Time for stricter harassment laws?

A remarkable scolding incident filmed on a handphone has appeared on Web sites. In it, a lady is seen launching a verbal barrage at a commuter standing in a commuter train. The five minute edited video seems to suggest a much longer period of filming in which the lady loudly proclaims in a mixture of Hokkien, Mandarin and English apparently stemming from an incident where some physical contact may have taken place in a crowded train.

Some pronouncement of the law is also spewed out by this lady (however, this should not be taken as legal advice--she ignored the long-accepted principle that some form of physical contact in crowded place as a defence to the tort of battery). A companion of the lady (whose face is obscured) videos the entire incident and posts the edited version. The man, being quite annoyed by the extended video-taking, asks for the video-taking to stop and for the matter to be settled in a police station but this goes on until train station staff intervened.

I think the time has come where this "in your face" video-taking needs to be controlled. I can imagine instances of celebrities, girls or even men noticing videos being taken of them in public for extended periods of time even after requests to stop. Singapore does not have a law on privacy which is the right for people to be left alone but cases like these make one re-think whether this kind of behaviour should be condoned further.

In fact, other laws for action to be taken, or at least considered, could be in place--an example is the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

Section 13B of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act--Causing harassment, alarm or distress--Any person who in a public place or in a private place (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour; or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of any person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding S$2,000 (US$1,320).

I do not think that the provision has been used in this case scenario but the counter-balance for this offence is that the defence of reasonableness would weed out genuine uses of video-recording devices. Therefore, the end to paparazzi guerilla video-taping may be near.

• Talkback (2)
• Print
• E-mail
• Share
• Alerts

Slashdot

Digg

Facebook

Twitter

Delicious

reddit

Google

StumbleUpon

close this

Talkback 2 comments

• Amendments to empower Copyright Tribunal
• In remembrance: DRMs
• How tech-savvy should lawyers be?
• Singapore blazes into e-discovery of evidence
• The day tech saved me

• What in the world is Internet self-regulation?
• Singapore blazes into e-discovery of evidence
• Software makers to be held more accountable?
• How tech-savvy should lawyers be?
• How confidential is confidential?

2009

2008

• Time to map out
• Ultimate 2012 recovery site: the moon
• Amendments to empower Copyright Tribunal
• Don't CC me, I'll CC you
• M'sian broadband wars heat up

Bryan Tan

Called to the Singapore and English Bars, Bryan Tan has practised in two of Singapore’s largest law firms and an international law firm. Bryan led many industry firsts including the first mass e-mail defamation case in the world, Singapore’s first publicised telecoms competition dispute, a pan-Asian co-branded travel portal, the first privately-funded cable landing project in Singapore and the world's first registrar-level domain name dispute. His areas of practice include information technology, telecommunications, biotechnology and bioinformatics, Chinese intellectual property, entertainment law and corporate work. He is also an author of Halsbury's Laws of Malaysia: E-Commerce. He also co-wrote the Singapore chapter of 'Digital Evidence' with Prof. Daniel Seng and is writing Halsbury's Laws of Singapore: E-Commerce.