Talking is Fun!

N.B: This is something that I fished out from my old blog. Surprisingly, unbeknownst to me, Friendster has changed the layout of my blog! I think it's more austere than the previous one but now I have the liberty to link people to that blog. I don't plan to delete it. Instead, I'm keeping it as a sort of reminder of how far I've come before arriving at a point that jumping ship was a necessity. And it does feel good to go through the old posts, like reading notes from an old lover. Anyways, I want to re-post this here with some alterations because I think it's somewhat related to the current state we are in now.

Discussing freedom of speech might be considered passé by some while others think it’s a vanity. It is a vanity because in-depth knowledge is prerequisite to postulate substantial arguments either to go against or for the ideology. My ineptitude on this matter might not satisfy all readers and the very fact that I’m taking side in discussing it influences the magnitude this two-cent worth bears. I must apologise for that.

A few months ago...

Of late, the blogosphere in KYUEM has expanded at an exponential rate. It’s like a fad; people find it fashionable to project themselves on to the Net and preach ideas, which are hoped that others can scavenge for a hasty bushel of mealy details from their drop-fruit posts. Otherwise, people have matured enough after two years in college that they feel compelled to let others know that they, too, are opinionated.

But this piece is not about the trend that is engulfing the community nowadays. It’s the freedom of speech and how I feel that the phrase is oxymoron in its conviction that I want to talk about. Recently, someone’s blog came under fire when a person, claiming that he/she is an advocate of freedom of speech blithely left comments that show little, if any, respect to the owner of the blog particularly and the community in general. Disregarding the sensitivity of others’ religion, the same person mocked Allah in his/her comment. For easier reference, let’s name the person as PM. Although it’s not news that Islam suffers considerable beatings after 9/11 (the caricature, Fitna, and others), this inconsiderate person has shattered the illusion of harmony and integrity among the members of the community which is fiercely sponsored by our government. Beneath the placid surface of homogeneity, there lies a dormant grudging, that the idea of colluding is a blithering hope and superiority is inevitable. The event clearly underscored this.

It was clear that PM’s comments were meant to provoke. Eliciting hatred from others and instigating a war with the blog owner, the culprit was poised to use his/her ultimate weapon. PM was cloaked in the seemingly impregnable freedom of speech and was not afraid to wield it against an army of disgruntled readers. For PM, victory was righteously his/hers. The ideology conferred invincibility and PM was going to exploit it in any way possible. But the battle was not a lost cause. Someone called MFK, who I believe possessed boundless energy and wit to emerge victorious in this crusade left a comment that was directed at the person, meant to irk PM. As expected, PM quickly recoiled and lashed out at this clever person. Irascible PM defiantly defended his/her ally, denouncing MFK for being irrational and dismissing MFK’s comment as irrelevant. MFK didn’t fumble like PM and was set to deliver his/her final blow. To put it simply, the very weapon that PM vigorously used backfired. In the name of freedom of speech, MFK pointedly reasoned that his/her action was completely acceptable. Were FM to emulate his/her ideology fully, he/she wouldn’t have snapped.

Nowadays...

Although this incident isn't directly linked to the notion, I can't help but to think that this person's refusal to apologize to the nation for what had been said illuminates every trait of somebody defending his right to speak. His failure to filter his thoughts and reckless drive to win triggered a small series of sparks within a certain political outfit. I have stated before that I hate politics and this issue is indeed a political one but I'm looking at a bigger picture. Unhindered sentiments flagging is a not-so-far cousin of the freedom of speech. Things can spiral out of control and I can't imagine the consequences if it happens. Is an apology hard enough to elicit?

What is appalling from these skirmishes is the nature of some freedom of speech supporters. It’s innate for a person who dislikes another person to make comments to degrade that other party even though it’s morally wrong. But to make it justified and accepted by everyone, the person hides behind the propaganda. Nobody will raise an issue if the expression is made in the spirit of freedom of speech. Everybody can express whatever they think regardless of the repercussions. IMHO, freedom of speech is expression of condescending repackaged. In the liberal world that we live in, sins can be disguised as long as one has the means to fashion and label it in an acceptable way. We tend to consider the superficial nature of things hence the staunchest ally of this culture is able to promote and propagate their repackaged belief easily. Greed is justified by evolution; the latter proposes that only the best can survive. Power hungry people lurk in the shadows of equality. We put on cosmetics to ensure that the hidden motives, however reeking with self-centered agenda, will remain, well, hidden. No one is going to look deeply enough to penetrate through the smokescreen. Everyone is contented if the packaging is glossy enough and readily accepts it as a norm.

To limit freedom of speech will only render the phrase to being oxymoron. But what can we do about it? Dissent is vital in keeping an organization in order. This is not the era when the superiors have the power in everything. Its presence keeps a tyrannical government out of the office. But a complete freedom is dangerous. Should we change the phrase to rational-freedom-of-speech? Long enough to put people off from using it. Do we need to eradicate it completely? No, we shouldn’t. What we can do is to revamp it so that everyone can feel comfortable to use it regardless of circumstances.

Apropos the incident, some advocates clearly cannot accept critics from pounding on them. They should answer this question, why bother to use the phrase in the first place? Me, I’m a stickler. I make some leeway here and there but to uphold a principle strongly but later abandoning it because it hurts me, I’d rather not. Voltaire may have said that he might disagree with someone but he’ll die for that someone to say it. But will we really?

You might think that I'm a conservative with a closeted mind but I still think that there should be a line drawn somewhere when discussing contentious ethos. If you really believe in it, so be it. It's your every right to do so. But it's also others' right for you to adhere to it completely and not lapsing easily once it affects you.

I must stress that I don’t totally oppose freedom of speech. I’m just disgusted at the failure of the so-called associates of the ideology to really stick to their belief…