"In discussing media policy, some caricature the choices as a debate between those who understand the need for regulation and those who want a free-for-all. This is a false debate. The real issue is what kind of regulation can allow us, as individuals and as a society, to harness the benefits of free speech while minimising the harm that such speech can cause."Opening line of the proposal to deregulate the InternetThe essence of communication is two-way dialogue. This demands that both parties make the effort to listen to and understand each other, instead of just shooting their mouths off and sealing their ears with plugs cast from the mould of self-righteousness. It is the recognition, and execution, of this responsibility that underpines democratic discussion: problems would be solved, resources shared, and opposing perspectives reconciled, because everyone understands where each side is coming from, and is interested in a common objective. It is with great regret, therefore, that I must say that the writer of this letter has failed to do so.Mok's essential argument that the Group of 13, as the bloggers behind the Internet de-regulation proposal has been labelled, must demonstrate our "good faith by setting forth the responsibilities that accompany liberties." By this, he means that we should propose and/or maintain a mechanism to regulate the Internet, to ensure that rights are exercised responsibly.We did. Read the quote.The full text of our proposal is readily available online. In essence, though, while we are calling for most laws regarding freedom of speech to be abolished, we recognise that there must be some measure of regulation to protect the public good. This regulation comes in three forms.The first is through clear, narrowly-tailored statutes and prosecution. We believe that the current media regulations are very vague. For example, it is illegal to distribute films unless they have been approved by the Board of Censors. But, this means that any home video you produce to upload on YouTube, for example, is illegal, unless you have somehow submitted it to the Board and received approval from it. It is also highly difficult to prosecute you should you decide to upload your videos without approval, because it is nearly impossible to prove that you had actually committed this illegal act once you go online. The vagueness of current regulations means that any decision to take action is based solely on administrative discretion. But, this leaves people wondering whether or not they have committed a crime (like uploading a home video on YouTube). This, in turn, would chill actual speech and expression, because the average citizen, not knowing whether or not he will commit a crime by doing something, would prefer to do nothing. That is the only guarantee he has of not running afoul of the vaguely-worded law.By having clear, narrow laws, we would be able to resolve this situation. For example, suppose that Parliament passes a law saying that all films that are to be screened in cinemas must be submitted to the Board of Censors for approval. So, it is no longer a crime to upload home videos on YouTube -- or videos with political messages, for that matter. With no disincentive against action, the people would then be able to express themselves more freely, allowing them to harness the power of the Internet.In addition, we are advocating the principle of 'prosecute or nothing'. Yawning Bread has written at length about this. Suffice to say, we believe that the current system is inadequate. It allows the Media Development Authority to impose arbitrary fines, enforce vague policies at will, leave no course for defence and appeal, and causes some laws to overlap with administrative rules. By clarifying the system, and adopting this principle, we would replace all the MDA's policies with laws set in stone, to be run through the justice system. Offenders would have full rights of legal defence and appeal, the government would have the opportunity to explain how and why someone had broken the law in a public court, and the grey area of administrative discretion would be eliminated. This, we believe, would better serve the cause of justice than the current system.The second form of regulation is to make all existing laws platform-neutral. By this, we mean that Singapore should pass a comprehensive series of laws governing the full spectrum of media, instead of having one set of laws for films, another for books and magazines, and so on. This way, we avoid having a schizophrenic regulatory regime. Consider that, by law, 'party political films' like Singapore Rebel are banned. But this ban is becoming increasingly relevant, as these films can be watched on YouTube or downloaded elsewhere. In the process of harmonising laws, we are calling for the most transparent and liberal procedures as possible to be set as the industry standard, so as to encourage people to exercise their freedom of speech. Do note that having one set of laws is a world apart from having no laws at all. It is something that Mok has failed to notice.The third form of regulation is community moderation. We believe that almost all of society's legitimate concerns about the abuse of free speech can be addressed through informal means. Bloggers, for example, can choose to delete derogatory and defamatory comments. YouTube has a code of regulations forbidding explicit content. Internet forums are almost always moderated. These measures, by themselves, would mean that most objectionable material would be eliminated before they even hit the screen. We also proposed the formation of an Internet Content Consultative Committee, which would offer recommendations should controversies arise, such as when conflict arises between the state and allegedly irresponsible content providors. In this manner, we need not expend the courts' and government's time and resources to deal with irresponsible behaviour, and capitalise on the Internet community's ability to self-regulate.We proposed all this in recognition of the responsibilities that accompany rights. All of us, in our brainstorming sessions, agreed that we had to find a compromise between maximising rights and minimising abuse. We have not proposed that the courts should do away with laws concerning, say, injurious remarks on race and religion. What we have proposed is that Parliament pass laws that more clearly define what 'injurious remarks' mean, in order to better protect the people. Is it a crime should a South Indian insult a North Indian? The law is unclear on that; and that is why we need to improve it.There is nothing that Mok has raised that we have not addressed. He says that with rights comes responsibilities. We agree. He implies that we need to keep some regulations. We did; we are simply streamlining the system. There is a difference between having fewer and better laws, and no laws at all; and the group has stood by the former position. Mok has failed to recognise this. I would even suggest that Mok has not read the proposal in its entirety, or taken the time to absorb its full implications, without further evidence. Extrapolation? Maybe. But, unlike Mok, I have justification.