Komunikasi dan Multimedia. 3. Undang-Undang Malaysia akta akta koMUnikasi dan MUltiMedia SuSunan SekSyen. BAHAGIAN I. MCMC is the regulator for the converging communications and multimedia industry in Malaysia. PADA menjalankan kuasa yang diberikan oleh perenggan 16(1)(c) dan seksyen Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia [Akta ].
|Published (Last):||11 June 2012|
|PDF File Size:||18.93 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.74 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Nov 01, — No doubt the dissemination of gruesome images is distasteful and disrespectful of victims and their families — However, when the MCMC cited legislation against it, the industry regulator may have been stretching it.
Orang ramai dinasihatkan untuk tidak menyebarkan gambar dan rakaman CCTV pembunuhan kejam seorang pegawai bank atau gambar-gambar mangsa di mana-mana media sosial multimedi Facebook dan Whatsapp.
Jika anda telah berbuat demikian sila padamkan post tersebut. Ini adalah untuk menghormati mangsa dan keluarga beliau.
Ia mungkin juga mengakibatkan gangguan emosi kepada orang ramai terutamanya kanak-kanak.
Communications and Multimedia Act | Foong Cheng Leong – Part 2
Kami telah pun meminta kerjasama YouTube untuk mengeluarkan video berkenaan dengan seberapa segera. Untuk makluman, penyebaran gambar dan video sebegini adalah suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen dan Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia Jika didapati bersalah, denda yang dikenakan tidak melebihi RM50, dan satu tahun penjara atau kedua-duanya sekali. In brief, the MCMC stated mutlimedia the dissemination of gruesome images or video recordings of crime victims is an offence under the ss. Akat is no doubt that the dissemination of such gruesome recordings and images is distasteful and disrespectful of the victim and her family.
But for the MCMC to state that it is an offence under ss. For there to be an offence under s. A person who posted the aktz materials must have the intention to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person.
I doubt the people who have shared such images or recording had such intentions. Perhaps bloggers or portals that had done so had the intention to gain more visitors.
Or perhaps some netizens share them to satisfy the morbid curiosities of other netizens. In short, the dissemination of gruesome recording and images is not an offence under ss. No doubt it is a calamity to have images of your late loved ones being disseminated online; but there are other laws to govern the dissemination of such information.
Section of the Penal Code makes it an offence to disseminate obscene material. The person who caused the leak of gruesome image e. Even the soon-to-be introduced law s.
However, I do not think that Parliament should introduce a law to curb the dissemination of gruesome recording of victims, especially if there are benefits of doing so. For example, for education purposes e. The purpose of this article is not to justify the dissemination of gruesome images or videos but to highlight the extent of our laws.
The Aita should ensure that its statement, in particular, the last paragraph, is accurate and not leave room for misinterpretation. First published on Digital News Asia on 16 August Online campaigning has gone nasty in the run-up to the 199 5 general election with cyber troopers from both sides of the political divide going beyond mudslinging at times. The fight tends to get ugly with vulgar words used freely, sometimes crossing the boundary of racial and religious sensitivity as rival cyber troopers koomunikasi to influence public perception.
Both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat have accused each other of paying cyber troopers to attack their opponents on social networks.
One example which a non-governmental organisation complained about was the case can pro-opposition cyber troopers uploading a photograph of a woman online last month accompanied by harsh and vulgar comments. The woman, who is a committee member of the Malaysian Youth Rights Movement, was also threatened with gangrape and murder over her stand on some issues. We have to call a spade a spade. Digital News Asia executive editor A.
Asohan said he expected the mud-slinging, and warned that things would get worse as polling day nears. However, he believed people are smarter these days and would not be easily taken in by what was being posted on Websites. MCA Youth new media bureau head Neil Foo agreed that aktz was not a healthy trend for both sides to have a go at each other in an unruly manner. Muotimedia said he always reminded the MCA cyber warriors and supporters to be polite, argue based on facts and not be too emotional.
There should not be any vulgarity or personal attacks. Under Section of the Communications and Multimedia Act, those found guilty of harassing or being offensive online can be fined a maximum of RM50, or jailed up to a year or both, he noted.
The same clause klmunikasi provides that a further fine of RM1, can be levied daily during which the offence is continued after conviction. Universiti Sains Malaysia psychologist Dr Geshina Ayu Mat Saat said cyber bullies, who preyed on their victims often perceived they had the right to bully. Dr Geshina Ayu said these bullies were more daring online as they felt that they could get away with it. In the message, the user claimed that a certain celebrity was having an affair with another celebrity.
Unknown to the user, I happen to know former and I alerted that celebrity. A day after that, the user deleted her account!
Fortunately, I saved a screenshot of the message. My blog captured the transaction, together with the Internet Protocol IP address, time-stamp and other details.
A query on the IP address shows that the user resides in Malaysia and is thus subject to the laws of Malaysia. The celebrity may file an action in court to obtain the user account details of the IP address if she wishes to.
Alternatively, she may make a police report against that person. The lesson of the story is: If you want to do naughty things online, remember to mask your tracks e. Internet trolls have been living amongst us and many still roam the streets of cyberspace. This brings me to the topic of this article: Section of the Communications and Multimedia Act Section makes it an offence to post any content which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person.
Anyone who does so is liable to a fine not exceeding RM50, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both, and shall also be liable to a further fine of RM1, for every day during which the offence is continued after conviction. What amounts to obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character is quite wide. K are examples where people were charged under Section Both men had allegedly posted offensive comments towards the Sultan of Perak after Barisan Nasional took over the state of Perak.
Both men alleged that they did not post the comments, notwithstanding that the IP addresses point to them. Muslim bin Ahmad was acquitted by the Sessions Court and Rutinin bin Suhaimin was discharged by the Sessions Court without his defense being called. The prosecution had apparently failed to show that the persons who posted the offensive comments were the accused.
Communications and Multimedia Act 1998
I am told that the impact of the said Sessions Court decisions was one of the reasons why Section A of the Evidence Act was introduced — that is, to facilitate the prosecution in proving the identity of the maker. To recap, under Section Aa person is deemed to be a publisher of a content if it originates from his or her website, registered networks or data processing device of an Internet user unless he or she proves the contrary.
However, the High Court subsequently overturned said Sessions Court decisions. Interestingly, the learned High Court judge was of the view that calling the Sultan of Perak names has the tendency to cause annoyance or abuse to any person, thus falling within the ambit of Section And that is not a message that this court would like to send out. This ruling is interesting as it may be a defense for website owners who can argue that A does not apply to posting made by their users prior to July 31, Further abuse by netizens attracts further legislations by Government.
Unfortunately, website owners now face the brunt of A due to the actions of their users. Their pleas for the repeal or amendment of A are still unanswered. Posting offending messages on the internet is longer a trivial thing nowadays. Many internet users are now aware of their remedy when facing with offensive messages on the internet. Seah Boon Khim, 26, was accused of posting a vile and indecent material on a blog site http: He was charged under Section 1 a of the Communications and Multimedia Act which carries fine up to RM50, or jail up to one year or both.
In mitigation, Seah, who has since resigned from his job, said he had apologised to Ho and admitted that he did not realised the gravity of his action and he should not have done it. This section would also apply to offensive comments posted by readers of a blog. Bloggers now have an avenue to complain without incurring substantial legal fees. Watch out internet trolls!
I thought it would be beneficial to set out a sample complaint for the benefit of other bloggers. This may be in a form of a letter. On [ time on date e.
Please note that there is characters limited] For ease of reference, I reproduce the offending posting:. The above posting is [choose one or more: The said posting has caused [choose one: First published on The Star Newspaper on 20 January Social media influence has hit court proceedings, with lawyers trolling blogs and Wikipedia in search of material that can help them argue the case for their clients.
LAST year brought further interesting development to social media and laws all around the world. Cases making references to social media tools saw an increase. Social media was a tool for lawyers and litigants to help parties to fight their cases. In one High Court judgment last yearthe judge recognised the publication of defamatory blog postings by a husband as one of the grounds to present a divorce petition before the expiry of two years from the date of marriage.
He also recognised that a defamatory statement in a blog posting operated in a borderless realm, and would continue to exist until the maker of the blog removed it.
The challenge against the constitutionality of S. In this case, the defendant was charged with making disparaging remarks against the Sultan of Perak during the struggle between Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat. The court held, among other things, that the section did not impede freedom of expression. The use of Wikipedia as a reference is increasingly recognised in Malaysia, notwithstanding that the reliability of Wikipedia is questionable, as anyone can add or edit an entry in Wikipedia.
Nevertheless, the reliance on Wikipedia by our courts can be traced in reported cases as early as D, for the meaning of chart datum.