[2021] 2 MLRA Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor 459 The 1st respondent’s responsibility cannot end by putting in place a T&C with such self-serving caveat for its own self-protection without regard to injury to others. The surrounding circumstances of the present case strongly suggest that the impugned comments were published without reservation and were only taken down upon being made aware of by the police. [76] To accept such measures as a complete defence will be to allow it to unjustifiably and irresponsibly shift the entire blame on its third party online subscribers, while exonerating itself of all liabilities. The truth is the postings were made possible only because it provides the platform for the subscribers to post the impugned comments. There being no two ways about it. In short, as stated in the Application by the AG, the 1st respondent facilitates the publication of the contemptuous comments by the third party subscribers. The 1st respondent cannot be allowed to turn their news portal into a runaway train, destroying anything and everything in its path, only because their riders are the ones creating such havoc albeit made possible by their train. [77] Given the fact that the 1st respondent’s news portal enjoys extensive readership and receives about 2,000 comments per day, on top of the fact that it has editorial control over the contents posted in the comments section, the 1st respondent must assume responsibility for taking the risk of facilitating a platform for such purpose. Sheer volume cannot be the basis for claiming lack of knowledge, to shirk from its responsibility. [78] Ultimately, Malaysiakini is the owner of its website, publishes articles of public importance, and allows subscribers to post comments to generate discussions. It designs its online platform for such purpose and decides to filter foul words and rely on all the three measures it has taken. In other words, the 1st respondent designs and controls its online platform in the way it chooses. It has full control of what is publishable and what is not. It must carry with it, the risks that follow from allowing the way its platform operates. Malaysiakini cannot be heard to say that its filter system failed to filter offensive comment when it deliberately chooses only to filter foul language but not offensive substance, though we remained perplexed how these comments even passed its filter, looking at the language of the impugned comments. [79] To fortify the aforementioned argument regarding knowledge, it is equally important to note that the 1st respondent is a limited company. The persons whose knowledge would be imputed to the 1st respondent would be those who were entrusted with the exercise of the powers of the 1st respondent (see Yue Sang Cheong Sdn Bhd v. Public Prosecutor [1973] 1 MLRA 495). In this regard, it is significant to appreciate the role of the 1st respondent’s editorial team and process. [80] The 1st respondent said it operates three different websites; online news portal (English news), a portal for news in Bahasa Malaysia and a portal for news in Mandarin while Kinitv Sdn Bhd operates a separate portal for video news. The editorial team consists of four departments for each news portal