Online falsehoods, constitutional free speech and its limits: The Online Citizen v The Attorney-General
The Singapore Court of Appeal has for the first time in The Online Citizen v The Attorney-General (8 October 2021) adjudicated on the constitutionality of correction directions issued by Ministers against allegedly false statements of fact under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3924 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/5882/viewcontent/2022SingJLegalStud166_pv.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | The Singapore Court of Appeal has for the first time in The Online Citizen v The Attorney-General (8 October 2021) adjudicated on the constitutionality of correction directions issued by Ministers against allegedly false statements of fact under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019. An overarching framework was utilised to assess whether the Ministerial directions restrict free speech under Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution; if so, whether the restrictions are justifiable under the Constitution and whether there is a rational nexus between the statutory aims and enumerated exceptions. This case comment also examines the constitutional stance towards subject statements, the doctrine of compelled speech as applied in the US and UK, stop communication directions, the contexts in which statements are interpreted and their potential harms as well as the proportionality analysis for assessing the constitutionality of legislation. |
|---|