Saturday, June 16, 2007
Saturday, June 9, 2007
June Holiday Task 1
Freedom of speech and social responsibility.
Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.
Freedom of speech is one of the greatest freedoms we possess. It is the fundamental human right and therefore should be recognized. In America, freedom of speech is not granted by the constitution but is practiced by its people as a primary right. I think we should be given the basic right to voice out our own opinions. Freedom of speech is one of the ways that allows the people to be able to exchange ideas and feedbacks with the authorized personnel. However, freedom of speech should not be abused in any way.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, freedom of speech should be regulated. Like what Peter Singer has mentioned, “We cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have the right to mock religious figures but that it should be a criminal offense.” In Singapore, with no natural resources, our people are the country’s only treasure. We should deter any would-be speakers from commenting on any explosive speeches that may ignite the spark of conflicts between any communities. To continue enjoying the peaceful and harmonic society we are now, freedom of speech in Singapore ought to be reviewed meticulously.
Freedom of speech is a two-edged knife. Peter Singer says, “Without freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.” Yes, there is nothing to be skeptical about the importance of free speech. However, the media should feel obliged to censor any harmful articles. In a democratic country where much freedom is given, the media should take the role of a government using legitimate reasons to regulate speech and censoring any defaming reports. In addition, they themselves should not abuse the freedom they possess in writing. Take a counter example, in the wake of September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on America, the media should be more cautious about the news and rumors they report. The media has jeopardized the lives of American soldiers when reported the American military plans. They must be objective and report only the facts, instead of dangerous speculation. Viewing from this, the media seem to be held responsible for the terrorists' attacks. This happened due to the freedom of speech in America. This calls to the world the consequences and danger of free speech.
There should be no ambiguity on the point: free speech is not an absolute. I agree with Szilagy that “the press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and it needs to do so by focusing on responsibility, and not solely on freedom.” In a country, the people are able to comment on anything especially with the advancement of technology. Nothing seems possible to stop them from publishing their personal comments. Now, the media should not report reports that are malice or iconoclastic and are offensive to any community in our society. Only in this way that our society will not be affected by the usage of freedom of speech.
Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.
Freedom of speech is one of the greatest freedoms we possess. It is the fundamental human right and therefore should be recognized. In America, freedom of speech is not granted by the constitution but is practiced by its people as a primary right. I think we should be given the basic right to voice out our own opinions. Freedom of speech is one of the ways that allows the people to be able to exchange ideas and feedbacks with the authorized personnel. However, freedom of speech should not be abused in any way.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, freedom of speech should be regulated. Like what Peter Singer has mentioned, “We cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have the right to mock religious figures but that it should be a criminal offense.” In Singapore, with no natural resources, our people are the country’s only treasure. We should deter any would-be speakers from commenting on any explosive speeches that may ignite the spark of conflicts between any communities. To continue enjoying the peaceful and harmonic society we are now, freedom of speech in Singapore ought to be reviewed meticulously.
Freedom of speech is a two-edged knife. Peter Singer says, “Without freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.” Yes, there is nothing to be skeptical about the importance of free speech. However, the media should feel obliged to censor any harmful articles. In a democratic country where much freedom is given, the media should take the role of a government using legitimate reasons to regulate speech and censoring any defaming reports. In addition, they themselves should not abuse the freedom they possess in writing. Take a counter example, in the wake of September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on America, the media should be more cautious about the news and rumors they report. The media has jeopardized the lives of American soldiers when reported the American military plans. They must be objective and report only the facts, instead of dangerous speculation. Viewing from this, the media seem to be held responsible for the terrorists' attacks. This happened due to the freedom of speech in America. This calls to the world the consequences and danger of free speech.
There should be no ambiguity on the point: free speech is not an absolute. I agree with Szilagy that “the press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and it needs to do so by focusing on responsibility, and not solely on freedom.” In a country, the people are able to comment on anything especially with the advancement of technology. Nothing seems possible to stop them from publishing their personal comments. Now, the media should not report reports that are malice or iconoclastic and are offensive to any community in our society. Only in this way that our society will not be affected by the usage of freedom of speech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)