I'm appalled by the letter issued by MCMC to Malaysiakini instructing them to remove a couple of videos relating to the recent protests in relation to the relocation of a Hindu temple to Section 23.

The MCMC is purportedly acting pursuant to Section 211(1) which reads:

(1) No content applications service provider, or other persons using a content applications service, shall provide content which is indecent, obscene, false, menacing, or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person.

Let's look at Section 211(1) closely. It must be realised that Section 211(1) has two parts. Firstly, the type of content that is forbidden, and secondly the intent of the person providing the content.

In order to establish an offence, both parts must be read together, i.e. there must be determination that the content is indeed "indecent, obscene, false, menacing, or offensive in character" AND it must have been provided with the "intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person".

Having established that, let's take a look at the first part of Section 211(1).

The content must have been "indecent, obscene, false, menacing, or offensive in character". I think we can strike out the words "indecent", "obscene" and "false" as the videos cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered so. This leaves "menacing" and "offensive".

Are the videos indeed "menacing" or "offensive" in character? I'd say that there was a "menacing" aspect to the video especially bearing in mind the threats made by the protesters of racial riots and blood on the streets.

I'd also say that the videos were "offensive" in character, particularly the actions of the protesters in relation to the cow's head, which we as all know is sacred to Hindus.

Having established that the first limb of Section 211(1) is fulfilled, let's take a look at the second limb, i.e. whether Malaysiakini provided the videos with the "intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person".

First, though, let's identify the party providing the content, i.e. Malaysiakini. As far as I know, Malaysiakini is a news gathering organisation.

Its intent is to gather the news and to report it, and hopefully to make a profit for its shareholders in doing so. I repeat, its intent is to report the news. Its intent is not to "annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person".

The fact that it does "annoy" some people through the publication of the videos, is merely a side effect of reporting the news. Just like Utusan Malaysia's political news reports, which "annoy" a large group of non-Malays.

Just like news reports on Altantuya, which "annoy" the ruling government. Just like news reports on Kampung Buah Pala, which annoy the DAP. Just like news reports involving criminals, annoy the criminals themselves.

I can understand MCMC's actions if Malaysiakini had in fact reported the protest in a manner designed to cause "annoyance" to Hindus.

But in fact, upon viewing the videos myself, the video of the protest was accompanied by strictly factual comments that made no judgement whether for or against the issue, and the video of the minister's statement was taken without any accompanying statements whatsoever.

Malaysiakini merely made available the news as it had been recorded!

Being a Hindu myself, I'm not annoyed by Malaysiakini's publication of the videos. I'm annoyed, in fact very annoyed, with the attempt to bury the video clips by MCMC, which is probably being forced by powers greater than themselves to take this action. For the record Malaysiakini, thank you for highlighting the issue!

In my honest opinion, I think it should be clear to every level-headed Malaysian that Malaysiakini does not have the "intent" required by the second part of Section 211(1). Its intent is to report the news "as is" and to make a return for its shareholders.

Therefore, Malaysiakini must resist the MCMC action under Section 211(1) at all costs.

If indeed the MCMC proceeds with action under Section 211, it is firstly an attempt to censor Malaysiakini's video reports, which goes against Section 3(3) of the CMA which reads "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet".

Secondly, it will also set a precedent. Anytime someone (e.g. Umno, DAP, PAS, or someone charged with a crime, etc) is "annoyed" with any news being reported about them online, MCMC had better be prepared to whip out Section 211 and take action, or face the risk of being branded as another regulator which is guilty of selective prosecution.

Respect the law, MCMC!