[2021] 2 MLRA Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor 455 (iv) neither of them moderated, or played any direct role in publishing the impugned comments on the news portal unless it was flagged for containing a “suspected word” or was reported by other users; (v) neither of them had been proven to have been actually aware that the impugned comments had been posted and that the impugned comments did not contain banned words or any “suspected word”; and (vi) as for the 2nd respondent, he denied any involvement whatsoever, since he was not the “Content Application Service Provider” within the meaning of s 6 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1988 and he could not be viewed as being a publisher of the impugned comments. Furthermore, there is no legal basis to hold him vicariously liable for the acts of the 1st respondent. [54] The explanation put forth above can be summed up as this. It became aware of the publication of the impugned comments only upon being alerted by the police. The 1st respondent maintained ignorance of it until 12 June 2020 when the police contacted its Executive Director Mr RK Anand. [55] In short, the 1st respondent was utterly oblivious to the existence of such comments until being so alerted. It was only after that alert at about 12.50 pm that the 1st respondent became aware and acted responsively. In promptness, the editorial team immediately reviewed the impugned comments and removed them together with other offensive comments at 12.57 pm on the same day. [56] According to the respondents, third party online subscribers have been allowed to post comments on news reports published on the online news portal of the 1st respondent since August 2009. Currently, the 1st respondent said it receives 2,000 comments each day. [57] The 1st respondent explained the measures it had taken to safeguard itself from both pre and post-publication comments by third party subscribers. It mainly relies on three safeguards. The first by its Terms and Conditions (‘T&C’) warning subscribers that abusive posting offending any law or which create unpleasantness would be banned. [58] Second, it installs a filter programme which disallows the use of certain foul words. Failing that filter any article or comment would not get posted. This filter programme also is used to review third-party comments. [59] Third is the peer reporting system. This process entails other users or readers of the online news portal to report on offensive comments. Only upon the receipt of such report, will an editor immediately examine and decide on the removal of the same. It is for this reason, the 1st respondent reserves the right to remove or modify comments posted at its discretion. In this way, the 1st respondent’s take down policy would be effectively implemented. [60] The respondents contended in taking the above approach, it had indeed complied with the practice adopted by major online publishers both nationally and internationally.