Singaporeans should not be allowed to speak as they wish on race and religion in public.
Many people think that freedom of speech is the right to express anything they want, which includes the freedom to hate, without censorship or restrictions from the government. However, such libertarian theory is thought to be impractical in Singapore because of racial, religious and cultural differences. The government believed that certain provocative speech should be curtailed to safeguard social stability. Hence, freedom of speech is not an absolute right in Singapore. For example, Ang (2007) stated that Singapore Constitution gives the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 14. However, it’s subject to limitations. First of all, it promises freedom of speech and expression only to Singapore citizens. Secondly, it provides only the right to deliver expression, not the right to accept expression of any kind. Thirdly, it does not specifically deal with the issue of previous restraints, or completely allowing previous restraints. Fourthly, the Parliament may by law impose restrictions on the right in the interest of national security, public interest, public morality and for the maintenance of foreign relations.
In addition, laws were imposed to preserve order. Pellot (2015) stated that Singapore’s Internal Security Act can detained anyone without trial, if their actions are considered detrimental to the security of Singapore. The Penal Code can sentence anyone
Congress’s power to limit freedom of speech in any way is not included in the enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (20-21). The states, if anyone, are the only governments that might posses the power to limit free speech (21). Government officials, however, obviously have no regard for the Constitution or freedom of speech and are acting upon their own desires and values (21). Many examples of freedom of speech infringement are given throughout this book, and the author shows how these kinds of laws are enacted throughout history.
The Free Speech Coalition claims that these prohibitions are overbroad and vague and,
It was mainly used as a method to suppress the Freedom Movement. Several freedom fighters, including Tilak, and Gandhi have been jailed under this law. Nehru himself criticised the law, saying “that particular section is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place both for practical and historical reasons, if you like, in any body of laws that we might pass. The sooner we get rid of it the better.” The sedition law is a draconian law in that it does not require the speaker to incite violence against the state.
Censorship in America is often debated. Erin Manning, texas-based writer explains that the American Library Association chooses to censor certain books because of “inappropriate content” and “second rate writing”(Manning 1). Parents attempt to protect their children from the outside world, by limiting their exposure to age appropriate language. When parents do this, their children’s knowledge of the outside world may be limited to what parents let their child view. Although some parents may feel that their child needs filtered information and entertainment, others believe that children and teens need to be shown uncensored content.
Due to Constitution 's broad spectrum of interpretations, whether
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.
One of the major principles of the United States government has always been the freedom of speech given to its citizens, but what really comes with this freedom? Does this founding principle make it socially acceptable to create uncomfortable environments and use words to injure others? I think this right has limitations anywhere you go. Countries like Israel are making the word Nazi outlawed. And this isn’t because they’re trying to limit and control freedom of speech but rather because of its symbolic meaning in history.
For example adultery, which is stigmatised by the community, is completely lawful. Possible consequences of committing such an act include breaking up with a spouse, sanctions from private institutions and a damaged reputation. All this can accomplished without government interference. Similar to adultery, racist hate speech should be a matter dealt with by the community and private institutions, not the state. The government does not have a genuine role in regulating dialogue and freedoms ought not to be constrained on the basis of subjective
Take the first amendment for example “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Constitute 1, from U.S. Constitution). The reason modern american pulic have freedom of speech in that if someone opinion is different then they won’t be punished for it. While the whole point of the rights
People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.
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.
Every government do restrict the freedom of speech to certain extend such as speech related to slander, pornography, copyright violation, sedition, libel, classified information are limited in Malaysia, But there are some cases in Malaysia, where government does
Freedom of speech is the right to express or communicate an individual’s ideas, views and opinions without any obstructions or fear of punishment. It is not limited to speech alone, and includes written and other forms of communication such as freedom of press which gives one the right to question, criticize and voice their opinions. Freedom of speech (or expression) is a fundamental human right which is also recognized by the constitution of India. The constitution of India guarantees individual rights which are stated in articles 19, 20, 21 and 22.
Singapore’s current political system is a democratic society. On paper, it ticks all the boxes of what makes a democratic system. It gives citizens the right to vote for the person they feel will best represent the voice of the people and address their needs. It also ensures that people have the freedom of speech and expression as stated in Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. However, things do not appear to be so straightforward, there definitely is more than meets the eye.
As Malaysian citizens, besides having the right to say and express whatever we want, we also have the right to assemble peaceably and we also have the right to form associations however it also being stated in Article 10 (2) (a) (b) (c) that the parliament has the right to impose restrictions on these rights. It is true that Malaysians get to enjoy the freedom of speech and expression as stated in the Federal Constitution but this freedom is restricted and these restrictions are the exception, permitted only to protect: the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, public health and morals. This simply means that as Malaysian citizens, we do have the right to say and express whatever we want as long as it does not break the rules or regulations