Freedom of expression, offense and anger

Most of you must have noticed by now, I am fairly new to this blog writing business here, commenting on social / current issues – this is my 3.5^th month in the business.

 

My latest postings on controversial issues surrounding sexuality and health policies have got me my first hate mail and offensive comments. And that has actually posed a challenge to my stand of the freedom of expression.

 

You see, the way wordpress works (according to the option I’ve selected) is this. A comment comes in, and it either automatically goes to the spam bin, or it goes on hold until I approve it. Nothing is posted automatically. Each day, when I have the chance to, I will approve each comment manually. And then I will check the spam bin to make sure no legitimate comment is spammed. If it takes a while for you to see your comment published, it’s because I have not had the chance to (yes, I do have other matters to do in life besides blogging, please bear with me patiently).

 

My role as a censor on my personal blog has put me in the position to actually practice what I preach about censorship. As a rule of thumb, I allow every relevant comment, whether or not I agree/like the comment. Stuff that I spam or delete would be the clear cut advertisements (of all sorts) that clearly have no relevance to the posts, comments where the writer specifically asks for confidentiality, and emails directed to me personally that are irrelevant to the post (I’m guessing some people can’t find my email address)

 

However, I am challenged by hate/offensive comments/rants that are actually very relevant to the post. On one hand, I believe that everyone has a right to expressing their views, regardless of what they are. Because everyone’s view is important, and anyone might be right/wrong. I believe that even when people are angry and ranting, they have a right to express that emotion. And if we were to look behind that emotion, we might learn a lesson from their message. I also believe that allowing people to rant is important because we need to learn what makes people angry and why. It’s part and parcel of accepting diverse views. In fact, I would take a leaf out of Obama’s philosophy to say that it is especially when people get angry, that we really need to listen closely, because they are really saying that the issue is so important to them.

 

On the other hand, I’m thinking of the respect I owe to my readers. By putting up offensive comments, am I sanctioning them, and hence saying that offensive personal attacks are acceptable in civil society? Am I dignifying their offensiveness by publishing it? Thus far I have chosen to err on the side of freedom, and I have published it all. Thus far, I am really glad to have done so, because I have readers who publicly come to my defense against these offensive comments. Had I not published them, I would never have had the opportunity to witness such good in people, and to be touched by them. I am truly truly touched, and for that alone, I do not regret my decision.

 

That’s the beauty of the internet, that is very different from traditional print media. Power is no longer in the hands of the select few who can afford to own / work with a publishing house. Power is now in the hands of EVERYBODY – anyone, regardless of status, language ability etc – has the opportunity to make themselves heard. Anyone can say anything, and all the parties involved have the opportunity to respond and defend themselves. There is no longer a censor or an editor. A person can offend. But another person can defend. The rights and opportunities of both do not depend on the mercies of the publishing entity – they are in the hands of both writers.

 

I recently attended a talk/discussion featuring PN Balji ( http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/12/mainstream-media-going-downstream-pn-balji/  )

I realized there was a general contempt for rants, raves, views not written in standard English. As if the opinions and thoughts of the non-elite are less important than that of the elite. It made me sad, because people who held this view included activists who were trying to fight for minority rights, and the rights of the “non-elites” and underdogs.

 

PN Balji was of the view that the online news blogs today could not challenge that of the mainstream news providers, and was not likely to do so in the near future. The way I see it, if we are going to measure the success of the online media according to the same standards and criteria used to measure mainstream news providers, perhaps he would be right.

 

But that’s not the strength of the internet. The internet decentralizes power, takes it out of the hands of the elite few, and distributes this power into the hands of each of the millions. With the internet, talented journalists that Balji calls for, may no longer be needed. When something happens to you, you no longer need to wait for a talented journalist to tell the world your story – you can do it yourself. And if everyone involved in your situation does so, we would have the same story told from a hundred different angles, and the reader will be the determiner of the truth. No longer do we have to hear only one or two reporters’ version of the story, with all the bias – with the internet, the ideals of many many independent news providers are achieved , because everyone can now be a news provider.

 

We see that happening in places like China, like Malaysia, where the mainstream news providers have ceased to have a monopoly on the news, because all the oppressed are slowly, but surely telling their stories of injustice. And injustice from the common man would usually come out as angry and offensive rants, just as unhappiness from a child comes out as wails and tantrums.

 

Can this happen in Singapore?  Would the important messages that is uglified by offensive or poor language be ignored? Should we start listening to them, and dignifying the cusses?