How far should an individual be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech?
Freedom of Speech is always wrongly associated with freedom of press. Later is freedom to report the truth, which is sinew of a democractic society, for it helps monitoring the government and to ensure that the country is corruption-free. Freedom of speech, however, is the right to freedom of expression, be it the truth or lie.
The world sees the issue of how far an individual should be allowed to exercise freedom of speech being debated for a few decades. The furore incensed by caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, however, has polarised the controversy basically into the West and the rest.
Democracy has a deep root in Western society for almost 3 centuries, so is the freedom of speech. Free speech allows free flow of idea between individuals. The right is further forgone as the people are matured enough to evaluate the ideas, exercising self-restraint and tolerance.
The East and the Muslim world obviously are not prepared to accept critics. While blesphemy law is almost forgotten in the West, Muslim world still consider it as a crime that should be sentensed to death penalty. Moreover, when the caricatures were first published on Danish Newspapers, most of the secular Danes did not give much attention to the cartoons as Jesus also frequently becomes a topic of satire. In contrast, Danish Imams protest agianst the cartoons, and even made the event worldwide after being turned down by the government on the ground of freedom of speech. This shows how unaccepting the Muslim world is.
In other part of non-Muslim part of Asia, freedom of speech is not exercised well, either. In the Phillipines, foreign journalists are always lampooned and their flags are burnt for "unsatistory" publication of the country, such as suggesting that traffic congestion will tarnish Manila's image.
These explain why there is a need for restriction of free speech. The country can not affort freedom of speech at the expense of stability of society. As the people are not ready for an speech open society, preventing advocates of harm is more effective than encouraging people to be more tolerant.
The world sees the issue of how far an individual should be allowed to exercise freedom of speech being debated for a few decades. The furore incensed by caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, however, has polarised the controversy basically into the West and the rest.
Democracy has a deep root in Western society for almost 3 centuries, so is the freedom of speech. Free speech allows free flow of idea between individuals. The right is further forgone as the people are matured enough to evaluate the ideas, exercising self-restraint and tolerance.
The East and the Muslim world obviously are not prepared to accept critics. While blesphemy law is almost forgotten in the West, Muslim world still consider it as a crime that should be sentensed to death penalty. Moreover, when the caricatures were first published on Danish Newspapers, most of the secular Danes did not give much attention to the cartoons as Jesus also frequently becomes a topic of satire. In contrast, Danish Imams protest agianst the cartoons, and even made the event worldwide after being turned down by the government on the ground of freedom of speech. This shows how unaccepting the Muslim world is.
In other part of non-Muslim part of Asia, freedom of speech is not exercised well, either. In the Phillipines, foreign journalists are always lampooned and their flags are burnt for "unsatistory" publication of the country, such as suggesting that traffic congestion will tarnish Manila's image.
These explain why there is a need for restriction of free speech. The country can not affort freedom of speech at the expense of stability of society. As the people are not ready for an speech open society, preventing advocates of harm is more effective than encouraging people to be more tolerant.
posted by Anonymous @ 18:51
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home