[629] Of who will guard the guardians?
I neither support racism nor do I believe in supremacist ideas. I do however have strong libertarian beliefs and subsequently, I hold that all individuals should have the liberty to do as they wish with themselves and their property as long as those actions do not infringe on the same liberty of others. This applies to racists and as such, it’s their right to have racist ideas and expresses their point of views.
This is an unfortunate consequence. I would be more than happy to see legal actions against all the racists in this world. However, if a racist’s right to express his or her thoughts is being suppressed, an infringement of civil liberty has occurred. After all, Mahathir escaped unscathed after his Jews rule the world by proxy speech. Why should we apply double standard when it concerns some unknown racist but coward stranger?
What I suggest is this. Blog owners’ should practice discrete censorship with clear rules if they have certain allergies toward certain kind of opinion, regardless whether it’s cut and paste or originally written. Blog owners definitely have the right to practice censorship since their blogs are their private properties.
The law might offer a course to convict racists via several avenues with so-called seditious act. But did it cross anybody's mind that these set of laws itself infringes civil liberties?
Voltaire was misattributed of saying I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. That misattributed saying truly describes my general feeling against the hoo ha. Abuse of free speech has occurred, yes. Nonetheless, a right remains a right.
As for the bloggers that are lodging a police report against that racist stranger(s), I can say with clear conscience that I’ve eroded confidence for these bloggers - whom claim to carry the torch of freedom - because they are trampling on liberty.
Behind the infringement of right, perhaps there are silver linings. Perhaps, from this episode, Malaysians will learn the ethics of free speech that, quoting an overquoted line, great power comes with great responsibility. Perhaps, the end justifies the mean.
Perhaps.
nb - changed my mind about the police report after seeing similar trolling activities at ReCom.org done by a person. This person has trolled before and has been given countless warnings to stop posting hateful messages.
Thinking it over, blogs and forums are private properties in a sense that they are owned by somebody - owners pay for hosting sercives of those sites. Therefore, that racist person violates private property.
If the owner of the site or the moderator or anyone that serves similar function as an owner has warned a person not to post offensive message earlier but that person still do it again regardless, the owner might be able to take actions againt him/her.
However, I do prefer banning and censorship to real police action. Using such legal measures comes too close to sides of whom I'd rather not be with. Unless if that violator has a real thick skull and wouldn't take a hint even after banning.
But I still contend that nobody has no right to censor a racist or any opinion in public space.
"all individuals should have the liberty to do as they wish with themselves and their property as long as those actions do not infringe on the same liberty of others"
Have you ever thought, that in our community, where racism is a fragile and sensitive issue, that racist comments might make someone really angry and start racial riots? Doesn't that infringe on the liberty of others?
Think of it like in the movie 'Die Hard with a Vengence'. Is it ok for a white guy to walk down Harlem wearing a signboard saying 'I HATE NIGGERS' ??
By vincent, at 16 September, 2005 08:53
Racist merely expresses their view. A person expressing racist view doesn't infringe other right as long as that racist doesn't restrict others' rights. It's an opinion, however how offensive it might be.
In fact, in true free matured society, a dialogue or a debate would occur instead of a riot.
But I do accept Malaysian society too fragile to practice free speech. That's a fair accessment. But we have to learn how to practice free speech sooner or later. If not now, when?
By __earth, at 16 September, 2005 09:01
Practicing free speech is good. Insulting others is not.
By vincent, at 16 September, 2005 09:02
Insulting other doesn't infringe right but I'm not saying insult is good. The difference between the two is clear.
The same logic follows: having racist thoughts and expressing it doesn't infringe right but that doesn't mean racism is good.
By __earth, at 16 September, 2005 09:10
"As for the bloggers that are lodging a police report against that racist stranger(s), I can say with clear conscience that I’ve no more confidence for these bloggers that claim to carry the torch of freedom because they are trampling on it this time."
That's precisely it, precisely! I wonder if they understand the meaning of the word "irony". I've talked about the very same things earlier today, over here
By xpyre, at 16 September, 2005 09:15
So according to your logic, I can walk into Kampung Baru and scream "Melayu ____!!" and they should just accept my 'free speech rant' without chopping me up? And if they do decide to chop me up, and a racial riot starts, you would still argue that I was right because I was practicing free speech?
If your answer is yes, then this argument is over.
By vincent, at 16 September, 2005 09:46
The case is just like Van Gogh's in the Netherlands. He had his right to speak up against Islam harshly but the killing is another matter altogether.
On that hypothetical Kg Baru scenario, you merely are exercising your right and that exercise doesn't restrict others' right. Still, you doing that, as any racist statement is, is distasteful in nature.
If you are shouting at specific's person with racist statement, that might be harassing case and harrassing is a crime due to coercion element.
If any of you hurt the other, then crime has been committed.
Here is where free speech ethics comes in - handle free speech with care. You can say whatever you want but shouting something offensive to any mob is plain stupidity.
To give an example on how racism does not infringe right, take this theCicak article for instance. It's racist against gays. But it's the author's right to express his opinion. Apart from being a biased against others, has he directly violated other rights?
Anyway, I'd answer no and no to you question. The Malay don't have to accept it. And if you are dead, it's a crime. It was your right but you used your right unwisely. You practicing your right unwisely doesn't make you right.
Hey, anyone has the right to say 1 + 1 = 3 but that doesn't make isn't that right answer.
And I swear to the moon above, I will never use the word right for the next few days.
By __earth, at 16 September, 2005 14:34
You can't be racist against gays. That is lifestyle or sexual orientation discrimination.
The key word here is not if what Peter and Mack are doing. It is merely the simple fact that they have reported a possible crime for further action. You can be a lot of things and that would be fine but when you ignore the law of the land that itself is a criminal act. Simple as that.
By , at 17 September, 2005 12:32
A person can be racist against gays. The concept racism has been used liberally. Wikipedia has some description.
Yes, breaking the law means committing crime - I definately. But, a law can infringe civil liberties. The simplest example is the ISA.
It's about civil liberties, not law.
By __earth, at 17 September, 2005 13:01
I agree with you, arresting racist blog-posters is a human rights violation. Bloggers, of course, have the right to delete offensive comments from their blog. The big picture is that freedom of speech includes the right to freedom of stupid speech (see any public statement by "President" Bush for an example.) Since all governments, democratic or otherwise, by nature abhor free speech, it is always a right pursued in a high state of tension, as those in power strain to muzzle those in opposition, and those in opposition test their courage against the electric fences of the law. (Not sure how many mangled metaphors I crammed into that sentence.) The lines are constantly in flux. I'd rather we erred on the side of stupid speech than censorship.
