"PM, Yaacob post on free speech online - The Straits Times Wednesday, Jun 04, 2014
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister for Communications and Information Yaacob Ibrahim yesterday posted comments on the need to practice freedom of speech responsibly online.
They were commenting on a Financial Times article on a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which said that websites should anticipate the type of stories that may attract insulting comments - and be prepared to remove them promptly, or even moderate comments before they are published.
Dr Yaacob, in his Facebook post, said many other countries face similar issues in dealing with "irresponsible online comments".
A number of websites, he added, have put in place ways to promote "healthy conversations" online. These include the United States-based news website Huffington Post, which requires users to log in before commenting, while Google is looking at how to manage comments on YouTube.
In Singapore, the Government's feedback arm Reach has, since last December, required users of its online forum to log in with their Facebook accounts. The requirement encourages "responsible comments" online, Dr Yaacob said, adding: "The right to speak freely and responsibly must go together."
Mr Lee said in his Facebook post that he agreed with Dr Yaacob's stance on the need to balance speaking freely with doing so responsibly.
"The freedom of speech does not come free from the need to be responsible for what one says, either online or offline," Mr Lee said in the post.
On the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, he noted that "freedom of speech is considered almost a sacred virtue" in Europe. And yet, the court "ruled that when a website publishes a controversial story that may attract defamatory or insulting comments, the website must anticipate this trolling and flaming, and be ready beforehand to remove these comments promptly".
"It is not the last word on the matter. But it reflects how societies are still finding the right balance between freedom of speech and responsible online behaviour," Mr Lee said.
"This is a tough problem to solve but we need to develop our own ways to keep online conduct civil and constructive," he added."
It is encouraging to note that even the European Court of Human Rights is considering 'responsible freedom of speech'. This is very significant!
Lessons for me are:
1. I never did subscribe to the liberal, some say, Western, view that one can say and write anything one likes as it is the universal freedom of right to express one's view. I always believe that with the freedom to speak and write, there must be a responsibility attached to it;
2. with the advent of internet and the freely available means to publish one's views quickly and broadly means that the speakers and/or the writers MUST exercise self-censorship to ensure that whatever have been spoken or written in public are facts and backed by hard evidence. In addition, the evidence must be presented in an objective and rational manner instead of an emotional manner;
3. all parties to the discussion will have the right to question, right to ask 'untrue' and 'false and/or wrong accusations/allegations made against them be removed, and ask for a public apologies. Does it have to come to the step of initiating legal suits? Probably not UNLESS the attacks were so bad and vicious that according the 'attackers' the common courtesy will be encouraging more of such terrible behaviours.
As the country continues to progress, as our citizens are better educated, hopefully we will develop the capabilities to engage in public discourse with excellent rational analysis and calm passion.
They were commenting on a Financial Times article on a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which said that websites should anticipate the type of stories that may attract insulting comments - and be prepared to remove them promptly, or even moderate comments before they are published.
Dr Yaacob, in his Facebook post, said many other countries face similar issues in dealing with "irresponsible online comments".
A number of websites, he added, have put in place ways to promote "healthy conversations" online. These include the United States-based news website Huffington Post, which requires users to log in before commenting, while Google is looking at how to manage comments on YouTube.
In Singapore, the Government's feedback arm Reach has, since last December, required users of its online forum to log in with their Facebook accounts. The requirement encourages "responsible comments" online, Dr Yaacob said, adding: "The right to speak freely and responsibly must go together."
Mr Lee said in his Facebook post that he agreed with Dr Yaacob's stance on the need to balance speaking freely with doing so responsibly.
"The freedom of speech does not come free from the need to be responsible for what one says, either online or offline," Mr Lee said in the post.
On the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, he noted that "freedom of speech is considered almost a sacred virtue" in Europe. And yet, the court "ruled that when a website publishes a controversial story that may attract defamatory or insulting comments, the website must anticipate this trolling and flaming, and be ready beforehand to remove these comments promptly".
"It is not the last word on the matter. But it reflects how societies are still finding the right balance between freedom of speech and responsible online behaviour," Mr Lee said.
"This is a tough problem to solve but we need to develop our own ways to keep online conduct civil and constructive," he added."
It is encouraging to note that even the European Court of Human Rights is considering 'responsible freedom of speech'. This is very significant!
Lessons for me are:
1. I never did subscribe to the liberal, some say, Western, view that one can say and write anything one likes as it is the universal freedom of right to express one's view. I always believe that with the freedom to speak and write, there must be a responsibility attached to it;
2. with the advent of internet and the freely available means to publish one's views quickly and broadly means that the speakers and/or the writers MUST exercise self-censorship to ensure that whatever have been spoken or written in public are facts and backed by hard evidence. In addition, the evidence must be presented in an objective and rational manner instead of an emotional manner;
3. all parties to the discussion will have the right to question, right to ask 'untrue' and 'false and/or wrong accusations/allegations made against them be removed, and ask for a public apologies. Does it have to come to the step of initiating legal suits? Probably not UNLESS the attacks were so bad and vicious that according the 'attackers' the common courtesy will be encouraging more of such terrible behaviours.
As the country continues to progress, as our citizens are better educated, hopefully we will develop the capabilities to engage in public discourse with excellent rational analysis and calm passion.
No comments:
Post a Comment