[2021] 2 MLRA Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor 463 vi. Delfi has a substantial degree of control over readers’ comments and it had been in the position to predict the nature of the comments; vii. The fact that the online media was an unprecedented platform for the exercise of freedom of expression provided by the internet provider was fully acknowledged however, cautioned that alongside these benefits, dangers do arise. Defamatory and other types of clearly unlawful speech, including hate speech and speech inciting violence, can be disseminated like never before, worldwide, in a matter of seconds, and sometimes remain persistently available online; viii. When Delfi provided for a platform that generated user comments for economic purposes, Delfi had control over the comment section, and cannot be shielded by art 10 § 2 of the Convention; ix. Delfi was a large professionally managed Internet news portal that operated on a commercial basis with wide readership and there was a known public concern regarding the controversial nature of the comments it attracts; and x. It is recognised that publishing of news and comments on an Internet portal is a journalistic activity in the nature of Internet media. [95] Having considered the above factors, the ECtHR then concluded that there had accordingly been no violation of the right to freedom of expression in art 10 in holding Delfi liable for defamation. [96] Applying the decision in Delfi (supra) to the case before us, we see lots of semblance that we can compare between Delfi and Malaysiakini. We are however aware that Delfi dealt with defamation and not contempt. However, we are here looking at the responsibility of an online news portal. The same principles should therefore apply. [97] Malaysiakini is also a commercial entity like Delfi. This was deposed to by the 1st respondent in encl 57 at para 18 and as also reflected in its Financial Statement that the revenue sources of the 1st respondent are derived substantially from subscription fees paid by users and revenue from advertising. Almost 70% of the 1st respondent’s revenue is from advertising and about 30% is derived from the subscription fees by users. [98] The 1st respondent contended that it did not derive any direct commercial benefit from the comments section. True, no direct commercial benefit may come from the comments section. However, it would not be wrong to assume that having more subscribers will enhance the revenue of the 1st respondent. So there is economic justification in fact to encourage more subscribers rather than restricting them.