Internet Security

Dominion Voting Systems’ Legal Rampage Against Trump’s Grifters

Every year, my colleagues and I get to go through “libel training.” Every year, I also make the insufferable joke to my co-workers that we’re going to be trained to commit libel. Unfortunately, it’s not quite that exciting. A lawyer who’s worked with The New Republic for many years presents a PowerPoint on the basics…

Every year, my colleagues and I get to go through “libel training.” Every year, I also make the insufferable joke to my co-workers that we’re going to be trained to commit libel. Unfortunately, it’s not quite that exciting. A lawyer who’s worked with The New Republic for many years presents a PowerPoint on the basics of American defamation law. He describes what counts as defamation and what doesn’t, what can insulate us from liability and what can increase it, and some of the gray areas where caution might be warranted.The annual lesson is a useful reminder that we have a responsibility, both legal and moral, to use our platform wisely. (I believe it’s also required by TNR’s insurance.) From a global perspective, we’re actually pretty lucky on this front. The First Amendment makes it extraordinarily difficult to bring a successful defamation lawsuit against someone in American courts. Australia and Britain, by comparison, have much lower legal thresholds for libel claims to succeed. This is one reason, among others, why the #MeToo movement spread further in American society than it did in many other countries, where survivors’ stories could be stifled with legal threats.But the U.S. threshold for defamation claims is not insurmountable. Mike Lindell, the far-right CEO of MyPillow, may soon find this out the hard way. Dominion Voting Systems filed a lawsuit against him this week for his central role in spreading what it refers to in its suit as the “Big Lie” that Donald Trump actually won the 2020 election, which among other things implicates the company as a participant in this unhinged conspiracy to thwart American democracy. “Despite having been specifically directed to the evidence and sources disproving the Big Lie, Lindell knowingly lied about Dominion to sell more pillows to people who continued tuning in to hear what they wanted to hear about the election,” Dominion said in the complaint.Dominion is suing the MyPillow CEO not just for lying about the election but for trying to monetize those lies, as well.Lindell is one of multiple right-wing figures who have recently found themselves on the other end of a defamation lawsuit in recent weeks over this “Big Lie.” But what makes Lindell’s case interesting is how it doesn’t simply rest on that wrong. Dominion is suing the MyPillow CEO not just for lying about the election but for trying to monetize those lies, as well. Along the way, the beleaguered voting-machine company provides a useful window into how the right-wing media grift really operates.Dominion’s lawsuits are clearly written to be read by a lay audience. Its 107-page complaint against Rudy Giuliani, which was filed a few weeks after the attack on the Capitol, doubles as a partial history of the postelection chaos. It weaves Giuliani’s incendiary claims about election fraud with how those claims resonated among Trump supporters—and how Giuliani sought to hawk various products along the way, including “gold coins, supplements, cigars, and protection from ‘cyberthieves.’” Taken together, the insurrection on January 6 feels almost inevitable, in hindsight, as Giuliani and others repeatedly warned their listeners that the nation was in peril and that American democracy had been stolen.Giuliani did not disavow his past claims after January 6, but he at least had the good sense to be less conspicuous about them. Mike Lindell took a different approach. Dominion’s 121-page complaint against him documents in exacting detail how Lindell’s actions unfolded. The MyPillow CEO claimed for months that Trump’s victory was stolen from him—and from his supporters—by Dominion, the Democrats, a few foreign governments, and a dizzying array of other co-conspirators. To say there is no evidence to support his claims is to suggest that he meant for them to be falsifiable. They are pure and unadulterated nonsense. Time and time again, he claimed that the evidence would bear out his extraordinary claims. That evidence invariably turned out to be false or nonsensical. Every election official and court of law in the country that scrutinized the “Big Lie” found it to be wrong.Dominion devotes ample space in its complaint to documenting how Lindell’s claims were not just wrong, but recklessly and intentionally wrong in their view. The company had no choice if it wanted to meet the legal threshold for defamation. What’s even more interesting is how Dominion wove in the economic forces at play. Lindell, in its telling, is not just some random guy with an unusually large platform. He’s a key advertising sponsor on the networks that aired his sensational claims, creating a conflict of interest for the media outlets that hosted him—and a profit opportunity for himself.To that end, Dominion also charged him with engaging in deceptive trade practices. Lindell, Dominion argued in its complaint, “willfully made them in the course of his business as the CEO of MyPillow because he and his company could derive—and did in fact derive—financial benefits from making those false statements, namely, sales of MyPillow products that occurred because Lindell was exploiting and disseminating defamatory falsehoods about Dominion.” No such claim was raised against Giuliani in the company’s complaint against him.Lindell, who is better known as “the MyPillow guy,” became an early ally of Donald Trump and used that connection to leverage his brand even further. He advertised prolifically on Fox and other right-wing networks, even as other sponsors abandoned them. Lindell’s ubiquity made it even more remarkable when he openly clashed with Newsmax hosts over his election-fraud lies. Dominion’s complaint recounts the showdown:Five days later, Newsmax gave Lindell an interview to discuss the fact that Twitter had banned Lindell’s account for spreading election disinformation and then had banned MyPillow’s corporate account because Lindell had used it to circumvent the ban on his personal account. Newsmax knew that the discussion of those bans was an invitation to have Lindell repeat the Big Lie that had gotten Lindell banned from Twitter in the first place. For weeks prior to that, Newsmax had broadcast defamatory falsehoods about Dominion. And Newsmax was fully aware at this point that the Big Lie was in fact a lie, as evidenced by Newsmax’s own prior “clarifying” segment on the topic. Newsmax had broadcast that segment because it was worried about being sued for defamation—not because it cared about the truth. If Newsmax cared about the truth, it would not have broadcast the Big Lie again after issuing the “clarifying” segment. But, unwilling to lose MyPillow ad dollars and seeking to protect its credibility with people it had already misled into believing the election was stolen, Newsmax bowed to the pressure and gave its financial backer a global platform to repeat the Big Lie that Newsmax knew was false—and to market MyPillow. Foreseeably, Lindell—introduced with the chyron “CEO, MyPillow”—said “we have all this election fraud with these Dominion machines. We have 100% proof.” Newsmax anchor Bob Sellers interjected by reading a legal disclaimer that was clearly drafted beforehand by Newsmax lawyers in a calculated attempt to shirk responsibility for what Newsmax knew Lindell would say on air. Lindell shouted over Sellers, saying that Twitter had banned him “because I’m reviewing all the evidence on Friday of the election fraud with all these machines.” Despite Sellers’s on-air plea to Newsmax to “get out of here,” Newsmax did not cut Lindell’s mic, and Sellers walked off set.The Newsmax-Lindell blowup went semi-viral on social media and received some news coverage. What received less attention, however, was a follow-up appearance made on the network later that evening by Lindell to, according to Dominion, “smooth things over, market MyPillow, and lend further credibility to Lindell and the Big Lie about Dominion.”Rob Schmitt acknowledged the earlier interview and told Lindell, “obviously you were on the network earlier in the day and we made some waves there. We’ll leave it at that. But you and Newsmax have always had a good relationship.” Newsmax again promoted the Big Lie by giving Lindell a platform to say, in reference to the earlier interview where he had said he had “100% proof” of “fraud with the Dominion machines,” that he would have “something coming out on Friday that is going to really help, a documentary I have put together.” When asked how the Twitter ban had impacted MyPillow’s business, Lindell said “Everyone is buying, and we are so busy, we are so busy, we are hiring. We have over 102 products, it is not just pillows anymore. Customers have always stepped up right now. It’s amazing. Just like Newsmax did.” Schmitt responded, “No kidding, my parents have one of your pillows in fact.” Lindell then pitched MyPillow and told viewers they could still use “the promo code ‘Newsmax’ on MyPillow.com to save up to 66%.”When Lindell later bought large chunks of airtime on One America News Network, or OAN, the network tried to distance itself from what would undoubtedly be false claims by running a legal disclaimer before his broadcasts. But Dominion argued that this maneuver was disingenuous, at best. “In stark contrast to OAN’s barely legible fine-print disclaimer that the film contained ‘opinions’ ‘not intended to be taken or interpreted by the viewer as established facts,’ on its official Twitter feed, OAN explicitly endorsed and promoted the film as a ‘report breaking down election fraud evidence & showing how the unprecedented level of voter fraud was committed in the 2020 Presidential Election,’” Dominion noted in its complaint.For Dominion itself, the impact of these lies is immense. “Because of death threats and other threatening messages prompted by the lies told by Lindell and his allies, Dominion has made significant expenditures to protect its people from harm—including by employing on-site police and security,” the company told the court. “Since the beginning of the viral disinformation campaign, Dominion has spent more than $565,000 on private security for the protection of its people.” The company itself has also suffered business damages from the reputational harm it suffered over the past few months. Dominion told the court that it projected a loss of $200 million in potential profits over the next five years and that its resale value, which once ranged between $450 million and $500 million, had been effectively “destroyed.”What other remedy, beyond these kinds of lawsuits, is available to companies like Dominion?What other remedy, beyond these kinds of lawsuits, is available to companies like Dominion? The First Amendment means that Congress can’t simply pass a law banning right-wing outlets from lying to their audiences. (This would also be a mistake for other reasons, even if the First Amendment did allow it.) Activist groups have tried to fight speech with speech by targeting Fox News with boycotts for more than a decade. Their efforts may have had some impact on individual hosts and shows, but they failed to tilt the network as a whole toward more responsible coverage. Fox’s corporate owners announced a 31 percent jump in advertising in the most recent quarterly report, increasing both revenue and profits even as it lost ratings share to right-flank rivals like OAN and Newsmax after the election.Litigation, however, is a uniquely potent threat to right-wing purveyors of falsehoods. It imposes an outer bound of conduct where basic ethics, civic values, and common sense will not. Lou Dobbs, who spent months disputing the election results without evidence, lost his Fox Business Network show one day after Smartmatic, another voting-machine company, filed a lawsuit against him and his network. Other right-wing outlets have scrambled to retract or rewrite articles that fed into the “Big Lie” before January 6. Some conservative networks have even run special segments disavowing their previous coverage under the threat of legal action.Lindell, for his part, has welcomed the possibility of a lawsuit. “I dare Dominion to sue me, because then it will get out faster,” he recently told Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, referring to the purported evidence of wrongdoing he has thus far failed to deliver. This does not seem like a wise legal strategy, but it’s also not uncommon among his fellow “Big Lie” adherents. Reflexively doubling down is what got them to this point in the first place. Rudy Giuliani made a similarly audacious claim and then spent a week evading a process server, according to Dominion. Sidney Powell reportedly sat silently in a car as someone tried to serve her with a similar lawsuit, as if it were a Tyrannosaurus rex and she could escape Jurassic Park undevoured as long as she didn’t flinch. This is a jarring glimpse into how the right-wing media grift operates. There are individual journalists who are conservative and do good or even great work. But the idea of “conservative journalism” has proven somewhat hollow, especially over the past few years. As my colleague Alex Pareene once noted, conservative media outlets tend to trend toward misinformation and propaganda over substantive reporting for the simple reason that it’s easier and more congruous with the conservative movement’s goals. The Trump era laid bare how this dynamic worked: Virtually every great scoop of the last four years came not from Fox, OAN, or Breitbart, but from mainstream networks and newspapers. Trumpworld couldn’t stop complaining about “fake news” while leaking to the same reporters it disparaged.I am not optimistic that this barrage of lawsuits will lead to a deeper reckoning among the purveyors of right-wing slop. It’s simply too profitable to tell legions of American viewers that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sabotaged Texas’s power grid earlier this month for these outlets to stop any time soon. And there is still a vast array of lies and half-truths that right-wing figures can spread without rising to the level of legal action. The First Amendment, for all its glory, is also merciless. As an American journalist, I want that threshold to remain high. But I would be lying if I said it wasn’t somewhat satisfying to watch large swaths of the conservative media ecosystem reckon with the deadly consequences of its actions over the past few months.
Read More

Be the first to write a comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Internet Security

Nexo says 67% of affluent investors own crypto but few make it central to wealth plans

Nexo says 67% of affluent investors own crypto, but integration stays low. Security, fees and platform complexity emerge as key barriers to adoption. US investors show deepest crypto integration despite lower ownership rates. High-net-worth investors are increasingly buying crypto, but many are still reluctant to make it a major part of their long-term wealth plans


An investor checks rising cryptocurrency charts on a laptop and smartphone with a city skyline visible through the office window.

  • Nexo says 67% of affluent investors own crypto, but integration stays low.
  • Security, fees and platform complexity emerge as key barriers to adoption.
  • US investors show deepest crypto integration despite lower ownership rates.

High-net-worth investors are increasingly buying crypto, but many are still reluctant to make it a major part of their long-term wealth plans, according to a new Nexo survey.

The report found that 67% of affluent investors across the US, UK and Argentina already own crypto. However, security concerns, high fees and complicated platforms are stopping many from using digital assets for retirement planning or replacing traditional investments.

Nexo published its “Future of Digital Wealth 2026” report on September 23 after surveying 1,000 affluent investors. Its new Crypto Integration Index, which measures how deeply crypto is incorporated into investors’ finances, produced an average score of 4.83 out of 10.

Ownership outpaces deeper integration

Nexo said a score near the survey average of 4.83 represents a small, short-horizon crypto position outside retirement planning.

Only 4.7% of surveyed investors scored seven or higher, a level Nexo describes as structurally integrated, where crypto has replaced a traditional asset and forms part of longer-term financial planning.

The report found that just under 20% of respondents expect crypto to become their number-one personal wealth driver over the next decade, ahead of salary, equities and real estate.

More than 40% are already invested in crypto without yet building wealth with it.

“Once an investor gets past the risk perception stage, what’s left is security, fees, and platform user-friendliness and capabilities – the same things we’ve spent years building Nexo to solve,” said Neil Steinhardt, COO, Nexo US.

That’s the gap between owning crypto and actually building wealth with it, and it’s exactly where our platform is designed to meet investors.

Integration also varies by market. Argentina had the highest ownership rate at 74%, but a CII score of 4.62. The US had the lowest ownership at 62%, but the deepest integration with a score of 5.07.

The UK recorded 65% ownership and a CII score of 4.75.

Platform trust becomes the next hurdle

The report said crypto integration peaks among investors aged 35 to 44, with 28% treating digital assets as a core retirement asset.

Investors aged 18 to 25 reported the highest ownership and conviction, with more than 90% holding crypto, but only 2% maintaining a horizon of 10 years or longer.

Among

Read More

Continue Reading
Internet Security

LIZ PEEK: Can Trump Make the UN Great Again despite its globalist agenda?

close Video Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon condemns the UN for allegedly including Israel in sexual violence blacklist Danny Danon, the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations (UN), blasts the UN for what he claims is their decision to include Israel in a sexual violence blacklist that also includes Hamas. NEWYou can

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Today, President Trump will address the U.N. General Assembly. As New Yorkers fume over traffic nightmares created by the president and by hordes of visiting diplomats, they may (again) question, as do many Americans, why U.S. taxpayers support this badly managed and scandal-scarred institution. Especially when the U.N. so frequently works against our interests and seems incapable of accomplishing its primary mission.

A new Gallup poll shows that 73% of Americans think the U.N. does a poor job of “maintaining international peace and security,” and 70% say the same about the U.N. “upholding international law” and “protecting human rights.” That’s a lousy report card for an organization that spends roughly $70 billion per year.

Elsewhere in the world, the U.N. scores better, which is not surprising since poor countries, which constitute the majority of members, look to wealthier nations for handouts via the U.N. The nations of Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, are especially keen on the sprawling organization.

WALTZ DELIVERS BLUNT WARNING TO NATIONS DEFYING IRAN SANCTIONS, TOUTS GREENLAND DEAL

Trump heads to UN General Assembly as foreign policy challenges mount Video

How does that wealth transfer happen? One way was described by President Trump’s U.N. Ambassador Mike Waltz in recent testimony before Congress: “The U.N. let countries use peacekeeping missions as cash cows for their militaries. Peacekeepers could bring equipment, park it, never use it, take it home brand new, and get it paid for by the U.N.” Those operations can employ “10,000 to 18,000 soldiers”; the costs, Waltz says, are “quite significant.” He is ending that practice — just one step in reforming the bloated U.N., whose budget has quadrupled over the past 25 years.

Americans have reason for skepticism, given the frequent votes that go against the U.S. or our ally Israel. For thirty-three years in a row, the General Assembly has voted to end our embargo on Cuba, and for decades it has opposed Israel’s attempts to protects its citizens from Palestinian terrorists. Waltz calls the body a “cesspool of antisemitism.”

WALTZ SLAMS FRANCE AFTER STUNNING SOCIAL MEDIA ATTACK ON US AFTER UN VOTE

Not only is the U.N. frequently hostile to the U.S., it is often ridiculous. Most recently, the U.N. voted overwhelmingly to adopt a new map which blows up Africa’s presence on the globe; the U.S. was the sole dissenter. In a memo explaining our outlier vote, Deputy U.S. Representative Yaryna Ferencevych called such resolutions “barnacles on our work here” and wrote: “Instead of focusing on genuine problems of international peace… this body is debating map projects from the 16th century, and their role in promoting reparations and “cognitive justice.”

The U.N. rarely has much real-world impact. Critics might question, for instance, what the U.N. has done to resolve the Russia-Ukraine War, or how it has helped keep the world’s oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz. The answer in both cases is zero.

Instead, the U.N. is hyper-focused on climate change, gender equality and other issues that may scratch a globalist itch, but appear little related to the cause of peace.

Demonstrators gather outside United Nations General Assembly Video

Meanwhile, the U.N. is going broke. Last year the Economist reported: “On May 5th the U.N. will brief members on a previously unreported $600m (17%) cut to its $3.7bn [administrative] budget aimed at avoiding default this year. It will include a hiring freeze… Yet it may not be enough. A combination of deadbeat members and mad budget rules have led to a liquidity crisis.”

TRUMP BRINGS NEW HEAT TO CONTROVERSIAL UN AGENCY AS ALLEGED HAMAS TIES ENGULF SCORES OF EMPLOYEES

The article goes on to warn that a “leaked memo” suggesting that the Trump administration might cut off funding to the U.N. threatened “a financial crash in the citadel of peace and security.”

The Trump White House has not bankrupted the U.N. by withholding payments. Instead, it appointed Waltz to drive much-needed reforms and who is, according to Politico, “generally well-regarded, including among many Democrats on Capitol Hill.” That’s rare praise for a Trump appointee.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PROBES UNRWA OVER ALLEGED EMPLOYMENT OF 1,500 TERRORISTS

Waltz is working to downsize the bloated U.N., focusing on its staff of 100,000 — individuals who are paid roughly 17% more than equivalent U.S. civil servants, according to Waltz. According to testimony he gave to Congress a few months ago, Waltz’s team pushed through a “historic 15% cut $570 million out of the U.N.’s regular budget. That will eliminate nearly 3000 headquarters positions.” That change alone provided a savings for U.S. taxpayers of $126 million. Waltz recently told Fox Digital that budget cuts now total $1 billion.

Waltz is also overhauling U.N. peacekeeping operations, some of which, as he has said, have been around for “30, 50 or even 80 years.” Waltz argues such forces are important to provide breathing room for political settlement of a conflict, but it “can’t then become an excuse to not have a political resolution. When you have a peacekeeping force, for example, in DRC and Congo, at the cost of a billion dollars a year, that’s been there for 30 years,” it should end.

Mike Waltz: 'Under President Trump we're demanding reform' at the United Nations Video

Waltz is just getting started; reforming an institution so large and complex takes time, which he may not have. Soon, the U.N. will elect a new secretary-general to succeed Portugal’s António Guterres, who has served since 2017. Currently, most of the candidates who have stepped forward appear eager to embrace the reforms advocated by the White House, alarmed that President Trump is ready to eviscerate the U.N.’s funding if changes are not made and a U.S.-friendly official not elected.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Finances are not Trump’s only weapon. As Politico reported, when the White House announced the creation of the Board of Peace last year to oversee the Israel-Gaza conflict, “U.N. officials and diplomats were really, really unnerved,” seeing that Board as some sort of “rival peacemaking institute.”

TRUMP-BACKED BOARD OF PEACE, ISRAEL ‘WILL TAKE ACTION’ IF HAMAS REMAINS OUT OF COMPLIANCE: NETANYAHU ADVISOR

However, permanent members of the Security Council, which include Russia, China, France, the U.K. and the U.S., can veto candidates. That is making the race unpredictable. If the members cannot agree, they could extend Gutterres’ term by another year, which would likely mean that President Trump would have less say in the outcome.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

That could trash the White House’s push to Make the U.N. Great Again and would be disastrous for the U.N.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM LIZ PEEK

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Today, President Trump will address the U.N. General Assembly. As New Yorkers fume over traffic nightmares created by the president and by hordes of visiting diplomats, they may (again) question, as do many Americans, why U.S. taxpayers support this badly managed and scandal-scarred institution. Especially when the U.N. so frequently works against our interests and seems incapable of accomplishing its primary mission.

A new Gallup poll shows that 73% of Americans think the U.N. does a poor job of “maintaining international peace and security,” and 70% say the same about the U.N. “upholding international law” and “protecting human rights.” That’s a lousy report card for an organization that spends roughly $70 billion per year.

Elsewhere in the world, the U.N. scores better, which is not surprising since poor countries, which constitute the majority of members, look to wealthier nations for handouts via the U.N. The nations of Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, are especially keen on the sprawling organization.

WALTZ DELIVERS BLUNT WARNING TO NATIONS DEFYING IRAN SANCTIONS, TOUTS GREENLAND DEAL

Trump heads to UN General Assembly as foreign policy challenges mount Video

How does that wealth transfer happen? One way was described by President Trump’s U.N. Ambassador Mike Waltz in recent testimony before Congress: “The U.N. let countries use peacekeeping missions as cash cows for their militaries. Peacekeepers could bring equipment, park it, never use it, take it home brand new, and get it paid for by the U.N.” Those operations can employ “10,000 to 18,000 soldiers”; the costs, Waltz says, are “quite significant.” He is ending that practice — just one step in reformin

!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->!—->
Read More

Continue Reading
Internet Security

Niger Miners’ Deaths: CSOs Demand Transparent Probe, Caution Against Speculation

A coalition of civil society organisations led by Stand Up Nigeria (SUN) has appealed to Nigerians to remain calm and avoid spreading unverified information on social media over the deaths of 37 suspected illegal miners in the custody of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) in Niger State…

A coalition of civil society organisations led by Stand Up Nigeria (SUN) has appealed to Nigerians to remain calm and avoid spreading unverified information on social media over the deaths of 37 suspected illegal miners in the custody of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) in Niger State…
Read More

Continue Reading
Internet Security

Artists can express humanitarian concerns, but not undermine public order and security: Tan Kiat How

Advertisement Singapore Artistes can express humanitarian concerns, but not undermine public order and security: Tan Kiat How Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How cited several performances dealing with social and humanitarian issues that had been allowed to proceed in Singapore. Robert Del Naja and Grant Marshall from Massive Attack stand with a Palestinian flag

Advertisement

Singapore

Artistes can express humanitarian concerns, but not undermine public order and security: Tan Kiat How

Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How cited several performances dealing with social and humanitarian issues that had been allowed to proceed in Singapore.

Artistes can express humanitarian concerns, but not undermine public order and security: Tan Kiat How

Robert Del Naja and Grant Marshall from Massive Attack stand with a Palestinian flag onstage at the end of their performance in Singapore, July 29, 2026, in this screengrab from video obtained from social media. Simran Panaech/via REUTERS


New: You can now listen to articles.


This audio is generated by an AI tool.

Justin Ong Guang-Xi

Justin Ong Guang-Xi

Justin Ong Guang-Xi

10 Sep 2026 01:42PM
(Updated: 10 Sep 2026 02:06PM)



Bookmark



Bookmark



Share

SINGAPORE: Artistes can express humanitarian concerns about international conflicts, but such expression should not undermine public order, security or stability in Singapore, Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information Tan Kiat How said on Thursday (Sep 10).

“Singapore should not be used by foreigners as a platform to further political causes, including those relating to conflicts or political issues overseas,” he said.

Artistes, whether Singaporean or foreign, are expected to abide by Singapore’s laws and the conditions of the arts entertainment licence when performing here, he added.

Mr Tan was responding in parliament to MP Hazlina Abdul Halim (PAP-East Coast), who asked how authorities distinguish prohibited political advocacy from expressions of humanitarian concern.

CNA Games
Guess Word
Guess Word
Crack the word, one row at a time

Buzzword
Buzzword
Create words using the given letters

Mini Sudoku
Mini Sudoku
Tiny puzzle, mighty brain teaser

Mini Crossword
Mini Crossword
Small grid, big challenge

Word Search
Word Search
Spot as many words as you can

Show More

Show Less

She also asked how an artiste’s intent and the context of an expression are taken into account, and whether licensing conditions would be reviewed to exclude peaceful expressions of support for humanitarian causes.

Mr Tan said that besides an artiste’s intention, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) considers the likely impact of a performance when assessing whether it meets licensing conditions.

Under IMDA’s Arts Entertainment Classification Code, content should not undermine public order, national security or stability.

The code, which sets out the framework for assessing and classifying live or public arts entertainment, also states that content should be “sensitive to the concerns of different racial or religious groups and the prevailing community expectations of what is necessary to safeguard racial harmony and religious harmony”.

In July, members of British band Massive Attack were issued stern warnings and barred from re-entering Singapore after flying a Palestinian flag during a concert, with one of the members shouting “Free Palestine”.


06:31 Min

The government recognises the humanitarian impact of international conflicts and that artistes may wish to express concern for those affected. Such expressions are not prohibited but should not undermine public order, national security or stability in Singapore. This condition is made clear in the Arts Entertainment Classification Code issued by the Infocomm Media Development Authority. Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information Tan Kiat How highlighted this approach in reply to an MP’s questions in parliament on Thursday (Sep 10). He stressed that Singapore should not be used by foreigners as a platform to further political causes, including those relating to conflicts or political issues overseas. 

Ms Hazlina asked Mr Tan for examples of performances involving social causes that had been allowed to take place.

He cited To The Unforgotten, an event held in May this year that featured a song, poem and multimedia artwork about the Israel-Gaza conflict. It was classified R18.

Another example was 6 Microlectures on Genocides. Also classified R18, the play comprised short works that explore themes of genocide, war crimes and contemporary conflicts, Mr Tan said.

He also pointed to the 2024 stand-up comedy show Namaste, which was classified Advisory 16 and included a segment in which comedians spoke about the Israel-Gaza conflict.

“So having material and content on causes itself is not prohibited, and the licensing framework is designed to, of course, protect young people from unwanted content, but also allow people to make decisions on what they can watch,” said Mr Tan.

“But at the same time, having some boundaries on the kind of content that may stir up public disorder or national security considerations.”

Mr Tan said assessments were “very contextual” and encouraged applicants for Arts Entertainment Licences to engage IMDA early.

“The earlier the applicants engage IMDA, the earlier conversations can start, and earlier we can give clarity and guidance on the kind of content that may be approved and

!–>!–>
Read More

Continue Reading