“How far should an individual be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech?”

In my opinion, an individual should be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech to a small extent. Freedom of speech genuinely means that people are allowed to talk on any topics anywhere and anytime as they like, without having to consider much about what others feel. It is needed when the government requires people to give feedbacks on its policies and contributes ideas to make the nation a better place. However, in this era when the world is going globalize in a very fast pace, this should be practiced to a small extent. People are having greater opportunity to interact with people of different cultural and religious backgrounds. As a result, we have to be cautious when making comments on issues regarding others, to make sure that we do not offend their beliefs and feelings to prevent conflicts. We need to respect the difference in races, culture, ideology and religions.

The world is going globalize every moment. People are no longer interacting only with people from their own communities, who hold the same ideologies as them, but also people from other communities. Advancement in information technology allows massages to be disseminated promptly to another end of the globe. Not only people from one’s world are reading it, but also people from other part of the Earth, who may disagree with what you say. Hence, we have to exercise more caution when making negative comments on topics like religions. We need to be more sensitive to others’ feelings and respectful to their beliefs than before. However, freedom of speech tends to overlook the importance of it because people are allowed to comment on anything under the sun without fearing of being charged. That is not desirable because radical emotions may be well provoked and conflicts are likely to be yielded. The effect may be far-reaching. The most recent example would the overwhelming protest in the Muslim world against the publication of a series of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad by a Denmark newspaper, the Jyllands-Posten. Many Muslim nations, which are steadfast in their stand to protect their religion and belief, break off diplomatic ties with Denmark and demand apologies from the Denmark government because the cartoons seriously defame Prophet Mohammad. Coordinated boycott of Demark goods have also been set up across Muslim regions. Its flags are being burnt and its diplomats are receiving death threat in many Muslim nations. From here, we can see that freedom of speech has damaged Denmark’s bilateral relations with many Muslim countries and severely hindered its economic development. It has also tarnished its national image. Denmark is a democratic nation, which advocates freedom of speech. We should not penalize it, as it is its policy of governance. However, more rights also mean more responsibilities. This right of freedom of speech should not be taken for granted. Obviously, the right of freedom of speech has been abuse by the newspaper to gain more profits for itself. It has not been sensitive to Muslims’ feelings and understanding to their beliefs. Hence, an individual should be allowed to practice freedom of speech to a small extent for the sake of peace.


Many nations nowadays are going multiracial. Technological development has boosted international migration. People of different ethnicities are having more chances to live together. As a result, right to freedom of speech should be controlled to prevent people from making irresponsible comments, putting the harmony of the nation at stake. For instance, Singapore has had two of its bloggers charged due to their racist remarks. It prohibits anyone to make such kind of remarks for fear of causing racial tension among different ethnic groups in the nation. While most western newspapers are busy reprinting the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad to show sense of solidarity, British newspapers are refraining from doing the same for fear of arousing unnecessary tension. British foreign also regards the publication as an “insulting”, “insensitive”, “disrespectful” and “wrong” act. Both Singapore and Britain are multiracial countries; they both understand that freedom of speech exercised by an individual may trigger clashes between races at any instance. Hence, they restrain this right. Thus, I believe that an individual should be allowed to exercise freedom of speech to a small extent, especially in multiracial countries, to protect racial harmony.

In addition, we are now in a special period of human time, when terrorist acts are rampant. As a result, we should be more mindful when expressing views on Islam, which has transformed into the world’s second largest region. We should bear religious sensitivities in mind all the time because there are radical people out there, who are preying for excuses, from “speeches of freedom”, to trample human life. Also, nowadays, the biggest player of this right of speech freedom is no other than the media. We should not be played onto their hands, as majority of them are profit driven. They are there mainly looking for scoops to make their business lucrative. The freedom of speech of these individuals has actually pushed more Muslim to become radicalized. It indirectly justified the terrorist’ movement of Jihad. Hence, an individual should be allowed to practice speech freedom to a small extent as long as the current situation is applied.

However, freedom of speech should be encourage in the terms of giving feedbacks to improve the development of an organization or a nation. In the national level, countries need its people’s opinions regarding the effectiveness of the policies launched so as to make prompt and appropriate improvements to protect people’s interest. In this way, people are given a stake in shaping the nation’s future. As a result, they would be more attached to the nation, as their participations are valued. I believe that this is the genuine purpose of a nation when it allows freedom of speech. For example, the Singaporean government has set up a Feedback Unit to collect people’s views on its policies to better govern the nation. Moreover, freedom of speech protects the right of whistle-blowers and helps induce more fairness in society. We need people to blow whistle at unjustified act conducted by a leader or an organization to protect publics’ interest and to protect workers’ right. This also helps to make people in society more law-abiding. Hence, freedom of speech should be greatly encouraged here.

In my conclusion, an individual should be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech to a small extent. Although, freedom of speech helps to generate feedbacks for improvement purpose, people tend to misuse this right. While assisting the enforcement of laws, it tends to create more injustice when people abuse the right by making irresponsible and insensitive remarks, which would trigger conflicts. People may take freedom of speech as their right to freely express themselves, including making jokes out of others’ belief and ideologies. In addition, since more nations are going multiracial in the face of globalization, we should restrain people right to freedom of speech to prevent tension from arising, to preserve the harmony in the country.