ARticle LInk: http://www.freewebs.com/vivloh/juneblogtask.htm

Blogging task
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 both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.

Freedom of speech, according to http://www.en.wikipedia.org/ is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship.

Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. According to the article, Singer, a son of Austrian Jews, feels that "we cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have a right to mock religious figures but that it should be a criminal offense to deny the existence of the Holocaust. I believe that we should stand behind freedom of speech. And that means that David Irving should be freed." Everyone should have the freedom to express their point of view, instead of being imprisoned for expressing views that cannot be refuted by evidence and argument alone.

Freedom of speech is needed in order for a country to grow. According to the article, Singer feels that " freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive." Also, "without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.

I feel that, even if people were imprisoned for denying the holocaust, their imprisonment will not change their stand towards the holocaust even after their jail-term. The government should instead repeal laws which permits the holocaust denials, yet at the same time strive to do their best to inform their citizens about the reality of the Holocaust and why the racist ideology that led to it should be rejected. This will therefore helped changed the mindsets of those people as they would then better understand the situation of the particular issue.

On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. According to the article relating to the controversy regarding the Danish press publishing of Prophet Mohammad cartoons, Szilagyi believes that freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy. However, when the newspaper insist on this right, they have to understand that they do not alone create the context and lifespan of their messages. Self-control must be enforced.

In today's networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Compared to last time, traditional borders of culture and nation no longer exist. Whether we liked it or not, now we all effectively live next door to one another. Therefore a balance must be strike between individual and collective press freedom rights.

I feel that even though freedom of speech will help build up democracy, responsibility have to be exercised when using it. Just one word of slander can easily cause a turmoil between countries and nations. Just one word of insult can rage war among religions. Therefore even though the press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, it must also focus on responsibility not solely on freedom.

In a multi-racial society like Singapore, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, i feel that Szilagyi's view should be adopted. Like our national pledge, "pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society." Even though there may be issues against other races in the country, the press must exercise self-control. Instead if such situation should arise, i feel that the government should intervene and help solve the problem, promoting peace among the races. Also, as a Singaporean, i feel that we should respect each other and not find fault with each other as in order for a country to grow, there must be mutual respect for each other and also peace among races and religions. If freedom of speech is adopted without exercising social responsibility, a multi-racial country like Singapore will face social unrests and there will be tension among the citizens, like the 1964 race riots that happened due to high tensions between the races.

Therefore i feel that szilagyi's view should be adopted in a multi-racial country like Singapore.