Folks, if you enjoy reading my blog, you will find the difference between my blog (which keep on telling you "UFO may or may not be true", as compared to some bloggers who consider themselves very smart and pretend they know everything (and they believe readers are stupid to believe in their twisted facts).
In my earlier blog, I have mentioned that my story is meant for academy study, and subject to verification. I call it story because it could be made up and you read it for entertainment purpose! Although it's meant for academy study, I have to make sure my readers (if you are reading this) understand that it's could be true or false, and I am applying ethical blogging practice. This has open up the discussion on basic blogging concept, which for myself I think is more for discussion purpose & personal opinion rather than act like expert or simply judge an issue. I call this "ethical blogging".
With the healthy concept in mind, my blog attracts many friendly and unfriendly bloggers email giving ideas and comments, which I either read it, or just delete (due to volume), and agree or disagree is another issue. As you can see the disclaimer I put on, the last paragraph mention about "Ethic Blogger and Blogger's Code of Conduct". This is the part every blogger should really look into to keep the bloggerland a better place for you and for me! My sample disclaimer:
Even my disclaimer itself may NOT be true, since before the you read the blog, I mention it's a "story" and meant for "academy study" only!
Blogger's Code of Conduct
Suggested by Tim O'Reilly, he clearly calls for a Blogger's Code of Conduct, which highlighted these 2 sentences. Blog should not:
1. Being used to abuse, harass, stalk or threaten a person or persons
2. Libelous, defamatory, knowingly false or misrepresents another person
The study subject of this blog is an example of unethical blogger compared to ethical blogger with self-regulation, like kennysia.com.
Bloggers Legal Responsibility In Action : There is Law Out There
If you do blogging yourself, make sure when you do assumptions, clearly stated it's your personal opinion and it could be false. There is nothing above the LAW and defamation and spreading misleading information is still a CRIME even in cyber space. You can make up story and said that it's personal option or open for academy discussion, you cannot make up story and pretend to be true and knowingly false but promoting your assumptions to the public. Here are some examples of bloggers under the law is still under the law:
"....Blogger Roberto Mancini, 59, was convicted of defamation last month in Aosta, northern Italy, and sentenced to pay $16,900 in fines and damages...." When cruel words is found guilty, false information should be imprisons.
".... India legislation controlling false information and defamation blogging...." Defamation blogging = crime. Same standard for other moral conscious countries in Asia, especially China, Malaysia and even Singapore.
".... China with a nation of 1.2billion people, a slight defamation could create social instability. No human being wants a Third World War because some irresponsible blogger twisted the real story and defame the political system...." Comment a blogger. While we enjoy the freedom of (true) free speech, don't twist facts and turn into another China. http://ledux.blogspot.com/2006/10/chinese-blogger-sentenced-to-three.html
".... Student Blogger Loses Defamation Case ...." Even students common wrong doing like testing drugs and underage alcohol are not tolerated under the law. When comes to law and order cannot run away either from cyber law. Defamation equals crime.
"....Several cases have been brought before the national courts against bloggers concerning issues of defamation or liability..." Like tabloid, people likes gossip. Nobody like to know "President Clinton visiting China" which is IMPORTANT and TRUE, but people loves "Clinton Third Sex Scandal with FEMALE ALIEN" which is MADE UP STORY and NOT
".... Blogger faces trial for official defamation..." Read about the defamation case charged under the law: http://middleeastdesk.org/article.php?id=932
".... The official in question then charged Baroudy for defamation, which carries a sentence of six months in prison and a fine of 1,500 Algerian Dinars (approx. US$21)...." Another example of blogger in trouble, which mostly went too far to the other side of the law. http://allafrica.com/stories/200706130866.html
"....Unofficial evidence of Jeff Ooi defamation and financial implication
motives, check the 2 blogs...." quoted a blogger. Who doesn't want to make money from blog advertisement, but not at the cost of defamation. "Jeff ooi way of defamation gave a bad word to the word blogging" sadly quoted by a blogger. Some references: http://www.machai.net/weblog/machai.net/2006/07/screening_your_shots_jeff.html http://www.photomalaysia.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-20587.html
Dangers of misusing blogs
(Original: The Sun Newspaper)
" Defamation and libel can be described as an injury to the reputation or character of someone resulting from false statements. Defamation is an attack, albeit false and, or malicious on one's good name. It exposes or subjects one to odium, hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or causes one to be shunned or avoided.
In short, defamation/libel can be described as words - written or spoken - tending to lower an individual or organisation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
Our laws protect every citizen from harm to their reputation by false and derogatory remarks. It is enshrined that every citizen can seek redress if they believed that they have been defamed. Over the years, many media organisations have found this out the hard way. Sloppy and even malicious reporting have resulted in payouts and dents to the organisations' reputation and credibility.
Some years ago, media organisations, journalist unions and non-government organisatisations rallied together to fight multi-million ringgit awards given by the courts in defamation cases. The fight then was not so much against being sued or being found guilty of defamation, because no one including the media can be above the law, but against the ridiculously high awards.
The defamation suit filed last week by The New Straits Times Press (NSTP) and several of its executives against two bloggers on the internet has once again brought the issue to the fore, but with a twist.
The blogging community and even some NGOs have labelled it as an attempt to curb freedom of expression over the internet. Some have even described it as going against the government's guarantee of no censorship on the internet.
They are wrong.
It is the message, not the medium, that is the issue here. Were the articles/postings that appeared in the two blogs defamatory? The plaintiffs have to prove to the court that they were. If they are proven to be defamatory, they would be defamatory whether they appeared over the internet, published in newspapers or broadcast over radio and TV. And if they were not defamatory, they were not, regardless of the medium they appeared in. It is a fallacy to assume that defamation laws don't operate in cyberspace just because the government said it would not exercise censorship. And it would be dangerous.
Non censorship is not a licence to break the laws of the country. The internet and blogging have empowered ordinary citizens to express themselves. Those of us who value the power we now have, must do our utmost to ensure it is not abused.
Yes, bloggers should unite, but unite against those who misuse the blogs because they are the real threat to the future of blogging. "
Well Folks, while you enjoy reading blogs, and thinking of doing your own blogging, make sure you enjoy freedom of speech under the LAW, and conduct self-regulation under Blogger's Code of Conduct. Enjoy blogging!
My 2 cents.
Miss Mobile Lim