.:.:DO U THINK THERE IS REALLY FREEDOM OF SPEECH HERE?:.:.
-
If we're talking about pure "speech", then sure, you can say/print whatever you want.Originally posted by coolgeek84:"Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations.
And once you've said or printed it, you are liable to law suits.
Every country has laws against slander. Every country.
Good night. Will be happy to get back to you tomorrow.
edit: added something i forgot -
Never ending topic...
This post sound like some post in speaker's corner.. .>< -
Thats true too.. But we don't get to hear much about lawsuits involving US Presidents or similar political figures from the states..
I guess its mainly because of each country's different way of implementing these laws and rules..
Alrite.. I shall hit the bed too.. nitez.. =) -
politics at its best
-
if really have freedom of speech, why would ppl get caught for saying racist things?
-
aiyo with a safe place like singapore, dun need freedom of speech one....unless the gorvernment go overboard and invade every single peolple privacy wan....Singapore is scared wan....if a terrorist attack were to happen....we won't just loose a million or two but maybe billions....so dun worry lah....they wun do anything bad...other than increase the gst and stuffs...lol....look on the bright side
-
ok..
-
Yep in the end it boils down to safety Vs privacy. U choose which one u want. Some countries offer one while others offer the other one. =)Originally posted by Deino:aiyo with a safe place like singapore, dun need freedom of speech one.. -
Understand what u meant but not totally agree.Originally posted by alveo:freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to commit defamation and slander
The desired freedom of speech is the freedom of expressions, of what you feel.
It seems hard to balance the complete freedom of speech and defamation. The line is very thin. However, freedom of speech does not involve only the speakers, but also the listeners. You need a sensible and open-minded society for freedom of speech to work. The public need to be able to see the different points of views and do not take defamations too personally, and at the same time, is able to identify a pure statement of opinion from a planned slander.
Freedom of speech does not work with restrictions and exceptions. Its either you allow everything, or nothing. -
That's because newspaper editors are smart enough to know that if their paper gets sued for slander, their jobs are on the line.Originally posted by coolgeek84:Thats true too.. But we don't get to hear much about lawsuits involving US Presidents or similar political figures from the states.. -
why dont you post an anti-pap essay here and wait to see what happens?
-
So you believe in complete freedom of speech?Originally posted by chenc:Freedom of speech does not work with restrictions and exceptions. Its either you allow everything, or nothing.
Only a naive person would believe in that.
Sure, it would be nice to be free to spread lies about your enemies or competitors. It would be convenient to let the newspapers know that your neighbouring hawker centre uses dog meat instead of pork in their bak kut teh. It would be great to say that you found a cockroach in your Vitamin C bottle. Or you saw the SPCA president spit on a cat.
Is that what you want? -
Some people jump on the "I HATE PAP I LOVE FREEDOM" bandwagon without looking at what really is going on.Originally posted by aiglosicicle:why dont you post an anti-pap essay here and wait to see what happens?
If you are well educated on the subject and support the opposition because you know they will build a better singapore, then good for you.
But those who say they love the opposition for the sake of saying they love the opposition, often have mistaken views on the subject.
And no, i'm not from the PAP. -
duh there is~
can't elaborate, sry. -
There is freedom of speech.
That is how Joshua and Soon Juan always get into trouble.
They can speak.
If there is no freedom of speech, and they cannot speak. They would not be in trouble as much.
I think what you are asking is, is there freedom of speech without responsibility.
Ordinarily, you can insult a person's integrety, it is not an offence.
You can impute that a person has contageous diseases or even mentally ill. It is not against the law. But the person so offended has a right to take action against you for libel.
Certain subjects are against the law, like that of religion, race and speeches calculated to incite hatred and violence.
So what is it that you want to speak about? -
joshua? who's that? but you are right. there is freedom of speech, if now how can chee soon juan organise a public speech at the speaker's corner at the hong lim complex(think got the name wrong, because so long already, i forget).Originally posted by mancha:There is freedom of speech.
That is how Joshua and Soon Juan always get into trouble.
They can speak.
If there is no freedom of speech, and they cannot speak. They would not be in trouble as much.
I think what you are asking is, is there freedom of speech without responsibility.
Ordinarily, you can insult a person's integrety, it is not an offence.
You can impute that a person has contageous diseases or even mentally ill. It is not against the law. But the person so offended has a right to take action against you for libel.
Certain subjects are against the law, like that of religion, race and speeches calculated to incite hatred and violence.
So what is it that you want to speak about?