Can Section 505(b) be misused against free speech?

Question

Accepted Answer

Section 505(b) of the Penal Code carries a risk of misuse against free speech.

Legal professionals have indicated that while Section 505(b) of the Penal Code is considered a more precise and less problematic statute than other legislation, its application is not entirely without potential for abuse, particularly concerning the suppression of free speech. The statute, which criminalises the publication of statements likely to cause fear or alarm to the public, could be wielded inappropriately, especially by political figures, if not exercised with judiciousness.
Concerns Regarding Potential Abuse of Section 505(b)

While Section 505(b) is often cited as a reason why other acts like the Sedition Act or Section 233(1) of the Communications and Multimedia Act may not be necessary, its wording has prompted suggestions for future amendment to mitigate potential misuse. Lawyer Lim Wei Jiet noted that the government should not employ the section arbitrarily simply because individuals express dissent or dissatisfaction online. The concern is that the section could be invoked to silence criticism, even if the statements made do not inherently cause public disorder or immediate fear.
Judicious Application is Key to Preventing Misuse

The judicious application of Section 505(b) is crucial to prevent its misuse, according to legal experts. Lawyer Sachpreetraj Singh welcomed the use of this section for addressing disinformation, but cautioned that it could be abused if judges do not provide fair and reasoned hearings. The potential for political figures to exploit the section for their own ends was also highlighted as a significant risk that requires careful consideration during its implementation.
Distinguishing Section 505(b) from Broader Legislation

Lawyers generally agree that Section 505(b) is narrower in scope compared to Section 233(1) of the Communications and Multimedia Act, making it a more suitable tool for prosecuting specific instances of fear-mongering. Lawyer Syahredzan Johan argued that the offence under Section 505(b) is harder to prove as it is more specific, and importantly, does not require the statement to be false, differentiating it from the concept of "fake news" per se. This specificity aims to target statements that directly induce fear or alarm, rather than general misinformation.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Can Section 505(b) be misused against free speech?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends