(13-06-2014, 11:33 AM)yourusualkid Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2014, 05:57 PM)egghead Wrote: [ -> ]If you spread false information knowingly, it reflects your lack of integrity. I do not know of any employer that will tolerate such employee. For your case study of restaurant review, it depends on what the reviewer writes in the review. If he knowingly writes something that is false, and the restaurant knows about it, the restaurant will take the necessary actions to protect its interest and that includes using the legal process. If the reviewer's employer gets to know about this, will the employer sack him? Speaking for myself? I will if I know the facts.
Yes and if you are the employer you will be hearing partial information, and making a judgement on a person's integrity based on such information. How do you ascertain what is "knowingly false"? And be careful of what you state there regarding a lack of integrity, there are many such things that change over time and it's a very grey area to decide who lacks integrity and who doesn't.
Will your view be changed if the employee admitted unambiguously for spreading false information knowingly?
(12-06-2014, 05:05 PM)thefarside Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2014, 01:43 PM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]But almost 10 years into office suddenly we now have internet restriction laws and we starting to see defamation lawsuits over again. Are we now going back to previous times?
The government is attempting to "define" certain boundaries for bloggers to play in, while there are those who will push the envelop and see how far they can take things. These to-fro to me is part of the process of establishing that boundary. I do think they (PAP, or more general the government) are more willing to welcome and tolerate debate, but are uncomfortable that they cannot completely control the arena like what they have with traditional print media.
I interpret it differently, before this law the only way they could get you was if you or your site was registered as a poliitcal faction if you were outside these boundaries then you were just a private citizen making your own comments but this internet restriction law gives them the
teeth to go after anybody, if they don't like what you say take it down or face conquences in essence this law allows them to to silence opposition voice not much different from the way they did it in the past.
(13-06-2014, 03:20 PM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]I interpret it differently, before this law the only way they could get you was if you or your site was registered as a poliitcal faction if you were outside these boundaries then you were just a private citizen making your own comments but this internet restriction law gives them the teeth to go after anybody, if they don't like what you say take it down or face conquences in essence this law allows them to to silence opposition voice not much different from the way they did it in the past.
From what I see so far in TOC, TRS, TRE, etc, almost all their contents and comments openly condemn the PAP and their policies. Is it safe to say those are clearly what
the Govt doesn't like? If so, how many of these have been asked to be taken down? As far as I know, these are still very much alive and kicking.
I don't see that the Govt is trying to go back to the past. It is not possible anymore and they know it. My take is simple - people who cannot differentiate between facts and opinions should not try to blog.
I don't think these sites r condemning gov. Gov did not massacre nor corrupt, by the book. There r many things jus weren't dont so right and so many area need improvement. My personal feeling is these sites jus try to highlight n criticize. If the management of Singapore inc is more open to criticism and admitting mistake, it's easier to move forward as a whole and not just the pro-P alone. But the ball is in the elites' court.
(13-06-2014, 08:32 PM)egghead Wrote: [ -> ] (13-06-2014, 03:20 PM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]I interpret it differently, before this law the only way they could get you was if you or your site was registered as a poliitcal faction if you were outside these boundaries then you were just a private citizen making your own comments but this internet restriction law gives them the teeth to go after anybody, if they don't like what you say take it down or face conquences in essence this law allows them to to silence opposition voice not much different from the way they did it in the past.
From what I see so far in TOC, TRS, TRE, etc, almost all their contents and comments openly condemn the PAP and their policies. Is it safe to say those are clearly what the Govt doesn't like? If so, how many of these have been asked to be taken down? As far as I know, these are still very much alive and kicking.
I don't see that the Govt is trying to go back to the past. It is not possible anymore and they know it. My take is simple - people who cannot differentiate between facts and opinions should not try to blog.
TRE was formerly known as TR Temasek Review go google find out how they were forced to shutdown and renamed to current Temasek Review Emeritus after lawyer letter
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2010/10/...shut-down/
They haven't gone after the rest
yet probably because there's no face to link to those sites yet. The owner of TR Dr Joseph Ong appeared at several protest sites they were able to link him to the TR site, he was later arrested for public misconduct of his own making.
Strangely someone also uploaded a video of the Doctor in compromising position on an internet porn site uncensored-gutter. Who these people have such resources able to find out about time and place about the appointment of the tryst and install a small hidden videocam and not just any small videocam that you can buy on taobao but one with night vision capabilities .. hmm intriguing especially when you consider that night vision devices are restricted from the public.
http://www.uncensor-gutter.com/founder-o...tapes.html
Dear moderator, apologies not meant to post a porn site link
And with this post, we have now moved to conspiracy theories..... and down we go...further away from the facts to opinions to conspiracies.. woo hoo!
(14-06-2014, 12:48 AM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]Strangely someone also uploaded a video of the Doctor in compromising position on an internet porn site uncensored-gutter. Who these people have such resources able to find out about time and place about the appointment of the tryst and install a small hidden videocam and not just any small videocam that you can buy on taobao but one with night vision capabilities .. hmm intriguing especially when you consider that night vision devices are restricted from the public.
http://www.uncensor-gutter.com/founder-o...tapes.html
Dear moderator, apologies not meant to post a porn site link
(14-06-2014, 12:48 AM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]They haven't gone after the rest yet probably because there's no face to link to those sites yet. The owner of TR Dr Joseph Ong appeared at several protest sites they were able to link him to the TR site, he was later arrested for public misconduct of his own making.
Actually the people behind TOC are mostly known. Its even on their website.
Quote:Strangely someone also uploaded a video of the Doctor in compromising position on an internet porn site uncensored-gutter. Who these people have such resources able to find out about time and place about the appointment of the tryst and install a small hidden videocam and not just any small videocam that you can buy on taobao but one with night vision capabilities .. hmm intriguing especially when you consider that night vision devices are restricted from the public.
You know something that Gutter do not know? Gutter has the following poser:
Quote:The only question now is whether the sex videos were made by his enemies with spy cams in an elaborate sting. Or whether Dr Joseph Ong self-shot his sex encounter in these sex tapes with hidden cams and accidentally leaked them himself. He might have posted the videos two or three years ago to a Chinese language sex video website based outside of Singapore.
By the way how can you tell that the camera has night vision capabilities?
Disclosure: I have vague memories of the TR shutodwn and the good doctor, and am not really interested. I clicked on the link because you mentioned porn site.
(13-06-2014, 11:17 PM)Freenasi Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think these sites r condemning gov. Gov did not massacre nor corrupt, by the book. There r many things jus weren't dont so right and so many area need improvement. My personal feeling is these sites jus try to highlight n criticize. If the management of Singapore inc is more open to criticism and admitting mistake, it's easier to move forward as a whole and not just the pro-P alone. But the ball is in the elites' court.
These sites told the truths , otherwise they would also be sued long time ago . The truths hurt !
No ground to sue them , just too bad.
(14-06-2014, 09:06 AM)Lancelot Wrote: [ -> ]These sites told the truths , otherwise they would also be sued long time ago . The truths hurt !
No ground to sue them , just too bad.
I disagree that these sites told the truth. At most there is
some truths; and certainly not the
whole truth.