Skip to main content

Home/ New Media Ethics 2009 course/ Group items tagged Freedom of Speech

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
lee weiting

Freedom liberated? or Imprisoned? - 8 views

i do agree that the internet is suppose to be a place where there is freedom of speech, however we must also consider the society that we're living in. For us living in Singapore, we must accept th...

blogger Sedition act

started by Chen Guo Lim on 15 Sep 09 1 follow-up, last by lee weiting on 15 Sep 09
Weiye Loh

journalism.sg » Racial and religious offence: Why censorship doesn't cut it - 1 views

journalism.sg/...sorship-doesn%E2%80%99t-cut-it

Community Regulation New Media Hate Speech Censorship Race Religion

shared by Weiye Loh on 11 Mar 12 - No Cached
  • All societies use a mix of approaches to address offensive speech. In international law, like at the European court of human rights and more and more jurisdictions, there is growing feeling that the law should really be a last resort and only used for the most extreme speech – speech that incites violence in a very direct way, or that is part of a campaign that violates the rights of minorities to live free of discrimination. In contrast, simply insulting and offending others, even if feelings are very hurt, is not seen as something that should invite a legal response. Using the law to protect feelings is too great an encroachment on freedom of speech.
  • Our laws are written very broadly, such that any sort of offence, even if it does not threaten imminent violence, is seen as deserving of strict regulation. This probably reflects a very strong social consensus that race and religion should be handled delicately. So we tend to rely on strong government. The state protects racial and religious sensibilities from offence, using censorship when there’s a danger of words and actions causing hurt.
  • in almost all cases, state action was instigated by complaints from members of the public. This is quite unlike political censorship, where action is initiated by the government, often with great resistance and opposition from netizens. In a string of cases involving racial and religious offence, however, it’s the netizens who tend to demand action, sometimes acting like a lynch mob.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • in many cases, the offensive messages were spread further by those reporting the offence.
  • What is the justification for strong police action against any form of speech? Why do we sometimes feel that it may not be enough to counter bad speech with good speech in free and open debate, and that we must instead use the law to stop the bad speech? Surely, it must be because we think the bad speech is so dangerous that it can cause immediate harm; or because we don’t trust the public to respond rationally, so we don’t know if good speech would indeed triumph in open debate. Usually, if we call in the authorities, it must be because we have a mental picture of offensive speech being like lighting a match in a combustible atmosphere. It is dangerous and there’s no time to debate the merits of that match – we just have to put it out. The irony of most of the cases that we have seen in the past few years is that the people demanding government action, as if the offensive words were explosive, were also those who helped to spread them. It is like helping to spread a fire while calling for the fire brigade.
  • their act of spreading the offensive content must mean that they did not actually believe that the expression was really that dangerous in the sense of prompting violence through reprisal attacks or riots. In reposting the offensive words or pictures, they showed that they actually trusted the public enough to respond sympathetically – they had faith that enough people would add their voices to the outrage that they themselves felt when they saw the offensive images or videos or words.
  • This then raises the question, why the need to involve the police at all? If Singaporeans are grown-up enough to defend their society against offensive speech, why have calls for prosecution and censorship become the automatic response? I wonder if this is an example of the well-known habit of unthinkingly relying on government to solve all our problems even when, with a little bit of effort in the form of grassroots action can do the job.
  • The next time people encounter racist or religiously offensive speech, it would be nice to see swift responses from credible and respected civil society groups, Members of Parliament, and other ordinary citizens. If the speaker doesn’t get the message, organise boycotts, for example, and give him or her the clear message that our society isn’t going to take such offence lying down. The more we can respond ourselves through open debate and grassroots action, without the need to ask law and order to step in, the stronger our society will be.
  • Weiye Loh on 11 Mar 12
     
    No matter how hard we work at developing media literacy, we should not expect to be rid of all racially offensive speech online. There are two broad ways to respond to these breaches. We can reach out horizontally and together with our fellow citizens repair the damage by persuading others to reject harmful ideas. Or, we can reach up vertically to government, getting the authorities to act against irresponsible speech by using the law. The advantage of the latter is that it seems more efficient, punishing those who cross the line of acceptability and violate social norms, and deterring others from doing the same. The horizontal approach works through persuasion rather than the law, so it is slower and not foolproof.
Weiye Loh

Free Speech under Siege - Robert Skidelsky - Project Syndicate - 0 views

www.project-syndicate.org/...English

Law Freedom of Speech Discrimination Libel Political Correctness Truths Opinion

shared by Weiye Loh on 21 Jun 11 - No Cached
  • Breaking the cultural code damages a person’s reputation, and perhaps one’s career. Britain’s Home Secretary Kenneth Clarke recently had to apologize for saying that some rapes were less serious than others, implying the need for legal discrimination. The parade of gaffes and subsequent groveling apologies has become a regular feature of public life. In his classic essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill defended free speech on the ground that free inquiry was necessary to advance knowledge. Restrictions on certain areas of historical inquiry are based on the opposite premise: the truth is known, and it is impious to question it. This is absurd; every historian knows that there is no such thing as final historical truth.
  • It is not the task of history to defend public order or morals, but to establish what happened. Legally protected history ensures that historians will play safe. To be sure, living by Mill’s principle often requires protecting the rights of unsavory characters. David Irving writes mendacious history, but his prosecution and imprisonment in Austria for “Holocaust denial” would have horrified Mill.
  • the pressure for “political correctness” rests on the argument that the truth is unknowable. Statements about the human condition are essentially matters of opinion.  Because a statement of opinion by some individuals is almost certain to offend others, and since such statements make no contribution to the discovery of truth, their degree of offensiveness becomes the sole criterion for judging their admissibility. Hence the taboo on certain words, phrases, and arguments that imply that certain individuals, groups, or practices are superior or inferior, normal or abnormal; hence the search for ever more neutral ways to label social phenomena, thereby draining language of its vigor and interest.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • A classic example is the way that “family” has replaced “marriage” in public discourse, with the implication that all “lifestyles” are equally valuable, despite the fact that most people persist in wanting to get married. It has become taboo to describe homosexuality as a “perversion,” though this was precisely the word used in the 1960’s by the radical philosopher Herbert Marcuse (who was praising homosexuality as an expression of dissent). In today’s atmosphere of what Marcuse would call “repressive tolerance,” such language would be considered “stigmatizing.”
  • The sociological imperative behind the spread of “political correctness” is the fact that we no longer live in patriarchal, hierarchical, mono-cultural societies, which exhibit general, if unreflective, agreement on basic values. The pathetic efforts to inculcate a common sense of “Britishness” or “Dutchness” in multi-cultural societies, however well-intentioned, attest to the breakdown of a common identity.
  • The defense of free speech is made no easier by the abuses of the popular press. We need free media to expose abuses of power. But investigative journalism becomes discredited when it is suborned to “expose” the private lives of the famous when no issue of public interest is involved. Entertaining gossip has mutated into an assault on privacy, with newspapers claiming that any attempt to keep them out of people’s bedrooms is an assault on free speech. You know that a doctrine is in trouble when not even those claiming to defend it understand what it means. By that standard, the classic doctrine of free speech is in crisis. We had better sort it out quickly – legally, morally, and culturally – if we are to retain a proper sense of what it means to live in a free society.
  • Weiye Loh on 21 Jun 11
     
    Yet freedom of speech in the West is under strain. Traditionally, British law imposed two main limitations on the "right to free speech." The first prohibited the use of words or expressions likely to disrupt public order; the second was the law against libel. There are good grounds for both - to preserve the peace, and to protect individuals' reputations from lies. Most free societies accept such limits as reasonable. But the law has recently become more restrictive. "Incitement to religious and racial hatred" and "incitement to hatred on the basis of sexual orientation" are now illegal in most European countries, independent of any threat to public order. The law has shifted from proscribing language likely to cause violence to prohibiting language intended to give offense. A blatant example of this is the law against Holocaust denial. To deny or minimize the Holocaust is a crime in 15 European countries and Israel. It may be argued that the Holocaust was a crime so uniquely abhorrent as to qualify as a special case. But special cases have a habit of multiplying.
Weiye Loh

To Live in a Free Society do We Have to Tolerate Hate Speech? Geert Wilders Says Yes. |... - 0 views

utopianist.com/...-speech-geert-wilders-says-yes

Freedom of Speech Hate Speech Politics

shared by Weiye Loh on 24 Jun 11 - No Cached
  • Geert Wilders is, at best, a fear monger –  if you don’t believe me check out a speech he made in Nashville last month in which he explains that Muslim immigrants are trying to conquer Europe and soon no one will be able to wear a crucifix, women won’t be able to walk to streets without veils, etc… Plus he flat out says “Our Judeo-Christian Western culture is far better and far superior to the islamic [sic] culture.” However, Wilders does has a good point about free speech. Words can be dangerous, especially the words of a powerful politician, however free speech is vital to free societies. Speech isn’t always pretty, in fact, it is often ugly and offensive (see the comments below any YouTube video with an even slightly political message) but silence presents a different kind of danger.
  • Weiye Loh on 24 Jun 11
     
    In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician who recently beat a hate-speech rap in his own country for his controversial views on Islam, tells us that no speech goes too far when it is in the interest of promoting political debate.  Wilders was brought to court for making inflammatory statements about Islam and now he is speaking out against the Dutch legislation
Weiye Loh

Freedom's our defence - 0 views

www.indianexpress.com/...0

Freedom of Speech

shared by Weiye Loh on 10 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Few things are more crooked in India than the discourse on free speech and its relation to violence. Rather than focusing on the basic framework governing speech, the debate quickly descends into the politics of double standards.
  • The first is, could Husain have gotten away with taking artistic liberties with Islam the way he did with Hindu icons? On this view free speech cases are not about free speech. They are the tests of two things. Does the state favour one community over the other in the way it interprets what is offensive and what is permissible?
  • Second, what exactly are the protocols that govern offensive art? Are these standards applied uniformly across different domains? And third, whether Husain’s acceptance of Qatari citizenship is exactly a ringing endorsement of the values of a liberal democracy? These political questions will continue to cloud the fundamental issue: can India as a society handle freedom of expression in a way that befits a liberal democracy?
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • the state’s reaction is typical: legitimise the violence by classifying the purported article as the culprit rather than those who took offence at it and engaged in violence. While our laws on speech undertaken with the malicious intent to give offence, or those governing attempts to produce enmity, are well intentioned, they have made the climate for free speech more, rather than less, precarious.
  • the simple fact that the state signals that it will easily punish those who engage in offensive speech creates incentives for offence mongering. Instead of sending a signal that a very high bar has to be crossed before speech is proscribed, the state essentially tells the people: if you can incite violence, or show that you are deeply offended, you will have your way.
  • A lot of representations of religion are needlessly gratuitous. But if we legitimise the taking of offence there will be more provocations, not less. The law should send a clear message that we live in a world where people cannot be protected from assorted things like Danish cartoons, Husain paintings, burqa lampoons or speculative novels on godly love. And religious believers commit the ultimate blasphemy by thinking that they need to protect their gods rather than their gods protecting them
  • Weiye Loh on 10 Mar 10
     
    Freedom's our defence
Weiye Loh

Rationally Speaking: Don't blame free speech for the murders in Afghanistan - 0 views

rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/...ree-speech-for-murders-in.html

Islam Religion Murder Freedom of Speech

shared by Weiye Loh on 08 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • The most disturbing example of this response came from the head of the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, Staffan de Mistura, who said, “I don't think we should be blaming any Afghan. We should be blaming the person who produced the news — the one who burned the Koran. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of offending culture, religion, traditions.” I was not going to comment on this monumentally inane line of thought, especially since Susan Jacoby, Michael Tomasky, and Mike Labossiere have already done such a marvelous job of it. But then I discovered, to my shock, that several of my liberal, progressive American friends actually agreed that Jones has some sort of legal and moral responsibility for what happened in Afghanistan
  • I believe he has neither. Here is why. Unlike many countries in the Middle East and Europe that punish blasphemy by fine, jail or death, the U.S., via the First Amendment and a history of court decisions, strongly protects freedom of speech and expression as basic and fundamental human rights. These include critiquing and offending other citizens’ culture, religion, and traditions. Such rights are not supposed to be swayed by peoples' subjective feelings, which form an incoherent and arbitrary basis for lawmaking. In a free society, if and when a person is offended by an argument or act, he or she has every right to argue and act back. If a person commits murder, the answer is not to limit the right; the answer is to condemn and punish the murderer for overreacting.
  • Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. Governments have an interest in condemning certain speech that provokes immediate hatred of or violence against people. The canonical example is yelling “fire!” in a packed room when there in fact is no fire, since this creates a clear and imminent danger for those inside the room. But Jones did not create such an environment, nor did he intend to. Jones (more precisely, Wayne Sapp) merely burned a book in a private ceremony in protest of its contents. Indeed, the connection between Jones and the murders requires many links in-between. The mob didn’t kill those accountable, or even Americans.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • But even if there is no law prohibiting Jones’ action, isn’t he morally to blame for creating the environment that led to the murders? Didn’t he know Muslims would riot, and people might die? It seems ridiculous to assume that Jones could know such a thing, even if parts of the Muslim world have a poor track record in this area. But imagine for a moment that Jones did know Muslims would riot, and people would die. This does not make the act of burning a book and the act of murder morally equivalent, nor does it make the book burner responsible for reactions to his act. In and of itself, burning a book is a morally neutral act. Why would this change because some misguided individuals think book burning is worth the death penalty? And why is it that so many have automatically assumed the reaction to be respectable? To use an example nearer to some of us, recall when PZ Myers desecrated a communion wafer. If some Christian was offended, and went on to murder the closest atheist, would we really blame Myers? Is Myers' offense any different than Jones’?
  • the deep-seated belief among many that blasphemy is wrong. This means any reaction to blasphemy is less wrong, and perhaps even excused, compared to the blasphemous offense. Even President Obama said that, "The desecration of any holy text, including the Koran, is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry.” To be sure, Obama went on to denounce the murders, and to state that burning a holy book is no excuse for murder. But Obama apparently couldn’t condemn the murders without also condemning Jones’ act of religious defiance.
  • As it turns out, this attitude is exactly what created the environment that led to murders in the first place. The members of the mob believed that religious belief should be free from public critical inquiry, and that a person who offends religious believers should face punishment. In the absence of official prosecution, they took matters into their own hands and sought anyone on the side of the offender. It didn’t help that Afghan leaders stoked the flames of hatred — but they only did so because they agreed with the mob’s sentiment to begin with. Afghan President Hamid Karzai said the U.S. should punish those responsible, and three well-known Afghan mullahs urged their followers to take to the streets and protest to call for the arrest of Jones
Weiye Loh

Net-Neutrality: The First Amendment of the Internet | LSE Media Policy Project - 0 views

blogs.lse.ac.uk/...irst-amendment-of-the-internet

Net Neutrality

shared by Weiye Loh on 30 Mar 11 - No Cached
  • debates about the nature, the architecture and the governing principles of the internet are not merely technical or economic discussions.  Above all, these debates have deep political, social, and cultural implications and become a matter of public, national and global interest.
  • In many ways, net neutrality could be considered the first amendment of the internet; no pun intended here. However, just as with freedom of speech the principle of net neutrality cannot be approached as absolute or as a fetish. Even in a democracy we cannot say everything applies all the time in all contexts. Limiting the core principle of freedom of speech in a democracy is only possible in very specific circumstances, such as harm, racism or in view of the public interest. Along the same lines, compromising on the principle of net neutrality should be for very specific and clearly defined reasons that are transparent and do not serve commercial private interests, but rather public interests or are implemented in view of guaranteeing an excellent quality of service for all.
  • One of the only really convincing arguments of those challenging net neutrality is that due to the dramatic increases in streaming activity and data-exchange through peer-to-peer networks, the overall quality of service risks being compromised if we stick to data being treated on a first come first serve basis. We are being told that popular content will need to be stored closer to the consumer, which evidently comes at an extra cost.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Implicitly two separate debates are being collapsed here and I would argue that we need to separate both. The first one relates to the stability of the internet as an information and communication infrastructure because of the way we collectively use that infrastructure. The second debate is whether ISPs and telecommunication companies should be allowed to differentiate in their pricing between different levels of quality of access, both towards consumers and content providers.
  • Just as with freedom of speech, circumstances can be found in which the principle while still cherished and upheld, can be adapted and constrained to some extent. To paraphrase Tim Wu (2008), the aspiration should still be ‘to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally’, but maybe some forms of content should be treated more equally than others in order to guarantee an excellent quality of service for all. However, the societal and political implications of this need to be thought through in detail and as with freedom of speech itself, it will, I believe, require strict regulation and conditions.
  • In regards to the first debate on internet stability, a case can be made for allowing internet operators to differentiate between different types of data with different needs – if for any reason the quality of service of the internet as a whole cannot be guaranteed anymore. 
  • Concerning the second debate on differential pricing, it is fair to say that from a public interest and civic liberty perspective the consolidation and institutionalization of a commercially driven two-tiered internet is not acceptable and impossible to legitimate. As is allowing operators to differentiate in the quality of provision of certain kind of content above others.  A core principle such as net neutrality should never be relinquished for the sake of private interests and profit-making strategies – on behalf of industry or for others. If we need to compromise on net neutrality it would always have to be partial, to be circumscribed and only to improve the quality of service for all, not just for the few who can afford it.
  • Separating these two debates exposes the crux of the current net-neutrality debate. In essence, we are being urged to give up on the principle of net-neutrality to guarantee a good quality of service.  However, this argument is actually a pre-text for the telecom industry to make content-providers pay for the facilitation of access to their audiences – the internet subscribers. And this again can be linked to another debate being waged amongst content providers: how do we make internet users pay for the content they access online? I won’t open that can of worms here, but I will make my point clear.  Telecommunication industry efforts to make content providers pay for access to their audiences do not offer legitimate reasons to suspend the first amendment of the internet.
Weiye Loh

Balderdash - 0 views

gssq.blogspot.com/...mand-freedom-of-speech-as.html

Freedom of Speech Statistics

shared by Weiye Loh on 08 Mar 10 - Cached
  • I've interacted with more people who think a single counter-example is enough to prove a generalisation or stereotype wrong (in other words, those who confuse the concepts of range and mean [or, perhaps, confidence intervals]) than people who think that stereotypes always hold.
  • perhaps this reveals that the oft-mentioned person who cannot think beyond stereotypes is a classic bogeyman
  • the people I interact with on such issues are those who have a higher level of education, but then this would be proof that "education is a method whereby one acquires a higher grade of prejudices".
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • B: I dont classify this issue [of hiring women for sales jobs] under discrimination. If not, I can also say that hiring pretty girls for front line services is not only discrimination towards males BUT towards ugly girls too!
  • A: Maybe it is discrimination but that we are simply ignoring it? After all no one likes to look upon themselves in a bad light. When blacks were still slaves in America, no one wanted to think it was discrimination because majority felt it was right to enslave the blacks. Majority has always ruled society after all. Might and safety in numbers.
  • Noelle-Nueman's Spiral of Silence theory could apply not just to minorities but maybe in this scenario
  • It seems fine to portray beautiful people on the front line and indirectly discriminate against less appealing people and no one wants to speak out against it.
  • the "fat, ugly or even toothless" people who don't speak out. In this case, they constitute the "minority" section of the the Spiral's theory.
  • Me: We discriminate against the lazy and the stupid all the timeA: You uncharacteristic lack of support is disturbing. In addition to that, you make assumptous, sweeping statements that does not hold as much water as you seem to believe they do. Me: I thought it would be obvious that we discriminate against the lazy and the stupid all the time.There's something to be said about universal skepticism as a method for finding truth, but if you apply it in everyday life we'll never get anything done. Do you want me to support the assertion that Singapore is hot and humid as well, or will you again accuse me of making assumptous (sic), sweeping statements that does (sic) not hold as much water as I seem to believe they do?
  • A: It is clear and undeniable that Singapore is hot and humid, it is however, not clear that everyone discriminates against the lazy and stupid. Just because you don't know anyone who does not discriminate against them, doesn't mean everyone is the same.Me: *facepalm* Next you'll be saying that the US Declaration of Independence is invalid, because not everyone in the Thirteen Colonies held it to be "self-evident" that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
  • using Noelle-Nueman's Spiral of Silence effect as an explanation, you must understand that the "minorities", that is mentioned in Noelle-Nueman's Spiral of Silence, refers to the smaller population who holds the controversial opinion. The "minorities" does not necessarily mean the "victims" in the topic, that is being discussed.
  • When you want to use Noelle-Nueman's Spiral of Silence effect in here, you must understand that the "minorities" can be any random person (the sexy, ugly, pretty, beautiful, thin, fat, etc.) who is out to advocate that "Car-show can hire FAT chicks".
  • Weiye Loh on 08 Mar 10
     
    "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard
Jody Poh

BBC NEWS | Technology | Defamation lawsuit for US tweeter - 0 views

news.bbc.co.uk/...8173731.stm

misinformation defamation ethical law freedom

shared by Jody Poh on 18 Aug 09 - Cached
  • Jody Poh on 18 Aug 09
     
    This news story is about Horizon realty suing a woman called Amanda Bonnen for defamation on Twitter. Amanda Bonnen has micro blogged her feelings towards her apartment on Twitter. She was unhappy with the mould she found in her apartment. This has stirred a response from Horizon realty as it sees the comment she made as false. Also as Twitter is such a widespread network, the company sees that it has to protect its reputation online. Thus, they have decided to sue Amanda Bonnen. Ms Bonnen has already recently moved out of the apartment and has been unavailable to comment on the lawsuit. Her Twitter account has also been deleted. Ethical question: I think many consider posting complaints and comments on Twitter similar to complaining to or having a conversation with friends over coffee. If this is the case, is it ethical or 'right' to be allowed to sue people like Amanda Bonnen? Ethical problem: This case brings up the point of the freedom of speech in public and private spaces. What are the boundaries and definitions of public and private space with the rise of new technologies such as Twitter? On what space (public or private) is Twitter then operating on and how much freedom of speech is allowed?
Meenatchi

Online Defamation - 0 views

www.koreatimes.co.kr/...202_43363.html

online defamation ethical law responsibility

shared by Meenatchi on 18 Aug 09 - Cached
  • Meenatchi on 18 Aug 09
     
    Interesting Case In summary, the article discusses the court ruling of an online defamation case that took place in Korea. It involves Kim, the victim, who experienced the spread of false articles and defamatory comments that blamed him for his ex-girlfriend's suicide. The final verdict held Internet portals liable for the damages caused by the articles they displayed on their website. This is despite the articles having been provided by external media outlets. The Supreme Court ordered four of the major portals involved in the case to pay a combined 30 million ($22,500) as compensation to Kim. Ethical Question I feel there are a few ethical issues that are at play in this case. One would be if it is ethical to publish sensitive information about an individual without his/her permission on the Internet. This is of more importance when the credibility of the information is dubious. Another ethical question would be if Internet Service Providers can be held responsible for information they did not create. Is it fair to charge them on the basis that they have failed to regulate the content displayed on their sites? Problem The problem with the first ethical question is that it creates a question of individual privacy rights against the freedom of speech for another. Publishing sensitive information that might not even be true about an individual infringes his/her privacy rights. However, it is the right of the publisher to have the freedom of speech to state what he/she thinks. The issue with the second ethical question is that the Internet Service Providers merely provide a platform for people to express their views. They should not be held liable for comments posted by individuals using the website. However, the opposing view would expect the ISPs to be responsible for the content they allow to be displayed on their site. They have to regulate the content to ensure that sensitive or controversial information that would cause irrevocable damage to others
Weiye Loh

"Asian Values": a credible alternative to a universal conception of human rig... - 0 views

ibamedialaw.wordpress.com/...sal-conception-of-human-rights

Human Rights UDHR Freedom of Speech Asian Value

shared by Weiye Loh on 08 Feb 11 - No Cached
  • Singapore has not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but as a member state of the United Nations is bound to respect “fundamental human rights”. But who decides these rights? Many commentators will argue that they are those enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, in which Freedom of Expression is guaranteed by Article 19.
  • The United Nations Human Rights Committee has stressed that freedom of expression ensures the free political debate essential to democracy[ii] and has expressed concern that overbearing government controls of the media are incompatible with Freedom of Expression.
  • The Singapore government’s view is different. They have long asserted that human rights principles and conceptions are dominated by Western perceptions and argue for an “Asian Values” interpretation of human rights. This has been characterised as the assertion of the primacy of duty to the community over individual rights and the expectation of trust in authority and dominance of the state leaders.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • The “Asian Values” hypothesis is equally suspect. The UDHR recognises the universal applicability of human rights and any nation party to this treaty is not permitted to restrict rights purely on cultural, religious or political grounds.
  • “Asian governments are justified in restricting civil and political rights in some circumstances in favour of social stability and economic growth. Civil and political rights are immaterial when people are destitute and society is unstable.  Accordingly, as luxuries to be enjoyed once there is social order, civil and political liberties must be temporarily suspended so as to not inhibit the government’s delivery of economic and social necessities and so as to not threaten or destroy future development plans.” Whilst this argument may have been slightly more palatable if Singapore’s citizens were, in fact destitute, the reality is that Singapore is ranked as one of the world’s wealthiest countries and boasts a high life expectancy. Thus in Singapore’s case, arguments made in favour of a “liberty trade-off” are rendered completely untenable.
  • these cultural and religious justifications for violating rights are as unacceptable as Singapore’s purported assertion of an “Asian Values” conception of human rights. Even though the Singapore government’s language is more subtle, their arguments amount to same basic tenet: the purported justification of the denial of fundamental human rights, by reference to cultural, religious or political specific norms. Speaking recently in New York, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon warned against such an interpretation of human rights:
  • “Yes, we recognize that social attitudes run deep.  Yes, social change often comes only with time.  Yet, let there be no confusion: where there is tension between cultural attitudes and universal human rights, universal human rights must carry the day. ” The universal and fundamental nature of human rights is the founding principle on which the United Nations was built: the right to freedom of expression must be guaranteed, “Asian Values” notwithstanding.
Weiye Loh

The Free Speech Blog: Official blog of Index on Censorship » Thank God for th... - 0 views

blog.indexoncensorship.org/...thank-god-for-the-goats

Freedom of Speech Religion War

shared by Weiye Loh on 03 Mar 11 - No Cached
  • The US Supreme Court ruled yesterday by an 8-1 vote that the bizarre anti-gay funeral picketers belonging to the Westboro Baptist Church have a First Amendment right to free speech. Rev Fred Phelps and his crew have been waving placards with messages such as “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “AIDS Cures Fags” at military funerals to promote their belief that God is punishing the US for accepting homosexuality.
  • The Supreme Court decision (see below) overruled a previous award of over $10 million (reduced on appeal to $5 million) to the family of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder in relation to a protest at his funeral.
  • First, undoubtedly debate about war, its causes and casualties is important. This was “speech” in a public place on an issue of public concern, even though the particular hypothesis is ridiculous and offensive. Free speech protection can’t, however, just be for views already presumed to be true. Secondly, protestors were scrupulous about staying within the letter of the law. They knew that they had to remain 1,000 feet from the funeral, for instance, and did not shout or otherwise disrupt the service. Preventing such orderly protests on issues of importance would have been a serious attack on civil liberties, even though the protestors displayed gross insensitivity to those mourning.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • we should welcome this decision even though it protects bigots of limited reasoning ability about cause and effect who are indifferent to the feelings of the recently bereaved. The best response to hateful speech is surely counter-speech. At many recent military funerals, counter-protestors have arrived early in their thousands and occupied the prime spaces in the surrounding area. That is a far better reaction than a legal gagging order.
joanne ye

TJC Stomp Scandal - 34 views

This is a very interesting topic. Thanks, Weiman! From the replies for this topic, I would say two general questions surfaced. Firstly, is STOMP liable for misinformation? Secondly, is it right for...

started by Weiman Kow on 19 Aug 09 3 follow-ups, last by joanne ye on 26 Aug 09
Weiye Loh

UN report: "three strikes" Internet laws violate human rights - 0 views

arstechnica.com/...blasts-three-strikes-rules.ars

Internet Censorship

shared by Weiye Loh on 04 Jun 11 - No Cached
  • Governments of all kinds are compelling ISPs and website operators to help with their censorship efforts. In Turkey, ISPs are required to assist in blocking several categories of content, including “insulting” the long-decesased founding father of the Turkish republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. And even nominally advanced countries have gotten into the act. In Italy, Google executives faced criminal liability for hosting an insensitive YouTube video despite the fact that Google complied promptly to the takedown request. "Holding intermediaries liable for the content disseminated or created by their users severely undermines the enjoyment of the right to freedom of opinion and expression," La Rue writes. "It leads to self-protective and over-broad private censorship, often without transparency and the due process of the law."
  • La Rue saved some of his strongest criticism for the "three strikes" laws recently enacted by France and the UK. He writes that he is "deeply concerned" about proposals to create a centralized system for cutting people off from Internet access as a punishment for copyright infringement. France has such a system, which was approved by the courts in 2009 and is reportedly getting 25,000 complaints a day. The United Kingdom passed a Digital Economy Act in 2010 that contained similar provisions. The Special Rapporteur is "alarmed" by these regulations, writing that cutting off Internet access as a response to copyright infringement is "disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." He notes that Internet disconnection language has been removed from recent drafts of the ACTA treaty, but writes that he "remains watchful about the treaty’s eventual implications for intermediary liability and the right to freedom of expression."
  • Weiye Loh on 04 Jun 11
     
    An official appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council has released a new report on the state of online free speech around the world. In addition to calling attention to long-standing censorship problems in China, Iran, and other oppressive regimes, the report devotes a surprising amount of attention to speech restrictions in the developed world-and it singles out recently enacted "three strikes" laws in France and the United Kingdom that boot users off the Internet for repeated copyright infringement.
Weiye Loh

Wk 4 Online censorship & digital access: Mormon Church Attacks Wikileaks - 6 views

WIKILEAK RELEASES SECRET CHURCH DOCUMENTS! The First Link is an article regarding Wikileaks releasing a 'copyrighted' and confidential Church document of the Mormons (also known as the Church of J...

Mormons Scientology Wikileaks Copyright Censorship

started by guanyou chen on 31 Aug 09 1 follow-up, last by Weiye Loh on 31 Aug 09
Weiye Loh

BBC News - Stephen Fry prison 'pledge' over 'Twitter joke' trial - 0 views

www.bbc.co.uk/...uk-13102490

Freedom of Speech Twitter Joke Terrorism

shared by Weiye Loh on 16 Apr 11 - No Cached
  • Chambers' case has become a cause celebre on Twitter, with hundreds of people reposting his original comments in protest at the conviction.
  • Speaking generally about the internet and freedom of speech, Linehan told the audience: "We've got this incredible tool and we should fight any attempt to take it out of our hands."
  • The aim of the organisers is that he will not be forced to drop his case because of the possibility he would have to pay the prosecution's legal costs were he to lose.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • everyone seemed united by a desire to protect freedom of speech or at least the ability to recognise the difference between jokes and menacing terrorist threats.
  • "We should be able to have banter," he concluded. "We should be able to speak freely without the threat of legal coercion." Chambers - who now lives in Northern Ireland but lived in Balby, Doncaster, at the time - sent the message to his 600 followers in the early hours of 6 January 2010. He claimed it was in a moment of frustration after Robin Hood Airport in South Yorkshire was closed by snow. He was found guilty in May 2010 and fined £385 and told to pay £600 costs. His appeal is likely to go before the High Court later this year.
Paul Melissa

Hey, did you hear about S'pore 'Gossip Girl' sites? - JULY 24, 2009 - 0 views

www.tnp.sg/...0,4139,208548,00.html

blog defamation online rumors

shared by Paul Melissa on 18 Aug 09 - Cached
Meenatchi liked it
  • Paul Melissa on 18 Aug 09
     
    This case occurred recently this year. Following a popular TV series 'Gossip Girl', a group of senior students from Ngee Ann Polytechnic targeted Year One students from the School of Film and Media Studies (FMS). Blogs were created to defame the students by sparking off online rumors about them. The blog postings affected friendships as students became very suspicious of each other and started pointing fingers. The image of FMS was also affected especially when read by people outside the school. Though the blogs have been shut down, they have generated over 18000 hits. It is still uncertain who set up the blogs. Ethical Question: With regards to freedom of speech, is there an imaginary ethical line in cyberspace which when over-stepped, must lead to punishment? Who decides when or how this line is being over-stepped? What and how severed should the consequences be? This is because the culprits we practicing free speech but there was a price their victims had to pay. In this case, according to teleological theories, there is neither utilitarianism nor ethical altruism.
qiyi liao

Online Censorship: Obama urged to fine firms for aiding censors - 3 views

Internet activists are urging Barack Obama to pass legislation that would make it illegal for technology companies to collaborate with authoritarian countries that censor the internet. -The Guardi...

started by qiyi liao on 02 Sep 09 no follow-up yet
Weiye Loh

No talk on politics and religion without license: NTU | the kent ridge common - 0 views

kentridgecommon.com/?p=7676

Censorship Politics Religion Blog

shared by Weiye Loh on 09 Sep 10 - No Cached
  • Following the incident in which a student posted an ‘academic blacklist’ of international students, The Nanyang Technological University (NTU) sent out an email warning to its students about the school’s regulatory guidelines on internet postings.
  • The email, titled “Message on Exercising Freedom of Expression Responsibility“, warned students in particular not to ‘make comments that cause hatred or dissatisfaction with the Singapore justice system’ and not to create ‘web pages/blogs containing information on religion or politics’ unless the student has ‘acquired proper licences from the Media Development Authority AND the written approval of the University.’
  • While the list of regulations has a few sound guidelines on exercising exercising free speech on the internet, it makes no case to explain why dissatisfaction with the Singapore Justice system, if there was ever one, could not be freely expressed by its students. At the same time, the insistence on a complete blanket ban on blogs that discuss politics or religion without acquiring ‘proper licenses’ from MDA and the school contravenes the very tenets of freedom of speech.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Interestingly, judging from the contents posted, the blog TheLiberatingTruth, which was responsible for the e-mail reminder, would not have contravened any of the guidelines stated by NTU. Firstly, the blog is neither a site that discusses politics or religion, and neither is it a complete fabrication of allegations against the international students. The testimonials posted on TheLiberatingTruth, which has since shut down, are based on real-life experiences and encounters by classmates of these international students.
  • The guidelines for exercising freedom of speech responsibly on the internet seemed to have confused responsible commentary on the internet with ‘positive’ commentary — insofar as you only limit your opinions about another organization, person or entity to positive or nice-sounding words, you are deemed to have commented ‘responsibly.’
  • Weiye Loh on 09 Sep 10
     
    No talk on politics and religion without license: NTU
Weiye Loh

Singapore Finds Freedom of Expression in Its Food - Newsweek - 0 views

www.newsweek.com/...wing-gum-try-the-murtabak.html

Food Freedom of Speech Singapore

shared by Weiye Loh on 07 Feb 11 - No Cached
  • Singaporeans are the toughest critics I know when it comes to food; the same person who worries about too openly expressing dissatisfaction with the government will not think twice of berating a hawker for serving a bowl of fish porridge deemed substandard. We try our best to keep them honest—and this, perhaps, inspires them to greater heights.
  • Settlers from India, Europe, China, and Malaysia flocked to Singapore, and the country’s fusion-style cuisine was born, meshing flavors and cooking styles from the various far-flung lands. The sedate chicken rice from China’s Hainan Island was spiced up with garlic, pandan leaves, and chilies. Fried Roti John—named for the British soldiers, or Johns, as the locals called them—combined a Western baguette-style bread with minced mutton, beaten eggs, and a plethora of Indian spices.
  • I’d never questioned such devotion to food until I moved to Chicago in the 1990s and realized that these practices sounded more than a little peculiar to the American friends
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Outsiders might consider it incongruous that a country with a reputation for limited free speech could foster such creative cuisine. But I maintain that it is precisely those limitations that make Singapore’s food scene so dynamic; it’s simply the safest outlet for no-holds-barred expression. In politics and religion, silence might be best in Singapore, but with food there are no restrictions. “Is there freedom of speech in Singapore?” responded Willin Low, chef of the well-regarded “Mod Sin” (shorthand for Modern Singaporean) restaurant Wild Rocket. “I don’t know about that because I have only one mouth and I am busy eating.”
  • t food has great symbolic power in Singapore. “We were an immigrant society where the most important thing was having enough to eat,” says Violet Oon, the Julia Child of Singapore. “So the greatest sign of success was having a fat baby.” (I remember unsuccessfully trying to explain this concept to an American boyfriend who got tremendously miffed whenever my parents showed up for a visit and remarked with big smiles, “You’ve put on weight!”)
1 - 20 of 56 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page