Punishment or Bullying? The Media Ethics and Legal Gray Areas in the Alice and Adeline Case

Today, social media has become a modern public court, where a short video or a picture can turn an average person into a national headline overnight. The case of "Alice and Adeline" in 2025 reignited Malaysia's public debate about freedom of speech, cyberbullying, public morality, and media responsibility.

Alice Chang was fired from Auntie's after a viral video showed her mishandling food. Her later observations working at other brands, like Cold Stone Creamery and Nando's, sparked further outrage and brand controversies. Also, her sister, Adeline, had already become famous because of a ride-hailing altercation and fraud allegations, which fueled the public's interest in the two sisters.

SOURCE: MY HOMETOWN MEDIA

To me, Alice and Adeline have transcended the status of victims. They appear to have mastered the art of converting controversy into public interest. Their sheer persistence in new career endeavors, coupled with Adeline's fiery livestreams, clearly demonstrates their grasp of the fundamental principle: online attention equals value.

Their behavior is no longer accidental but deliberate, intending to stay in the online limelight. While every person has a right to self-expression, converting that into provocation and manipulation of public opinion is a violation of ethical norms.

SOURCE: ORIENTAL DAILY

Although the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of speech under Article 10(1), Article 10(2) allows Parliament to impose restrictions in the interest of national security, public order, or morality. The main laws relevant to this case are:

• Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA): Under Section 233, it is an offense to use network facilities to knowingly "transmit any comment, request, suggestion or communication which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character."
• Defamation Act 1957: Public or media statements that are untrue and harmful to one's reputation may be legally actionable under civil law.
• Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA): Sharing someone's identifiable image or data without consent could violate their privacy rights.

The media, including social media users, were instrumental in spreading information regarding the incident. While bringing issues to light may be of value to the public interest, the line between public scrutiny and cyberbullying lowers the perception of justice. Brands must balance human dignity and crisis response too. Were Auntie Anne's and Cold Stone Creamery really committed to food safety, or were they simply reacting to external pressure from the public?

The sage of Alice and Adeline reveals the murky line between freedom of speech and pubic denouncement. We must be more aware as users of social media of whom we support or condemn. As regulators, we must ensure that platforms are not utilized as instruments of unconstrained exposure and e-punishment. And finally, we must ask ourselves: When someone falls, do we lift them up or do we reach for our phones to record? That is not a legal question, that is a moral ONE.

Written by Lee Wei Ee