Final Qns No Scenario

Question 1

1. Which is true?
   A. The Singapore Constitution grants freedom of speech
   B. Singapore courts can strike down laws that Parliament has passed that are inconsistent with the Constitution’s Fundamental Liberties
   C. Both of the above
   D. None of the above

Answer 1

It’s C. A is true; freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed—check the words of the Article 14!–but can be restricted by laws passed by Parliament. B describes the courts’ power of judicial review of legislation.

Question 2

2. In Singapore, a person could be convicted and sentenced to serve time in prison for:
   A. violating the Films Act, which is part of the Penal Code
   B. violating the Penal Code sections on race (sections 298 and 298A)
   C. losing a defamation suit
   D. all of the above
   E. only two of the above

Answer 2

It’s B. Not A; you can be sentenced to prison for violating any criminal laws, such as provisions of the Films Act regarding distributing prohibited films, but the Films Act is separate from the Penal Code. Not C; the consequences are not incarceration but, typically, payment of damages to the other party, or an injunction to stop publishing. “Suit” lets you know it’s civil rather than criminal defamation.

Question 3

3. Mary is a foreigner residing in Singapore. She hires a Grab car driven by Joe, a Singaporean Chinese taxi driver. While she rides in Joe’s car and no one else is present or can hear except Joe, Mary calls Joe a “chink”, which is a derogatory term for a Chinese person. Joe files a police report, and Mary confesses to using the word. Which is true?
   A. Joe has a strong case against Mary for civil libel
   B. It appears that Mary could be prosecuted under the Penal Code section 298, if the prosecutor chooses to prosecute
   C. Joe can get a Poha order if a minister approves it
   D. All of the above
   E. Only two of the above

Answer 3

It’s B. Based on the text of the Penal Code section 298, Mary could possibly be prosecuted for deliberately wounding the religious feelings of another person, so B is correct; whether the prosecutor would choose to prosecute such a case is another matter. It can’t be A because there is no one else is there; there is no ‘publication’ to another person besides the plaintiff, as defamation law requires. Plus, it’s not libel if it’s not recorded. Not C; Poha orders are made by courts, not issued by ministers—and the ones we studied are for FSOFs, not offensive words.

Question 4

4. A website in Singapore criticises Taoism through weekly posts for its Singapore audience of about 1000 per week. Its operator and sole contributor, Mr R Ong,
   A. could be asked to register and remove material
   B. is likely to be asked to post a $50,000 bond for an individual class licence
   C. could be sued for damages for violating the Internet Code of Practice
   D. all of the above
   E. only two of the above

Answer 4

It’s A; as a site that has a programme of religious content, it is subject the class licencing scheme, and the authorities may ask it to register; also, takedown orders are always a possibility, regardless of category. Not B; it doesn’t meet the Singapore audience size threshold for the individual licence (and it is a misnomer to call such a licence an “individual class licence”). Not C; violating the ICOP can result in removal of the class licence or fines but not getting sued in civil lawsuits.

Question 5

5. Which is a category of expression that can be penalised under US law?
   A. Storing a copy of an obscene video on one’s hard drive for personal viewing
   B. Incitement
   C. Online “indecency”, similar to broadcast indecency
   D. All of the above
   E. Only two of the above

Answer 5

It’s B; incitement that meets the IIIPLA standard is punishable. Not A; obscenity possession alone is not punishable. Not C; US online indecency provisions that Congress passed were ruled unconstitutional in the 1990s. BTW, why is this even included in the course? It has had huge consequences for what has circulated from USA, a major global content provider, for decades. Remember, broadcast indecency law results in penalties for TV and radio broadcast of content like strong language—content that is much milder that obscenity. And such content cannot be legally punished online because the online indecency law passed by US lawmakers was axed just as the internet was reaching a wide audience.

Question 6

6. Each statement below is a description of a single legal case (not legal actions spanning multiple cases) in Singapore media law. Which statement makes sense?
   A. The defendant sued the plaintiff for copyright infringement
   B. In the libel suit, the defendant’s fair comment defence failed because defendant acted with malice toward the plaintiff
   C. The defendant in the defamation suit went to jail after losing the case and being convicted for the civil defamation charges
   D. All of the above
   E. Only two of the above

Answer 6

It’s B. Not A; plaintiff sues defendant, not vice versa. Not C; “conviction” and “charges” are terms used in criminal prosecutions, not civil cases including civil defamation; consequences in a civil defamation case would not be incarceration but, e.g., an order to pay damages to the plaintiff.

Question 7

7. In an unrecorded livestream video, you say: “Singapore’s industry leaders, like the head of Singapore Airlines, intimidate Singapore’s courts into ruling for them in court cases. That’s what I heard from multiple industry sources.” You could be facing:
   A. contempt of court charges
   B. defamation liability from the head of SIA, even if the head cannot prove monetary damages
   C. both of the above
   D. none of the above, because you are repeating others’ assertions

Answer 7

It’s C. A is okay; you could face contempt charges for impugning the independence of the judiciary. B is okay; you could face defamation liability from the head of Singapore Airlines for alleging criminal contempt—that he attempts to intimidate the judiciary. For a slander case like this, when D makes accusations of criminality, there’s no need for P to prove damages. Repeating others’ assertions is no defence; you are responsible for the truth of your statements.

Question 8

8. A group is distributing a printed flyer that includes racially inflammatory remarks about the Singapore presidential election. Which is true?
   A. The flyer can be deemed prohibited or objectionable
   B. Distributors of the flyer can face jail time
   C. The ISA can be used to target persons distributing the flyer
   D. All of the above
   E. Only two of the above

Answer 8

It’s D. A is an option for the IMDA. Jail can be the penalty for distributing a prohibited or objectionable publication, or Penal Code provisions like ss298/298A, so B is okay. Broad ISA provisions can be used to detain persons (and prosecute them for publications), so C is okay.

Question 9

9. Which are examples of statutes (passed either before or after Singapore’s independence)?
   A. Internal Security Act
   B. Constitution
   C. Penal Code
   D. All of the above
   E. Only two of the above

Answer 9

It’s E. ISA & Penal Code are statutes passed (and amended) by Parliament (A & C are okay). The Constitution is not a statute but instead a founding document (not B).

Question 10

10. Which is true?
    A. Singapore courts are legally obligated to enforce the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Singapore
    B. Under the Singapore Constitution, the President makes the final decision on whether a law is constitutional
    C. Under the US Constitution, the President makes the final decision on whether a law is constitutional
    D. At least two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 10

It’s E. Not A: UN’s UDHR is not legally binding; it’s a declaration of ideals. Not B nor C: in both nations, the courts, not the President, have the final say on constitutionality.

Question 11

11. In Singapore law, the relationship between fair comment and the cause of action for defamation is NOT LIKE the relationship between:
    A. justification and the cause of action for defamation
    B. defamatory sting and the cause of action for defamation
    C. “innocent publication or distribution” and contempt of court
    D. innocent dissemination and the cause of action for defamation

Answer 11

It’s B. Questions about logical relationships are common on standardised tests but some students haven’t practiced on them in their earlier education, so they find them unfamiliar. But take a deep breath and unpack what the question in asking. What’s the relationship between the terms in the question? Fair comment is a defence to the cause of action for defamation. So, we’re looking for an answer in which the first term is a defence to the second term. Justification is a defence to the cause of action for defamation (not A), as is innocent dissemination (not D). And the defence called “innocent publication or distribution” is a defence to contempt of court (not C). But defamatory sting is not a defence to defamation; it’s part of the burden of proof (hence it’s B). Did you incorrectly choose C because it’s about contempt rather than defamation? If so, remember what the question is asking—about the relationship.

Question 12

12. For Yahoo! News Singapore, you take a photo of mourners lining the street of a state funeral procession, in which some faces are visible. You did not seek their permission to use their images. Which is most likely true?
    A. The mourners own the copyright in their photos, but your use of the photos may be fair use
    B. The mourners can successfully sue for breach of confidence
    C. You and/or Yahoo! own the copyright in the photos
    D. Your publication of the mourners’ photos online breaches the PDPA
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 12

It’s C. Generally speaking, subjects of photos do not own copyright, but the creator does—or the firm for which the creator is taking the photos, if she’s a fulltime employee—so not A but C. In Singapore confidence law, there’s no breach of confidence for what appears in public, so not B. Images of people in public do not violate the PDPA, so not D.

Question 13

13. If Sharon, the Channel NewsAsia reporter, wants to reproduce one of the Xiaobin’s photos (reproduced here, © Neo Xiaobin, 2016), which is true?
    A. Sharon will not need Xiaobin’s permission under the PDPA because the photo is newsworthy in light of her winning the prize
    B. Sharon will not need Xiaobin’s permission under the PDPA because the photo does not contain personal data
    C. Apart from the PDPA, there is a possibility that the fair use defence to copyright infringement may apply if Sharon uses the photo in the news broadcast
    D. B and C
    E. None of the above

Answer 13

It’s D. The key to the question is that the photo is not within the scope of the PDPA because it is not personal data–no one is identifiable from it–so B is okay. It may indeed be newsworthy or not, depending on how strictly the parameters of the news exception are defined, but that really doesn’t matter because the photo is not even governed by the PDPA. So it’s not A. It may be fair use for reporting current events, so C is okay.

Question 13

13. If Sharon, the Channel NewsAsia reporter, wants to reproduce one of the Xiaobin’s photos (reproduced here, © Neo Xiaobin, 2016), which is true?
    A. Sharon will not need Xiaobin’s permission under the PDPA because the photo is newsworthy in light of her winning the prize
    B. Sharon will not need Xiaobin’s permission under the PDPA because the photo does not contain personal data
    C. Apart from the PDPA, there is a possibility that the fair use defence to copyright infringement may apply if Sharon uses the photo in the news broadcast
    D. B and C
    E. None of the above

Answer 13

It’s D. The key to the question is that the photo is not within the scope of the PDPA because it is not personal data–no one is identifiable from it–so B is okay. It may indeed be newsworthy or not, depending on how strictly the parameters of the news exception are defined, but that really doesn’t matter because the photo is not even governed by the PDPA. So it’s not A. It may be fair use for reporting current events, so C is okay.

Question 14

14. When you pitch an ad campaign to a client,
    A. you can ask the client to sign a confidentiality agreement to help protect your spoken ideas for the campaign
    B. you can ask the client to sign a confidentiality agreement to help protect written expression such as taglines for the campaign
    C. standard practice is to register each of your pitched ideas as trademarks in order to get protection
    D. all of the above
    E. only two of the above

Answer 14

It’s E. One of the big advantages of confidentiality agreements is that they can protect not just copyrightable expression (B is okay) but non-copyrightable, unfixed ideas (A is okay) too. C is completely unrealistic and would be impossible to do honestly because trademarks have to be either already used in commerce or registered with a bona fide intent to actually use them.

Question 15

15. In Singapore, a court may impose a sentence of caning on a:
    A. defendant who loses a criminal case
    B. defendant who loses a civil case
    C. plaintiff in a criminal case
    D. all of the above
    E. only two of the above

Answer 15

It’s A. Caning is a court-imposed penalty in a criminal case, not a civil case (not B). Plaintiffs file civil, not criminal cases (not C).

Question 16

16. If you are an advertising creative, which are among the recommended ways to protect your rights when pitching?
    A. You can claim copyright protection if you express your ideas in fixated form
    B. Get confidentiality agreements for material that is not copyright-protected
    C. Both of the above
    D. None of the above

Answer 16

It’s C. A is okay; you can claim protection if the ideas are fixated, and many experts recommend that you express your ideas as much as possible so that you can claim sue for copyright infringement. B is okay; you should get confidentiality agreements particularly for ideas that are not copyright protected, because these are difficult to protect as IP.

Question 17

17. Which is true of the law of England and the law of Singapore?
    A. Singapore libel law is derived from English common law, but Singapore has not followed English legal developments in the 21st century that generally make it easier for a plaintiff to win in England
    B. Singapore confidence law is derived from English common law, but Singapore has not followed UK legal developments in the 21st century—regarding objectionable disclosure of material—which may make it easier for a plaintiff to win in England
    C. Singapore law of scandalising contempt is derived from English common law, but Singapore has not followed UK legal developments in the 21st century that make it easier for the prosecutor to prevail in an action for scandalising contempt in England
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 17

It’s B; Singapore courts have not adopted the new rule that liability for breach of confidence may be incurred if disclosure is objectionable to the reasonable person, a rule that may make it easier for a plaintiff to win, as Naomi Campbell did when disclosure of her photo was found objectionable. Not A because the recent changes from the Defamation Act of 2013 generally make it easier for the defendant, particularly the journalist defendant, to prevail. Not C because England has done away with scandalising contempt.

Question 18

18. Which is true?
    A. The Singapore approach to sexual content regulation purportedly reflects a concern for upholding common morality in Singapore
    B. The Singapore approach to hate speech regulation purportedly reflects a concern for maintaining stability in society
    C. Singapore makes cuts to some movies even if they earn the M18 or R21 ratings
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 18

It’s D. The sexual content regulations are purported to uphold traditional, dominant morality (A). The hate speech laws are purported to maintain stability (B). C is true—e.g., the film Black Swan.

Question 19

19. Free expression advocates would regard the POFMA stop communication order as a problem because:
    A. it requires the communicator to engage in compelled speech
    B. fully complying with it involves prior restraint on expression
    C. it goes against the legally enforceable obligations to protect free speech guaranteed in the UDHR
    D. it requires counter-speech
    E. only two of the above

Answer 19

It’s B; the order requires taking material out of circulation and can include being prohibited from making similar statements. Not A; the stop communication order doesn’t involve compelling people to say things like the correction order does. Not C; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not have legally enforceable obligations.

Question 20

20. Convictions for:
    A. criminal defamation are common in Singapore
    B. criminal defamation are common in the US
    C. scandalising contempt are common in the US
    D. at least two of the above
    E. none of the above

Answer 20

It’s E. Neither A nor B; criminal defamation investigations have been rare in Singapore—convictions, which the question asks about, are even rarer and are all but non-existent in the US. Similarly, scandalising contempt is rare to non-existent in the US (not C).

Question 21

21. Poppy says on a live Channel NewsAsia television broadcast which is not streamed online or recorded: “Singapore’s highest leaders lean on obedient judges to maintain the status quo”. Which is true?
    A. She could get prosecuted for scandalising contempt
    B. She could get sued for libel
    C. The Ministry of Home Affairs could issue a Poha stop communication order to her
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 21

It’s E. A is okay; “obedient judges” is scandalising. B is okay; leaders may sue her for implying that they ordered judges to do things, and the suits are libel suits, not slander; as the libel and slander video points out, broadcasts are considered libel even if they are not recorded. Not C; a government body cannot get Poha orders because it’s not a person, and the government doesn’t issue orders; people apply for Poha orders from the court.

Question 22

22. According to human rights advocates, which is true?
    A. Singaporeans don’t have the same human rights to due process as some other humans because the government doesn’t legally recognise those rights
    B. People in Singapore have a human right to due process, but Singapore law doesn’t fully recognise that right—thus, Singaporeans’ human rights are violated when people are detained under the ISA
    C. Because Singapore is one of the 170+ parties to the ICCPR, Singaporeans have a human right to due process
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 22

It’s B, not A; human rights advocates believe all humans have human rights to things like due process whether their government recognises it or not. Not C; Singapore is not a party to the ICCPR.

Question 23

23. In Singapore, you may have an opportunity to exercise the full set of constitutionally guaranteed habeas corpus rights if:
    A. you are arrested for criminal libel
    B. you face the consequences of losing a civil defamation suit
    C. you are detained under the ISA
    D. all of the above
    E. only two of the above

Answer 23

It’s A; criminal libel is a crime for which you are entitled to habeas corpus rights when arrested. Not B; habeas corpus rights apply to situations where you are in the custody of the authorities, which is not among the possibilities if you lose a civil defamation suit. Not C; full habeas rights don’t apply to ISA detention.

Question 24

24. In an online forum, Anne advocates bombing the Singapore MRT and is detained under the ISA. Her friend Marie is arrested under the Penal Code s298 for a post in the same forum. Which is true?
    A. The Prime Minister must be satisfied that it’s necessary to detain Anne
    B. The Prime Minister or President can lawfully direct the courts to convict Marie
    C. Using its prosecutorial discretion, the AGC can choose to deny Marie’s right to appear before a magistrate within 48 hours
    D. Only two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 24

It’s E. Not A; it’s the President who must be satisfied. Not B; the courts are obliged to be independent, and others cannot direct them. Not C; prosecutors have discretion about whether to prosecute, using which law, but not to deny Marie’s constitutional due process right.

Question 24

24. In an online forum, Anne advocates bombing the Singapore MRT and is detained under the ISA. Her friend Marie is arrested under the Penal Code s298 for a post in the same forum. Which is true?
    A. The Prime Minister must be satisfied that it’s necessary to detain Anne
    B. The Prime Minister or President can lawfully direct the courts to convict Marie
    C. Using its prosecutorial discretion, the AGC can choose to deny Marie’s right to appear before a magistrate within 48 hours
    D. Only two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 24

It’s E. Not A; it’s the President who must be satisfied. Not B; the courts are obliged to be independent, and others cannot direct them. Not C; prosecutors have discretion about whether to prosecute, using which law, but not to deny Marie’s constitutional due process right.

Question 25

25. Which is true?
    A. It is primarily legislatures that have made the common law of defamation
    B. Courts have primary responsibility for developing new statutes
    C. In Singapore, contempt of court law came from common law but there is now a statute addressing it
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 25

It’s C; contempt of court in Singapore did originate in the common law but there is now a statute, the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016. Not B; legislatures—law-making bodies like Parliament—pass statutes. Not A; courts develop common law through their decisions.

Question 26

26. In Singapore, which is true?
    A. Under the contempt of court law, the AGC can sue for damages
    B. Under the POFMA, one can face criminal penalties for failing to obey a correction direction
    C. If the PM sues for libel, the penalties can include a fine
    D. Only two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 26

It’s B; noncompliance with directions can bring criminal penalties. Not A; AGC prosecutes contempt cases; it does not sue for damages. Not C; if PM is suing, it’s civil libel, and the penalty is damages rather than a fine.

Question 26

26. In Singapore, which is true?
    A. Under the contempt of court law, the AGC can sue for damages
    B. Under the POFMA, one can face criminal penalties for failing to obey a correction direction
    C. If the PM sues for libel, the penalties can include a fine
    D. Only two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 26

It’s B; noncompliance with directions can bring criminal penalties. Not A; AGC prosecutes contempt cases; it does not sue for damages. Not C; if PM is suing, it’s civil libel, and the penalty is damages rather than a fine.

Question 27

27. Which is a prior restraint?
    A. A POFMA general correction direction that requires a newspaper to post a correction notice
    B. A POFMA account restriction direction
    C. A fine for posting a FSOF
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 27

It’s B; it’s a prior restraint because it restricts further circulation of communication. Not A; this direction doesn’t require restricting the circulation of the FSOF. Not C; it’s a subsequent punishment.

Question 28

28. Which is true?
    A. The ICCPR, the UN agreement to which over 170 nations are members, prohibits all restrictions on the right to free expression
    B. In the development model of the press, the emphasis is on the press acting as the “fourth estate”
    C. Singapore’s Constitution allows a court to rule that a law that Parliament passes is unconstitutional and void
    D. The argument that allowing hate speech leads to greater tolerance and stability is best classified as a nonconsequentialist approach to free expression
    E. At least two of the above

Answer 28

It’s C; Singapore has judicial review, described here. Not A; the ICCPR allows some restrictions, e.g., for national security. Not B; the emphasis is on the press’s partnership with government for national development. Not D; that’s an argument about the consequences of allowing hate speech.

Question 29

29. Which is true?
    A. Scholars like Bollinger who criticise hate speech regulation believe that only free expression is important, not the stability of society
    B. “Reading anti-China remarks about the pandemic caused me to feel angry at the PRC, but I don’t think others will react” is an example of the 3PE
    C. Words that are broadcast on MediaCorp’s Channel 5 but are not recorded by anyone may be libellous
    D. At least two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 29

It’s C; Singapore’s Defamation Act says that broadcast defamation is libel rather than slander; Singapore is not alone in this. Not A; Bollinger is among those who believe that allowing hate speech will ultimately stabilise society. Not B; 3PE would be believing that I will not be affected but others will be affected.

Question 30

30. This case is based on the Brandenburg incitement case from the US but adapted to Singapore with some changes. Imagine that some Chinese chauvinists meet and one gives a speech in which she says, “We’re not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Parliament, our courts, continue to suppress the Chinese race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken against them”. A video of the speech, which is recorded and circulated on Twitter,
    A. could result in an investigation under the Internal Security Act
    B. must incite imminent lawbreaking in order to qualify as incitement under Singapore law
    C. both of the above
    D. none of the above

Answer 30

It’s D. A is okay; the words, suggesting the possibility of revenge against government, may be prejudicial to Singapore’s internal security. Not B; the imminence requirement is for US incitement, but clearly not required in Singapore, as the words of the Penal Code and the cases demonstrate.

Question 31

31. Allie believes Bea is seeing her boyfriend. Allie follows Bea into the women’s restroom to get revenge. Allie is White; Bea is African American. Allie says to Bea, “There’s a reason your people were slaves to my people. You and your people have no brains.” No one else hears this unrecorded conversation. Which is true?
    A. Bea could prevail in a slander case without having to prove quantifiable damages
    B. Allie appears to have violated Penal Code section 298
    C. Both of the above
    D. None of the above

Answer 31

It’s B; the statute only requires intentional wounding of racial feelings. Not A; it cannot be a slander case if there was not a third party who heard it and in whose eyes Bea’s reputation could be harmed.

Question 32

32. Singapore’s Constitution:
    A. guarantees rights to due process, but says there are exceptions when those rights don’t apply
    B. guarantees the right to freedom of speech, but says restrictions can be placed on it
    C. limits what the government can do, in part through the Fundamental Liberties
    D. all of the above
    E. only two of the above

Answer 32

It’s D. A is okay; Article 9 guarantees due process rights but says there are exceptions for the Internal Security Act. B is okay; Article 14 does both. C is accurate; the Fundamental Liberties include rights the government cannot infringe.

Question 33

33. You write for Rumours, an online service in Singapore that specialises in gossip. A local MediaCorp celebrity is attending WKWSCI. A WKWSCI lecturer shows you a medical certificate that the celebrity obtained for the week of her exams. The medical certificate says the student is suffering complications related to a terminated pregnancy. You report this information on Rumours. Which is true?
    A. A court cannot hold you liable for breach of confidence, but can hold the lecturer liable
    B. A court may hold both the lecturer and you liable for breach of confidence
    C. Even if you can prove that what you reported is true, you may still be held liable for libel for your reporting
    D. Only two of the above

Answer 33

It’s B, not A; as a third party, you should know this medical info is confidential, and thus you are potentially liable. Not C; truth is an absolute defence, even if you are reporting confidential info.

Question 34

34. US law has provisions that require:
    A. hosts of user-contributed content, like YouTube, to monitor for users’ copyright-infringing material and remove it
    B. hosts of user-contributed content, like YouTube, to monitor for users’ potentially libellous posts and remove them
    C. Internet Service Providers to monitor for users’ potentially libellous posts and remove them
    D. All of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 34

It’s E. The safe harbour provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act do not require the monitoring in A, only that YouTube remove users’ infringing content when requested by rights holders. Communications Decency Act section 230 requires neither the monitoring in B nor C. Together these laws provide quite robust protection in which modern online media face minimal threat of liability.

Question 35

35. Which is true?
    A. The biggest group of Singapore’s online licensees is referred to (in this course) as group 3
    B. To be considered “child abuse material” in Singapore law, the material must depict violence toward children
    C. The legal term “obscenity” refers to sexually explicit content
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 35

It’s C. Not A; our “group 3”, the smallest group, is the ten or so online news sites; it’s dwarfed by the many “group 1” class licensees, which may include anyone posting web content. Not B; the abuse need not be violent; sexualised portrayal of a minor is sufficient to meet the definition.

Question 36

36. Dee has lots of books and other media in her flat in Singapore. Which is true?
    A. If Dee has 40 copies of an “objectionable” book, she can be confident that, if authorities find out, she won’t be charged under the UPA
    B. If Dee distributes a book containing hate speech, she could be charged for distributing an objectionable publication
    C. Dee can possess prohibited films and prohibited sound recordings, but she cannot legally send them to others
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 36

It’s B, as the “tracts case” illustrates; a UPA provision makes such material objectionable, and it’s an offence to distribute objectionable material. Not A; because she has many copies, she could be deemed to possess them for purpose of distribution. Not C; both distribution and possession of prohibited publications and films are offences.

Question 37

37. Which is true?
    A. An ad agency typically retains the entire bundle of rights that make up the copyright for a TV commercial it makes for McDonald’s
    B. The McDonald’s tagline “I’m lovin’ it” most likely has both copyright and trademark protection
    C. A book publisher typically obtains both primary and subsidiary rights when publishing a novel
    D. Only two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 37

It’s E. Not A; the agency would typically assign the rights to the client, McDonald’s. Not B; it’s certainly a trademarked phrase but short phrases usually cannot be copyright protected. Not C; a book publisher typically obtains only primary rights, while the author retains subsidiary rights like the right to make a movie, which she may license to others.

Question 37

37. Which is true?
    A. An ad agency typically retains the entire bundle of rights that make up the copyright for a TV commercial it makes for McDonald’s
    B. The McDonald’s tagline “I’m lovin’ it” most likely has both copyright and trademark protection
    C. A book publisher typically obtains both primary and subsidiary rights when publishing a novel
    D. Only two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 37

It’s E. Not A; the agency would typically assign the rights to the client, McDonald’s. Not B; it’s certainly a trademarked phrase but short phrases usually cannot be copyright protected. Not C; a book publisher typically obtains only primary rights, while the author retains subsidiary rights like the right to make a movie, which she may license to others.

Question 38

38. Which is true of films in Singapore?
    A. A film can be rated with an age restriction, and then cinemas enforce that age restriction
    B. A film can be deemed not allowed for all ratings, and thus it cannot be shown publicly in cinemas
    C. Posting a film online can be deemed to violate the Penal Code provision against “wound(ing) the racial feelings” of a person
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 38

It’s D. Age restrictions are indeed enforced, so A is ok. With the Tan Pin Pin case, we saw that B is possible. In the text of Penal Code Section 298 (which can punish “Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person…or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person”) we see that C is possible. This law was applied in the Amos Yee case (in a previous version that included “religious feelings”).

Question 38

38. Which is true of films in Singapore?
    A. A film can be rated with an age restriction, and then cinemas enforce that age restriction
    B. A film can be deemed not allowed for all ratings, and thus it cannot be shown publicly in cinemas
    C. Posting a film online can be deemed to violate the Penal Code provision against “wound(ing) the racial feelings” of a person
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 38

It’s D. Age restrictions are indeed enforced, so A is ok. With the Tan Pin Pin case, we saw that B is possible. In the text of Penal Code Section 298 (which can punish “Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person…or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person”) we see that C is possible. This law was applied in the Amos Yee case (in a previous version that included “religious feelings”).

Question 39

39. Which is true?
    A. Both criminal and civil defamation require intent to defame in Singapore
    B. Civil defamation requires intent to defame in the US
    C. The MRHA specifically requires “intent” to wound religious feelings in the relevant provision
    D. At least two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 39

It’s E. Not A nor B; civil defamation doesn’t require intent in either jurisdiction so it’s wrong. Just for completeness, note that in Singapore, criminal defamation requires either intent, or knowledge, or reason to believe that one’s accusation will defame—so it doesn’t require intent, either. Not C; the statute requires “knowingly” engaging in conduct that wounds religious feelings.

Question 39

39. Which is true?
    A. Both criminal and civil defamation require intent to defame in Singapore
    B. Civil defamation requires intent to defame in the US
    C. The MRHA specifically requires “intent” to wound religious feelings in the relevant provision
    D. At least two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 39

It’s E. Not A nor B; civil defamation doesn’t require intent in either jurisdiction so it’s wrong. Just for completeness, note that in Singapore, criminal defamation requires either intent, or knowledge, or reason to believe that one’s accusation will defame—so it doesn’t require intent, either. Not C; the statute requires “knowingly” engaging in conduct that wounds religious feelings.

Question 40

40. If a speaker at a political rally in San Francisco says to a group of angry citizens, “Maybe someday we should march into the US Capitol in Washington and grab our damn senators and slap them around”, this would almost surely meet the test for:
    A. intentional incitement to imminent and probable lawless action
    B. obscenity
    C. fighting words
    D. all of the above
    E. none of the above

Answer 40

It’s E. It’s not IIIPLA—the lawless action is not imminent (“someday”) (not A). It’s not obscenity, which only prohibits a narrow range of sexual content (not B). “Fighting words” are directed to a person and likely to cause the average person to fight back—e.g., calling a person an epithet (not C).

Question 41

41. Which is an example of a statute?
    A. The Penal Code
    B. The court’s decision in the case of Lee Kuan Yew v JB Jeyaretnam
    C. The court’s sentence in the Amos Yee case
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 41

It’s A. A statute is an act passed by Parliament, such as the Sedition Act, not a court’s decision in a case (not B nor C).

Question 42

42. Cordelia, a Singaporean WKWSCI student, was appalled by a contemptuous Facebook message calling the Singapore courts “pliant”. The third person effect predicts that Cordelia may feel that the message will have ________ negative effect on other Singaporeans’ views of the courts ____ on her own views.
    A. a weaker; than
    B. a stronger; than
    C. about the same; as
    D. no; and no effect

Answer 42

It’s B. The 3PE predicts that one perceives a stronger effect on others than on oneself.

Question 43

43. Which is true?
    A. Sen argues that there’s never been a famine in a functioning democracy with a free press because such nations tend to be economically wealthy
    B. The argument for “individual self-realisation” is that free expression should be restricted if it corrupts an individual’s morals
    C. The development model of free expression is the argument that a press that operates as the fourth estate is essential to nation-building
    D. Only two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 43

It’s E. Not A; Sen says the lack of famine in such nations is due to the fact that the press and the political process call attention to–at the very least–the most pressing problems like hunger. He doesn’t say the nations are wealthy and such problems are absent. Not B; the argument is that individuals will self-realise if they have a free flow of content. Not C; in this model, the press should act as a partner, not an aggressively critical watchdog (or fourth estate).

Question 43

43. Which is true?
    A. Sen argues that there’s never been a famine in a functioning democracy with a free press because such nations tend to be economically wealthy
    B. The argument for “individual self-realisation” is that free expression should be restricted if it corrupts an individual’s morals
    C. The development model of free expression is the argument that a press that operates as the fourth estate is essential to nation-building
    D. Only two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 43

It’s E. Not A; Sen says the lack of famine in such nations is due to the fact that the press and the political process call attention to–at the very least–the most pressing problems like hunger. He doesn’t say the nations are wealthy and such problems are absent. Not B; the argument is that individuals will self-realise if they have a free flow of content. Not C; in this model, the press should act as a partner, not an aggressively critical watchdog (or fourth estate).

Question 44

44. In the US, “fighting words”:
    A. can be prohibited by law
    B. can include some types of expression that in Singapore are likely to be punished under Penal Code §298 or §298A
    C. are likely to also be obscene, as defined by the Miller test
    D. all of the above
    E. only two of the above

Answer 44

It’s E. A is true—fighting words are a category unprotected by the First Amendment, so they can be punished. B is true: some of the sort of racial hate speech prohibited by these laws in Singapore may qualify as fighting words. Not C; obscenity is sexually explicit content that is offensive.

Question 45

45. The prosecutor, specifically the Attorney General’s Chambers, has discretion about whether to:
    A. prosecute criminal defamation
    B. prosecute the author of a racist tweet using Penal Code §298 or §298A
    C. impose the death penalty for a violation of a provision of the Internal Security Act that results in a riot
    D. all of the above
    E. only two of the above

Answer 45

It’s E. A is okay; the AGC has rarely chosen this option, despite that it could. B is okay; the AGC can choose amongst those possibilities for racist expression. Not C; no laws covered in the media law class carry the death penalty, and in any case a judge imposes the sentence, rather than the AGC.

Question 46

46. Which is true?
    A. In the US fair use test, the bar for deeming that a use is primarily commercial is low; any uses in commercial media usually are deemed primarily commercial
    B. For the fair comment defence, the bar for the comment to be on a matter of public interest is very high; matters are generally not of public interest unless they are about government
    C. For breach of confidence, the plaintiff must prove actual monetary damage that can quantified
    D. Only two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 46

It’s E. Not A; courts have often found uses in commercial media do not meet the high bar for being primarily commercial; most media is commercial media, so fair use would be of little use if it were not available to commercial media. Not B; matters such as restaurant and music reviews are classic examples that meet the bar for the public interest. Not C; potential detriment to the plaintiff, rather than actual, will suffice.

Question 46

46. Which is true?
    A. In the US fair use test, the bar for deeming that a use is primarily commercial is low; any uses in commercial media usually are deemed primarily commercial
    B. For the fair comment defence, the bar for the comment to be on a matter of public interest is very high; matters are generally not of public interest unless they are about government
    C. For breach of confidence, the plaintiff must prove actual monetary damage that can quantified
    D. Only two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 46

It’s E. Not A; courts have often found uses in commercial media do not meet the high bar for being primarily commercial; most media is commercial media, so fair use would be of little use if it were not available to commercial media. Not B; matters such as restaurant and music reviews are classic examples that meet the bar for the public interest. Not C; potential detriment to the plaintiff, rather than actual, will suffice.

Question 47

47. Dandelion speaks to people gathered outside the Singapore Parliament building. She says Covid-19 is a hoax perpetrated by the Singapore’s Health Minister, the rest of the government, and other nations’ governments, and that Singaporeans should violate social distancing orders and orders to wear masks. Which is true?
    A. The Health Minister can issue a POFMA correction direction to Dandelion
    B. The authorities can prosecute Dandelion for incitement
    C. Both of the above
    D. None of the above

Answer 47

It’s B; the statement counsels disobedience to the authorities. Not A; it’s not communicated online, as POFMA requires.

Question 48

48. Singapore’s statutory contempt law formally recognises defences analogous to which defamation defences?
    A. Justification
    B. Fair comment
    C. Privilege for reporting on court proceedings
    D. At least two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 48

It’s C; there’s a direct counterpart in the statute. Not A; there’s no counterpart in contempt law; if something said about the court is true, a judge might deem it fair criticism, but this is not a formal defence like justification. Not B; there’s no defence for opinion.

Question 49

49. Odile is on stage at the Speakers’ Corner in Singapore, speaking to an audience of 20 listeners in an unrecorded speech at an event she calls “Anti-Pink Dot”. She exclaims, “Let’s beat up all the lesbians in Singapore”. For these words, which is true?
    A. An individual lesbian could sue her for defamation and win damages
    B. She could be prosecuted under the incitement provision
    C. Both of the above
    D. None of the above

Answer 49

It’s B; she may be found to be uttering the words with the required state of mind, e.g., reason to believe violence could result. Not A; the exclamation is not defamatory, plus there are too many lesbians for one to claim she was identified.

Question 49

49. Odile is on stage at the Speakers’ Corner in Singapore, speaking to an audience of 20 listeners in an unrecorded speech at an event she calls “Anti-Pink Dot”. She exclaims, “Let’s beat up all the lesbians in Singapore”. For these words, which is true?
    A. An individual lesbian could sue her for defamation and win damages
    B. She could be prosecuted under the incitement provision
    C. Both of the above
    D. None of the above

Answer 49

It’s B; she may be found to be uttering the words with the required state of mind, e.g., reason to believe violence could result. Not A; the exclamation is not defamatory, plus there are too many lesbians for one to claim she was identified.

Question 50

50. Dahlia posts a YouTube video in which she criticises libel law and says, “Through the years, the Singapore government has been the plaintiff in so many libel suits”. Which is true?
    A. A minister could arrange for a correction direction to be issued to her for this false statement of fact
    B. The government could sue her for libel and be confident of winning based on precedent cases
    C. The government could sue her for scandalising contempt and be confident of winning based on precedent cases
    D. At least two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 50

It’s A; this is a false statement of fact, so a minister could arrange for a correction direction. Why is this statement in the question false? In lecture, we discussed that there have been insufficient cases to determine whether the government could or could not be a plaintiff in a civil libel case; there have not been cases where it has been a plaintiff, let alone “so many cases”. (We know the question is about civil rather than criminal libel because it uses the terms “plaintiff” and “sue” rather than “prosecutor” or “AGC” and “prosecute.”) Not B; again, there have been no cases. Not C; the government doesn’t sue for scandalising contempt; the AGC prosecutes contempt—and besides, this statement doesn’t call into question the integrity of the courts.

Question 51

51. Which is true?
    A. Because of the principle of stare decisis, judges must always follow precedent cases exactly
    B. Even though there is common law in an area like defamation, the legislature can also pass statutes in that area
    C. Judicial review is the courts’ power to review the laws that Parliament passes to ensure that the legislature is following the principle of stare decisis
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 51

It’s B; many areas of law including defamation are a mix of a common law foundation with statutory law that supplements it. Not A; courts can depart from precedent, though the presumption is they will do so only when there’s a good reason. Not C; judicial review is the courts’ power to review laws that the legislature passes for consistency with the constitution; stare decisis only applies to court rulings.

Question 52

52. Which is true in Singapore law?
    A. Singapore’s authorities claim that they do not strictly control individual access to online pornography
    B. US obscenity law punishes a wide variety of pornography, including recent mainstream Hollywood hits that were shown in cinemas
    C. US law permits hate speech as long as it fulfils the definition of “fighting words”
    D. All of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 52

It’s A, IMDA has said. Obscenity law prohibits only a narrow range of pornography, usually showing sexual acts, not mainstream Hollywood hits, so not B. Fighting words are prohibited, so not C.

Question 53

53. Which is true?
    A. Compared to the past, it is much easier for libel plaintiffs to win in the UK
    B. In the UK, contempt of court can no longer be prosecuted
    C. In Singapore, the Copyright Act was amended in the early 2000s to make fair dealing more similar to US fair use, and later it was renamed fair use
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 53

C is okay, based on the amendments agreed upon in the SG-US Free Trade Agreement—and 2021 amendments that re-named the defence and made it even more similar to its US counterpart. Not B; contempt of court is still prosecuted in the UK, though one variety of it, scandalising the court, is not. Not A; the changes to the libel law create opportunities for the defendant to win.

Question 54

Which is possible for the Singapore Prime Minister (PM)?
A. PM sues for criminal defamation and wins
B. PM sues for slander, wins, and so the defendant is fined
C. PM prosecutes for contempt of court and wins, so he wins damages
D. At least two of the above
E. None of the above

Answer 54

It’s E. Not A; criminal defamation suits are prosecuted; no one sues. Not B; defendant wins damages, rather than paying a fine. Not C; the state (the Attorney-General’s Chambers), not the PM, prosecutes for contempt of court, and the defendant may be fined, rather than winning damages.

Question 55

55. In a case for scandalising contempt, Singapore contempt law has defences that operate at least somewhat similarly to which of the following Singapore defamation defences?
    A. The innocent dissemination defence for the person who delivers the newspaper containing the material
    B. The fair comment defence
    C. The privilege for the newspaper that reports the material about court proceedings
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 55

It’s E. A is okay; contempt law has an innocent distribution defence that offers protection similar to defamation’s innocent dissemination defence. Not B; there’s no contempt defence corresponding to fair comment. Whether material is fair criticism is a consideration in determining whether it’s contempt, but this question is asking if there’s a defence. C is okay; contempt has a defence for fair and accurate reports of court proceedings which is similar to the statutory privilege.

Question 56

56. Nina posts a series of videos on her YouTube account, each of which includes a clip from the rap group NWA’s copyright-protected “F*** tha Police” music video. In each video, Nina also describes abuses allegedly committed by the Singapore Police. Which is true?
    A. If the copyright owners of the NWA video give notice to YouTube that they own the material, YouTube is likely to take down Nina’s videos to comply with copyright law, unless YouTube determines that use of the music video is likely fair use
    B. If a Singapore Minister finds that Nina’s videos contain false statements of fact, the Minister can ask the relevant authorities to issue an “account restriction direction” to Nina requiring her to cease communicating from her YouTube account in Singapore
    C. If a Singapore Minister finds that Nina’s videos contain false statements of fact, the Minister can ask the relevant authorities to issue a “targeted correction direction” to Nina ordering her to communicate a correction notice to those who saw the original videos
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 56

It’s A; that’s how YouTube attempts to comply with the notice and takedown provisions. The account restriction direction and the targeted communication direction go to YouTube, not Nina (not B nor C). Further, the account restriction direction is only for an account that is inauthentic or controlled by a bot.

Question 57

57. In Singapore, Allie posts to Instagram, “Singapore courts are biased toward the Chinese, because the PM counsels the courts to be so. The other races should smash and crush the judges!”. Allie could be:
    A. sued for libel
    B. prosecuted for scandalising contempt
    C. prosecuted for any of these: violation of Penal Code 298A, incitement, or criminal defamation
    D. all of the above
    E. only two of the above

Answer 57

It’s D. A is okay; PM could sue for libel for the allegation that he directed the courts. B is okay; she could be prosecuted for calling into question the independence of the courts. C is okay; she could be prosecuted for promoting racial disharmony (298A) or for an electronic communication inciting violence (incitement), or for criminal defamation of the PM.

Question 58

58. According to the Singapore Constitution,
    A. a law that Parliament passes could violate the constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech and a court could rule it unconstitutional
    B. a person has the same constitutionally guaranteed due process rights when detained under the ISA as when arrested for any other crime, e.g., murder
    C. the Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore but any provision of the Constitution which is inconsistent with the will of the Prime Minister shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void
    D. all of the above
    E. only two of the above

Answer 58

It’s A, an accurate description of judicial review. Not B; the usual due process rights are absent under the ISA. C is wrong; the Constitution, not the PM’s will, is the supreme law.

Question 59

59. Yesterday in Singapore, Darnell said in a TikTok video, “Singaporeans should know the ugly truth about who governs this country. All of Singapore’s prime ministers have made sure that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor”. Which is true?
    A. The current PM may be able to succeed in a suit for libel
    B. The AGC could prosecute Darnell for criminal libel
    C. The current PM can arrange for POFMA direction to be issued
    D. both of the above
    E. only two of the above

Answer 59

It’s D. A is okay; the identification criterion could be met since the PM is only one of the three PMs Singapore has had since independence—far less than 12, which is the approximate maximum group size, beyond which a plaintiff’s claim is unlikely to succeed—and the words refer to “all” of them. B is okay; D could have reason to believe these words would harm the PM’s reputation. C is also possible.

Question 60

60. In Singapore, the justification defence is available to defendants in cases for:
    A. civil defamation
    B. sub judice contempt
    C. scandalising contempt
    D. all of the above
    E. only two of the above

Answer 60

It’s A. Not B nor C; there’s no justification defence for either kind of contempt.

Question 61

61. Which is a logical, accurate statement?
    A. In England, the Parliament made it generally harder for plaintiffs to win libel cases by increasing plaintiffs’ burden of proof
    B. In American law, the burden of proof on the libel plaintiff is higher than in Singapore, and is higher for private figures than public figures in the US
    C. Before Singapore’s Parliament passed a statute regarding contempt of court, there were no prosecutions of scandalising contempt in Singapore
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 61

It’s A; the serious harm requirement is an additional burden imposed on plaintiffs in the Defamation Act of 2013. Not B; burden of proof on plaintiffs is much higher than in Singapore, but it’s incorrect because the burden is lower for private figure plaintiffs, since the fault standard is lower for them. Not C; prosecutions for scandalising contempt were carried out under the common law.

Question 62

62. Which is true?
    A. This series of events could happen: In a Singapore defamation case, the court ruled that the plaintiff satisfied her burden of proof and the defendant mounted no defences, so the plaintiff won the case
    B. This series of events could happen: The government sues you for incitement and wins
    C. Some academics whose views were studied in class believe that society may actually become stronger if some offensive speech circulates and communities, rather than law enforcement, deal with it
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 62

It’s E. A is okay; without defences, the plaintiff wins. C is okay; this is a characterisation of the views of academics Lee Bollinger and Cherian George. Not B; the government does not sue for incitement; it prosecutes (through the AGC).

Question 63

63. Rita tweets, “Minister Teo directed the court to acquit the offender, and the judge followed her direction. Both minister and judge agreed, as I do, that this outcome best serves the public interest in Singapore.” Which is possible under Singapore law?
    A. Minister Teo could sue for defamation
    B. The AGC could prosecute for contempt of court
    C. A minister could instruct the POFMA Office to issue a correction direction to Rita
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 63

It’s D. A is okay; it’s harmful to a minister’s reputation to be accused of violating her proper role by “directing” the court. B is okay; it is scandalising contempt to impugn the impartiality/independence of the judiciary, regardless of whether the tweeter thinks the outcome serves the public interest. C is okay; Teo or another minister could arrange it.

Question 64

64. Delila is found liable for defamation and, using the appropriate channels and procedures, she challenges in court how part of the Defamation Act was applied in her case. That part of the Defamation Act:
    A. can be found unconstitutional and therefore void
    B. cannot be found unconstitutional if Parliament passed the Defamation Act using appropriate procedures
    C. cannot be found unconstitutional if the plaintiff filed the defamation lawsuit using appropriate procedures
    D. B and C

Answer 64

It’s A; this describes how judicial review works. Not B nor C; a provision cannot be rescued from being found unconstitutional by passing it through the proper procedures or because a lawsuit was filed under it using proper procedures—the proper procedures can be followed but it can still be unconstitutional if, for example, the law prohibits more expression than is constitutionally permissible.

Question 65

65. Which is a prior restraint?
    A. POFMA targeted correction direction
    B. POFMA disabling direction
    C. Poha correction order
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 65

It’s B; a direction to the IIS to disable further circulation of the material is a form of prior restraint. Not A; a direction to the IIS to target a correction notice to those who access the original post is not a restraint on circulation of the material. Nor is C; it’s also an order to add a correction to the material.

Question 66

66. Which of the following is true in current Singapore law?
    A. The law of defamation comes from the common law and statutory law
    B. Contempt law is exclusively from the common law
    C. The principle of stare decisis means that the legislature must only amend statutes when justice requires it
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 66

It’s A; most defamation law is common law, but the Defamation Act covers some issues. Not B; a contempt statute, the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016, was passed. Not C; stare decisis applies to following common law precedents, not statutory law.

Question 67

67. Which is true?
    A. The Minister for Manpower could sue for defamation for damage to her (the minister’s) reputation
    B. The government of Singapore could sue for criminal defamation
    C. The Minister for Manpower could instruct the POFMA Office to issue a general correction direction to newspapers and broadcasters, requiring them to run a correction notice
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 67

It’s E. A is okay; the minister could sue for damages. C is okay; the minister could arrange for a general correction direction to newspaper and broadcasters; there are no prerequisite conditions that must be fulfilled, such as that another type of order is issued first. Not B; the government cannot “sue” for criminal defamation and win damages; the AGC could however prosecute for it and fine the defendant.

Question 68

68. Singapore MPs pass a new law that prohibits online expression that meets the “IIIPLA” criteria of the US Brandenburg incitement test. The requirement that consequences of the expression be imminent in order for the authorities to prohibit it is also present in:
    A. Singapore’s defamation law
    B. the Singapore Penal Code provisions §§ 298 & 298A
    C. the Singapore Penal Code provision on incitement
    D. only two of the above
    E. none of the above

Answer 68

It’s E. Not A; defamation requires only a mere tendency for expression to damage reputation, not for it to cause immediate harm. Not B nor C; these do not require imminent consequences either.

Question 69

69. If the constitutionality of the law in the previous question were challenged, the law:
    A. would most likely be found unconstitutional, because it does not prohibit enough expression to maintain public order and security in Singapore
    B. would most likely be found unconstitutional, because it prohibits much expression that is now allowed in Singapore
    C. would be found unconstitutional unless it is consistent with existing criminal laws, referred to as precedents, that were passed by Parliament
    D. could not be found unconstitutional by any court if it was duly passed by Parliament
    E. none of the above

Answer 69

It’s E. Not A; Parliament “may” make exceptions to the free speech guarantee according to what’s necessary and expedient to advance the public order or security of Singapore; the courts will not require it to do so or require that a single law do this. Not B; a law imposing the IIIPLA criteria is much narrower in what it prohibits than existing laws such as Singapore incitement or ss298/298A. Not C; the test is not for consistency with existing law, but with the Constitution. Not D; the Singapore courts have power of judicial review of laws duly passed by Parliament for constitutionality.

Question 70

70. Under the POFMA, which is true?
    A. A stop communication direction is a prior restraint
    B. An account restriction direction is a prior restraint
    C. A disabling direction is a prior restraint and, when it includes a direction to post a correction notice, the correction notice is what some refer to as compelled speech
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 70

It’s D. A is okay; a stop communication direction requires an individual to cease communicating a FSOF further. B is okay; an account restriction direction orders an IIS to prohibit communication in SG from a specified account. C is okay; a disabling direction can include an order to run a correction notice too, which some call compelled speech.

Question 71

71. Which can result in criminal penalties?
    A. Defendant loses a libel case when sued by the Prime Minister
    B. A declared online location runs ads after it is declared
    C. Defendant refuses to take down allegedly libellous matter after receiving an injunction in a defamation case
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 71

It’s E. Not A; “sued” can refer only to civil defamation, for which criminal penalties aren’t possible. B is okay; it’s specifically mentioned in POFMA, and reflects the general principle that disobeying orders under the POFMA results in criminal penalties. C is okay; disobeying a court order is contempt of court, a criminal offence.

Question 72

72. Which is true of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
    A. It includes a human right (or human rights) regarding free expression
    B. It includes a human right (or human rights) regarding due process
    C. It does NOT create legal obligations for UN member states to pass laws to make the UDHR principles enforceable laws in those states
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 72

It’s D. A and B are listed. C is okay; the declaration is merely a statement of ideals that’s not enforceable.

Question 73

73. Which is true in Singapore?
    A. A court can review whether certain procedural requirements were followed for ISA detention orders
    B. There have not yet been cases where a court has reviewed the constitutionality of a law that Parliament passed
    C. A court can review some matters regarding the issuance of a POFMA correction direction
    D. Only two of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 73

It’s D. A is okay; review is allowed only for matters like whether the proper procedures were followed, e.g., whether the President approved the Minister’s order. C is okay; courts review matters such as whether it’s false and whether it’s a statement of fact. Not B; course materials refer to JBJ’s case regarding defamation law and Penal Code section 377A, as well as constitutional litigation over the ISA.

Question 74

74. You tweeted, “Getting the Moderna vaccine is more dangerous than getting the omicron variant”. Which could result?
    A. Twitter could be issued a targeted correction direction and, if Twitter failed to obey it, it could be fined
    B. You could be successfully prosecuted for knowingly communicating a FSOF and fined
    C. Moderna, the corporation, could win a lawsuit against you for libel
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 74

It’s D. A is okay; there’s no need for a POFMA order to be issued directly to the source; an order like the targeted correction direction could be issued to the platform, and if it refused to comply, it could be fined. B is okay; this is a criminal offence under the POFMA which has not yet been prosecuted but could be. C is okay; Moderna, a corporation, could win damages.

Question 75

75. “Singapore’s top leaders and its courts work together for supreme injustice”, Iva said in a TikTok video. She thought it was true at the time. Which are possible consequences for Iva?
    A. She could receive at least one kind of POFMA direction
    B. She could be prosecuted for scandalising contempt
    C. Both of the above are possibilities
    D. None of the above are possibilities

Answer 75

It’s C. A is okay; e.g., she could receive a correction direction or a stop communication direction. B is okay; it’s impugning the independence of the judiciary.

Question 76

76. Which of the following cases could you, as an individual, face the specified legal consequence?
    A. In Singapore, you could receive a POFMA stop communication direction even if you did not know that what you communicated is a FSOF
    B. In Singapore, you could be convicted for communicating a FSOF even if you could prove you did not know, nor had reason to believe, it is a FSOF
    C. In the US, a private figure plaintiff could sue you and win if she is unable to prove you knew that you made a false statement of fact, but she can prove you were reckless about whether it was true or false
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 76

It’s E. A is okay but not B, according to the specific requirements of the statute. C is okay; recklessness is a higher degree of fault than negligence, and your negligence is all that’s required for a private figure plaintiff to win.

Question 77

77. You post a TikTok video in which you say that a minister is corrupt. Which could result under Singapore law?
    A. Under Poha, the Government successfully applies to the court to issue a correction order
    B. AGC prosecutes for criminal defamation
    C. AGC prosecutes for a violation of the constitution
    D. Each of the above is a possible outcome
    E. Only two of the above are possible outcomes

Answer 77

It’s B. Not A; the government cannot obtain a Poha order; only a person can. Not C; a constitution is a set of rules the government must abide by—only a law or government action can violate a constitution, not an individual.

Question 78

78. Attempting to evade electronic surveillance, a group circulates photocopies of a handwritten document amongst their members but does not circulate it online. Writers of the document, which urges members to violate the prohibitions on hate speech and to circulate messages demeaning people of Indian ancestry, could be prosecuted in Singapore for:
    A. violating Penal Code §298 or §298A
    B. incitement under the Penal Code §267C
    C. circulation of an objectionable publication
    D. all of the above
    E. only two of the above

Answer 78

It’s D. A is okay; 298A targets promoting racial disharmony. B is okay; it applies to documents, and has a specific provision against urging others to disobey laws. C is possible under the Undesirable Publications Act.

Question 79

79. Which is true?
    A. Under US federal law, as in Singapore, publishing results of an election survey is banned on “cooling off day”
    B. An injunction to stop a website from continuing to post the results of an election survey on a website—after the results were already published—is considered a prior restraint
    C. Advocates of the “truth-seeking rationale” would argue that a law that requires the authorities to examine a website for content promoting a certain candidate—and remove such content before the website is made publicly available—is preferable to a law that requires punishing the website operator after such content is made publicly available
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 79

It’s B; as the course material explains, prior restraint can include not just initial publication but further circulation of what’s already published. Not A; US has no such restriction—quite the contrary; election survey results are constantly issued. Not C; pre-publication vetting, as described here, is a prior restraint; subsequent punishment is considered preferable (though not ideal) because at least with subsequent punishment, the content is circulated.

Question 80

79. Which is true?
    A. Under US federal law, as in Singapore, publishing results of an election survey is banned on “cooling off day”
    B. An injunction to stop a website from continuing to post the results of an election survey on a website—after the results were already published—is considered a prior restraint
    C. Advocates of the “truth-seeking rationale” would argue that a law that requires the authorities to examine a website for content promoting a certain candidate—and remove such content before the website is made publicly available—is preferable to a law that requires punishing the website operator after such content is made publicly available
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 80

It’s B; as the course material explains, prior restraint can include not just initial publication but further circulation of what’s already published. Not A; US has no such restriction—quite the contrary; election survey results are constantly issued. Not C; pre-publication vetting, as described here, is a prior restraint; subsequent punishment is considered preferable (though not ideal) because at least with subsequent punishment, the content is circulated.

Question 81

80. Which is true?
    A. It means precisely the same thing for information to be in the public domain for purposes of confidence law and to be in the public domain for purposes of copyright law
    B. In a factory, a sign saying “No photography or videography” could help create circumstances importing an obligation of confidence
    C. There can be a breach of confidence in a case in which there is no duty of confidence
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 81

It’s B; just like in the case involving a closed movie set, a sign can serve as a form of notice of confidentiality. Not A; if information is in the public domain for purposes of the law of confidence, it’s publicly accessible, or not secret—which is synonymous with saying it lacks the “necessary quality of confidence”; it could be copyright protected. For purposes of copyright law, in the public domain means it lacks copyright protection (but it could still be confidential). Not C; for there to be breach of the duty of confidence, there must first be a duty of confidence.

Question 82

81. In Singapore, which areas of law include both civil and criminal law?
    A. Copyright
    B. Defamation
    C. Incitement
    D. All of the above
    E. Only two of the above

Answer 82

It’s E, only two of the above. Most of copyright law is civil law, but some provisions involving large-scale piracy are criminal law, so A is okay. Defamation cases are usually civil cases, but criminal defamation also is prosecuted so B is okay. Singapore incitement law is only criminal law, so C is incorrect.

Question 83

82. Which is true of Singapore law?
    A. Singapore courts have modified defamation law to adopt the changes that England made in the Defamation Act of 2013
    B. Parliament has made what is now called “fair use” more consistent with US law than its previous counterpart (“fair dealing”) was several decades ago
    C. Singapore courts have followed the UK precedent in the Campbell case, and have adjusted the law of confidence to protect more than it did before that case
    D. All of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 83

It’s B; Singapore has expanded fair use and made it more like the US approach. Singapore has not adopted the English reforms, so not A. Nor have Singapore courts followed Campbell, so not C.

Question 84

83. Which is true in Singapore?
    A. Under the Internal Security Act, you may be tried and jailed for circulating a subversive publication
    B. Possessing a copy of an animated documentary that accurately portrays historical events CANNOT result in criminal punishment under the Films Act provisions regarding party political films
    C. For a film to be prohibited under the Films Act, a court must determine through a trial that it is prohibited; no minister (or ministry) is involved in prohibiting a film
    D. All of the above
    E. None of the above

Answer 84

It’s A; ISA provisions provide for detention without trial, might be applied in such a case, but the ISA also includes an ordinary criminal law provision under which one can be jailed, after the usual due process including a trial. Not B; possessing party political films is prohibited, and accurate documentaries are excluded—unless they contain dramatic elements or animation (apparently because animation and dramatization create opportunities for fictionalisation). Not C; films may be prohibited in the minister’s discretion under section 35 of the Films Act.