3 ms·

First of all, there is no such thing as a requirement for a blogging licence. I can blog, my friends can blog - and we all don't have to get a blogging licence.

First of all, there is no such thing as a requirement for a blogging licence. I can blog, my friends can blog - and we all don't have to get a blogging licence. It is irresponsible, given that the author claims to have "read an article", that he decided to summarise it in two words - a "blogging license". This shows that either he doesn't understand it, or he is deliberately trying to mislead people. While the term "Blogging License" may be be slightly hyperbole I feel that you just denying that such a thing exists is disingenuous, at best. Specifically since you then gloss over a real onerous requirement that each "news" website (whatever that is), which reaches more then 50k unique viewers per month over a two month period indeed is required to be licensed. So if you have a puny little blog with a couple dozen, or hundred readers then, yeah, you don't need a license. But if you run an even semi successful blog you damn well need to be licensed. In my view it's really self evident that such a law is rife for abuse if a site doesn't toe the governments line. I quote Human Rights Watch on the issue : On May 28, 2013, the Media Development Authority, which is controlled by the Ministry of Communications and Information and is responsible for regulation of Singapore’s media and publishing industry, announced that all “online news sites” that reach 50,000 unique viewers per month over a two-month period must secure a license to operate. The licensing regime took effect on June 1, and the Media Development Authority released a list of 10 websites that will initially be impacted, including AsiaOne.com, Business Times Singapore, and Yahoo! News Singapore. (http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/07/singapore-licensing-regime-chills-news-climate http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/07/singapore-licensing-regim...)

bryanchen 13y ago
My point was that a license was not required to simply blog - which was what the article was insinuating. For the exact rules for licensing of news websites, go to http://www.mda.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/PressRelease/2013/Pages/28052013.aspx http://www.mda.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/PressRelease/2013/Pages/... I'm not saying I agree with it. But at the same time I think that as long as it is not abused (to be addressed below), it is intended to prevent the new class of "independent journalists" from writing baseless stories without getting their facts right. > In my view it's really self evident that such a law is rife for abuse if a site doesn't toe the governments line. Exactly. Contrary to what many may think, if or when the government does begin to abuse this right, I can assure you that we, the citizens, will be up in arms and take them to task.
- AlexandrB 13y ago
  > I'm not saying I agree with it. But at the same time I think that as long as it is not abused (to be addressed below), it is intended to prevent the new class of "independent journalists" from writing baseless stories without getting their facts right. Who decides which facts are right and how does paying $50,000 prevent someone from publishing false information? > From the linked fact sheet: The new Licence provides greater clarity on prevailing requirements within the Class Licence and Internet Code of Practice, and explains what MDA would consider “prohibited content” in the existing Internet Code of Practice, e.g. content that undermines racial or religious harmony. Literally everything said by US civil rights leaders during the 20th century could be construed as "undermining racial harmony" (in the US). Why is preventing this kind of thing important?

bryanchen 13y ago

My point was that a license was not required to simply blog - which was what the article was insinuating. For the exact rules for licensing of news websites, go to http://www.mda.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/PressRelease/2013/Pages/28052013.aspx http://www.mda.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/PressRelease/2013/Pages/... I'm not saying I agree with it. But at the same time I think that as long as it is not abused (to be addressed below), it is intended to prevent the new class of "independent journalists" from writing baseless stories without getting their facts right. > In my view it's really self evident that such a law is rife for abuse if a site doesn't toe the governments line. Exactly. Contrary to what many may think, if or when the government does begin to abuse this right, I can assure you that we, the citizens, will be up in arms and take them to task.

AlexandrB 13y ago
> I'm not saying I agree with it. But at the same time I think that as long as it is not abused (to be addressed below), it is intended to prevent the new class of "independent journalists" from writing baseless stories without getting their facts right. Who decides which facts are right and how does paying $50,000 prevent someone from publishing false information? > From the linked fact sheet: The new Licence provides greater clarity on prevailing requirements within the Class Licence and Internet Code of Practice, and explains what MDA would consider “prohibited content” in the existing Internet Code of Practice, e.g. content that undermines racial or religious harmony. Literally everything said by US civil rights leaders during the 20th century could be construed as "undermining racial harmony" (in the US). Why is preventing this kind of thing important?