Opposition pre-election vid re: foreigners

[sundaymorningstaple]

Criticism is one thing, liable is another. If the criticism is based in facts then they can discuss it easily. If it's based on nothing more the hearsay/innuendo and cannot be verified, then rightly so. Slander laws have been used too often to silence the opposition, but then the opposition has never been smart enough to argue about something that they had substantiating facts to back up their arguments. Again, that's not a conversation, but a media blast. I've had many discussions with our patron over the last three years but I don't go off half-cocked with half baked facts or hearsay. Granted, in the past, there was a fear factor that was erroneously held by the public as they couldn't see the facts for the fiction. Now, they know better. But the old guard, well, let's just say they were stuck in a time warp and couldn't change.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Criticism is one thing, liable is another. If the criticism is based in facts then they can discuss it easily. If it's based on nothing more the hearsay/innuendo and cannot be verified, then rightly so. Slander laws have been used too often to silence the opposition, but then the opposition has never been smart enough to argue about something that they had substantiating facts to back up their arguments. Again, that's not a conversation, but a media blast. I've had many discussions with our patron over the last three years but I don't go off half-cocked with half baked facts or hearsay. Granted, in the past, there was a fear factor that was erroneously held by the public as they couldn't see the facts for the fiction. Now, they know better. But the old guard, well, let's just say they were stuck in a time warp and couldn't change.

[JR8]

I agree with almost everything you say.

I think the danger is that as with political correctness, the OB markers are pretty well known. But to be prudent the natural response is to draw the lines in even closer: i.e. risk saying less just in case it causes offence. What you end up with is a fear of debate.

Did you think my example question re: Temasek would be regarded as slanderous or libelous?

edit to add, p.s. I was confused by your expression 'media blast', never heard it before and couldn't understand how one individual might make one.

[sundaymorningstaple]

If I'm sitting across the table engaged in a conversation with you. It's a conversation. If I stand up in the kopitiam and use a loudhailer to speak to all and sundry without asking their permission to bombard their senses with my vitrolic, then I am broadcasting. Broadcasting is indiscriminate as to who's ears it falls on. In a normal conversation, it usually cannot be heard by bystanders unless one tends to raise their voice in anger. So, in normal instances, your conversations are "private" e.g., they were not intended for other than the group being invited to participate in that discussion.

If somebody makes a statement to a reporter, without facts to back it up, it is told to that reporter with the intent of a media blast, by virture of the knowledge of the reporter's job is.