Comment on http://differentpersonalities.blogspot.com , titled “how far an individual should be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech?”

You mentioned that when freedom of speech comes with a heavy price, only larger nations have a choice as to whether to allow this freedom or not because they are able to withstand the economic blow, for example, the Denmark was able to survive happily in the wave of economic sanction and boycott placed on it by Muslim nations. However, we may not know how long this boycott will last. This may pose a threat to a nation’s long-term benefit. Denmark only has the support from its European counterparts; in fact, many nations outside Europe are in disapproval to its act of mocking the leader of the world’s largest religion, for example, Britain and many Asian nations. This kind of freedom of speech is definitely not desirable and the right is not being exercised responsibly and correctly. It also did not benefit the nation or “improve Denmark society”. In fact, it destabilizes the entire global community by giving terrorists a new solid reason to launch more attacks on human civilization. Another example is the stepping down of Thailand’s Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The opposition parties used freedom of speech as a tool to bring out all sorts of so-called corrupt acts that his family members have committed to light. He was then forced to resign. People against him may say isn’t that good that he stepped down because he is so corrupted? However, we must not forget that Thailand’s economic achieve has soared to record high under his power. Removing him may terminate this high economic performance. What people want is a stable life with good income. There is apparently little benefit to be gained by sacking the Prime Minister. Thus, freedom of speech may not bring healthy changes and improvement to a society. I believe that an individual should be allowed to exercise his freedom of speech to a small extent. In the case of whistle blowing, if an individual were enabled to bring down one organization by telling the “the truth”, laws that used to protect whistleblowers may cause system instability. That is the reason why many democratic nations like New Zealand restrict whistle-blowing activities by setting up a system that would ensure that any whistleblower is likely to have just a weak case should he sue for reinstatement and damages. Their aim is to discourage whistleblowers. The benefits of the entire nation are paramount.