POFMA, POHA, Hate Speech, Other Law Flashcards
- Under POFMA, what can the SG authorities require Lizzo, who posts false statements of fact, to do?
A. Take them down
B. Post correction notices
C. Pay a penalty for running ads if her site has been declared
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s D. They can do a stop communication direction (A is ok), a correction direction (B is ok), and C is accurate.
- Amy has an Instagram account called “OfficialSGGovAlerts” in which she announces “Instant noodle & toilet paper SOLD OUT islandwide. Limited supplies at Amy’s Market”. A POFMA account restriction direction could be issued to:
A. Amy
B. Instagram
C. Singtel, which carries internet traffic, including Instagram
D. A & B
It’s B; the account restriction direction is issued to the internet intermediary service, in this case Instagram, rather than to the individual (not A) or to the internet access service provider (Singtel).
- Amy has an Instagram account called “OfficialSGGovAlerts” in which she announces “Instant noodle & toilet paper SOLD OUT islandwide. Limited supplies at Amy’s Market”. A POFMA account restriction direction could be issued to:
A. Amy
B. Instagram
C. Singtel, which carries internet traffic, including Instagram
D. A & B
It’s B; the account restriction direction is issued to the internet intermediary service, in this case Instagram, rather than to the individual (not A) or to the internet access service provider (Singtel).
- Bonnie, a WKW student, learns that her ex-boyfriend Clyde tweeted that she shoplifts. Which is true?
A. Bonnie can apply to a court for a Poha correction order; the court may issue it if it finds it’s “in the public interest” to correct his FSOF
B. Because such a statement cannot possibly be the subject of a Poha correction order, Bonnie could try to convince a Minister that it’s in the public interest to issue a POFMA correction direction
C. Bonnie could sue for libel
D. B & C
It’s C. The statement could be subject of a Poha correction order (not B), but the court must find that it’s “just and equitable” to issue the order, not that it’s in the public interest (not A).
- Under POFMA, the SG authorities can, in some cases:
A. require Instagram (IG) to restrict communication in SG from a user’s account
B. require IG to disable local access to a user’s video containing a FSOF
C. take steps to disable local access to IG if IG does not appoint someone to receive legal service
D. all of the above
E. only two of the above
It’s D. They can do an account restriction direction (A is okay), a disabling direction (B is okay), or a direction described in C. C is possible if the IIS is refuses service of directions (e.g., refuses to accept delivery of the legal paperwork ordering it to do something).
- Under POFMA, the SG authorities can, in some cases:
A. require Instagram (IG) to restrict communication in SG from a user’s account
B. require IG to disable local access to a user’s video containing a FSOF
C. take steps to disable local access to IG if IG does not appoint someone to receive legal service
D. all of the above
E. only two of the above
It’s D. They can do an account restriction direction (A is okay), a disabling direction (B is okay), or a direction described in C. C is possible if the IIS is refuses service of directions (e.g., refuses to accept delivery of the legal paperwork ordering it to do something).
- Under Poha,
A. a court decides if it is “just & equitable” to make an order
B. a Minister decides if a FSOF is against the public interest
C. a court decides if it “serves the public interest” to make an order
D. only two of the above
E. none of the above
It’s A. The court decides A but not C; public interest is not mentioned in Poha. Not B; this is true of POFMA but not Poha.
- Which is true?
A. Before a targeted correction direction can be issued, a correction direction must first be ordered
B. Before a general correction direction can be issued, a correction direction must first be ordered
C. Before an access blocking order can be issued, there must first be noncompliance with a POFMA direction or failure to fulfil an obligation under the POFMA
D. only two of the above
E. none of the above
It’s C. Not A; although a targeted correction direction was issued to Facebook after Alex Tan failed to comply with a correction direction issued to him, there’s nothing in the letter of the law that requires this “prerequisite”. Not B; the authorities can issue the general correction direction as their first course of action, as they did for the HardwareZone post about Covid-19 deaths that had been removed.
- Under the Poha,
A. before a general correction order can be issued, a correction order must first be ordered
B. before an access blocking order can be issued, there must first be noncompliance with orders or obligations under the Poha
C. before an account restriction order can be issued, there must first be noncompliance with orders or obligations under the Poha
D. only two of the above
E. none of the above
It’s E. Not A; there’s nothing in the letter of the law that requires this “prerequisite”. Not B not C; there’s not an access blocking order nor an account restriction order under the Poha.
- Which is true?
A. The POFMA access blocking order is a prior restraint
B. Under a targeted correction direction, TikTok may be directed to engage in compelled speech
C. If a declared online location refuses to fulfil its legal obligations, prior restraint may be among the consequences
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s D. A is okay; since prior restraint is stopping circulation of material in the first place, or stopping further circulation of it, ordering an IIS to disable further access to an online location is a prior restraint. B is okay; the IIS is forced to say something—to post a notice that something is false that it would not otherwise post. C is okay; if the DOL refuses to follow an order to post a declaration notice or if it benefits financially, the authorities may require the IIS or IASP to block access, thus preventing the content from circulating to others in Singapore.
- Which is true?
A. Under the POFMA, one can sue for damages about a FSOF
B. A minister cannot, on the day before a general election, instruct the IMDA POFMA Office to issue a correction direction
C. There are no guidelines for what is in the “public interest” under the POFMA
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s B; during the election period (from the writ of election to the close of polls), ministers appoint alternative authorities to make POFMA orders. Not A; under the POFMA, the government can force one to pay fines but not one is not sued for damages. Not C; the statute lays out specific criteria for what can constitute the public interest.
- Which is true?
A. A POFMA direction can only be issued to one who intends to make a FSOF
B. An order asking a specific individual to post a correction notice in her YouTube video’s description is a targeted correction direction
C. A targeted correction direction can be issued only after the target fails to comply with a correction direction
D. At least two of the above
E. None of the above
It’s E. Not A; she need not even need to know it’s false. Not B: This is a correction direction, which is made to the poster of the content, but not a targeted correction direction, which is aimed toward that service on which she posts the content. Not C; there is no such prerequisite for a targeted correction direction.
- Which is true in Singapore?
A. For a website to be designated a “declared online location”, it must carry advertising
B. The recipient of a general correction direction must post the correction notice next to the original post that contains the FSOF
C. The government cannot obtain a Poha order against an individual who posts a FSOF
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s C. The government cannot obtain any Poha orders; only a person can ask a court to issue one. Not A; the only requirement is that the DOL transmits at least three FSOFs within a 6-month period; there are however penalties for carrying advertising or otherwise benefiting financially. Not B; it is not paired with a particular post, which may no longer appear—or the FSOFs may be circulating through many posts.
- Which is true in Singapore?
A. For a website to be designated a “declared online location”, it must carry advertising
B. The recipient of a general correction direction must post the correction notice next to the original post that contains the FSOF
C. The government cannot obtain a Poha order against an individual who posts a FSOF
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s C. The government cannot obtain any Poha orders; only a person can ask a court to issue one. Not A; the only requirement is that the DOL transmits at least three FSOFs within a 6-month period; there are however penalties for carrying advertising or otherwise benefiting financially. Not B; it is not paired with a particular post, which may no longer appear—or the FSOFs may be circulating through many posts.
- Which is true if the owner of a New Zealand company’s website, hosted in New Zealand, refuses to comply with a correction direction from Singapore?
A. An access blocking order can be issued to Singtel, which is among the operators of services that transmit the website into Singapore
B. A stop communication order can be issued to the company forbidding it from engaging in all online communication anywhere, inside or outside Singapore, indefinitely
C. Correction directions cannot be issued to foreign website owners, so the website would be justified in not complying
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s A; refusal to comply with a POFMA direction can result in an access blocking order, which is issued to IASPs. Not B; there are no POFMA orders that forbid all online communication from a person or company—whether inside or outside Singapore. Not C; POFMA directions can be issued outside Singapore.
- In Singapore, in a YouTube video, Tati deliberately lies and says that she knows that James gives biased reviews of beauty products because the beauty brands pay him to do so. Which is most likely true?
A. Publishing this post may not fulfil the minimum requirements under the POFMA for the offence of communicating a false statement of fact in Singapore
B. Under the POFMA, a court may order Tati to post a correction notice if the court deems it “just and equitable” to do so
C. Because YouTube is not based in Singapore, POFMA is not applicable to the case
D. Only two of the above
It’s A. For the offence of communicating a false statement, a person must know or have reason to believe that she communicated a FSOF (that’s fulfilled by the deliberate lie) and communicating the FSOF must be against the public interest; see the list of public interest considerations, none of which is at all likely to be fulfilled here. Not B; that describes what can happen under the Poha, not the POFMA, under which a minister arranges for directions in the public interest, not a court. Not C; POFMA applies to online communication through intermediaries whether or not they are based in Singapore.
- Which direction, issued to TikTok, requires it to delete a video entirely from its service and its servers?
A. Stop communication direction
B. Disabling direction
C. Account restriction direction
D. At least two of the above
E. None of the above
It’s E. None of the directions requires deletion; they only require that the recipient restrict communication to users in SG. A is doubly wrong because the stop communication direction is not issued to the IIS TikTok. B requires disabling access of SG users, but the material need not be deleted. C requires the IIS to restrict communication from the account to SG users, but the account may be used to communicate elsewhere. *POFMA
- According to the POFMA requirements, the precedent cases, and the analysis in the video lectures and tutorial, which is true regarding the general correction direction (GCD)? We can expect that it will be issued:
A. to an individual who has communicated the FSOF through a single post, but the FSOF hasn’t spread widely yet; the GCD appears next to the post, as it has in precedent cases
B. in cases where a court found that the FSOF could cause particularly serious harm, so the court issues the GCD
C. when the FSOF is spreading widely from multiple sources, but it’s difficult to identify a specific original source
D. in all of the above cases
It’s C; in tutorial and video lecture, we saw that when it is difficult to identify an original post through which the FSOF is spreading—a post with which a correction notice can be placed to effectively counter the FSOF—a GCD can be issued to a platform to reach a wide audience. Not A; the correction direction would be more appropriate here, and this choice is downright wrong because in precedent cases the GCD was not issued to the individual but to IISs (though it may be possible to issue a GCD to an individual, the statute only mentions issuing it to newspapers, broadcasters, IISs and other organisations). A is also wrong because the GCDs does not appear next to a particular post. Not B; unlike the Poha’s general correction order, the GCD is not applied for or issued by a court and there is no requirement of serious harm. *POFMA
- You tweet that a minister is corrupt. Which could result under Singapore law?
A. Under Poha, a minister arranges for the relevant office to issue a stop publication order
B. Under POFMA, AGC prosecutes for communicating a FSOF
C. Under POFMA, a minister arranges for the court to issue a stop communication direction
D. Each of the above is a possible outcome
E. Only two of the above are possible outcomes
It’s B; communicating a FSOF is a criminal offence, unlike the POFMA directions. Not A; under Poha, the subject must apply to a court. Not C; the minister arranges for the competent authority (the POFMA Office) to issue any direction, not the court. *POFMA
- For a POFMA correction direction to be issued, which must be true about the author of the FSOF?
A. She knows or has reason to know that it’s false
B. She acts with malice, which is also required for liability for scandalising contempt and civil defamation
C. She did NOT intend to spread false information (because if she did, then the authorities must charge her with the offence of communicating a FSOF)
D. Only two of the above
E. None of the above
It’s E. Not A; the POFMA explicitly states that knowledge of falsity is not required. Not B; it’s not required in POFMA, and it also follows from A that if knowledge of falsity is not required, it would be bizarre that malice (desire to harm) would be required. And of course malice is not required for scandalising contempt or civil defamation, so B is triply wrong. Not C; intent is not required; although knowledge of falsity is required for the offence of communicating a FSOF, even if it is present, it doesn’t mean that the offence must be charged and a correction direction cannot be issued. Also, C is doubly wrong because of the broader principle of prosecutorial discretion—there’s no requirement that the authorities charge the D with the offence even if she meets criteria.
- Under the POFMA,
A. a targeted correction direction can be issued to an IIS only if a correction direction is first issued to an individual regarding the FSOF
B. a general correction direction can be issued only after a targeted correction direction is first issued to an IIS regarding the FSOF
C. a website can be a “declared online location” only if it received at least 3 POFMA directions in the last 6 months
D. at least two of the above
E. none of the above
It’s C. Not A nor B; there are no requirements to issue these directions only after others.
- Under the POFMA, under some conditions,
A. Instagram can be required to carry a correction notice that appears next to a particular post
B. Instagram can be required to block access of SG users to a declared online location
C. Facebook can face criminal penalties in SG for failing to comply with POFMA provisions regarding declared locations
D. all of the above
E. only two of the above
It’s D. A describes a targeted correction direction. B is accurate, not because it describes the “access blocking order” (which is to the IASP, not the IIS), but because of specific provisions regarding noncompliance of orders related to DOLs . C describes what can happen if, for example, Facebook fails to comply with an order to block access to a declared location.
- Which is true?
A. The Poha general correction order requires likelihood of serious harm, but the POFMA general correction direction does not
B. The Poha correction order requires that issuing it be in the public interest, but the POFMA correction direction does not
C. According to the analysis in the video lectures, an ordinary person is more likely to be able to get a POFMA direction regarding a personal matter than a Poha direction
D. At least two of the above
E. None of the above
It’s A; the general correction order circulates widely, and so there’s a requirement of serious harm before it can be issued in a Poha case, which doesn’t require that the matter be of public interest (importance). Not B; POFMA requires that issuing it be in the public interest. Not C; one is more likely to be able to get a Poha order for a personal matter than a POFMA order, because of the POFMA’s public interest requirement.
- At the Women’s March on Washington in 2017, Madonna said to a crowd of hundreds of thousands, “I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House. But I know that this won’t change anything.” Which is true?
A. She can be punished in the US because it almost certainly qualifies as IIIPLA
B. She can be punished in the US because it almost certainly qualifies as fighting words
C. If similar words were spoken in Singapore in front of the Istana after the proposed revisions to the incitement provision are in effect, they could be investigated as incitement, which would include investigation of the speaker’s intent or knowledge of likely consequences
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s C; there’s nothing to bar investigation of such an utterance as incitement, and indeed, this would require an examination of the speaker’s state of mind. Not A because the criteria of imminent lawless action that is likely to occur wouldn’t be met. Not B because these aren’t words likely to cause another to retaliate by fighting.
- Asked what his reaction would be if Hillary Clinton won the 2016 US presidential election, an American supporter of gun rights replied to a New York Times reporter: “If the people decide they can no longer suffer the inequities, I’d be with the people and I’d take my guns up to Washington”. This expression, published in the NYT, is almost certain to be classified as:
A. slander
B. intentional incitement to imminent and probable lawless action
C. fighting words
D. only two of the above
E. none of the above
It’s E, and it’s a real example. Not A; it can’t reasonably be said to tend to harm the reputation of Hillary Clinton, and what makes it doubly incorrect is that the comments are recorded, so it cannot be slander; it could only be libel. Not B; this is a great example of the threatening speech that does not meet the IIIPLA criteria of incitement (i.e., exciting others to take action) to lawless action (i.e., breaking the law) that is imminent (i.e., immediate) and is probable (i.e., likely to occur). The IIIPLA test usually fails on the imminence requirement, which is absent in part because he is only saying he may act if others cannot stand the situation. It’s not fighting words, i.e., words likely to cause the average person to respond with violence.
- The Singapore cases for expression targeting people on their race or religion have resulted in:
A. warnings
B. jail sentences
C. fines
D. all of the above, though not necessarily in the same case
E. only two of the above, though not necessarily in the same case
It’s D. Authorities and the judges have given warnings, jail sentences and fines.
- An advocate of the view that free speech leads to greater tolerance analyses Singapore’s prosecutions under Penal Code §§ 298 and 298A, which criminalise hate speech. She is likely to emphasise that enforcement of these provisions may:
A. prevent bigots from finding one another
B. strengthen the society by reinforcing commonly held views of the boundaries of free expression
C. weaken the society by failing to give individuals practice with dealing with hate speech
D. B and C
E. none of the above
It’s C; under this rationale, practice dealing with hate speech makes individuals and communities stronger. Not A and B, which are arguments for regulating hate speech.
- Which are beliefs about free expression and hate speech discussed in the class material?
A. Free expression, even of offensive expression, can destabilise society
B. Free expression, even of offensive expression, can ultimately help to stabilise society
C. Free expression can result in some people becoming more tolerant of offensive expression
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s D. The traditional view of offensive expression is A, but theorists including Bollinger have argued for C, which is part of the reason that they also believe that ultimately B can occur; if people develop “thick skins” and can tolerate all sorts of offensive expression, they’ll be less likely to retaliate against it. So it’s D.
- Which is an argument emphasised by defenders of allowing free expression, even of some hateful speech?
A. The long-term results when communities deal with hate speech among their members, without resorting to law enforcement, may be to make society stronger
B. Hate speech may allow haters to discharge their anger in words rather than violence
C. There is no such thing as an individual’s right NOT to be offended
D. All of the above
E. None of the above
It’s D. Free speech advocates (e.g., Bollinger) argue A. Some (e.g., Emerson) conceive of hate speech as a safe discharge of hatred (B is okay). Much free expression law builds on the principle reflected in C.
- Xiumin tweets, “Meditate on this: Christians are better than godless Buddhists!!!” Let’s assume Xiumin is an American resident posting in the United States. In order to prosecute him successfully, the American authorities would have to prove:
A. his words violate American’s longstanding criminal laws outlawing all hate speech
B. he was intentionally inciting action that is against the law
C. if the words are not deleted from Twitter, they may eventually have a tendency to incite lawless action at some future date
D. all of the above
E. only two of the above
It’s B. Only words that meet the IIIPLA (intentional incitement to imminent and probable lawless action) test can be prohibited under the First Amendment. Not A; much hate speech doesn’t rise to the standard in B. Not C; words with a mere tendency to incite lawless action at some later time cannot be prohibited—they must incite it imminently.
- After enactment of the proposed 2019 amendments to the MRHA and Penal Code, Xiumin, a resident in Singapore, tweets, “Meditate on this: Christians are better than godless Hindus!!!” Which is true?
A. If an individual practicing Hinduism attempts to sue Xiumin for libel in Singapore, the courts are likely to find that the individual is identified by the tweet
B. The authorities may choose to prosecute under a Singapore MRHA provision
C. The authorities may choose to file a civil lawsuit against Xiumin under Singapore’s Penal Code
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s B; the amended MRHA includes provisions against promoting disharmony and insulting based on religion. Not A; a person practicing the Hindu religion could not successfully claim that she is identified given that the number of Hindu adherents in Singapore is vastly higher than the threshold in defamation law—around 12—beyond which identification is unlikely. Not C; the Penal Code is criminal law, not civil law.
- After the proposed amendments to Singapore’s hate speech laws are enacted: At a rally in Singapore, Leon shouts, “Down with the government! Let’s blow up the Parliament!” Leon could be prosecuted under the:
A. Penal Code §298 or §298A
B. incitement provision of the Penal Code
C. both of the above
D. none of the above
It’s B; it could be incitement since it’s an utterance that could possibly be deemed incitement to violence. For B to be true the state of mind requirement would need to be met, and we don’t have enough info to know whether it would be met in this case—so it’s possible that it could be met; don’t get tripped up by making assumptions (based on info you don’t have) that the requirement couldn’t be met. Not A; those Penal Code provisions address race and religion, and after the amendments are enacted, they address only race.
- In California, a student tweets at 4am to his 273 followers, most of whom are sleeping: “Buddhism is just a bunch of silly superstition”. The US authorities appear to have a strong case for prosecution for:
A. violating the Maintenance of American Religious Harmony Act discussed in class
B. IIIPLA
C. fighting words
D. all of the above
E. none of the above
It’s E. US doesn’t have a Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, so not A. IIIPLA itself is not an offense; it’s a standard for what a US law can constitutionally prohibit (not B). What’s more, laws incorporating the IIIPLA standard and fighting words (not C) both must target expression with a potentially imminent effect of provoking a lawless or violent reaction, which is unlikely over social media at any hour–and even more unlikely when delivered very early in the morning.
- According to the US cases on free expression, which is required for expression to qualify as incitement under the Brandenburg standard?
A. It must be “directed to” (i.e., intended to) incite lawless action
B. The lawless action must be imminent
C. The lawless action must be probable, i.e., likely to occur
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s D. All the components are necessary for incitement under Brandenburg—intentional incitement to imminent probable lawless action, or IIIPLA, the acronym I use to recall it.
- During the US presidential election campaign, Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton a “bigot” repeatedly in a broadcast interview. Under US law, this statement is likely to be:
A. incitement under the IIIPLA criteria
B. hate speech, which violates US law
C. expression that is unconstitutional
D. all of the above
E. expression that is allowed under US law
It’s E. A broadcast statement of the word to describe Hillary is unlikely to incite Hillary or anyone else to imminent and probable lawbreaking, so not A. Hate speech doesn’t violate US law unless it’s incitement or fighting words, so not B. It’s possible that laws or government actions are unconstitutional but expression is not unconstitutional, even if it break laws, so not C.