Singapore is a first world nation that has the freedom of press of a third world nation. The right to freedom of speech is a universal human right and is vital to a democracy. This paper submits that the current laws curbing free speech are too restricting, and does not strike an appropriate balance in Singapore. It is undeniable that the right to free speech should not be absolute and may be limited when it violates another right. This paper accepts that free speech should be restricted when an individual’s personal reputation is at stake. Defamation laws protect the dignity of the individual from falsehoods. As Lord Hobhouse indicated in Reynolds v Times Newspaper; “There is no human right to disseminate information that is not true. No public interest is served by publishing or communicating misinformation. The working of a democratic society depends on the members of that society, being informed not misinformed. Misleading people and the purveying as facts statements which are not true is destructive of the democratic society…” However, Singapore has also justified the restriction of free speech for the sake of ‘public order’. This may be permitted if the use of free speech is the direct cause of public disorder. In the past, ethnic tensions, …show more content…
Free communication with others allows for the shaping of one’s ideas and reflections. Why should a free and rational individual be prohibited from expressing his/her thoughts? It is through discussion that an individual “emerges as an autonomous agent in the positive sense of being able to consciously direct his or her life and to participate in the direction of the community”. Free speech accepts every uninhibited opinion and perspective, allowing others to learn from each other. The “wrong” or less persuasive ideas will be managed by natural selection in the marketplace discussed
This case clashes with freedom of speech, but it is also about freedom to
Without freedom of the press discussions cannot reach a wider audience, debate is obstructed,
Introduction The People v. Larry Flynt ‘The People v. Larry Flynt’ is a docudrama that chronicles the life and exploits of Larry Flynt and his pornographic publication, ‘Hustler.’ Hustler originally began as a newsletter to attract patrons to Flynt’s Hustler Go-Go club with nude photos of the women who worked there. This newsletter evolves into Hustler Magazine, which over time gains a widespread distribution after acquiring and publishing nude photos of Jackie Kennedy Onassis, former First Lady. Flynt is sued for pandering obscenity and engaging in organised crime.
In this case, McCann, the plaintiff, argued the defamatory words written in the article affected him as the representative of the City of Pembroke. However, the general rule states comments attacking substantially larger groups cannot sue for defamation unless the publication singles a particular member of the group. Since the article does not state any specific identifiers nor includes an innuendo about the mayor, his allegation failed to complete the second part of the test. As the court stated, “an action for defamation is uniquely personal, and is based on injury to one’s personal reputation.” Therefore, his claim for defamatory words towards his persona is unverifiable and not actionable.
The article argues that the courts should only view harmful speech in the same eyes and rule them the same as if they were conduct harms. The source then discusses how many scholars believe that freedom of speech only applies when the benefits outweigh the harms, regarding what is being said. The article does a good job of approaching the problem through a semi-neutral lens. The article clearly lets its opinion be known at times; however, it approaches the opposite side of the argument in a fair manner. The article will be incredibly beneficial because it discusses when freedom of speech should not apply with a neutral approach.
As a teenager moving to a new country with a different culture, different language, and being thousands of miles away from everyone I grew up with was not an easy change, however, that was precisely what I did in January of 2013 when I came to the United States with my father. My whole world changed since, and shaped my way of thinking. From learning English, adjusting to a new culture, experiencing my first snow and finding my way in my new country, my life has been an exciting adventure. My parents brought me to America almost 5 years ago to have a better life, and to get a better education.
Censorship in America can vary between the silencing of young voices and the prevention of exposing others of inappropriate material. Many people are afraid of losing their freedom of speech, as first amendment rights should be mandatory for American citizens. Polar to this argument insists the importance of censorship, as it can shield the public from information that can lead to fear or chaos. Leaving students ignorant to world problems, however, is argued by Sonja West that it removes their first amendment rights and creates a future working-class of Americans who are clouded from the truth. West is a law professor at the University of Georgia who is distinguished for her expertise in the first amendment law and minor in journalism.
Censorship of The First Amendment This paper will discuss how censorship denies citizens of the United States our full rights as delineated in the First Amendment. It will outline how and why the first amendment was created and included in the Constitution of the United States of America. This paper will also define censorship, discuss a select few legal cases surrounding freedom of speech and censorship as well as provide national and local examples of censorship.
In the article, “The Indispensable Opposition,” author, Walter Lippmann, argues his claim that we must view the freedom of oppositions as a way to improve our decisions in a democratic society rather than just tolerating that freedom of speech. When freedom of speech is tolerated and only seen as a right to speak, Lippmann believes that the liberty of opinion becomes a luxury. Moving forward, Lippmann then states that we must understand that the freedom of speech for our opponents are a vital necessity since it provides our own opinions to grow in improvement. Through practical experience, we realize we need the freedom of opposition and is no longer just our opponent ’s right.
Free speech and hate speech can be classified as different topics and when arguing for one, we can also criticize the other. Free expression and free speech on campuses are crucial for sparking important conversations about equality and social justice, and the suspension of free speech and expression may have dire consequences on college campuses. First, freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views, while also allowing students with common beliefs to align. Free speech and the call for free speech allows those who have been historically systematically oppressed to use their voice.
Our own country is basically threatening ourselves from the freedom of speech and should encourage everyone to express themselves without punishment. This is not necessarily an issue that can be resolved, but it needs to be made publicized and be made aware of. Too much of society are triggered by a simple few words they may come across when scrolling a timeline. Social media is an influential and high powered tool that’s forced a new lifestyle. We must make ourselves and others comfortable with expressing themselves while handling criticism to ensure protection of our freedom of
Media Censorship: Good or bad? On the last decades, the freedom of speech has become one of the most discussed and relevant topics inside general population and governments. When it comes to human basic rights, it is clear that the free and open shared of information and communication between all parts plays an important role to ensure a healthy development and progress. However, to think that every country will be willing to spread all kinds of ideas and opinions without placing a boundary would be a utopian assumption.
The fact that one has the right to say and believe is the foundation for democracy to function. If no one dared to say their opinions, then it had become a dictatorship where only one opinion on how society and the country should work had been the “right”. If people dared to express their opinions, they will help improving the society one lives. Freedom of speech gives one the responsibility to consider what fits into different contexts, and it will make us better persons and people. Simply, people will feel safe in the society they live in.
Malaysian has the right to freedom of speech which is guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution of Malaysia. The Article 10 allows all citizens the absolute freedom as not restricted by the government. In Malaysia, Law such as Publications act and printing presses give the Malaysian authorities the control over all the media. Any act that against this law may lead to fines or in much extreme cases, prison sentence. Although Malaysia has the right to freedom of speech, the media are still being controlled by the government which restrict them to publish anything against the government.
Media is critical in today 's society because the mass media performs a number of es- essential functions in our lives. First, they serve an information or surveillance function. Second, they serve an agenda-setting and interpretation function. Third, they help us create and maintain connections with various groups in society. Fourth, they help us socialise and educate us.