iii) DISCUSSION

A) GLOBAL OR NON- MALAYSIAN VIEWS

As we know a number of people are very focused on the punishments that the state
has set yet these demonstrations and social rejection have had a negative impact on freedom
of speech. It is this speech that has made it difficult or less confident for the community to
convey their thoughts. All philosophers argue that there is no free speech because the debate
is focused on why we should think about restricting the speech of others. As we know John
Stuart Mill was a very influential person to discuss this topic. They stated that this discussion
required lengthy ideals and the freedom to express their opinions. This belief arises from the
principle of Mill’s mud, in this principle of Mill’s mud there is a saying that we can act freely
as long as the action we do does not hurt others. Moreover, Mill’s mud also says that every
speech we utter should not harm others directly and can affect their mental health. Mill
supports this freedom of speech as long as it is a consequentialist view. Mill expressed his
opinion that, their lives should follow the law as this will result in good long term results. We
must also allow others to voice their views even if the views expressed are immoral. This
faucet can provide an opportunity for the community to learn what is true.

This principle is applicable in two ways. the first way is that the majority of society
considers that an immoral act is wrong. While the second way is where the majority will feel
very confident in their position if they can fight for it. Both of these ways have enabled
freedom of speech in the community to be upgraded and can help restore their rights. If there
is a society that tries to silence the views of those who do not agree with the opinion of others
then people will assume that the opinion conveyed is correct because no one objected. Mill
expressed his view that if everyone remained silent and did not respond to the proposed view
then the discussion was considered imperfect. We should accept the opinions suggested by
others even if we do not like what is being said. This can create tolerance between everyone.
Yet Noam Chomsky once said that anyone who supports this freedom of speech then they
should be prepared that their views will be insulted later. For these supporters of freedom of
speech they are more likely to try to limit the ban on speech. This prohibition of speaking is
not to utter words that hurt the feelings of others and are mixed with slander or violence.
These proponents of freedom of speech argue that this delivered speech will be socially
marginalized, emotionally damaging and can install hatred in others. They also hoped that
words that were slanderous and overly sentimental should be barred from further discussion.
 This situation will cause people to continue to assume that citizens have no right to
offend others and commit insults. some assume that this unrestricted freedom of speech will
cause psychological and social harm. This problem will occur if a person is unable to receive
the speech. Some people will assume that people who cannot accept other people's opinions
are people who often take advantage of other people's opinions and this can lead to quarrels
among them. A number of philosophers say that these offensive words are dangerous to a
person because the person can injure themselves when the mental state is unstable.
Philosophers also say that those who are mentally unstable when listening to the opinions of
others will have adverse effects such as social cohesion. This is because the victim will be in
a non -fragile state. Yet in Australia the commissioner of the Soutphommasan team is a
staunch supporter in defending this right to freedom of speech. He believed that some of what
the society produced was detrimental to the security of the harmony of the society. Judith
Butler believes that victims who have experienced this situation will easily lose control of
their feelings. We do not know when or mispronunciation will occur. Since most societies
that support this freedom of speech need to be restricted, they have been perceived or accused
of being more concerned with harmony and respect for self and others. Whether we still
consider the offense that occurred to be dangerous or safe all these assumptions will
determine how free we are in giving an opinion. Even if we put rules in speaking out there are
still people who will issue annoying, insensitive or undiplomatic words in expressing their
views. Even though we have the right to speak up, this is not a ticket for us to see that
everything is right and final.

As we all know, this freedom of speech is very important to a society to have a

harmonious and peaceful environment. The international community is very bold in
expressing their views on a matter especially when it involves political discussions. The
speech made by the community should be balanced when the demands it makes are contrary
to other normative commitments such as dignity, social equality or the safety of marginalized
citizens. Things that are often the subject of public debate are philosophical and political.
However, this is a bad framework because this is a moral value that we cannot resolve simply
by balancing some of the tenacious questions of who is a good and bad debater. We know
that every view given will be emotionally embedded in speaking. These moral matters
include integrity, attribution rights, withdrawal, resale and protection from excessive
criticism. In the united states they do not recognize there is a moral right in a work of art
because that continuing moral right is contrary to the property rights of ownership of the
artwork.

In fact there are abuses of freedom of speech in the United States and Europe that we
need to criticize. This is because in the UK political freedom and freedom of speech do not
need to be introduced because this is the country that commits a lot of tyranny and
corruption. In their view the demand to have this freedom of speech is not going to help them
to continue to fight for freedom in every autocratic country. The fight that is taking place is
not for the good of abstract principles but for political change to become more concrete.
Nelson Mandela this can be referred to as concrete because the yes demand for freedom of
speech is to fight for and end apartheid. It is this group that many receive hatred such as
extremist and hateful behavior that allows this freedom of speech to take place. If we are on
the side of the Mandela then we will strive to oppose this freedom of speech.

According to mill the thing he had learned from the nobles was social equality and the
growth of democracy. In this matter equality is something we have to fear because a large
number of ordinary people are more knowledgeable in exercising their freedom of speech
than people who like to rebel but lack knowledge. These commoners were also feared
because they were known for their strength in having developments in civilization itself.
Moreover they are also feared for being capable of threatening to nullify the progress of
civilization from within which is capable of overthrowing the spirit of freedom in favour of
the suitability of their narrow thinking. In the past this liberalism only instilled the nature of
fear in individuals who wished to be involved in expressing their thoughts and the political
sphere. They feared in the event of repression by the higher ruling powers. whoever has this
power of government is likely to have only evil interests. Minorities are those who can take
over and use the power of existing government.

With the existence of various advanced technologies nowadays has made it more
difficult to set moral limits on the freedom of speech. Yet it is easier for us to set moral limits
in freedom of action. In the principle of danger which has been introduced by John Stuart
Mill has stated that human beings can do whatever they like as long as the thing they do does
not endanger others. This principle of danger is easier to apply to action but difficult to apply
to speech. The most common dangerous acts are damaged property, leaving a scar and stolen
property. However this freedom of speech that occurs can cause mental damage. However
this mental damage is easy for us to detect. There are many questions that arise about this
freedom of speech, among them is should we make rules to limit freedom of speech to avoid
many being offended? yet there are still many in the global community who are trying to
incite and destabilize the situation by saying do we have the right not to feel offended? mill
has stated freedom of speech is known as one of the security defending a rule that involves
tyranny and corruption. Mill has also insisted that everyone should be allowed to discuss their
views freely without any restrictions. Yet so the mill has also placed a limit that a person
wishing to express an opinion freely cannot harm others.

The discussion that one wants to put forward should make sense and not be mixed
with envy, resentment and so on. Hobess is a politician who supports that the topic to be
discussed should be filtered first so as not to hurt the feelings of others. Someone who has
problems at this dominant individual level is more silent than talkative. We cannot imagine if
our freedom of speech is restricted by unreasonable rules. This has made it difficult for
everyone to continue debating the views and thoughts they have. However, unlike Newman
and Peterson, they are more concerned with the feelings of others in expressing their
opinions. all societies should be tolerant of each other in creating a harmonious atmosphere
while sharing opinions and views.

In my view, the world community is becoming peaceful and free because of the
ideological policies as well as the policies supported by them where there are people who
hardly defend their ideas. Their idea is to defend their right to freedom of speech hysterical
demands on the crisis involving freedom of speech are just part of the propaganda campaign
used by the government. This is political in nature to evoke the spirit of nationalism of the
people. Some minorities will be oppressed and the government will benefit progressively
from this situation.

3 Fake News Report Happen In Global

Social Media and “Fake News” from a free speech perspective

Recently we have heard a lot of wrong news through Facebook . This news was
written on 25 November 2016. In the United States there has been a persistent choice. The
spread of fake news on Facebook has led to Donald Trump victory as president as his
successor. Many parties are demanding that Facebook take action in order to overcome the
problem and allow the media to be careful in spreading false information and can confuse
many of the parties. Although Facebook is a giant company that has advanced technology but
this company also tries to block messages or information that can cause misunderstanding in
society. This is because Facebook is a platform that is easy to get information and easy to use
in disseminating false or true information. Journalists also cannot properly perform their
responsibilities to provide valid information to consumers and readers. This has confused the
people in receiving the message or information they convey. In my opinion more journalists
are writing articles based on their emotions and feelings. As human beings we certainly
cannot run away in using emotions and feelings in decision making. At this presidential
election they can feel that rational and factual debates dominate in this election. In this
rational and factual debate everything is irrelevant to what should be discussed whether it is
in relation to public interviews or politics. They felt that lies were a major factor in the
election contest that day. However, there are also voices of influential parties demanding that
this election be held firmly without any fraud. They hope that the spread of false news can be
stopped throughout the day of this election so that the public will not be disturbed by the
news. According to international law the issue of fake news is given attention because it often
serves as an instrument to restrict editorial freedom and control of the media.

Theresa May's fake news unit is just another naive plan for the web

Theresa May once told her personal story where she once did a naughty thing of
stealing a wheat field as a teenager. Here she tries to impress the virtual citizens to continue
listening to the stories of his life. This news was written on 24 January 2018. Donald Trump
plans to set up a rapid response unit to deal with the spread of fake news. A government
spokesman has said that they will do their best to create a highly dedicated national security
communications unit. This unit was established with the consent of the national security
council. This communication unit is reported to combat bad information coming from within
and outside the country. In addition the unit also serves to prevent journalists from reporting
fake news. This is to fulfill the promise made with France to ban the existence of fake news
during the election. Yet some suspect that this fake news unit set up by Theressa May, she
maybe not have the resources to deal with the problem at hand. This is because there is a
monopoly of technology going on. This has led to increasing pressure in finding resources to
solve this problem. Too much false information received by the listener will make it harder
for them to believe the information they receive is false. The reception of this fake news will
increase the ongoing and difficult to curb cyber crime cases. This is because there are
millions of Facebook posts, tweets and videos on you tube published in a day. This problem
is not a problem that can be tackled by a small team coming from the UK government. The
newly formed unit should be independent of government. If the unit is still under government
then there will be problems in its existence later. What Theressa May perceive as fake news
may not be for the opponent. This is because differences of opinion from both parties will
cause confusion to members in the unit. There are a large number of people trying to find a
way in solving the spread of this false problem. Fact -checking has expressed its intention to
work with technology platforms to educate and assist users in identifying misinformation. For
me the method used by Theressa May is a good and effective way, as we know, the spread of
this false information can erode the feelings of the community or social media users. The
presenter may have used abusive words and did not fit the current situation. With the
presence of this security unit is able to limit the conversation that wants to be conveyed by
the irresponsible party. Then the spread of false information can be reduced. Freedom of
speech will sometimes cloud the surrounding situation if we as leaders do not try to curb it.

India: Tech Firms Should Uphold Privacy, Free Speech

The case is related to the Indian government has taken measures that violate the right
to privacy and expression in their response to the international criticism of the protest case
carried out by the farmers. on 14 February 2021, Indian authorities were tasked to arrest a 21
-year -old activist named Disha Ravi. Ravi has been charged on charges of sedition and
having criminal conspiracy. However Nikita Jacob, a lawyer and Shantanu Muluk were given
pre-arrest bail only. these three are also friends of Ravi as well. Ravi has been indicted for
having been deemed to be the main conspirator in sharing information and editing
information and being included on social media. Ravi has acted this way because he is
actually supporting the demonstrations being carried out by the farmers. The Delhi lawyer
has given assurances on behalf of Ravi to defend him, the lawyer has submitted incomplete
and still vague evidence. The rulers have sought to stifle widespread criticism, deleting all
information related to these democratic protests and demonstrations. They have also blocked
the use of social media, the internet and prevented journalists from getting news from the
location of the protests. On February 25, the Indian government announced new rules under
the information technology act whereby they have restricted what information is
communicated on the internet. All information submitted will be filtered first. In my opinion,
this government is also there to curb this problem from continuing. The rules used will curb
this case from getting worse. In addition, this rule is also to prevent outside interference in the
case of these farmers' protests. As I see too many parties want to intervene in this matter.
freedom of speech should be restricted so that no party will be offended and offended by the
opinions and information they receive.

REFERENCES

Social media and “Fake news” from a free speech perspective. (2018, January 19). ARTICLE
19. https://www.article19.org/resources/social-media-and-fake-news-from-a-free-
speech-perspective/

Priday, R. (2018, April 5). Fake news laws are threatening free speech on a global scale.
WIRED UK. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/malaysia-fake-news-law-uk-india-free-
speech

Ethics explainer: Freedom of speech - The ethics centre. (2019, May 15). THE ETHICS
CENTRE. https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-freedom-of-speech/

What are the moral limits of free speech and action? (n.d.). Philosophy Now | a magazine of
ideas.https://philosophynow.org/issues/127/What_are_the_Moral_Limits_of_Free_Spe
ech_and_Action

Burgess, M. (2018, January 24). Theresa may's fake news unit is just another naive plan for
the web. WIRED UK. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/theresa-may-government-fake-
news-unit

Naomi Gilens and Jillian C. York. (2020, June 29). New laws banning false news threaten the
free flow of information worldwide. Electronic Frontier Foundation.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/05/recognizing-world-press-freedom-day-during-
covid-19

India: Tech firms should uphold privacy, free speech. (2021, March 12). Human Rights
Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/03/11/india-tech-firms-should-uphold-privacy-
free-speech