448 Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 2 MLRA a week, there is a strong probability that it would be read by at least some of those summoned as jurors.”. [22] Hence as for the traditional media, where the contempt has been published by a newspaper or broadcasted by television or radio, the settled law is that it is not only the author who may be held liable for the publication of contemptuous statement, but also anyone who plays a significant role in the act of publication or distribution of such statement. Internet Posting In Other Jurisdictions [23] The legal position is not as straightforward when it comes to the publication of the modern media, by third party internet postings. The legal liability of editors in the modern media is blurred by the fact that these postings go direct to the media platform without the usual editing process. Some jurisdictions take the view that an important consideration must be placed on whether there is an active or deliberate act in making or allowing the postings of the impugned statements by the internet content provider and its editorial team. The cases below discuss the varied approaches taken on this subject in some jurisdiction. [24] In Totalise Plc v. Motley Fool Ltd [2001] IP & T 764, the High Court of New Zealand found website operators not liable for the publication in contempt of court. The decision was justified on the basis that, unlike a journalist who is at law responsible for the material that he publishes, the website operators exercise no editorial control over what is posted on their discussion boards. Their role being merely to provide facilities for the public at large to convey their views. In other words, the court in Totalise (supra) drew a distinction between the journalists who have to take responsibility for the information that he decides to publish in a print media to that of the automated processes of a digital intermediary. [25] In the United Kingdom case of Bunt v. Tilley & Ors [2006] 3 All ER 336, Eady J observed at para 23: “Of course, to be liable for a defamatory publication it is not always necessary to be aware of the defamatory content, still less of its legal significance. Editors and publishers are often fixed with responsibility notwithstanding such lack of knowledge. On the other hand, for a person to be held responsible there must be knowing involvement in the process of publication of the relevant words. It is not enough that a person merely plays a passive instrumental role in the process. (See also in this context Emmens v. Pottle [1885] 16 QBD 354 at 357 per Lord Esher MR.)” [26] In the Australian case of Competition and Consumer Commission v. Allergy Pathway Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 74, Finkelstein J found the respondent liable for contempt of court for breaching the undertaking by making several publications including testimonials written and posted by a third party on the respondent’s Facebook wall. The respondent was held liable on the basis that it had accepted