Referring to miss angelin yeo's blog entry (http://www.angelinyeo.blogspot.com/) on freedom of expression, i would like to make a commentary of my own.
It is clear through her entry that she stands beside Szilagyi and her arguments, but i do believe that the scope of this 'freedom' we are talking about is too confined. It seems that freedom of expression has been limited only to the context of racial and sensitive issues. Not that i totally disagree with Angelin or Szilagyi for that matter, but actually removing freedom of expression just based upon this is insufficient. One may argue that words out of place can cause catastrophes but that is what laws are for. Freedom of expression isnt without limitations.
Another point i would like to raise is that, Szilagyi may detest too much of media freedom of speech, but she still believes in having this right. Her debate is actually on whether to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens or to protect the collective interests of society? It is said to be impossible to achieve both as too much of one leads to the possible decline of the other.
In her last paragraph Angelin mentioned that the government is to enforce a limit to freedom of expression such that people do not overuse or misuse it but for that to happen, the limits must really be big limits, making the word "freedom" an overstatement. So i come to the conclusion where freedom of expression is something where you either take all of it, or nothing of it.
Szilagyi does make a point in her article, but in a all or nothing situation, i would pick all. Freedom of speech wasnt acquired overnight. There were times when people couldnt talk without permission. Let us not chuck it away.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Freedom of expression
Freedom of expression is regarded as the freedom to voice out opinions and views freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies. Through his article on the imprisonment of David Irving for denial of holocaust, Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential in any democracy and that with its absence, human progress will always come to a stand still. Freedom of expression, in his opinion, is for everyone to be allowed to say what they believe to be false, even if many find it offensive.
On the other end of the argument stands Szilagyi, who believes that it is more important to protect the collective interests in society. She suggests that the press should focus more on their responsibility in society, and not solely on freedom as the media do not alone, decide how their messages are interpreted.
Coming back to Singapore, where there is an abundance of cultures and religions, freedom of expression is going on in everyday life. I believe that here, freedom of speech should be allowed to run free within the limitations of the law. It is unavoidable that with the presence of this freedom, many may be offended but in the past, progress was often impeded due to lack of freedom of speech. Such was the case when Galileo tried to prove to the world that the sun was the middle of the solar system, contradicting theories from the Roman Catholic. It seems that progress will always come to a stand still as mentioned by Singer if people are not granted sufficient freedom to break out from what is regarded as "correct".
One may argue that excessive freedom will bring about chaotic occurences but freedom is not without its limits. Free speech is restricted if it was likely to incite imminent lawless action, libel and obscenity.
Szilagyi made a good point where messages from the media may undergo various manipulation and interpretation to serve political agendas thus generating a misusage of freedom of expression. However, if we are to limit ourselves to a fixed content of what can be said and what cannot be misused, the media is considered to be telling us what can be told and not everything that should be told. Therefore, i believe that Singapore should adopt freedom of expression that is not constricted by responsiblity.
On the other end of the argument stands Szilagyi, who believes that it is more important to protect the collective interests in society. She suggests that the press should focus more on their responsibility in society, and not solely on freedom as the media do not alone, decide how their messages are interpreted.
Coming back to Singapore, where there is an abundance of cultures and religions, freedom of expression is going on in everyday life. I believe that here, freedom of speech should be allowed to run free within the limitations of the law. It is unavoidable that with the presence of this freedom, many may be offended but in the past, progress was often impeded due to lack of freedom of speech. Such was the case when Galileo tried to prove to the world that the sun was the middle of the solar system, contradicting theories from the Roman Catholic. It seems that progress will always come to a stand still as mentioned by Singer if people are not granted sufficient freedom to break out from what is regarded as "correct".
One may argue that excessive freedom will bring about chaotic occurences but freedom is not without its limits. Free speech is restricted if it was likely to incite imminent lawless action, libel and obscenity.
Szilagyi made a good point where messages from the media may undergo various manipulation and interpretation to serve political agendas thus generating a misusage of freedom of expression. However, if we are to limit ourselves to a fixed content of what can be said and what cannot be misused, the media is considered to be telling us what can be told and not everything that should be told. Therefore, i believe that Singapore should adopt freedom of expression that is not constricted by responsiblity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)