The rapid development and emergence of various forms of Internet
based publications, which include social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter etc.), web logs (blogs), chat groups, newsgroups and many others, have revolutionized the communication and of information in this modern era. Attributed with borderless nature and geographical independence, these online platforms have enabled Internet users to easily disseminate any kinds of information and news to the public at large. The revolutionary growth of the Internet and the incessant evolution of vast arrays of webbased
publications
have
greatly
facilitated
the
exercise
of
the
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Nevertheless, the
comfort and convenience of accessibility and publication in the electronic environment naturally come hand in hand with a number of potential perils as ruthless Internet users could easily exploit these online platforms in the name of freedom of speech. Any kind of online materials, including hate speech and defamatory publications, can be easily created and disseminated into the public domain via numerous forms of web-based applications, most notably social networking services (SNS) such as Facebook and Twitter as well as web logs (blogs). Consequently, it is pertinent that appropriate and perhaps similar legal safeguards are put in place for online and offline speech in order to protect the interests of the public and the state. At present, wide ranges of legal measures have been formulated and readily available to govern online expression on the Internet. These include public order laws, specific laws for targeted communications and media law (Rowbottom, 2012). In addition, laws designed to regulate harmful messages to a specific individual or set of individuals have also been applied to offensive communications on the Internet. This could be best illustrated with the Malicious Communications Act 1998 which has been employed by the police to caution a man for making a false allegation about a TV show in his blog even though the law was initially enacted to tackle the problem of poison pen letters in offline world. Apart
from that, defamatory charges and actions for misuse of private
information have also been initiated against offender in the cyber world. The control of online publications through the general law or specific media rules involves a vast area and it is not possible to discuss at any length all of the aforesaid laws in this study. For this reason, this assignment will focus on the field of defamation. This is mainly due to the reason that defamation law constitutes one of the many permitted restrictions on the right to freedom of expression and one which is particularly open to being deployed in relation to political speech, where critical comments and observations are inevitably made. In Malaysia, the law on defamation is contained in the Malaysian Defamation Act 1957. This act is in pari materia with the English Defamation Act 1952 and governs civil defamation whilst criminal libel is dealt with under sections 499 and 500 of the Malaysian Penal Code. Similar to its counterpart in the UK, the statute provides no single definition of what defamation is. As a result, the courts in the country have closely followed the law in the UK. Even then, there is no uniform or comprehensive definition of what constitutes defamatory matter. The interpretation of the word has been deliberated in a number of cases. Under the Malaysian Law, a person who spoil another persons good name may sue and taken legal action. In short, anyone who is giving an unhealthy statement or giving speech, talking in public must avoid spreading wrong information to nation.