Somewhere along the lines during the evolution of the modern perception of the First Amendment rights, we’ve collectively lost sight of what that means, and what differences between Freedom of Speech and the idea that all free speech should exist in a vacuum from their consequences.
A US Citizen and former Singaporan lawyer named Gopolan Nair has just been released, according to an AP wire report, after having been arrested for “taunting a Singaporan judge” today:
[The US-based blogger] allegedly accused a Singapore judge of “prostituting herself” was released on bail Thursday and had his passport confiscated.
A judge ordered Gopalan Nair, a former Singapore lawyer who is now a US citizen, to be released on 5,000 dollars bail (3,676 US) after more than four days in custody.
“I am now within your jurisdiction… What are you going to do about it?” wrote Nair…
I am a blogger, myself, obviously. As such I am typically an advocate for bloggers rights and I am a fan of free speech in all its forms. On the other hand, I’m not a fool, and I realize that certain types of speech and certain actions surrounding speech will have consequences.
For instance, if I make statements here at Mashable that aren’t true and present them as facts, I’m personally subject to a civilly actionable lawsuit for libel. If I were to write here threatening remarks to a political figure, I could be subject to criminal prosecution. If I describe past criminal activities here, I’m subject to stand trial for those crimes.
Gopolan’s blog remains online, and the government of Singapore has not censored, blocked, or otherwise firewalled it from being viewed. This hasn’t stopped bloggers the world over from coming to his defense, saying his free speech has been somehow hampered. The man said some inflammatory (and in Singapore, clearly illegal) words, and is now paying the penalty.
As many of the pundits and folks involved with the case have made great lengths to point out, freedom to criticise the government is one of the cornerstones of modern living. Committee to Protect Journalists Asia Programme Coordinator Bob Dietz was widely quoted as saying that “[t]his case illustrates the Singapore government’s ongoing commitment to silencing opposition voices both in print and online.” The truth, however, is much simpler than that.
---
Related Articles at Mashable! - The Social Networking Blog:
Web Startups and the Lying Liars that Lie About Them
30% of MySpace Users Create Most Content
Firefox Now Officially Hates Me
Structured Blogging Officially Launched, Blogosphere Says “Woot!”
Steve Jobs Subpoenaed For Backdated Options Case
Microsoft Looking to Halt Google’s Acquisition of DoubleClick
Imeem Gets Full Length Horror Film: Debuts Next Week
Visit the News Source, Mashable
If you liked this, You might also like:
