Publication Type
Journal Article
Version
publishedVersion
Publication Date
3-2022
Abstract
The Singapore Court of Appeal has for the first time in The Online Citizen v The Attorney-General (8 October 2021) adjudicated on the constitutionality of correction directions issued by Ministers against allegedly false statements of fact under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019. An overarching framework was utilised to assess whether the Ministerial directions restrict free speech under Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution; if so, whether the restrictions are justifiable under the Constitution and whether there is a rational nexus between the statutory aims and enumerated exceptions. This case comment also examines the constitutional stance towards subject statements, the doctrine of compelled speech as applied in the US and UK, stop communication directions, the contexts in which statements are interpreted and their potential harms as well as the proportionality analysis for assessing the constitutionality of legislation.
Discipline
Asian Studies | Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | Public Law and Legal Theory
Research Areas
Public Law
Publication
Singapore Journal of Legal Studies
Volume
[2022]
First Page
166
Last Page
176
ISSN
0218-2173
Publisher
National University of Singapore
Citation
CHAN, Gary K. Y..
Online falsehoods, constitutional free speech and its limits: The Online Citizen v The Attorney-General. (2022). Singapore Journal of Legal Studies. [2022], 166-176.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3924
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
Included in
Asian Studies Commons, Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons