Daily Archives: September 26, 2012

Freedom of expression in the West is hokum, I say. It's hypocrisy dressed up as high virtue. Worse still, it is now used as a missile aimed mainly at Muslims.

Freedoms are sacred and easily snatched by the powerful and it is a blessing to live in a country where prime ministers and princes are berated with impunity. Authoritarian states, like Saudi Arabia and China, remain unenlightened because they suppress the human voice. But I also believe that freedom without responsibility amounts to anarchy.

As do those European nations which have collectively agreed that Holocaust denial is an offence, that minorities should be protected from hate speech and that individuals have the right to privacy. Quite a list of limitations, eh? Libertarians proclaiming freedom of expression as an absolute, non-negotiable Western value say nothing on those restrictions.

If that manifesto was real, Kate Middleton would have to put up and shut up about those pictures, David Irving, the anti-Semitic historian, would be allowed to publish his revolting spiel and not be imprisoned, as he was in 2006 in Austria, and we would have no libel or defamation laws.

None of that is permitted, because in good societies there have to be curbs on what can be said, published or broadcast and sometimes freedom has to give way.

With Muslims, there is no restraint, or even fairness. Charlie Hebdo, the satirical magazine in France which printed demeaning cartoons of Prophet Mohamed, wanted trouble, so its editor could appear a really big man.

And because many Muslims are instantly and irrationally aroused to extreme frenzy, he expected it all to go off and his magazine to make money and martyrs.

Well, it didn't happen. French Muslims were banned from demonstrating, denied that democratic right. The anti-Islam internet film made by some dodgy Americans (we think) got the fire and fury it wanted. Throngs came out, people died, for no good reason, on either side.

Muslims need to calm down, grow up, learn to debate and become more self-aware. Western liberals who feel they have a duty to incite Muslims need self-awareness too and a bit of honesty. They don't provoke Jews, Hindus, or Christians to test their liberalism.

We have recently had a lot of Salman Rushdie. A memoir, hagiographic TV programme, a film of Midnight's Children, luvvie tributes have affirmed his eminence.

Here is the original post:
Freedom of speech an ideal to be revered but restrained

Share

ARE THE DAYS OF online freedom numbered? Screen grab from YouTube (TechfluffTV)

WASHINGTON, USA - Online freedom has suffered setbacks in many countries but also some gains amid the Arab Spring uprisings and political upheaval in parts of the world, a new study showed.

The report by the research group Freedom House found that 20 countries "experienced a negative trajectory since January 2011" as authorities used newer, more sophisticated controls to quell dissent on the Internet.

"The findings clearly show that threats to Internet freedom are becoming more diverse," said Sanja Kelly, project director at Freedom House and co-author of the report released Monday covering the period from January 2011 to May 2012.

"As authoritarian rulers see that blocked websites and high-profile arrests draw local and international condemnation, they are turning to murkier but no less dangerous methods for controlling online conversations."

The study found that Estonia had the highest level of online freedom among the 47 countries examined, while the United States ranked second.

Iran, Cuba and China received the lowest scores and 10 other countries received a ranking of "not free" Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Bahrain and Syria.

The worst declines, according to the report, were in Bahrain, Egypt and Jordan, reflecting "intensified censorship, arrests and violence against bloggers."

It said online freedom was also hurt in Mexico "in the context of increasing threats of violence from organized crime," and in Ethiopia, "possibly reflecting a government effort to establish more sophisticated controls before allowing access to expand."

Read the rest here:
'Online freedom sees setbacks'

FREEDOM is a big word indeed, which has been used and misused since time began, I expect. How would you define it? Some might say that it is the capability of doing what one wants, without any interference. You are free to be who you are, to go wherever you want, you are free to make your own choices. You are also free to express your opinions, to say what crosses your mind, with no hindrance nor restraint. A-ha! Here things are not too clear, though, they start to become a bit (or a lot!) cloudy. If you have all the kinds of freedom you can think of, and so do I, and so do all the others, what happens when your freedom infringes on mine? If you can do all that what you want and you are an abuser, where is my right to be respected? You feel entitled to say whatever you wish because freedom of speech allows you to do that. Does this mean that I must tolerate your offensive words? Should I just keep quiet and let you persevere in a disrespectful behavior because you are free to speak? Sorry, you are not at least not to such an extent. Your freedom allows you to do and say what you want, but only provided you dont invade the boundary of my honor, of my well-being. If you dont agree with what I am saying, look at the despicable results of such wild permissiveness that is tearing the world apart. You have your beliefs, I have mine. You are free to follow yours but you are not free to offend mine. I have the right to be who I am and I expect to be accepted as such and treated accordingly. If you dont like me or do not agree with my creed, just walk away, look the other way, leave me alone. Today, open-mindedness and freedom have become synonyms for total acceptance of every kind of behavior, of vulgarity and immorality. If this is what modernity and progress have come to mean, there must be something wrong, somewhere. When, in the past, we had dictators and prevaricators, who compelled the weak masses to comply with their directives, we say that there was no freedom. There were the oppressors and the oppressed: a very clear line divided the two positions. Nowadays, in our modern society, we keep talking of equal rights for everybody. But, tell me, what kind of right do I have if my freedom to express my opinion ends up being attacked by the tongues, the pens or the movie camera of thugs whose aim is only to create friction, hatred, chaos? Should we believe that this free world of ours is better that the one of the past? Dr. Martin Luther King jr. had a dream, the dream of equality among human races, the dream of freedom for all human beings. I dont think he would have accepted the actual situation into his dream, in spite of the fact that many individuals (poor, nave souls!) are convinced that we have reached plenty of goals as human existence is concerned. We surely have a lot of technological gadgets and sophisticated stuff. But are we more available, understanding, lenient, loving, helpful, friendly toward those who do not belong to our circle, who live according to different habits, customs, religious creeds? I believe there is a lot of inner searching to be done, here. Each of us should honestly examine him/ herself and detect their own position. If we cannot compel or convince the opponents (often aggressors) to change their minds and their ways, we should at least do as much as we can to mend our personal way of being.

E-mail: elsafranco44@yahoo.com Blog: recreateyourlifetoday.blogspot.com

See the rest here:
Critical Thinking: Freedom... really?