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 adpoted?
I think that Szilagyi's view should be adopted. In such a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society as Singapore, freedom of expression must be limited in order to ensure the strong existence of racial harmony.
As Szilagyi states in his article, "In our networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another." and that " once messages are out in public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple interpretations." The example he gave was the publishing of Prophet Muhammad"s cartoons.
I agree with Szilagyi. Especially so in Singapore, messages can be interpreted differently by different racial groups. A message may be seen as an offensive statement even though no such motives were present by the writer. This may spark off unwanted tensions and even fights among racial groups like the 1964 racial riots. Moreover, in Singapore where there are clear laws banning racial discrimination, there are already a few cases of public racism which caused the unhappiness of many people. If such situations are happening at present, what more is there to come if freedom of expression is not limited at all?
Although Singer argues in paragraph 8 that "freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes" as "without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock", Singapore as an example is a clear rebuttal to his claim. Singapore's law at present limits the freedom of expression. However, our counrty has been and is still progressing at an accelerating speed. This is beacuse Singapore focuses on protecting the collective interests of our society more than ensuring everyone has a free say in everything.(as mentioned in Szilagyi's article). Only when there is the people's interests are placed at priority, will there be happiness and stability in the country, which ultimately leads to progress.
In conclusion, my opinion is that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. Complete freedom of expression is sure to be misused and should not be implemented. Therefore, Szilagyi's view should be adopted.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Key Concept of Media: Blasphemy
With the fast development of technology in the world, the main issue about media is no longer just about the question of its accessibility, but rather, what should be assessed. Every year, the amount of information generated by the wired-in-world is huge. However, so is the amount of problems in relation to censorship. One of such is blasphemy. Blasphemy refers to the behavior or language that insults or shows a lack of respect for religion. So what is considered “blasphemous” to the extent that the former has to be censored?
The degree of blasphemy by media would be dependent on the culture of the society. Different societies have different ideologies and would be affected differently by various issues. For example, in a democratic country where freedom of speech is practiced, people are relatively open-minded. On the other hand, people in a religious country tend to be very sensitive. This is why Da Vinci Code, though described as ‘stridently anti-Christian’ by an official in the Vatican doctrinal office, can still go on to become the best-selling novel in the United States, while the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad are taken hard as a form of blasphemy, erupting furore in the Muslim community.
But then again, it is because countries have different needs of censorship of media that resulted in so many problems. Hence, it is important that societies are clear of one another’s cultures so as not to offend one another. Take for instance, the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad may not be considered blasphemous in Denmark but is considered so in the Muslim community. So, if Denmark felt that the cartoons should not be censored as part of its practice of freedom of speech, it should have at least kept the cartoons to itself and blocked other countries’ access to them to avoid the problem of blasphemy.
To conclude, censorship is not just a matter within one country but in the whole world. Regardless of whether one country is practicing freedom of speech, it is still important that it take into account the different societies.
In reference to:
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
Reading 3 & 4 of AJC 2008 reading package: Media
The degree of blasphemy by media would be dependent on the culture of the society. Different societies have different ideologies and would be affected differently by various issues. For example, in a democratic country where freedom of speech is practiced, people are relatively open-minded. On the other hand, people in a religious country tend to be very sensitive. This is why Da Vinci Code, though described as ‘stridently anti-Christian’ by an official in the Vatican doctrinal office, can still go on to become the best-selling novel in the United States, while the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad are taken hard as a form of blasphemy, erupting furore in the Muslim community.
But then again, it is because countries have different needs of censorship of media that resulted in so many problems. Hence, it is important that societies are clear of one another’s cultures so as not to offend one another. Take for instance, the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad may not be considered blasphemous in Denmark but is considered so in the Muslim community. So, if Denmark felt that the cartoons should not be censored as part of its practice of freedom of speech, it should have at least kept the cartoons to itself and blocked other countries’ access to them to avoid the problem of blasphemy.
To conclude, censorship is not just a matter within one country but in the whole world. Regardless of whether one country is practicing freedom of speech, it is still important that it take into account the different societies.
In reference to:
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
Reading 3 & 4 of AJC 2008 reading package: Media
Application question
Application question:
Reading 3 and 4 cited different views regarding freedom of expression. Which view do you subscribe to and why?
In my opinion, freedom of expression causes harm if it is not exercised with responsibility. It does not only cause offense as viewed by some. The harm caused may not be physically but also emotionally and mentally. Like in the case of the book on Da Vinci Code, I believe that it has caused people to be worried about their faiths. I would therefore subscribe to the view presented in Reading passage 3.
The author in passage 3 wrote” freedom must come with responsibility”. By using freedom of expression responsibly, I mean that the purpose of expressing something is not to cause insult to others. Words that incite hatred and words of accusations should be avoided at all costs. The language use and tone are to be chosen carefully too.
However some might argue that even if doing so, there will still be some individuals who would be angered over what is being expressed. That brings me to the next point of tolerance to some extent. “We must be prepared to grapple with the complexity of the world and the competing demands of sometimes incompatible values.” In my opinion, there should be an agreement between freedom of expression and tolerance level provided that freedom of speech is exercised with responsibility. This will be the choice of individuals to choose to the extent of tolerance. If not, I would suggest protesting in a peaceful way and not by violence as seen in the protests of cartoons of Prophet Mohammad. Example could be to express the opposition views in a responsible way. Here, it voices back down responsibility again.
The author for reading passage 4 has presented the view that freedom of expression should not be ban and it comes with the choice of tolerance of individuals. I feel that this means that each individual must be a person of much tolerance. Also an assumption is that the people are as rational as the author. In my opinion this is quite impossible since full freedom of expression here is given.
In conclusion, both freedom of expression and tolerance have to give way to each other in order achieve co-existence. Individuals must be able to understand the sensitivity of some issues and not manipulate freedom of speech to incite hatred and thus causing harm to others.
Reading 3 and 4 cited different views regarding freedom of expression. Which view do you subscribe to and why?
In my opinion, freedom of expression causes harm if it is not exercised with responsibility. It does not only cause offense as viewed by some. The harm caused may not be physically but also emotionally and mentally. Like in the case of the book on Da Vinci Code, I believe that it has caused people to be worried about their faiths. I would therefore subscribe to the view presented in Reading passage 3.
The author in passage 3 wrote” freedom must come with responsibility”. By using freedom of expression responsibly, I mean that the purpose of expressing something is not to cause insult to others. Words that incite hatred and words of accusations should be avoided at all costs. The language use and tone are to be chosen carefully too.
However some might argue that even if doing so, there will still be some individuals who would be angered over what is being expressed. That brings me to the next point of tolerance to some extent. “We must be prepared to grapple with the complexity of the world and the competing demands of sometimes incompatible values.” In my opinion, there should be an agreement between freedom of expression and tolerance level provided that freedom of speech is exercised with responsibility. This will be the choice of individuals to choose to the extent of tolerance. If not, I would suggest protesting in a peaceful way and not by violence as seen in the protests of cartoons of Prophet Mohammad. Example could be to express the opposition views in a responsible way. Here, it voices back down responsibility again.
The author for reading passage 4 has presented the view that freedom of expression should not be ban and it comes with the choice of tolerance of individuals. I feel that this means that each individual must be a person of much tolerance. Also an assumption is that the people are as rational as the author. In my opinion this is quite impossible since full freedom of expression here is given.
In conclusion, both freedom of expression and tolerance have to give way to each other in order achieve co-existence. Individuals must be able to understand the sensitivity of some issues and not manipulate freedom of speech to incite hatred and thus causing harm to others.
Application question
Reading 3 and Reading 4 cited differing views regarding freedom of expression. Which view do you subscribe to and why?
First of all, how do we define freedom of expression? The right to express one's view? Regardless of the consequences?
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom%20of%20speech , freedom of expression = freedom of speech : the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations.
I think freedom of expression is the right that everyone deserves, especially in countries that practice democracy. However, one must note that every action comes with the consequences.
We will need to analyse and weigh the consequences that follow before deciding to voice out our opinions.
Reading 3 seems to be against freedom of expression. It has an all-rounded thought and seems to suggest that things happen in a cycle. We must also put ourselves in others' point of view and be liberal. An example is that it says those who agree that the European media are free to 'publish and be damned', must also accept that the Muslims are also free to vent their anger. I find this very true. Each and every human being is equal. We all have the right to choose the faith we want to believe in and are free to voice our opinions should the other community offend us. However, in civilised countries, we respect each other's religion and do not cross the borders. The only way to live in harmony is to compromise. Those who believe that they are free to say whatever they want at the expense of others are literally 'barbarians living in civilisations'.
However, Reading 4 takes on a different view. The author believes that everyone should be given the chance to express their opinions and the other party should just 'protest privately'. However, I think this belief is too one-sided. We must know that not every country is like Singapore, where we just let things be and mind our own business. Singaporean, as the author is, often just rant at home and forget about it. However, in many other countries, people do not let things rest so easily. They go to extremes to make sure their anger is heard. This should be taken into consideration whether freedom of speech is a good or bad thing.
To sum up, freedom of expression is a human right but human rights go both way. Yes, we can do whatever we want, say whatever we wish. This is our human right. But, we need to consider the other party's feeling and weigh the consequences (if there is). Have we infringe their rights? Do remember that wars and chaos do not happen without a reason. Very often, it is because someone, whether accidentally or purposely, stepped on the borders. Personally, I feel that the best solution is to compromise.
First of all, how do we define freedom of expression? The right to express one's view? Regardless of the consequences?
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom%20of%20speech , freedom of expression = freedom of speech : the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations.
I think freedom of expression is the right that everyone deserves, especially in countries that practice democracy. However, one must note that every action comes with the consequences.
We will need to analyse and weigh the consequences that follow before deciding to voice out our opinions.
Reading 3 seems to be against freedom of expression. It has an all-rounded thought and seems to suggest that things happen in a cycle. We must also put ourselves in others' point of view and be liberal. An example is that it says those who agree that the European media are free to 'publish and be damned', must also accept that the Muslims are also free to vent their anger. I find this very true. Each and every human being is equal. We all have the right to choose the faith we want to believe in and are free to voice our opinions should the other community offend us. However, in civilised countries, we respect each other's religion and do not cross the borders. The only way to live in harmony is to compromise. Those who believe that they are free to say whatever they want at the expense of others are literally 'barbarians living in civilisations'.
However, Reading 4 takes on a different view. The author believes that everyone should be given the chance to express their opinions and the other party should just 'protest privately'. However, I think this belief is too one-sided. We must know that not every country is like Singapore, where we just let things be and mind our own business. Singaporean, as the author is, often just rant at home and forget about it. However, in many other countries, people do not let things rest so easily. They go to extremes to make sure their anger is heard. This should be taken into consideration whether freedom of speech is a good or bad thing.
To sum up, freedom of expression is a human right but human rights go both way. Yes, we can do whatever we want, say whatever we wish. This is our human right. But, we need to consider the other party's feeling and weigh the consequences (if there is). Have we infringe their rights? Do remember that wars and chaos do not happen without a reason. Very often, it is because someone, whether accidentally or purposely, stepped on the borders. Personally, I feel that the best solution is to compromise.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Application question
Application question
Reading 3 and 4 cited different views regarding freedom of expression. Which view do you subscribe to and why?
Personally, I feel that freedom of expression is the right to express one’s opinions or ideas freely through speech and other forms of communication with no intention of slandering. It is a platform where many people share the same status and voice their disapproval in a refined manner, compared to riots and wars. In my opinion, I would support the views of that mentioned in Passage 3.
In my opinion, i think Freedom of expression should not be banned as they provide earnest opinions that represent the thoughts of common people and produce valuable feedback for the country. Though Passage 3 views Freedom of Speech in a bad light, it will be welcomed only if it comes with responsibility. People must be aware that the choice of words they use will carry weights. They must recognise the sensitivity of a particular issue. If they choose to be ignorant about it, chaos will ensue and the idea of freedom of expression may be jeopardized. A substantial example is the Danish cartoons on Prophet Mohammad.
The author’s opinion in Passage 4 is the exact opposite of the claim in Passage 3. He states that any state should not ban the aforementioned caricatures on Prophet Mohammad. He is implying that it is fine for people to do so with the assumption that all citizens uphold the virtues of tolerance and acceptance. However, he over-generalised as not everyone in the society can face such an accusation of their religion calmly because there are many staunch believers who would like to think that their faiths are done a great disservice.
Passage 3 states that if the European mdeia ae free to 'publish and be damned', the Muslims are also allowed to vent their anger. This would be a never ending cycle and will never be tolerated and accepted by the society as the devastation it brings to the respective countries is too overwhelming to be accepted. This defeated the claim which the author of Passage 4 is trying to make: View Freedom of expression with tolerance and acceptance.
Freedom of expression is a right that everyone have. It is yet also something which is susceptible to the harshness and reality of the society at a gratuitous extent. We should not take our right for granted. Therefore to uphold freedom of expression while preserving social order, on our part, we must execute it with adequate sensitivity and mature analysis of issues as well as with responsibility.
Reading 3 and 4 cited different views regarding freedom of expression. Which view do you subscribe to and why?
Personally, I feel that freedom of expression is the right to express one’s opinions or ideas freely through speech and other forms of communication with no intention of slandering. It is a platform where many people share the same status and voice their disapproval in a refined manner, compared to riots and wars. In my opinion, I would support the views of that mentioned in Passage 3.
In my opinion, i think Freedom of expression should not be banned as they provide earnest opinions that represent the thoughts of common people and produce valuable feedback for the country. Though Passage 3 views Freedom of Speech in a bad light, it will be welcomed only if it comes with responsibility. People must be aware that the choice of words they use will carry weights. They must recognise the sensitivity of a particular issue. If they choose to be ignorant about it, chaos will ensue and the idea of freedom of expression may be jeopardized. A substantial example is the Danish cartoons on Prophet Mohammad.
The author’s opinion in Passage 4 is the exact opposite of the claim in Passage 3. He states that any state should not ban the aforementioned caricatures on Prophet Mohammad. He is implying that it is fine for people to do so with the assumption that all citizens uphold the virtues of tolerance and acceptance. However, he over-generalised as not everyone in the society can face such an accusation of their religion calmly because there are many staunch believers who would like to think that their faiths are done a great disservice.
Passage 3 states that if the European mdeia ae free to 'publish and be damned', the Muslims are also allowed to vent their anger. This would be a never ending cycle and will never be tolerated and accepted by the society as the devastation it brings to the respective countries is too overwhelming to be accepted. This defeated the claim which the author of Passage 4 is trying to make: View Freedom of expression with tolerance and acceptance.
Freedom of expression is a right that everyone have. It is yet also something which is susceptible to the harshness and reality of the society at a gratuitous extent. We should not take our right for granted. Therefore to uphold freedom of expression while preserving social order, on our part, we must execute it with adequate sensitivity and mature analysis of issues as well as with responsibility.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)