Screenshots

It is not just funds that you need. Your defence needs evidence. Evidence that will question [ DELETED ] posturing as anything lofty quaified to define the written word. Indeed how did [ DELETED ] assume that it qualifies as the ordained arbitrator who decides what is plagiarism and what is not? How did they decide that they were qualified to ordain that something said was nt a lie or was a lie? How did they come to think that they were the onl purveyors of truth and that all that can be said was and has already been said by [ DELETED ] . In other words if not said by [ DELETED ] , then it is not worthy of being said or it just did not happen. Now, it is that posturing of the [ DELETED ] that needs to bewhittled away. The evidence is all there in their publications, whether by their ommissions or their commissions.

The defence now needs to assemble all these evidence together and compile them to show [ DELETED ] for how it has failed in each of their various posturings. How they faile in the assmptions they have assumed for themselves in allaying these charges against JEff and Rocky.

I hope everyone of us will be on the look out for these evidence, and maybe go back into the [ DELETED ] archieves to seive them out so that [ DELETED ] 's tradition of failures can be assembled so taht their lofty assumptions can be truncated down to the ground.

Hi Jeff,
People who run websites HAVE been successfully sued before, even in the West, when it involves strictly private individuals and private companies. But nobody has bothered to sue bloggers commenting on issues of public policy and public figures, because they can't win. That's because the courts there have for years (mainly with regard to Newspapers and TV/Radio news) established that a very much loser standard for fair comment applies to government actions and policies, and people/ organisations in the public eye. You can't claim to have a democracy if people are constantly afraid of being sued if they comment on public policy or a public figure.
To my mind, a newspaper qualifies as a public figure, though some of the other plaintiffs in your case may be able to claim they are strictly private citizens, just employees of the paper. Up to the courts to decide.
The other problem is courts in Malaysia often subscribe to older, tighter standards for comment on public figures.

I will contribute generously to the bloggers legal defense fund. The freedom to responsible expression is something I strongly believe in.

I just hope you have a shot at a fair trail, and wish you all the best, Jeff

About time that there is such a Fund in existence to not only help with legal issues but also to develop the blogger community. I will do whatever I can to support it.

- MENJ
www.menj.org

O.k. La...NST = main media.

Jeffooi I think it is a good idea to set up a fund and I can assure you that I will be the first to contribute. As contributors we would like the fund to be transparent - how is it being utilized and how much funds has been collected has to be transparent. Just my 2 cents.