freedom of speech

In all great democracies one of the most recognized fights is the fight for freedom of speech. This is the freedom accorded to every citizen whereby each individual is given the freedom to voice his opinion; albeit accepted or not. The next question will be, should we allow every person to voice his opinion freely without considering the consequences? What if the opinion can lead to animosity and even full scale riot?

To put it bluntly if we support freedom of speech then we will be labelled as hypocrites if we suppress a certain group of people from voicing out their opinions if those opinions do not conform to ours. So how do we judge what opinions are valid and which are not? To dissect this quandary let’s throw in a scenario. A person voiced his opinion based on certain facts against another. There is an accused, there is some evidence to support his opinion even though not validated by the court but in common sense the person should have the right to voice this out. Whereas the accused has the right to voice out his opinion to dispute the accusation by providing facts to counter. The freedom of speech is rightfully practiced here by both parties.

How about a person that is voicing his opinion with no supporting facts and does cursing and degrading another person constitutes freedom of speech? No matter how ridiculous this may sound, it is still freedom of speech; just not done in a proper way. These unfavorable actions can lead to legal suits no doubt but in essence we still need to support the person in voicing them out.
Voltaire did quote “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” However he should have continued “even if you are saying things without using your brains.”

Happy birthday Malaysia. God bless.