Page:Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019.pdf/48

48 (2) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that—
 * (a) the prescribed internet intermediary is subject to a duty under any written law, any rule of law, any contract or any rule of professional conduct, that prevents the internet intermediary from complying with any part of the Account Restriction Direction or restricts the internet intermediary in such compliance; or
 * (b) the prescribed internet intermediary has applied under section 46 to vary or cancel the Direction or has appealed to the High Court against the Direction.

(3) No civil or criminal liability is incurred by the prescribed internet intermediary or an officer, employee or agent of the internet intermediary, for doing or omitting to do any act, if the act is done or omitted to be done with reasonable care and in good faith and for the purpose of complying with or giving effect to the Account Restriction Direction.

(4) In determining whether a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) has a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with an Account Restriction Direction, the court must consider—
 * (a) the state of the art available to give effect to the Direction;
 * (b) the cost of complying with the Direction relative to the means available to the person; and
 * (c) any other relevant factor.

Access blocking order

43.—(1) This section applies where—
 * (a) an internet intermediary fails to comply with an Account Restriction Direction;
 * (b) either—
 * (i) the subject statement was or is being communicated in Singapore on an online location; or
 * (ii) the subject behaviour took place or is taking place on an online location;