74
Heike Jensen, Jac sm Kee, Gayathry Venkiteswaran, and Sonia Randhawa
Religious material
57 and material related to sexuality
58 published online in Malaysia
are also subjected to scrutiny.
59 Advocates and organizations that defend the rights of
Muslim women, such as Sisters in Islam (SIS), face constant attacks because they not
only directly challenge the power of the state overdefi ning “ Islam, ” but they do so
from a standpoint of gender equality and women ’ s rights. In 2008, SIS ’ s publication
on progressive interpretations of Islam was banned,
60 and its Web site has been repeatedly compromised
61 since the opposition Islamic political party (PAS) called for an
investigation and ban of the organization in 2009.
62
However, due to the “ informal ” nature of such censorship efforts, which confi rm
a trend found by ONI ’ s research,
63 they are rarely visible in reporting or documented
in efforts to monitor the space for public expression and information exchange. Yet
it is clearly evident that these censorship efforts respond to the perceived threats to
the nation ’ s constitution posed by groups such as SIS and their promotion of alternative discourses on gender, sexuality, and religion.
Finally, in August 2009, in synchronicity with the global thematic trends of Internet
content regulation, the KPKK minister announced the government ’ s intention to implement Internet fi ltering to reduce “ Malaysian children ’ s exposure to online pornography. ”
64 Despite renouncing the proposal after being met with alarm by content producers,
in particular alternative online media providers and bloggers, the minister acknowledged that the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has
been tasked to fi nd appropriate solutions to the as-yet-unsubstantiated claim of the
threat to children ’ s safety from pornography.
65 This development presents a merging
of both technical and discursive solutions in regulating the unruly online space.
Even though business acted as promoters of free speech in the consultations for
the MSC Bill of Guarantees, industry self-regulation does not necessarily by extension
equate with free speech. When the Communication and Multimedia Content Forum
(CMCF) was formed by the MCMC together with industry players, academics, civilsociety organizations, and selected prominent individuals, it developed a content code
that includes provisions promoting rights-based and nondiscriminatory forms of
content. However, application of the code is voluntary, and it appears that private
companies prefer to implement their own individual policies and guidelines to meet
potential concerns and liability. In fact, particularly with regard to sexual content,
private companies have become central, autonomously acting agents of censorship,
whose sustained background actions have both “ normalized ” this censorship as any
company ’ s “ right ” and have largely shielded it from public scrutiny and debate.
For example, the Web hosting company Exabytes changed its policy in May 2008
to prohibit “ adult content ” on their servers. This ban included Web sites “ related to
gay and lesbian ”
66 content, confl ating pornographic content with any type of content
produced by, about, or for an already peripheral and discriminated-against section of
society. However, after several complaints about this policy, the explicit mention of
Heike Jensen, Jac sm Kee, Gayathry Venkiteswaran, and Sonia Randhawa
Religious material
57 and material related to sexuality
58 published online in Malaysia
are also subjected to scrutiny.
59 Advocates and organizations that defend the rights of
Muslim women, such as Sisters in Islam (SIS), face constant attacks because they not
only directly challenge the power of the state overdefi ning “ Islam, ” but they do so
from a standpoint of gender equality and women ’ s rights. In 2008, SIS ’ s publication
on progressive interpretations of Islam was banned,
60 and its Web site has been repeatedly compromised
61 since the opposition Islamic political party (PAS) called for an
investigation and ban of the organization in 2009.
62
However, due to the “ informal ” nature of such censorship efforts, which confi rm
a trend found by ONI ’ s research,
63 they are rarely visible in reporting or documented
in efforts to monitor the space for public expression and information exchange. Yet
it is clearly evident that these censorship efforts respond to the perceived threats to
the nation ’ s constitution posed by groups such as SIS and their promotion of alternative discourses on gender, sexuality, and religion.
Finally, in August 2009, in synchronicity with the global thematic trends of Internet
content regulation, the KPKK minister announced the government ’ s intention to implement Internet fi ltering to reduce “ Malaysian children ’ s exposure to online pornography. ”
64 Despite renouncing the proposal after being met with alarm by content producers,
in particular alternative online media providers and bloggers, the minister acknowledged that the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has
been tasked to fi nd appropriate solutions to the as-yet-unsubstantiated claim of the
threat to children ’ s safety from pornography.
65 This development presents a merging
of both technical and discursive solutions in regulating the unruly online space.
Even though business acted as promoters of free speech in the consultations for
the MSC Bill of Guarantees, industry self-regulation does not necessarily by extension
equate with free speech. When the Communication and Multimedia Content Forum
(CMCF) was formed by the MCMC together with industry players, academics, civilsociety organizations, and selected prominent individuals, it developed a content code
that includes provisions promoting rights-based and nondiscriminatory forms of
content. However, application of the code is voluntary, and it appears that private
companies prefer to implement their own individual policies and guidelines to meet
potential concerns and liability. In fact, particularly with regard to sexual content,
private companies have become central, autonomously acting agents of censorship,
whose sustained background actions have both “ normalized ” this censorship as any
company ’ s “ right ” and have largely shielded it from public scrutiny and debate.
For example, the Web hosting company Exabytes changed its policy in May 2008
to prohibit “ adult content ” on their servers. This ban included Web sites “ related to
gay and lesbian ”
66 content, confl ating pornographic content with any type of content
produced by, about, or for an already peripheral and discriminated-against section of
society. However, after several complaints about this policy, the explicit mention of