There was a protest by major online publication recently on the amendment to Sect 114A of the evidence act. But I never came to know the exact wording of the act until I read the following which was published by Thestar online paper:
The amended section reads:
"Presumption of fact in publication 114A.
(1)A person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting himself as the owner, host, administrator, editor or sub-editor, or who in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proved.
(2)A person who is registered with a network service provider as a subscriber of a network service on which any publication originates from is presumed to be the person who published or re-published the publication unless the contrary is proved.
(3)Any person who has in his custody or control any computer on which any publication originates from is presumed to have published or re-published the content of the publication unless the contrary is proved. - Bernama
I am not a lawyer but the problem here is quite obvious, as one is presumed guilty until proven otherwise! Normal law is assumed not guilty until proven otherwise.
So rightly claimed by many, if your blog, facebook, or whatever online publication is hacked and offensive wording was published by the hacker, you have now got to prove that you are not guilty! The burden is now shifted to the owner of the "publication" to ensure that everything is secured.