[Silly pun on the word 'blog' goes here]

Yet another article on blogging in the ST ('WIll every blog have its day in politics?', p S10), this one a bit ominous, though not at all surprising:

'The same laws on defamation apply online. And maybe even the same out-of-bounds markers. . . .'

I suppose it was only a matter of time.

'According to the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, the Government keeps an eye on all feedback it gets online, including blogs. "However, it is not practical, if not impossible, to keep track of everything that goes on over the Internet," stressed a spokesman.'

Implied: '. . . much as we would like to!'

'Could like-minded people—say, opposition sympathisers—get together after reading one another's blogs? There is little evidence of that for now, but it cannot be ruled out.'

No doubt Gabriel would tell me not to conflate the organs of the state with the state itself, but sometimes the fingerprints of the state are too thick and grimy to ignore. 'Opposition sympathisers'? 'Cannot be ruled out'? Very interesting choice of words. (Compare: 'Could Democrat sympathisers get together after reading one another's blogs? The possibility cannot be ruled out.')

There's also a side-story on the legal implications of blogging, pretty much just a rehash of all the other stories they've run on it before, that contains probably the most useless (traffic-wise) mention of a blog in the ST so far:


Oh well.