[733] Of doublespeaking about free press and free speech
They want to censor the NST. Even those bloggers that claim to speak for free speech.
To me, the comic does not even come close to the level of The Jutland Post. The strip doesn't even make fun of the prophet. But that is not the case and I doubt those that are pushing for censorship care about that. This is not a case whether I, or anybody, loving or abhorring the strip. This is a case of free press and speech.
Regardless, the Malaysian government however risks of being hypocritical to the offended by the strip if the government won't act against NST. I'd rather have a hypocritical government than living a society that develops a knack for censorship.
If a person is actually for free press and free speech, that person shouldn't and wouldn't want NST to be censored, regardless of how NST had reacted to the suspension of Sarawak Tribune. So, if you're one of those out there that support the move to censor NST, please, don't call yourself as a person that is for free speech or free press. Else, you would be as hypocritical as your government.
Those that are for free press and speech should defend NST from any censorship. This is especially so when NST is one of Malaysia's principle newspapers. If we allow NST to be censored, what do you think will happen to the other papers?
Think of the scenario Singapore. Alright, alright. Just taking a cheap shot. Sorry Singaporeans. I love you all!
Let's do it better. Think Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. Of People's Republic of China. Or North Korea. We'll be in league with them. Hell, our ranking in Reporters' Without Borders would probably take a nose dive.
A systematic erosion of free press. Is that what you want?
I know we should strive for consistency. But do we want a government that censors everything for the sake of consistency? The only consistency here is the continuing erosion of free press and speech and I don't want that consistency.
If you want consistency, then think in the way that "if NST is allowed to offend some people that and gets away, then Sarawak Tribune should be allowed to operate". Not in the way of "if Sarawak Tribune's license was revoked because it offended other people, then so should NST's."
Observe the difference.
In this scenario, New Straits Times is a city wall. If the city wall is breached, there goes free press in Malaysia. Therefore, think before you speak. Think before you take the next step. Free press and free speech are at stake here.
I don't see the problem here. The cartoon was parodying the uproar about the Muhammad cartoons -- not Muhammad himself. It's far from offensive. I find Jeff Ooi totally out of line on this one.
By johnleemk, at 22 February, 2006 08:55
The problem is, we do not know how to laugh at ourselves.
I understand to the Moslim world it is a serious matter. BUT the more the moslim world push at it, the worse it is going to become. And eventually stalemate. There is NEVER be any solutions to this kind of problems. Therefore let it fades away. Let it dies. That is about the only thought silly of NTS
With countries such as Pakistan, Syria etc. one might be able to accept the rioting on streets since they have a very different environment. With Malaysia, I thought the people (both Moslims and non-Moslims) are better educated, better informed, a society that is ingrained in multi-cultures, multi-ethnic groups, multi-religious practices for generations, and with a much, much open-society ... I am flabbergasted!
By hoong, at 22 February, 2006 10:02
Not only that they tried to squeeze the humor, but they succeeded, it's really funny,
especially that one on http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2006/02/22/
Up to me it's actually good that this is happening supremacist from each side will have much better assessment of their power cause thats all what maters for them and moderates or freedom loving people will realize the shortcomings and be able to point to real and essential values instead of having vague idea what maters.
By the Challenge, at 22 February, 2006 12:06
hoong said: "With countries such as Pakistan, Syria etc. one might be able to accept the rioting on streets since they have a very different environment."
Actually, Syrian citizens were provoked by their own government to riot. Syria is not really a free society and all demos need police permit, which is hard to obtain.
In Pakistan case, Muslim rioters torched businesses of other Muslims).
hoong said: "With Malaysia, I thought the people (both Moslims and non-Moslims) are better educated, better informed, a society that is ingrained in multi-cultures, multi-ethnic groups, multi-religious practices for generations"
As Malaysia is an authorarian society like Syria, the difference is here our government bans public demos by angry Muslims (ie. PAS) but in Syria, the Baath Party is facing economic woes due to embargoes on it by USA. So, Syrian regime to divert attention incited mobs to demonstrate and burn Western embassies.
By , at 24 February, 2006 23:42
