///The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak is to be commended for his quick response in ordering the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan to take swift action against those responsible for the cowhead sacrilege.///- YB Kit.

Even Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin has strongly condemned it. He was reported to have said, “I believe this is not an action condoned by Islam, a religion which espouses humility and respect for other religions. This act is surely to anger the Hindus.” – Malaysiakini report of Aug 28, 09 11:52pm under caption “Khairy: What if they burn the Quran over a mosque?”

How come the UMNO heads beat religious party PAS (an important PR coalition partner) to fast condemn this act as not being “Islamic”?

And if one speculates like oldman99 in #25 that protesters were not section 23 residents and that “this is probably part of the continued plot to bring down S’gor State Govt under Pakatan & BN’s sandiwara” – though there is no evidence as yet that such speculation is true – then there is MORE and not less reason for PAS’s to respond its dissociation and publicly register its public outrage that it is not face of Islam that it stands for!

What OrangRojak said in his posting #19 on August 30th, 2009 above is (probably) true but I hope the part said by him – “the ‘moderator’ is probably some person busy with something else who only takes a brief look at the blog once every now and again” – is not.

His comment, “it’s just a blog where any idiot can write any nonsense”, my response is, nonsense is Ok; nonsense is after all dependent on how the reader adjudges a posting and whether to read it but what is dangerous is the type of posting/comment, whether or not adjudged nonsense, gives a legal basis for authorities, inclined to curb down on freedom of expression (especially in these times when 1 Malaysia is under criticism, and the excuse of racial tensions being high is available as it is plausible), to crack down on this blog on grounds of libel and sedition.

Kit’s messages, intended to be disseminated here to readers and supporters, are always circumspect of the pitfalls of these dangers.

After all, as a poster here described, he is an “old ginger”. Not only has he received legal training – once long ago – but his sheer experience on being entangled with the law and charged by the powers-that-be- for sedition etc makes him something of an ‘expert’ in respect of these dangers. He knows how to say the same content in the “safe’ form to avert being cauight by the law…The same however cannot be necessarily said of some of his readers and supporters who, in exuberance of the moment, may be carried away by the emotive content of subject under comment.

If the moderator were really ‘busy’, this would pose a ever present problem – since a defamatory and seditious posting can be made without triggering those “automatic rules” as to cause it to be immediately “suspended” (under moderation) for review by moderator and deleted…..

As the law implicates not just the reader/commentator but also vicariously the blog owner for publishing such a comment, then, when such a comment escapes the net of automatic moderation and is ‘inadvertently allowed to stand, everything next becomes dependent on the “grace” and vagaries of judgment of the authorities whether to take action against our Opposition icon (another blow the PR) and the political consequences of such a decision! They can even “plant” a commentator – not to praise the BN or criticise PR but to condemn personalities in BN in defamatory manner as to create conditions for a crack down of this blog! There is no ,limit to human ingenuity where there is intentional malice aforetghought!

The main duty of moderation is not so much of moderating or deleting nonsense per se if it does not harm the blog this way (though this is certainly a part of it if one thinks the preservation of reputation and dignity of the blog were equally important to be maintained), instead I would think that the principal objective of moderation is to make sure that comments putting both Kit and the commentators themselves to risk of official action are not allowed to stand…..

Which is why the part commented by OrangRojak (that the moderator is probably “some person busy with something else who only takes a brief look at the blog once every now and again”), if true, poses a clear and present danger and risk.

I think sedition/libel is technically predicated on the fact of publication of the seditious or libellous comment, ignoring the distinction between commentater and (vicarious culpability) of the blog owner. Maybe some lawyers here may elucidate on this point.

The laws of Sedition/Libel probably have not been developed since the wider usage of Internet and blogs, to factor ion this phenomenon and to clarify with exactitude the precise extent of liabilities/culpabilities between blog owner and his visitors…so the situation is not really clear.

Looking at the scene, it does look like, from a practical standpoint, action is more likely taken against what the Blogger himself says than the response and comments from his many anonymous readers – unless the comment causes a public furore from some aggrieved party.

I imagine many of the comments in the many blogs proliferating cyberspace are technically seditious or libellous that raises the question of how many can they proceed against?

Hence I imagine action, if taken, is carried out on a selective basis.

You are probably right that relaxed moderation is (so far) not posing such a great threat. It however pays to be vigilant.