How Free Exactly Can Free Speech Be?
ref: Free Speech, Muhammad, and the Holocaust-Peter Singer, Project syndicate
Publishing those cartoons was a mistake- Zsofia Szilagyi, Int. Herald Tribune, 3 Feb 2006

The contention for the right of freedom of speech is nothing new. Democracies advocate it. Communist regimes fear it. and evrywhere, people are continually testing the limits of what is called free speech. The much debated question then is, To what extent can free speech truly be free and unrestricted?

These two articles reviewed are based on separate incidents of people taking the liberties of free speech a step further than what was acceptable by society. Both express different views on the extent of restriction of free speech. However, both are relevant to the issue on how far we can allow free speech and expression to be given free rein.

The first article by Peter Singer addressed the issue of the imprisonment of one Mr Irving in Austria for his denial of the Holocaust. The writer feels that freedom of expression and speech should be an essential part of any democracy and this includes the right to express unpopular, untrue and even offensive opinions. In essence, it is necessary for everyone to give their unrestricted views in order for society to progress. To ensure that other peoples' minds are not clouded by these views, he argues that countries should instead teach their citizens the facts of history and allow them to come to an objective judgement, instaed of clamping own on the airing of unorthodox views.

I, however, beg to differ. In today's world, where the spread of information through the mass media is faster than that of an epidemic, giving just one person one hour of complete freedom of speech can translate into weeks of airtime and an audience of millions. Thus, giving the right of total free speech to everyone is a ticking time bomb. Knowledge is power, and the expression of knowledge by the wrong hands is akin to the abuse of knowledge, and thus abuse of power. And absolute, unrestricted expression of knowledge leads to the wielding of absolute, unrestricted power, and we all know what they say about absolute power. Thus, giving anyone this authority of total free speech is a huge danger to the harmony of society.

Furthermore, words often have more power than deeds to stir up tensions and create chaos and strife. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword. More strife and conflict has been caused by inflammatory or denigrating words then by armed warfare in recent times. The fragile fabric of society will be shredded if anyone could just stir up peoples emotions and feelings by wielding total freedom of expession. Thus, no one should be given total freedom of expression.

On the other hand, Szilagyi in the second article about the cartoons of Prophet Muhammed published in Denmark contends that more emphasis be put on social responsibility rather than freedom of speech, in order to preserve the cohesion and harmony in and amongst communities. People must strike a balance between airing their views freely and protecting the interests of society. This is especially crucial as in the fast spread of information, just one slip of the tongue could result in trouble. Also, there is the tendency for different interpretations of the same information to suface, some of them bent and manipulated to serve radical ends.

I personally agree with him as freedom of speech with no controls is like a wildfire, once set aflame, impossible to contain. Any tensions or conflict arising in one country will affect all of us as we are so closely interconnected.If the media would put its priority on serving the interests of society rather than being firestarters and attention seekers, many tragic and senseless conflicts could be avioded today.However, placing too much emphasis on social responsibility in freedom of expression may cause the community to become pampered and shelterd from the realities of life and the world. As a result they may grow complacent about issues such as foreign affairs as they are only exposed to the "safe" information.

Thus I think that freedom of expression and protecting society have to balance each other. In Singapore's context, this is even more important as being a diversified island of race and religion, we are a veritable minefield, and any hint of verbal attack or discrimination will set aflame social conflict. The Government has already put in measures to ensure freedom of expression is carefully controlled. Though some many argue that this negates its "freedom", the alternatives are much worse. In the end, it is the individual's responsibility to judge soundly what is fit for public consumption and when it is better to be an armchair critic in private. Only when indiviaduals, and subsequently companies and the media, learn how to think of others first and rein themselves in , can such a problem be solved.