450 Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 2 MLRA instrumental in bringing about the publication of the defamatory statements and were liable irrespective of the degree of participation in publication. [31] This line of cases briefly states the legal position of the various jurisdictions on the subject of internet publication. The courts in the respective jurisdictions resorted to different approaches in determining the liability of internet publication by third party online users. We are mindful of the applicability of decisions from other jurisdictions to ours, given the differences in the legal backgrounds, rules and regulations. The Case Before Us [32] We now come to the case before us. First, we note with significance that the contemptuous nature of the impugned comments in this Application is beyond dispute. The respondents had admitted that the comments are indeed offensive, inappropriate, disrespectful and contemptuous. The respondents too regretted the publication of such impugned comments and it was not something the respondents condoned. Given such consensus, we do not intend to deliberate further on what constitutes contempt in law. [33] The Application by the AG as the Applicant here raises complaint that the respondents facilitated the publication of the impugned comments. It was posited that by facilitating the publication of the impugned comments, s 114A of the Evidence Act came into play to presume that Malaysiakini and the 2nd respondent are under the law the publishers of the impugned comments. [34] With the invocation of that presumption under s 114A(1) of the Evidence Act coupled with the contemptuous nature of the impugned comments, it was submitted that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for contempt of court against both respondents. There would be no requirement for the applicant to prove an intention to publish on the part of the respondents. [35] Though admitting that the said impugned comments are contemptuous and not condoned by them, the respondents maintained that they both played no role in publishing them. The crux of the respondents’ case is in essence; they cannot be held liable for contempt because they were not the direct author or editor of the impugned comments. They emanated from third party online subscribers, albeit on the 1st respondent’s cyber platform. In short, the respondents were saying that they were not the makers or the publishers of the impugned comments, nor did they have anything to do with the publication of them. Publisher Of Impugned Comments [36] The issue confronting this court brings into focus the underlying conflict and tension between imposing responsibility on an internet content provider and the safeguards that it provides. This problem has been the subject of considerable debate for many years. The emphasis placed on freedom of speech