"Because if the First Amendment [under the United States Constitution, safeguarding the freedom of speech, etc] will protect... A scumbag like me... then it'll protect all of you. 'Cause I'm the worst."
- Woody Harrelson as Larry Flynt, in The People vs Larry Flynt (1996).
[Larry Flynt was the publisher of Hustler Magazine, an obscenely and offensively lewd (by almost-universal standard, definitely by Malaysian (all races) standard), pornographic publication.]
Judging from the behaviours of our bloggers and commentators (including myself!), I don't think we are mature enough yet... Are we?
ABOUT THIS BLOG
FREQUENCY: I'll only post something when I feel that other bloggers have not raised it, or their space does not allow me to express my extended views (due to their censorship or space constraint).
I don't have time to blog on a 'regular basis', but I quite often post comments on other blogs.
COMPLICATIONS: When I feel that certain events have been over-simplified by others, I'll try to add my own perceptions and to show, to the best of my limited ability, that certain matters might not be as simple as they seem. You are welcome to add yours.
'HISTORY': I was driven away/suppressed/censored by Jeff Ooi (when I complained about Jeff's absurd censoring of perceived 'obscene' and 'defamatory' comments in August 2006) and Rocky's Bru (when I held a different view about the correct application of the concept of Plagiarism and accused him of hypocricy in criticising others of censorship).
MOTIVATIONS: I've obviously irked Jeff and Rocky with my fierce criticisms, which must be rude and obnoxious to them. They couldn't take it, so they censored me (justifiably to them, but not so according to me). I don't believe in censorship, not even of what you believe to be obscene or obnoxious or loud or simply irrelevant.
I think I'm NOT - and also NOBODY (except God) is - qualified or authorised, morally, to impose their standard of what's acceptable and what's not on any other person. Because more often than not, when we try to impose our standard, we are influenced by our SUBJECTIVE preferences AND shortcomings.
I might consider myself smart (well, 'smart' enough to spill ink here, I guess?) but I believe there are many, many out there who are smarter and wiser than I am. (Besides, whether we should use 'smart' and 'wise' as a pre-requisite of enjoying the right to free speech is debatable in itself, because it's elitist.)
Even what I believe to be 'unworthy' views today might not be so, after my wisdom has (hopefully) grown the next day. In other words, perhaps a view might be 'unworthy' to me now only because I'm not wise enough to appreciate its wisdom today? Besides, because this is intended to be a PUBLIC conversation, it's up to the readers and commentators to JUDGE what view is valid, and what is not.
Above all, I'm only asking questions here - those others might not have asked.
And if anyone is offended - I'm sorry, truth often hurts. And please don't come here if you don't want to get 'hurt'.
So, I'm a LIBERTARIAN when it comes to free speech, and that's how I try to 'maintain' this blog - by doing nothing about the comments. Therefore, it would be very MESSY (if the traffic is heavy), with lots of junk/spam perhaps? Some have tried to use the excuse of 'need to maintain 'standard' in my blog' to censor dissent. But that's the price of free speech, if you ask me.
CONVERSATIONS: Bloggers often take the firm attitude of "I'm right, my enemy is wrong" - often because they have an agenda to advance. This attitude defeats the whole purpose of conversations which, to me, is to educate, persuade and influence each other.
What if we are all right in our own ways? What if we are all wrong to a certain extent? I hope we are all open to that possibility, given our finite mind and uneven maturity.
What is sad is to see blogs like:
a) Rocky's Bru, where all the pages sounded like a parrot-sex orgy is going on - because all you hear is "yes, yes, yes... oh YES!! YES!!! YESSSS!!!!"
All dissents are blocked off in the name of 'avoid diversion' or 'to maintain blog standard';
and
b) Screehshots, where the pages all sounded like a scratched CD, because you see [DELETED] ..... [DELETED].... all over the place.
The sad way they 'moderate' the comments only exposes how petty and biased they are (while they still pretend to be able to tolerate dissent). To me, that is not how an open and frank debate should be, nor how free speech should be enjoyed.
Yes, they (as they like to boast) blog with their real identity, they are the so-called 'gentleman bloggers'. However, we all know the reasons why we don't blog with open identity in this country. At the very least, to blog with open identity might reduce the effectiveness of some bloggers/commentators.
But I firmly believe that the validity or forcefulness of a person's speech should not, and does not, depend on the person's identity or lack thereof (unless the identity is somehow relevant to the issue, such as one's double standard).
Indeed, to attack the identity of (or lack thereof) the messenger (often done when one runs out of ideas...) instead of focusing on the message only shows one's desperation. It's rather pathetic, actually.
GUARANTEE: NO CENSORSHIP, not even of spam and junk. Because God never gave me that authority to pronounce what is or is not worthy, valid or wise. (Well, I guess except when you post something that threatens national or world security, like posting the formula for making nuclear bombs?? That would be naughty...)
The only agenda I have here is free speech. Welcome.
13 comments:
unfortunatley, the BAD NEWS is, even Marina Mahathir CAN'T respect free speech.
MM is the writer of, among other things:
Limitations on speech
Musings: By MARINA MAHATHIR
http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2006/8/9/lifefocus/15073542&sec=lifefocus
http://www.jeffooi.com/2006/08/limitation_on_speech.php
----------------------------
juslo's comment posted at 4.56pm, January 20, 2007 on
RantingsbyMM
Friday, January 19, 2007
Bloggers Fight Back!
http://rantingsbymm.blogspot.com/2007/01/bloggers-fight-back.html
(not sure if MM would publish it, so reproduced here as record.)
MM,
my follow-up comment criticising YOUR VIEWS was not published by u. let's get this out of the way: i'm using a pseudonym, so this complaint is NOT about my ego or pride, but a complain about your ability to live up to your principles.
so, where's your 'respect for free speech'? gone missing WHEN n IF people disagree with your views or attack your perceived 'friends'??
u JUST said, on this very page:
"The principle of freedom of speech must be adhered to, to allow for people to understand the responsibility involved in that. Not allowing, or limiting it, means people never learn responsibility."
y not let the readers decide whether a commentator's views r valid?? doesn't EVERY VOICE deserve to b heard??
u ALSO JUST said, on this very page:
"In some countries, the government limits speech to only one approved language , cutting out the right of minority languages, and therefore peoples, to be heard"
"because it assumes that we cannot come up with the 'right' opinion if we are allowed to see all the different perspectives on a particular subject. It is a blatant form of censorship."
i can't believe YOU wrote them.
how ironic, Marina. u r just like them - rocky n jeff. HYPOCRITE, DOUBLE STANDARD. i can't believe i would use those adjectives on u one day.
http://www.jeffooi.com/2006/08/limitation_on_speech.php#comment-10116
seriously, i'm VERY disappointed.
that last link was where i said:
i LOVE marina... allow me, what u left out:
"I’d like to talk about my religion and how self-appointed defenders have painted it as one that so lacks compassion, ignores justice and fairness and promotes inequality between men and women and between those professing it and those not. But then some people have cited me as one of those who really should not be allowed to talk because apparently I give the country a bad name. I guess people who storm forums, write untruths, scream and shout at people with different opinions give a better image of our beloved country."
if u r our prime minister, marina, i'll b willing to die for u!! (ooops, another police report???)
Posted by: juslo | August 10, 2006 02:11 PM
oh, here's "The follower", another great one from YAB PM No.6 in case any well-read Malaysian didn't get to read it:
(sorry jeff, for 'hijacking' your blog and turning it into the unofficial 'Marina for PM' homepage...)
"I remember when there were riots over Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses, President Benazir Bhutto commented wryly that the people who were dying over the book were those who would never have read it, or possibly even heard of it if someone hadn’t whipped them into a frenzy. A similar situation arose with the cartoons. As insensitive as they were, they were still not worth dying over.
The point is that people’s impressions of a religion are often related to the behaviour of its adherents. Some religions are thought of as simply kooky because its followers behave strangely. Some are viewed as benign and peaceful because its followers resolutely will not harm a fly.
But when people, supposedly in the name of religion, riot, burn and kill, it can’t help but give the impression of a religion that advocates this, no matter how much we point out that nowhere in religious texts itself does it say you should do this. And unfortunately we get the whole spectrum, from men who publicly insult women on a daily basis without censure to the real crazies."
http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/columnists/2006/5/3/musings/14120703&sec=Musings
from: Marina's loyal follower
Posted by: juslo | August 10, 2006 02:59 PM
----------------------
life is ironic. turns out, FREE SPEECH is ALSO IRONIC!!
oh well...
hey there juslo,
i agree with your views on censorship as a libertarian.
but IMHO, the problem with comments on blogs is that there is an 'owner' to any blog. so as a responsible citizen in a democracy, we must ensure comments on our blogs do not infringe on other people's rights esp when it damages their reputation.
expressing your views is fine but when accusing a person of being X and presenting it as a fact, well u better have something to back it up. even if it's just from a anon commenter, the onus lies on u not to publish FALSE INFORMATION.
i believe that in a free society, we must learn to accept opinions and stand back and say, should we disagree, well THAT"S JUST YOUR OPINION.
unless of course a blogger goes all out on a personal crusade to pass off his OPINIONS as facts over a period of time with the malicious intent to harm...:D
take care :D
You are so true...
By reading your posting it really shows one's desperation and pathetic too...actually
hi freelunch2020,
thanks for your comments.
DISAGREE that blog 'owners' have any responsibility to regulate the contents - UNLESS & UNTIL u decide to regulate.
my analogy (said this before at jeff ooi's) was, a blog CAN BE like a coffee shop (until u turn it into something else).
u r only providing a SPACE for people to come n gather, to chat. surely, if u heard anything defamatory being said inside my cafe, i shouldn't b held responsible. it's just a space.
but the COMMENTATOR should b responsible for it bcos he SAID it. u can then track down this particular commentator n sue him if u like, but the space provider is not responsible.
otherwise, we can extend that to the service providers also, such as blogger.com, n even streamyx (in malaysia), america online (in usa) etc - y didn't they BLOCK our access to these 'defamatory remarks'??? WHY they should not b responsible??
eg. in this blog, i don't care what u want to say, n I MADE THAT CLEAR. i'm just giving a space here. if they want to go after me, they should go after coffee shop owners, shopping mall owners etc who provide PUBLIC SPACE for others to carry out their activities, including talking.
BUT, the moment u take it upon yourself to MODERATE the comments, u r indirectly telling the world that u HAVE FILTERED thru the comments, n HAVE EXERCISED YOUR JUDGMENT on what comments r/not appropriate. u've 'owned up to' them, APPROVED of their existence BY THE FACT that u published them.
THAT (like jeff ooi's n rocky's bru) is a VERY DIFFERENT KIND of blog. they HAVE PUBLISHED, DIRECTLY, the defamatory comments, even though they might not have WRITTEN them.
that's my logical distinction. whether the court buys it or not, of course, is another story.
i think my distinction above would b beneficial to free speech, (n the rejection of this distinction would BURDEN free speech,) bcos it would b VERY CUMBERSOME for bloggers (n forum owners also) to check thru each n every comment n verify the 'facts', to c if they r 'false info', as u suggested (n i disagree):
"even if it's just from a anon commenter, the onus lies on u not to publish FALSE INFORMATION."
besides, the KEY IDEA of defamation is when u present something as TRUE, n MISLEAD the public INTO THINKING THAT IT'S TRUE. to assess whether such effects of MISLEADING exist, u have to look at the CONTEXT of the publication as a whole.
if i tell u that THIS SPACE ALLOWS RUMOURS, it would b STUPID of u to BELIEVE what is being said here, no? reasonable person would know that they should take things being said in a 'rumour mill' with a pinch of salt n if u DON'T, then u r not being reasonable.
just like u won't sue the 'national enquirer' or 'people magazine' in the usa for making up stories about how brad pitt broke up with angelina jolie last week if it turns out to b false. NO REASONABLE PERSON would have taken the contents of THIS KIND OF PUBLICATION seriously, but if u do, that's YOUR problem.
so, my blog (n all those unmoderated blogs) r precisely THIS KIND of FREE TALK 'publication'. so, i as the 'blog owner' should not b held responsible for it bcos i NEVER VOUCH FOR THE VERACITY, TRUTH or ACCURACY of the contents u find herein. but any reader still INSISTS on taking them seriously, then - fine, u can - go after the WRITER of those comments, not me, bcos i didn't WRITE them, nor PUBLISH them.
- of course, u can go after me MY POST, instead of the COMMENTS, made any false/defamatory allegation against u.
otherwise, i agree with most of the other things u said, n thanks for stopping by.
beef stew,
i'm sorry i didn't manage to impress u. u might b right about what u said about me, but i'll have to agree to disagree right now, until u have backed up your criticisms with specific examples, etc, if u care to do so.
thanks for the comments.
APOLOGIES TO MARINA MAHATHIR:
she said she didn't receive my comments, that's y she didn't publish it.
i have no reason to doubt otherwise.
so, i SINCERELY apologise for my criticisms of her, i have obviously over-reacted.
but that just tells me one pitfall of activating the 'moderating comments' function.
my comments about 'ANONYMITY' posted at:
Annoy-nymous
http://aisehman.org/?p=90
11 juslo 24 March 2007 @ 11:10 am
i’m quite sick n tired of this childishness.
here’s what i’ve said sometime ago, n i’ll say them again:
“Yes, some (as they like to boast) blog with their real identity, they are the so-called ‘gentleman bloggers’. However, we all know the reasons why we don’t blog with open identity in this country. At the very least, to blog with open identity might reduce the effectiveness of some bloggers/commentators.
But I firmly believe that the validity or forcefulness of a person’s speech should NOT, and does NOT, depend on the person’s identity or lack thereof (unless the identity is somehow relevant to the issue, such as one’s double standard).
Indeed, to attack the identity (or lack thereof) of the messenger (often done when the attacker runs out of ideas…) instead of focusing on the MESSAGES only shows one’s DESPERATION. It’s rather PATHETIC, actually.”
http://juslo.blogspot.com/2006/11/free-speech-are-malaysians-ready-about_04.html
just bcos u r anonymous doesn’t necessarily mean u r a liar. indeed, look at our politikus (eg. semi-value on toll agreements recently) - they talk NONSENSE n LIED, WITH THEIR EYES OPEN + ‘REAL IDENTITY’ in full view of the country!! so much for being the ‘gentlemen’.
n i would tend to agree if someone tells me that in this country, ONLY those who r anonymous r capable of telling the TRUTH, whereas those who r ‘gentlemen’ enough to speak with their real identity either:
a) simply DON’T DARE to tell the truth; or
b) tend to b LIARS - n NOT ASHAMED of their lies too!!
(of course there r exceptions; dr lim on bumi equity percentage n has the backbone to resign is one OUTSTANDING, BUT RARE, example.)
actually, this is in no way funny, but SAD - there’s something fundamentally WRONG + SICK with our country, culture n moral values when people don’t dare to tell the truth openly, but only those who ‘hide’ behind pseudonyms do. our leaders (continuously in power for 50 years - i can only blame u lot!!) have to ask THEMSELVES how did THEY get us into this predicament in the first place.
true, just bcos u r anonymous doesn’t mean u r honest. most liars/mischief makers ARE anonymous.
but if people really bother to use their BRAIN CELLS, they’ll also realise that what has been said is only from anonymous sources, just RUMOURS - which u MUST take with a big pinch of salt!!
now, if u r STUPID enough to take mere rumours or gossips seriously, n plan your life/actions ON THE BASIS of these things without being substantiated with circumstances or further investigations FIRST, then i can only pray that God has mercy on your soul…
if bloggers r indeed all anti-gomen liars with ‘hidden agendas’, the best n the only proper thing to do is to let the readers/people of malaysia JUDGE what we said, after we get a chance to state our arguments.
my ultimate goal in participating in a public discourse is to persuade others to agree with or at least to see my views. if they do, my real identity is irrelevant. if they don’t, my real identity is meaningless. the only thing that matters is whether u think what i SAID was right or not. that’s me.
but if u r HELL-BENT on wasting your time to focus on whether i’m an ‘unemployed woman’ unemployed ‘80%’ of the time or not - b my guest. it’s is your fucking problem, not mine. the rest of us will take note of your DESPERATE, PATHETIC tactics.
in the end, i think it all boils down to this: whether our politikus r able n willing to ‘counter the lies’ spread on the internet.
a) ABLE - i don’t think so, they simply don’t have enough brain power to counter the absolutely higher ‘class’ n more sophisticated thinking of bloggers.
b) WILLING - hey, u lot have ABSOLUTE control over the tv, radio, n print media - n u can set up your own blogs too (datuk sharir, take note), so don’t tell me just bcos WE spread ‘lies n falsehoods’, u r STRAIGHTAWAY DEAD?!?!!!
if what we have said r wrong/false, by all means counter us with what is ‘right/true’!! hey, it’s YOUR JOB as a popular/democratically-elected government to EXPLAIN to the people!! if i made wrong accusations online, it’s always open for YOU to RESPOND with the ‘correct’ explanations/’truth’ (WE never stop u from FREELY manipulating the media; it’s YOU who deny us that freedom, REMEMBER?!?!).
WHAT’S SO DIFFICULT ABOUT EXPLANING TO US - YOUR BOSSES?!?!
IT’S YOUR JOB, FOR FUCK’S SAKE.
12 juslo 24 March 2007 @ 11:33 am
further to what i said above…
if some smart-ass politikus retort by saying:
“people tend to believe in rumours, especially if they r anti-gomen”
sigh… thanks for digging your own grave. now, go lie in it:
ever heard of the ‘cry woolf’ fable??
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-boy-who-cried-wolf
here’s a simplified version for your simple brain:
Ali is a NOTORIOUS CROOK, DISHONEST THIEF. 1 day, a rumour spread that Ali has cheated ‘another’ old lady, EVERYBODY STRAIGHTAWAY believes that rumour.
Ahmad is an HONEST, UPRIGHT citizen. 1 day a rumour spread that Ahmad has cheated an old lady, EVERYBODY STRAIGHTAWAY rejects that rumour.
GET IT??!!
n the only way Ali could rebuild his CREDIBILITY is to begin to TALK SENSE, n to BEHAVE HONESTLY.
"Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the blog administrator.
Sunday, January 21, 2007 11:11:00 AM"
how come?? i didn't do it... who did? m i 'the blog administrator'??
hmmm, may be a bit too late to discover this blog, but it is better late than never.
I share the feeling strongly when you mentioned about "the validity or forcefulness of a person’s speech should NOT, and does NOT, depend on the person’s identity". I go around and post without revealing my identity, part of the reason is that I want the others to read my argument, instead of judging who I am, my background, my identity and etc etc. I believe in argue the argument, instead of labelling, tagging the person (ad hominem).
Juslo, hope you keep up the good job. I do not happen to bump into your comments in other blogs a lot, but when I do, I am impressed with your argument (like NST sueing bloggers case in KTemoc and Subashini's case in Aisehman's blog).
mich,
if u still come back to read this... ;)
thanks for the nice words. as u can tell by now, i'm not really a regular blogger - worse than part time.
i hang out (WHEN i have time to hang out) at walski, aisehman mostly. ktemoc n marina m sometimes, shar101 occasionally. i'll 'advertise' my new posting (WHEN i'm not too lazy to blog) at malaysiakita.
i'm glad u share my views about the link between identity-truth. i think it shows a person's RESPECT for the truth, above all else.
cheers.
Post a Comment