Text of Section 211
(1) No content applications service provider, or other person using a content applications service, shall provide content which is indecent, obscene, false, menacing, or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person.
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both and shall also be liable to a further fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit for every day or part of a day during which the offence is continued after conviction.
Key Elements of the Offence
Who It Applies To
- Content applications service providers (websites, platforms, publishers)
- Any person using a content applications service (individuals posting online)
- Covers both Malaysian-based and offshore providers serving Malaysian users
- Applies to all forms of online communication — websites, email, messaging, social media
Prohibited Content Types
- Indecent — material that offends generally accepted standards of decency
- Obscene — content that tends to deprave and corrupt
- False — knowingly untrue statements published online
- Menacing — content that causes fear of violence or harm
- Offensive in character — the broadest category, context-dependent
The Intent Requirement
Section 211 requires proof of intent — specifically, the content must be provided with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass a person. This mens rea element distinguishes it from strict liability offences. Prosecutors must establish that the accused intended the harmful effect, not merely that the content was offensive.
Relationship to Section 233
Section 211 targets content providers and publishers — those who host or distribute offensive material. Section 233 targets individual communications — person-to-person messages sent with intent to annoy or harass. Together they cover both broadcast-style online content and direct digital communications.
Punishment on Conviction
Maximum Penalties Under Section 211
and/or imprisonment up to 1 year
Plus a continuing penalty of RM 1,000 per day for every day the offence continues after conviction — a provision designed to compel removal of offending content.
Section 211 vs Section 233
Section 211 — Content Providers
Targets the provision of content through a content applications service. Aimed at publishers, platforms and websites hosting offensive material. Broad scope covering indecent, obscene, false, menacing or offensive content. Requires intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass.
Section 233 — Individual Communications
Targets individual electronic messages — direct communications sent person-to-person. Commonly applied to harassment via social media, WhatsApp, email. Does not require that the recipient actually receives the message. More frequently prosecuted for online harassment cases.
How Section 211 Has Been Applied
Section 211 has been invoked in cases involving online publishers and platforms hosting content deemed offensive or false. It sits alongside Section 233 as one of the two primary CMA provisions used in internet-related prosecutions in Malaysia. Key areas of application include:
- Online news and blog content Articles and blog posts containing allegedly false or offensive statements about individuals — particularly public figures — have led to investigations under Section 211, with prosecutors arguing the content was published with intent to harass or damage reputation.
- Social media posts and shares Individuals sharing or republishing offensive content created by others have been investigated as "persons using a content applications service" — the provision does not require that the person originally created the content.
- False information during public emergencies The "false content" limb of Section 211 has been used alongside other legislation (such as the Emergency Ordinance 2021) during the COVID-19 pandemic to address the spread of misinformation online.
- Criticism of public institutions The broad "offensive in character" wording has been controversial — civil liberties advocates note it has been used in cases involving political criticism and satire, raising concerns about chilling effects on freedom of expression online.