Censorship is Self-defeating (Passage 5)
Censorship is self-defeating. It's better to educate people about responsibility
Not too long ago, Singaporeans were enticed by the idea of a nation-wide broadband network. We were told that such an infrastructure would keep
Ultimately, it would bring us a step closer to our goal of being a knowledge hub where ideas flourish and flow freely.
Now the Government prohibits podcasting and videocasting for the dissemination of political content during the coming elections. In addition, bloggers who "persistently propagate, promote or circulate political issues relating to
Notwithstanding the definition issues thrown up by the new guidelines, a palpable irony colours the Government's approach towards internet technology.
This irony is perhaps best explained by drawing the distinction between commercial and political free speech. The more liberal internet policy is tailored specifically towards the promotion of a freer and more vibrant business environment.
However, when politics is concerned, the noisy marketplace of ideas which the internet engineers is apparently an affront to the seriousness in which the Government deals with its political affairs.
To invoke political seriousness as a justification for curbing free expression is a feeble discourse. It implicitly suggests that the Government does not trust its people to be accountable for their political views and discerning in their political judgment.
More significantly, there is a lack of interest to ascertain what might or might not be politically serious. This is evident from the recent restrictions in electioneering introduced by the Government.
It is easy to understand why many wonder if political seriousness is merely a foil for a more systematic repression of political free speech.
No doubt freedom has its price. There will inevitably be cases where individuals abuse their rights to disparage politics in this country. Question is, do we sink in despondency over a few bad apples or focus on the good that the rest of the orchard brings?
I believe the answer is obvious. Free speech unhampered by the chilling fear of legal sanctions promotes political pluralism and gives legitimacy to our status as a democratic nation.
The Government will find it increasingly difficult to maintain its two-sided approach on internet control. As it increases the ubiquity of the internet to spur economic development, a barrage of political ideas in its various technological forms will follow in its wake.
To exercise quality control over political speech by introducing sweeping censorship measures will in time prove to be self-defeating.
I think we're better off educating our population to be "responsible moral agents" than to punish them for breaking the inhibitions imposed by the state on their right to free speech.
David Cai
(An undergraduate in
posted by BESTBABESANDGUYS at
11:39 AM
8 Comments:
I agree with the author that too much freedom also has its own costs and can be equally detrimental to social stability. With increased freedom must come an increased sense of responsibility in individuals and the realization that they now have to be extra careful in what they say. However, in society, there will be always be one or two individuals who will attempt to misuse this freedom to spread their own morally unacceptable and even extremist ideologies. Furthermore, most of us do practice metacognition when voicing out our opinions and hence do not consider how what we say will be interpreted and the possible reactions of the other parties involved. The media itself at times may not practice such caution as in the case of the American media publishing crude and too candid photographs of the Haiti earthquake victims in the name of humanity. Their intention may have been totally selfless but it was misinterpreted by the Haiti government and the quake victims as the media just simply being too insensitive to the plight of the quake victims and agonizing them further by ignoring their right to privacy.
I disagree with the author that the current curbing of free expression of political views is due to the government's distrust of its people. Bans and restrictions, such as the prohibition of podcasts and video casts during elections times, is to ensure the integrity of the elections and not to suppress the freedom of choice and expression people can practice in politics. Such restrictions are to block out those individuals who perpetuate wrong information regarding the elections or merely manipulate the information to serve their own needs. This is aggravated by the fact that bloggers can easily hide between a cloud of anonymity. Even the mass media itself may perpetuate wrong information especially during elections. The best known example of this is the manipulation of the 2004 elections by the Fox news in America in support of George Bush. To prevent the occurrence of a similar situation here, the government censors the sharing of political views especially during times of elections.
In my view, it is a sweeping overgeneralization to say that government stamps down hard and censors too much of our opinions especially in politics. It really depends on ,firstly, what is being censored. Obviously, we cannot allow racist, jihadists or other fallacious opinions to be shared in Singapore. Due to its multi ethnicity and multiracial composition, the situation in Singapore is, as we have learnt from the 1964 race riots and the Maria Hertogh riots, like a dynamite waiting to blow up. All it will take is one small spark from an outsider or an insensitive or malicious individual from amidst us to set of that explosion. Also, it depends on the extent of censorship- too much censorship really does kill creativity and individuality and makes life mundane as with North Korea. The flip side is also true- too much freedom like in America, will also threaten the survival of Singapore as nation, a scenario made more probable by our diverse and complex make-up. Hence, the government has to practice some censorship to prevent the propagation of such harmful views but it is an exaggeration to say that it censors too heavily especially in politics.
Varun
I agree with the author that there is an obvious incongruity about the government's approach towards internet technology. Internet technology is a very useful tool in aiding us to become a knowledge hub where there is freedom of speech and freedom of ideas. However, at the same time, information that is detrimental to the government are always censored, and not made known to the public. This deprives us of the right to know what we should know as a citizen of Singapore. The information that are published are those that are liberal and in favour to the government. So what does it mean by being a knowledge hub, when the possible truth, that can be detrimental to the government are always censored and leaving us to think that the world is such a great place to live in.
I disagree with the author that we place a light touch on the internet. The internet is a powerful source and we do take it seriously. It is a logical fallacy at times, and we rely on it so much for information and recreation. In this case, censorship is necessary and not self-defeating because censorship becomes an advantage. For instance, at times where some websites are found to promote terrorism and recruit terrorists, censorship has to be put in place. This is exceptionally important as youths are the main users of the internet nowadays, and most youths are more easily influenced by such negativity. The internet comes together with a huge potential for abuse and thus the saying "with freedom comes great responsibility", thus i conclude that censorship is necessary at times to protect the citizen of today.
I believe that censorship is necessary as there are indeed a lot of negative influences on the net. And prevention is always better than cure. Therefore, censorship is not self-defeating as its main purpose was to block out these negative influences such as the recruit of terrorists and even the posting of racist remarks. However, after that being said, there must be a limit of censorship. It would be very unfair to the various types of artists if their good works are being censored due to the immaturity of the public. We have to allow some sort of art to be displayed and enjoyed, at the same time respected by the public. Censorship being self-defeating is not necessarily true but censorship is necessary at times.
I agree with the author that there is no doubt freedom has its price. This freedom which allow people to make use of technology such as handphone and computers as private communication had obvious drawback. Some individual may hide behind this facade of private communication to bring about or spread something to cause unrest in the society for what they feel is morally right to them. For example there are instances where websites and news are made up for the propagander of terrorism. This shows that the freedom of people to be able to express themselves freely to what they feel is right will come at a price.
I do not agree with the author that cebsorship suggest that the government does not thrust their people to be accoutable for their views. The reason why government practice censorship is to try to block out negativity to their people. For example being in a multi racial and religon country, it is the government duty to ensure peace and harmony within the group. If they are individuals who post remarks online to abuse the other ethnic group, enmity may be caused among the two groups. If the government does not take action by ensuring that these comments are not posted in the first place, ideas of hate and emity among the differennt group may take place. Moreover such problem could not be solved overnight. hence the government practice censorship to prevent such problem in the first place.
I believe that there must be a balance between freedom of speech and censorship. Too much of a side will have negative implications. Having too much censorship will hamper Singapore quest of being a knowledge hub since certain issues would be keep unknown to its people. On the other hand having too much freedom will bring along many serious implications to a country such as causing it to be politically unrest, clashes among its different group of people. Hence it is about applying and doing the right things at the right time. Censorship and freedom of speech definately needs to be praciced together to bring about more of their own benefits and reduce the impacts of both.
lyndon=)
I agree with the author that the government thinks too much of the bad points of freedom of speech even though freedom of speech does have its price. With more freedom of speech, some people could end up being hurt or abused due to hurtful remarks about them and this would bring detrimental effects to the harmony that Singapore has worked so hard to achieve in the society. It could spark anger amongst the people and could result in increased tension or riots in the country. However, the government has applied censorship too strictly because they are afraid of what people might say about the politics in Singapore. This means that they care more about shielding themselves from Singapore's honest political opinion rather than giving the people more freedom to express themselves. Thus this supports the fact that the government focuses more on the negativity of allowing more freedom of speech and that it is better to invoke political seriousness as a means of the repression of political free speech rather than inculcating responsibility in the people so that they know how to limit their own freedom of speech without the help of the government’s law of censorship.
However, I disagree with the author that Singaporeans are better off educated to be more responsible than to restrict them with censorship. This is because it is inevitable and unavoidable that some people would not take responsibility seriously or may take advantage of their freedom of speech by thinking that it is okay to express their feelings and saying that it is not irresponsible in their opinion. For example, even if the government does catch them in the act and tell them that their remarks or comments are in fact irresponsible, they would defend themselves by saying that nobody has told them that it was irresponsible and the people who are suppose to educate them the right responsibility is to blame. Censorship is thus required to prevent any misunderstanding and abuse of the people’s right to freedom of speech and thus it does serve a purpose.
I think that censorship is used as an advantage to the government in order to prevent any political corruption or reveal any negative details about the government to outsiders, making them think badly of Singapore’s government. However the author’s stand that censorship in self-defeating is over-generalised as censorship does serve a purpose to prevent any chaos or conflict in the society. This is especially due to the multi-racial society that is existent in Singapore. Without the use of censorship in the country (for example, if someone publicizes rude remarks about other races), it could result in major conflicts and riots among the people. Inculcating better responsibility would just lower the chances of societal tension by a little if the people took advantage of the situation i.e. they do not put good responsibility to proper use. Thus I believe that while censorship does make us feel restricted to say what we want to say, it is not right to say that it is self-defeating because in some occasions, governments do need to limit the freedom of speech that the people have if they themselves do not know how to limit it and are apathetic to the consequences too much freedom of expression can bring.
-FAIDAH
sorry, the second comment is by Grace. (:
I do agree with the author that too much freedom can lead to a plethora of social problems. With the improved state of technology in today's society, it is simply impossible for governments to censor everything and hence, we as citizens must show the maturity expected of us in order to achieve social stability. We, as responsible citizens, have to exercise caution in everything we say as a careless slip of the toungue may result in drastic concequences like racial riots. However, like in every country in the world, there would definately be a few black sheeps that would spread racist or discriminating remarks and cause social tensions but it has to be said that the majority of our citizens do exercise self-restraint in everything we say. hence, I do agree with the author that education, like what most governments are doing, is the right way to go.
On the flipside, i disagree with the author that the government's reason for censorship is because they do not trust us, and treat us as if we were children. At times, restrictions and censorships are essential in maintaining social stability in a country. For example, the government must definately censor internet forums that reflect anti-government or extremists ideologies that would be a threat to the peace and security in the country. Besides, if it is really true that our government feels that we are too immature to be thrusted with such freedom, they can choose to adopt a communist state of government like that of North Korea where the people have no say and everything is controlled by the central government. This is clearly fallacious and is absurd of the author to say that that the government does not trust us.
Hence, I believe that censorship has to be implemented moderately for it to be successful.
sorry, the comment which ended with "Hence, I believe that censorship has to be implemented moderately for it to be successful." was by Jeremy
Good job guys! Good arguments shown, with balance on both sides of the argument. Also, good attempts to give examples to support your points. Cudos to you!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home