muslim convert). I see that you are doing the same thing with CSJ in your next post already, where your prejudice for a man clouds your opinion.
Whatever rocks your boat, doc.
Using spammer's own argument, it is hard for him not to post hate against Christians and Muslims because he is an LGBT. His prejudiced against Barrie is understandable from that angle. Spammer will shoot Barrie down on any point pertaining to gay rights. SDP is pro-gay and he is not happy Barrie has criticized Chee and SDP.
@ OW, who's the fugly face guy on top of your page 2?
The fact that you point to his cockiness, may have just given him his hard-on for the day.
Post a Comment