AI's Breaking the Law, Is Anything Even Real Anymore?

It’s undeniable that AI (Artificial Intelligence) is becoming more present in our daily lives—on social media, in news articles, memes, and more. AI-generated content, especially images and videos, is spreading rapidly, and Malaysian netizens are not immune to its effects. The technology has become so advanced that sometimes, it’s hard to tell what’s real and what’s generated. And that’s where the problem begins.

A few days ago, I came across an ad on YouTube with a fake thumbnail showing political figure Tun Mahathir being “arrested” by police officers, paired with a clickbait title like “You wouldn’t believe what he said” and “Everyone was shocked by Mahathir’s words.” This was clearly fake news, but it looked real enough to fool someone scrolling by. That’s the danger of AI-generated content; it can blur the line between truth and fiction, especially when it’s used for political propaganda.

This clearly violates some of the laws of freedom of speech and expression.

Like the Sedition Act 1948, as the advertisement uses an AI-generated image of a famous political figure to spread fake content that incites hatred or unrest. Politically motivated misinformation like this is seen as contributing to public discontent or undermining the government’s credibility.

Besides that, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA) is also included, as it involves the spreading of fake news. The CMA bans content that is false, offensive, or indecent, especially when posted online to harass or deceive. Technically, fake AI content could be prosecuted under this act. BUT, when AI creates harmful content, it’s unclear who’s responsible—the person who posted it, the AI tool that generated it, or the platform hosting it? The waters are still muddy when it comes to AI, and these laws don’t clearly address how AI-generated content fits in.

Let's not forget the Defamation law (Libel), where generated AI images or deepfakes are spread and posted online, damaging one’s reputation, even though it's not true or real. Under the Penal Code (Section 499), creating or sharing false content that harms a person’s reputation can lead to legal action.

Just look at what happened in Johor recently: A male student allegedly used AI to generate explicit images of female classmates. 38 people have been identified as victims, with the youngest reportedly only 12 or 13 years old. They had their faces attached to pornographic content and shared online. The school responded, police got involved, and the Deputy Communications Minister called for stronger digital safety laws. But it’s clear the damage had already been done, leaving the victims' reputation permanently tarnished.

It’s heartbreaking, and it shows how damaging AI misuse can be—not just to reputations, but to people’s mental health and safety. Once this kind of content is out there, it’s nearly impossible to fully erase it. Malaysia has established the National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics (AIGE) back in 2024, designed to ensure responsible, safe, and ethical integration of AI. But these recent events show that current protections aren’t enough, and there is still no specific law regulating the use of AI in Malaysia.

Thus, What Needs to Change?

• New laws specifically targeting AI-generated content

• Stricter restrictions from AI platforms to prevent sexual, racist, or misleading content

• Clearer accountability for when harm is caused 

At the end of the day, AI should be here to inspire people, not ruin lives or spread lies. If we want to use it responsibly, the authorities and government need to step up. AI isn't going away anytime soon, but the way we deal with it has to change.

Sources

https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/04/12/deepfake-porn-incident-involving-johor-students-highlights-need-for-digital-safety-protocols-in-malaysian-schools-says-teo-nie-ching/172853

https://mastic.mosti.gov.my/publication/the-national-guidelines-on-ai-governance-ethics/

https://www.deloitte.com/southeast-asia/en/services/consulting-risk/perspectives/my-aige-guidelines.html

Written by Nicole

When Sharing Crime Online Becomes a Tool for Justice: Impact and Risks

In an era where information travels faster than ever, the world has increasingly turned to social media platforms to share personal experiences of crime, abuse, or injustice. Whether it’s a robbery, harassment, or police inaction, more individuals are choosing to post their stories online. Their action is obvious: to raise public awareness quickly, generate public sympathy and pressure, and compel the authorities to act faster.

For many, social media feels like the only way to get justice, especially when official channels seem slow, unresponsive, or biased.

But, does this digital route to justice really benefit people?

Before airing grievances or accusations online, there are certain Malaysian laws you should be aware of:

🔹 Section 233, Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA)

• Criminalizes sharing content that is "obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive" with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass.
  
  

• Widely used in cases involving offensive or false social media content.
  
  

• Penalty: Up to RM50,000 fine, 1 year imprisonment, or both.
  
  

🔹 Defamation Laws (Penal Code & Civil Law)

• Section 499 of the Penal Code defines criminal defamation—injuring someone’s reputation with false statements.
  
  

• Even if you're sharing a personal experience, naming someone falsely could lead to a lawsuit or criminal charge.
  
  

🔹 Sedition Act 1948

• Penalizes speech or publications that could incite hatred against the government, judiciary, or provoke ethnic or religious tensions.
  
  

• Sharing crime stories involving sensitive racial/religious dynamics might risk sedition charges.
  
  

🔹 Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (PDPA)

• If your post exposes personal data of others (e.g., name, IC number, address), you may violate PDPA, especially if the subject is a private citizen.

Free speech or cyberbullying? The YBB incident is a mirror for modern social media

YBB, formerly known as Yang Hongling, is a YouTuber and writer with a wide fan base in Malaysia. She is known for sharing her daily life, fashion and personal stories. However, in 2021, she was accused of fraud for allegedly selling luxury bags through social media but not delivering the goods, which attracted widespread attention. She then publicly admitted that she owed a huge debt due to gambling addiction and tried to repay the loan through fraud. After the incident was exposed, she tried to commit suicide, but fortunately she was rescued in time and posted a public apology video on social media.

Article 10 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia grants citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, this freedom is not absolute and is restricted by a number of laws including the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and the Sedition Act 1948. The YBB incident not only triggered criticism of her personal behavior, but also triggered a lot of cyber violence on social media. Although freedom of speech is a basic right, how to prevent the abuse of this right in cyberspace is also worth pondering.

As an online celebrity with a large number of fans, YBB's words and deeds not only affect herself, but also a large number of young audiences. Her case reminds us that while public figures enjoy freedom of speech, they must also bear corresponding social responsibilities. Spreading misleading information and publishing false content will not only damage personal credibility, but may also lead to serious social consequences.

Freedom of speech on social media is not just about "saying whatever you want", but also about considering the authenticity of the information, social impact, and respect for others. In this era of information explosion, everyone is a disseminator of information. While enjoying freedom of expression, we must also learn to take responsibility and avoid hurting others. Freedom of speech is an important cornerstone of modern society, but only by finding a balance between freedom and responsibility can the value of this right be truly realized.

Writed by LIM CIN SHAN

Is the TikTok Ban Protecting the State, or Blocking Freedom?

Is the TikTok Ban Protecting the State, or Blocking Freedom?

TikTok is no longer just a fun app for dance videos — it's the hub of an international controversy involving national security, data privacy, and free speech. In the United States alone, over 150 million individuals use the platform not just to be entertained, but also to share political views, share their own experiences, and even stage social movements. But TikTok's Chinese origins have made it a political target and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have warned it could become a "surveillance tool" or "cognitive warfare weapon."

These concerns have spurred legislation like the RESTRICT Act, remembering the Trump administration's failed 2020 attempt to ban TikTok — a proposal derailed by courts for overstepping executive power. But the debate today goes far beyond national security. At its center is a more basic question: Does the U.S. government have a constitutional mandate to ban a foreign-owned platform that serves as a colossal public forum of discourse? Where does the First Amendment set the line?

Would the First Amendment Protect TikTok?

The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment establishes that the government shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech or the press." The courts have long interpreted this protection to extend to online spaces. In the 1997 landmark case of Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court held that the internet is just as protected under free speech as old media.

Under the First Amendment’s strict scrutiny standard, a ban would have to meet two major tests:
A slippery slope for speech: The government shuts down a foreign website today; tomorrow, will it silence domestic voices in the name of "disinformation"?

Most ironic of all, though, is that the U.S. still does not have an overarching federal data privacy law. Instead of targeting one app, legislators could follow the EU's lead and its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which imposes reasonable and uniform regulations on all companies, no matter their nationality, a genuine long-term fix.

TikTok is far from ideal, yet it has emerged as an essential means of self-expression for tens of millions of Americans. Banning it would be like "using a sledgehammer to drive a very small nail" — not just arguably unconstitutional, but also profoundly disruptive to recreational users. It takes subtlety, not policy-making by reflex, to balance national security and free speech. For in crisis times, the First Amendment is there to remind us: Our rights are never the first casualty of fear.

This would imply TikTok isn't only a commercial program but today's equivalent of a digital public square. Should the government move to outlaw the site completely, that might represent "prior restraint"— muzzling speech before when it has been expressed. In American constitutional culture, this is nearly a constitutional "original sin," allowed only in the most extreme cases (e.g., incitement to violence), and even then only after taking the first steps in as limited a form as possible.

1. Is there a compelling government interest? National security is undoubtedly important, but the government must demonstrate concrete evidence that TikTok poses an imminent threat and not a speculative ones.

2. Is the restriction narrowly tailored? A blanket ban is the most bluntly possible solution. Less restrictive alternatives e.g., data localization, algorithmic transparency, or third-party audits, can address concerns without silencing an entire platform.

Even if national security is the rationale, employing a ban as the remedy has ominous implications:

Whose turn is next? If TikTok is banned for foreign affiliation, do other apps such as WeChat, Telegram, or even domestic apps with foreign investors face the same consequence?



Written by Wei Ee

Fear and Silence: How Malaysia Uses the Law to Silence Art and Expression

The Sedition Act 1948 and the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998 were originally introduced with the stated purpose of maintaining public order and preventing the spread of inflammatory content that could incite racial or religious conflict. However, in recent years, Malaysia has seen a troubling rise in the use of the Sedition Act 1948 and the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA) to suppress dissent and silence critics. Originally intended to prevent racial and religious conflict, these laws are now commonly being leveraged to stifle free speech and limit public discourse.

The Cases That Speak Volumes

Fahmi Reza

One of the most prominent cases illustrating this trend is that of Fahmi Reza, a graphic artist and activist known for his satirical depictions of political figures. Fahmi has been repeatedly investigated and arrested under both the Sedition Act and CMA for his satirical artwork. 

On 6 June 2016, Fahmi Reza was charged with violating multimedia laws by caricaturing former Prime Minister Najib Razak as a sinister clown to protest against allegations of massive corruption linked to Najib. On 20 February 2018, the Ipoh Sessions Court sentenced Fahmi to one month in prison and fined him RM30,000. Upon appeal, the Ipoh High Court on 12 November 2018 upheld the conviction but reduced the fine to RM10,000 and set aside the prison sentence.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahmi_Reza

Fahmi shared the image on X (formerly Twitter)

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43127199

In early April 2021, Fahmi was arrested again—this time over a Spotify playlist titled “This is dengki ke?” ("Is this jealousy?") accompanied by a photo of the 16th Raja Permaisuri Agong, Tunku Hajah Azizah Aminah Maimunah Iskandariah. The playlist was a satirical response to a comment she made on her personal Instagram account. On 20 April 2021, police officers broke into Fahmi’s house and arrested the graphic designer for investigations under the Sedition Act. He was remanded for a day and released on police bail. He was subsequently freed of all the charges.

Source: https://advox.globalvoices.org/2021/05/06/two-malaysian-artists-face-police-probe-for-online-commentary-and-artwork/

Source: https://www.dw.com/en/malaysia-artist-arrested-for-insulting-queen-with-spotify-playlist/a-57320581

Just a year later, Fahmi faced yet another investigation—this time over a cartoon of a monkey in royal regalia. The monkey cartoon was created when the Sultan of Selangor purchased a sketch of the Malaysian Parliament and posted it on his Twitter account. Apes and frogs sit in the chairs in the Parliament painting, with a human speaker presiding. Once again, his art triggered the machinery of state enforcement.

Source: https://www.cartooningforpeace.org/en/alert-malaysia-fahmi-reza/

Zulkifli Anwar Ulhaque (draws under the name Zunar)

Another towering figure in Malaysia’s struggle for free speech is Zulkiflee Anwar Alhaque, a famous political cartoonist better known as Zunar. The authorities have repeatedly used the sedition law against Zunar, resulting in his imprisonment in 2010 and 2015. Zunar has faced multiple sedition charges, including nine charges in 2015 that carried a possible sentence of up to 43 years in prison. His office had been raided, and his books banned. Even the printers, vendors, and bookstores that worked with him were harassed. Their premises were raided and they were warned not to print or carry any of Zunar’s books or their business licence will be revoked. Three of his assistants were arrested. 

Source: https://zunar.my/2016/10/23/story-cartoonist-zunar/

In November 2016, Zunar was arrested under the Sedition Act during the George Town Literary Festival in Penang, which ironically, was a space meant to celebrate literature and free expression. The arrest was linked to his satirical cartoons allegedly insulting former Prime Minister Najib Razak regarding the corruption scandal. The fact that Zunar’s arrest happened at the George Town Literary Festival, with dozens of international writers and artists, only underscores the government’s disregard for freedom of expression. The arrest drew condemnation from festival organisers and international observers, highlighting concerns over freedom of expression in Malaysia. 

Eventually, all charges against Zunar were dropped. But the years of intimidation reveal just how far authorities are willing to go to silence critique.

It’s not just artists who are targeted. Ordinary citizens, activists, and journalists have also been targeted under these laws for comments made on social media posts. In December 2024, amendments introduced to Section 233 of the CMA further expanded the definition of 'false' content to include statements deemed 'confusing' or 'incomplete,' making it easier for authorities to prosecute individuals based on vague criteria. This broad scope fosters a climate of self-censorship, as Malaysians fear that their online posts could be construed as 'offensive' or 'false' and land them in legal trouble.

Conclusion

As Malaysia continues to expand the scope of laws like the Sedition Act and CMA, the space for dissent and critical discourse continues to shrink. The cases of Fahmi Reza and Zunar send a clear message: satire, criticism, and even sarcasm can be punished when those in power take offence. When art becomes a criminal act, society is in danger. 

Malaysia’s pattern of prosecuting dissent reveals a deeply concerning truth: free speech is only free when it doesn’t offend the powerful. In a time when global awareness of human rights is increasing, Malaysia's aggressive stance against free speech is a regressive step that risks isolating the country on the world stage.

Source

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahmi_Reza

• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43127199

• https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/artist-arrested-after-allegedly-using-spotify-playlist-to-insult-malaysias-queen

• https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/malaysian-police-arrest-artist-allegedly-insulting-queen-with-spotify-playlist-2021-04-24/  

• https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/arrested-for-a-spotify-playlist-insulting-queen-artist-vows-to-fight-new-laws-20210425-p57m5w.html

• https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/08/24/fahmi-rezas-dengki-ke-sedition-case-dropped

• https://advox.globalvoices.org/2021/05/06/two-malaysian-artists-face-police-probe-for-online-commentary-and-artwork/

• https://www.cartooningforpeace.org/en/alert-malaysia-fahmi-reza/

• https://www.dw.com/en/malaysia-artist-arrested-for-insulting-queen-with-spotify-playlist/a-57320581

• https://www.dw.com/en/malaysian-cartoonist-zunar-arrested-at-literary-festival-charged-with-sedition-again/a-36536985#:~:text='Zunar'%20charged%20under%20Sedition%20Act%20several%20times&text=The%20artist%20is%20no%20stranger,to%20prove%20intent%20was%20unconstitutional

• https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/malaysia-drops-sedition-case-against-political-cartoonist-zunar

• https://zunar.my/2016/10/23/story-cartoonist-zunar/

Written by Pei Suen

 Fake News and its Consequences: 

Death of Najib

In the recent case,  April 14, 2025, a news regarding the death of Najib spread by a Facebook post in group alleging of Najib's death due to a unknown disease and has passed in hospital. The post later sparked rage in the group due to the photo used in along with the fake news created a misleading news for the members in the group, causing the admin to call it out telling them to stop spreading allegations without any proof. Due to the post spreading like wildfire and circulated around social media, it eventually reached to a point of Rosmah having to clear up the allegations explaining that her husband is clearly alive and well, and had pinned the rumours as an act of defamation towards them and to stop spreading fake news.

Sources from World of Buzz

What Are The Consequences?

Under media law in many jurisdictions, the deliberate spread of false information especially regarding someone’s health or death, can be classified as defamation or spreading false news, both of which carry legal consequences such as fines, lawsuits, or even imprisonment under laws like the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. It also emphasizes the importance of responsible online behavior, media literacy, and verifying information before sharing it publicly to avoid causing harm or facing legal consequences.

Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA 1998):

Section 233 – Improper Use of Network Facilities, It is illegal to spread content online that is:

• False

• Offensive

• Threatening

• Meant to annoy, abuse, or harass other

Consequences:

Fine up to RM50,000 / up to 1 year in jail or both. Additional fine of RM1,000 per day if the offense continues.

Source:

ACT 588 COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA ACT 1998

THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE...

Written by Horen

 Mutual Respect with Each Other: 

Non-Muslim Man Slapped by An Elderly Man for Eating in Public 

How to Legally Protect Your Online Speech

For creators, influencers, and everyday users navigating takedowns, defamation, and digital risk.

The internet has given everyone a voice — but speaking freely online isn’t the same as speaking without consequences. From YouTube creators and podcasters to meme accounts and everyday users, anyone can face content removals, legal threats, or defamation claims.

This post breaks down practical ways to protect your online speech, so you can speak your truth — wisely and safely.

1. Free Speech Has Legal Limits

Yes, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech — but not all speech is protected.

Here’s what the law doesn’t shield:

• Defamation: false statements that damage someone’s reputation

• True threats or incitement to violence

• Copyright violations

• Doxing, harassment, or invasion of privacy

If you cross these lines, you can be sued — or even prosecuted — regardless of your intent. Knowing where the legal boundaries are is the first step to staying safe.

2. Use Clear Disclaimers

If you create content, give opinions, or offer advice, disclaimers are your friend.

Consider adding:

• “Opinions are my own” — to separate personal views from facts

• “Not legal/medical/financial advice” — to reduce liability

• #Ad or #Sponsored — if you’re paid to post, disclosure is a legal must (FTC rules)

Disclaimers don’t make you lawsuit-proof, but they show that you’re acting transparently — which matters in court and in public perception.

3. Think Before You Name (or Shame)

Calling out someone online? Sharing screenshots or personal stories?

Ask yourself:

• Is this verifiably true?

• Am I stating facts or opinions?

• Could this damage someone’s reputation?

Even if you're confident, tread carefully. Defamation suits — including SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) — can be costly, even if you ultimately win.

When in doubt: generalize. Focus on the issue, not the individual — or consult a lawyer before posting.

4. Know How Defamation Works

To sue you for defamation, a person usually needs to prove:

1. You made a false statement, presented as fact

2. You published it (even just on social media)

3. It caused harm to their reputation

4. You acted with negligence (or actual malice, for public figures)

Truth is a defense — but you’ll need evidence. Save your receipts.

5. Document Everything

Whether you’re making a claim or defending yourself:

• Keep screenshots, messages, and original posts

• Record dates and timestamps

• Don’t delete content if someone threatens legal action — that could be seen as destruction of evidence

Think of documentation as your legal seatbelt: you hope you won’t need it, but you’ll be glad you wore it if things crash.

6. Understand Platform Rules

Social media companies are private platforms, not the government. That means:

• They can remove content that violates their terms

• They’re not required to host your speech

• You can (and should) use their appeals process if you believe content was removed unfairly

Each platform has its own community guidelines. Read them — boring, but essential. Repeated violations can lead to shadow banning, demonetization, or permanent bans.

7. Know Your Legal Tools

If you're threatened with a lawsuit or your content is unfairly targeted:

• Consult a digital rights lawyer

• Research anti-SLAPP laws in your state (they help protect against lawsuits meant to silence you)

• Use resources like EFF.org (Electronic Frontier Foundation), or the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

These organizations offer free guides, templates, and sometimes legal referrals.

Final Thoughts: Speak Freely, But Speak Smart

Online expression is powerful. Whether you're educating, entertaining, or advocating — knowing how to protect yourself legally means you can speak out with confidence.

Bottom line:

• Tell the truth — and back it up

• Avoid reckless personal attacks

• Follow platform rules

• Use disclaimers and save your receipts

• Get legal help when needed

In the digital age, protecting your speech isn’t just about rights — it’s about being prepared.

Written by Chong Xin Yit