The article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’
I personally feel that this it is almost unable to accomplish that point in reality. The freedom of opinion and expression is still restricted in many democratic countries, and although some may claim that the people has every right to voice out their own opinion, few opposing ideas could be made without suffering serious consequences. To be able to ‘hold opinions without interference’ today is made even more difficult by the touchy issues among religions and cultures.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is seen as ‘a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations, to the end of that every individual and every organ of society…’ Thus the freedom of speech and opinion should be applicable to everyone in every society. The choice to agree or oppose to whatever was said still lies in the hands of the listeners. Hence I feel that different in religions and culture is the biggest hindrance to promoting the freedom of speech. Many extremists and passionate believers of a religion are usually over protective of their beliefs and refuse to accept any speech that doubts it. Unless all of us learn to see it from another point of view, that we should ‘promote respect for these rights and freedoms’, freedom of speech will forever be an idealistic thought in any society.
Respect for different religions is important, but so is the respect for freedom of speech. All of us should strive to work towards the aims of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and learn to respect everyone’s different point of views.
All above information enclose in ‘ ’ is quoted from
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
posted by:Tianhe.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
should freedom of speech be limited?
Living in a cosmopolitan society, we need to show mutual respect in one another’s religions and beliefs. I feel that although freedom of speech has its advantages of letting one express their perspectives, it is more important to be responsible for our own words. I prefer to agree with Szilagyi that freedom of speech should be paid with social responsibility.
Allowing the freedom of speech without putting in any consideration to other party will cause much unnecessary conflict to arise. According to peter singer, we must ‘criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad and Buddha’ and without that freedom, ‘human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock’. I beg to differ. A religion is one’s person beliefs and a way to gain their strength and motivation. By criticising their beliefs, aren’t we indirectly destroying their motivation? In this case, how do we ‘progress’? Freedom of speech is supposed to be of constructive use, where opinions are raised and improvements are made. If we are to ‘criticize’, the freedom to speak will be destructive and lead to arise of unnecessary conflicts. In this case, there is obviously no improvements made. It will entirely defeat the purpose of the right for freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech should be restricted to giving constructive suggestions and not in giving personal attacks on different races and religions. We need to display our understanding towards different beliefs as ‘we all effectively live next door to one another’. To preserve peace and prosperity in the society, we need to be accountable for our words and promote racial harmony between the diversity of religions and racials.
Allowing the freedom of speech without putting in any consideration to other party will cause much unnecessary conflict to arise. According to peter singer, we must ‘criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad and Buddha’ and without that freedom, ‘human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock’. I beg to differ. A religion is one’s person beliefs and a way to gain their strength and motivation. By criticising their beliefs, aren’t we indirectly destroying their motivation? In this case, how do we ‘progress’? Freedom of speech is supposed to be of constructive use, where opinions are raised and improvements are made. If we are to ‘criticize’, the freedom to speak will be destructive and lead to arise of unnecessary conflicts. In this case, there is obviously no improvements made. It will entirely defeat the purpose of the right for freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech should be restricted to giving constructive suggestions and not in giving personal attacks on different races and religions. We need to display our understanding towards different beliefs as ‘we all effectively live next door to one another’. To preserve peace and prosperity in the society, we need to be accountable for our words and promote racial harmony between the diversity of religions and racials.
My take on freedom of expression
I stand for freedom of expression to a certain extent as I believe that it is the one of the fundamentals of human rights. It is essential in enabling democracy to work and to keep a country in order. By restricting people’s liberty to voice out their views and thoughts, the society lives in an environment where lies and terror are ubiquitous as one is unable to speak the truth or give their opinions. And what good will it do to the people living in constant fear? Over the recent debate over the freedom to express one’s opinions,free from censorship or political correctness, I feel that people should learn to give and take. Denial of freedom of speech is impossible but we should refrain from going overboard, thus hurting someone in the process.
As in the case of the recent rage over the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, I feel that the European media should have thought about the Muslims who hold Prophet Mohammad in high esteem and whom would have been insulted by the pictures publicised. Another religious conflict that caused uproar was the movie of Da Vinci Code which was boycotted by and angered many Christians. The Church said that the movie and book had defamed Jesus. I’m not a Christian but I understand how it feels to have something that you believe in being insulted. However, the world is full of different people with many different thoughts. If we were to punish every one of these people just because they have different beliefs from the majority, wouldn’t that be unfair? I think that in certain circumstances such as this, we should take it with a pinch of salt. As John Stuart Mill said, “We cannot stop people doing or saying anything simply because it offends us. But we should constrain the liberty of others if what they do causes harm.” I believe that by taking people’s feelings and pride into consideration and not being overly sensitive, we can definitely live in world where people can freely speak out their mind without putting anyone’s feelings at stake.
Cassandra:)
As in the case of the recent rage over the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, I feel that the European media should have thought about the Muslims who hold Prophet Mohammad in high esteem and whom would have been insulted by the pictures publicised. Another religious conflict that caused uproar was the movie of Da Vinci Code which was boycotted by and angered many Christians. The Church said that the movie and book had defamed Jesus. I’m not a Christian but I understand how it feels to have something that you believe in being insulted. However, the world is full of different people with many different thoughts. If we were to punish every one of these people just because they have different beliefs from the majority, wouldn’t that be unfair? I think that in certain circumstances such as this, we should take it with a pinch of salt. As John Stuart Mill said, “We cannot stop people doing or saying anything simply because it offends us. But we should constrain the liberty of others if what they do causes harm.” I believe that by taking people’s feelings and pride into consideration and not being overly sensitive, we can definitely live in world where people can freely speak out their mind without putting anyone’s feelings at stake.
Cassandra:)
John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle
John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle states that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Freedom of speech
According to John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle, there should be a limit on freedom of speech. However, the limits are not clearly defined as it is difficult to know when and what kind of speech actually causes harm to others. After all, speech alone is not able to cause any physical harm to anybody. There is also no definite way to measure the harm caused.
He says "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." Therefore although John Stuart Mill supports free speech, he also acknowledges that there are limitations.
What are the limitations of freedom of speech? Speech should not seek to caused hatred, violence or fear in others. When it does so, it causes harm to the society at large and invades into the rights of others. This kind of speech can lead to riots and protests, disturbing social order. It also intrudes into the freedom of others to express any view. In an atmosphere of fear, people will not be willing to voice out their views. This will therefore undermine the freedom of speech.
However, speech that is not intended to cause harm may be taken in a different view of the listener. So does freedom of speech still apply here? I personally believe that it should. There are too many things in this world that people will take offense with. If everything that is offensive is not said, nothing will be said. Therefore there should be freedom of speech with limitations.
Chee Ying
Information from http://www.bartleby.com/130/index.html
His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Freedom of speech
According to John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle, there should be a limit on freedom of speech. However, the limits are not clearly defined as it is difficult to know when and what kind of speech actually causes harm to others. After all, speech alone is not able to cause any physical harm to anybody. There is also no definite way to measure the harm caused.
He says "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." Therefore although John Stuart Mill supports free speech, he also acknowledges that there are limitations.
What are the limitations of freedom of speech? Speech should not seek to caused hatred, violence or fear in others. When it does so, it causes harm to the society at large and invades into the rights of others. This kind of speech can lead to riots and protests, disturbing social order. It also intrudes into the freedom of others to express any view. In an atmosphere of fear, people will not be willing to voice out their views. This will therefore undermine the freedom of speech.
However, speech that is not intended to cause harm may be taken in a different view of the listener. So does freedom of speech still apply here? I personally believe that it should. There are too many things in this world that people will take offense with. If everything that is offensive is not said, nothing will be said. Therefore there should be freedom of speech with limitations.
Chee Ying
Information from http://www.bartleby.com/130/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)