You can't say that!

Why not?

I have always been fairly intrigued by the topic of freedom of speech. It appears to be such a simple logic. That in this world, people should have the right to speak their minds. A famous quote by Evelyn Hall, summarizing the thoughts of Voltaire, that while 'I disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it'. It seems pretty clear cut doesn't it?

But on the other hand, it can be such a dangerous route to go down. Because once you agree that freedom of speech is crucial and of the utmost importance, then we are opening the floodgates to having to defend the indefensible. As Gaiman said, you are going to have to 'defend the right of people to read, or to write or to say, what you don't say, or like, or want said.'

I find it's this double edged that people often find it hard to reconcile with. But is it really as simple as knowing how to balance the scale between freedom of speech, and human sensibility? We should all be allowed to speak freely, but with that power also comes a certain level of responsibility (As spiderman said, right? Haha.) Knowing your limits and utilising the very important skill of tact is often overlooked once people step up on their soapbox. It's much easier said than done, of course. I mean it seems as though to me, the whole idea of freedom of speech started to gain momentum as people seeked to voice their discontent, their arguments, their views on sensitive topics like race, gender and religion. As emotions fire their need to speak out, sensibility often flies out the window.

So what then? An interesting take could be that if you can't stop people from saying what they want, if you have to defend their right to say it, then perhaps it would do us all good, as listeners, to learn how to distinguish between what is true or false, between fact and opinion. After all, freedom of speech gives them the right to speak their minds, but it doesn't give them the right to have others listen. So if you know well and good, that someone is spouting hate about a particular topic, instead of giving him the attention that he so desires, tune him out. It might anger us, it might offend and insult but as the party that is being attacked, if we know that there is no basis for his allegations, then letting go and ignoring it should be as easy as water sliding down our backs. Should be, being the key phrase here. Haha.

I guess at the end of the day, it is difficult to balance the scale between freedom of speech and the extent of censorship. How much leeway should we give, what are the consequences of allowing emotional and potentially damaging messages to be broadcasted across society? Do we trust our people to have the ability to differentiate between truth and false truth?

No real conclusion as of yet, but a good measure? Don't take everything that we read or hear as truth, learn the art of salt pinching (heh.), learn to question our sources, learn to form our own opinions. We could all do with a little less ignorance, and a lot more of critical thinking.

Freedom of speech, in swedish is 'Yttrandefrihet'. Swedes seem to like joining their words together :)

Webs.

of yours and mine.

So I have this group of online friends that I speak to rather frequently. Friends that I got to know through communities where people with mutual interests gather and share their views. Sometimes when you're lucky enough, these online friendships can translate to a meetup that grows into a real, physically tangible friendship. (I'm not saying that online friendships aren't real, they can be very close and meaningful, but for some, it can also lack the assurance and comfort that perhaps only a physical being can bring.) On the other hand, I'm sure I don't have to explain how these online friendships can also merely be a veil for something less pleasant. Personalities that you get to know and interact with online, may not always be a true reflection of that person's character.

Recently, there was a controversy of sorts that arose among said friends. Long story short: Years ago, when a group of online friends met, X did some things that made others uncomfortable, the incident was recently aired like dirty laundry, X's invitation to attend the meetup this year, was withdrawn. The grapevine exploded. X threatened to sue for slander/defamation, that X's reputation outside of the cyberworld was at stake.

This whole fiasco made me reflect on the vulnerability of the world-wide web and the fragility of our privacy that we often take for granted. As human beings, we sometimes tend to trust too easily too quickly, especially when emotions are concerned. Words can be powerful tools over which people form bonds. Strong bonds created from mere words that were shared, simply because these words held such importance to both parties. But these words and information exchanged across the web can become a liability when these friendships go south. Case in point, X. It's funny how a simple catchphrase like 'The video went viral' can encompass the entire essence of what the world-wide web is capable of.

And my point? In this day and age where so much faith is put in this 'Cloud' out in cyberspace, it makes me wonder if people have naively become too trusting of the technology around us. (which makes me sound strangely like a technophobe, but really, I'm not. I'm blogging!) As amazing and brilliant the advances technology have brought us, I still find it to be this black hole whose strength to create ripples (detrimental or otherwise) is often sorely underestimated. Let's just say the usefulness of its effects/changes/repercussions depend on which side of the fence you're standing on, at any particular time. 

On a lighter note, I had an awesome dinner at Monica's yesterday, with Lars, whom I had the pleasure of meeting (: And I learnt a new word, 

Sällskapet, which means company, so trevliga sällskapet means pleasant company. 

And also, ante (not sure if its spelled correctly), but apparently means 'shit happens.' Haha.