Commentary

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.