singer vs szilagyi

singapore is known all across the globe for her multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism. despite the fact that there are lots of different religious and cultural practices, peace and serenity prevails in our country.

due to a very simple reason. singapore places great emphasis on being socially responsible about expression of thought and feelings. singapore experienced how being irresponsible can lead to racial tension, as seen in the 1964 racial riots.

however, the two articles do raise two important question.

'should freedom of speech be practiced without enforcing limits and boundaries?'

'or should there be mainly a greater focus on social responsibility?'

in my opinion, i feel that freedom of speech should be practiced without enforcing any limits and boundaries. on top of that, there should be a greater focus on social responsibility. these two elements complement each other and hence would enable a more open, though safer environment.

freedom of speech enables viewpoints to be expressed freely, and this is important as democracy means that everyone is fairly and equally treated. this element of democracy can thus be achieved only if every individual in a democratic country has his voice heard and is respected for his opinions.

at this juncture, i'd expect people to come up and say that such freedom of speech cannot be implemented in singapore as the nature of our society goes counter to freedom of speech. many claim that insensitive remarks, libel and flaming will pepper blogs, forums and media. this will lead to racial, religious and cultural tension that will have history repeating itself where singapore experiences greater and bloodier riots.

that's where the focus of social responsibility comes in. with the emphasis of being socially responsible in blogging or in posting an article in the media or forum, freedom of speech and social responsibility can act hand in hand. when this happens, we can be assurred that freedom of speech is not utilised to create discord and problems that might threaten our national sovereignty.

hence, i say that it's not a matter of adopting a single author's approach of free speech. i believe that both is integral in ensuring that free speech can be practiced without a backlash to the country's safety.

freedom of speech is an integral part in a democratic country. hence, we cannot stamp our foot down and control it. that mocks the value of democracy. focus on social responsibility is the key in ensuring that we all benefit from the newfound freedom of having everyone's views and opinions expressed freely, yet conducively.

commentary of a friend's blog entry

nicole khong zijia 11/07
http://nicole-ism.blogspot.com

'youtube has no ethics or principles and is created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money. do you agree?'

i agree with the view to a large extent. youtube is now a fast growing website that is gaining immense popularity. it's a website that basically enables users to upload any media-based material, like songs or videos. there are no restrictions and one can post simply anything. in this materialistic world, we all pursue success. similarly to youtube, they enforce minimal restrictions such that users enjoy their services so much that youtube reaps tremendous profits. this shows that, youtube does intend to benefit users so greatly simply for the benefit of monetary influx.

youtube's open nature is good in the sense that we can get a varied amount of media and entertainment. however, many fail to notice that this very open policy actually infringes the rules of media and entertainment. users tend to simply upload movies and such without bothering to note the privacy statement or copyright laws. this makes youtube almost an avenue for illegal content online. does this show that youtube practices morals and ethics? no. they simply do not empower their media search engine with proper upright media rules and regulations.

furthermore, in this world of high advancement in technology and such, we are constantly looking for avenues that enable us to get the juiciest bites of media on the run. people turn to avenues like youtube where media is easily tapped on. the market for media is so great that websites such as youtube is highly pressurized into supplying what is demanded by the masses. we can thus see that youtube sometimes does not have a basis of foundation that it builts its website on. but it's based on market and demand.