Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
The right and duty to blog
This entry was inspired by two separate events that I encountered today. One was a discussion about blogging, and the other was a discussion about rights and duties, so I’m going to marry the two of them for this entry.
Do people have the right to blog? I think the answer is most obviously yes. Freedom of expression is provided for under the Singapore Constitution (but subject to certain conditions), so I think blogging is a legitimate activity, at least from the standpoint of the law. The next question is, do people have the right to blog about anything and everything?
We have seen the racist bloggers being charged under the Sedition Act, and certainly this reminds us that we don’t have the right to blog about certain issues, especially in ways that might cause social havoc. What is not so clear though is whether we have the right to blog about anything in the evironment that surrounds us.
Perhaps an example would make things a little clearer. Assume that I am a waiter in Restaurant XYZ in America. In Singapore, there’s no culture of tipping, but in America, it is customary to tip a waiter for the service. So, in the course of my work today, I met a couple of demanding and unreasonable customers who refuses to tip me after having their meal. I fume about it, and when I go back home, I log into my blog and start writing things like “The customers who come to Restaurant XYZ are screwed up. They are demanding, rude and penny-pinching misers. I’ll be sure to give them a little ‘extra’ flavouring and stuff in their food the next time they turn up.”
While I have a right to vent my frustrations as an individual, the organisation have the right to a good reputation. Imagine if customers of Restaurant XYZ read the blog entry. They will read it as an expression of opinion by an employee of Restaurant XYZ, and not an individual opinion. Would they dare to step into the restaurant ever again? Is it morally right for me to exercise my individual right to vent my frustration at the expense of my organisation’s right to a good reputation? Do I have a duty to blog in a way that is responsible and do not in any way infringe on another entity’s right?
I think that if one is a member of an organisation, there’s a need to think carefully about the comments that one make about the organisation. Sure, the blogger might think that the negative comments might be made in a personal capacity. However, readers might not think so. They might think that the blogger is writing in the capacity of an employee. Would it be fair for the organisation to pay the price for employees’ exercise of freedom of speech in their personal capacities?
I’m not about to advocate self-censorship here. I think it’s perfectly fine to write about one’s work environment. I just don’t think it’s nice to needlessly sensationalise the unsavoury aspects. There’s a difference between being critical and being needlessly sensational. In the current age, the pen keyboard is mightier than the sword. Bloggers should keep in mind their duty to blog responsibly and not sensationalise things for the sake of sensationalisng.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 16/03/2007 at 12:55 am, and is filed under Perspective. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
We might be imposing censorship if we start thinking within the framework of member and organisation.
We’ve emphasised a lot on the responsibility of the blogger, and not the reader. I think it’s not so much the question of fairness to the organisation to bear the brunt of the employees’ right to express his views, but rather the reader’s responsibility to know if views expressed are from the member or the organisation. We should perhaps give more agency to readers to decide for themselves.
I also think it can be problematic to place healthy debate within such confines (member – organisation). When a person expresses an opinion about, say, his country, does that relate to the country or the citizen or both? Or within context, if I work at Macdonald’s and I blog about my rude customers, would that be unfair to my organisation? Now does the size of the organisation matter? I sorta do understand where you’re coming from, like all problematic issues that come with democracy, the democratisation of information can leave some disenfranchised. It may not be very empowering for smaller groups.
But I guess it really boils down to content, whether it’s defamatory or not, true or not. That’s probably why we hear lots of libel suits by political parties. We don’t want anybody to lose credibility. But, I believe, more importantly, we don’t want to quell the selfless whistleblower who takes corrective action for the sake of public interest. It depends on what we believe holds greater importance – Empowering the powerless? (again, freedom of expression may not be the ultimate solution) Or maintaining power?
It’s important that we acknowledged that “[f]reedom of expression is provided for under the Singapore Constitution (but subject to certain conditions)”. So what matters most is content and whether it brings about “social havoc”. But who determines what constitutes “social havoc”? How can we get a clearer picture of the so-called OB markers? What messages are contrary to public interest? Does public interest mean party interest?
I guess my main point is to not keep pointing our fingers at the blogger, the writer, or the source, but let’s give credit to the readers. We are informed, responsible, self-aware citizens, and we don’t need a parent figure to tell us what we can read, watch, or do.
about 4 years ago
so should we blog more responsibly towards the moral majority than other minorities? to whom should we be more responsible?
i think, aaron, rather than being “responsible”, we should be blog “sensibly” and in a way “graciously”. “responsible” has a “who’s your daddy?” connotation. responsibility implies certain exclusive relationships, while sensibility and graciousness are relatively more general values.
about 4 years ago
Kevin,
It’s true that readers too have to be discerning. However, I think that sources, relative to readers, should bear a greater responsibility for what they write. After all, when a blogger writes something unsavoury about another organisation/person, people usually look to the subject who was written about for comments/clarification, not the blogger. In a sense, there’s a greater burden on the subject of the writer, therefore, a writer should be a little more sensitive and responsible when writing.
about 4 years ago
sam,
I think in this context that I’m writing, there not much of a difference between the idea behind being responsible and being sensible. It seems more like a matter of semantics to me. Ultimately, the key idea is that a person should be aware of the harm that can be caused when writing, even though it may not be intentional. I’m sure it has been taught that consequences might not follow the way it was intended,. Therefore, we should be more careful with what we write. At the very least, we should make clear in what capacity we are writing in.
about 4 years ago
Blogging Graciously is the keyword. I had been so annoyed by an insurance company called ABC with their employees trying to market their schemes by using “skills” like lucky draw or savings survey. It is utterly and unbearably annoying to be bugged by them each time you get approached. i was approached 7 times within a frametime of 8 months last year at various MRT stations. Hence, i went home to blog about this ABC and i stated that this company sucks.
So i’ve learnt that that’s not the right thing to do.
It also comes to an extend of who or whom is doing the insult. For instance, I vaguely remembering someone youthful with a popular blog stereotyping that some bangla in Orchard road during CNY will molest girls on the streets… and things like people from xxx country should be burnt, for causing air pollution. Then for, is it far to those Banglas being insulted in this case? Think of the movie Borat- setting at Kazikhastan.. Is it fair to stereotype them and condemn their nation?..
Please Advice.
about 4 years ago
Truthhurts,
In my example, Restaurant XYZ did nothing wrong. There was no way the restaurant could have controlled the kinds of customers they get. Therefore, for an employee to write in a way such that it affects the reputation of the restaurant isn’t exactly the most responsible of thing to do. However, in your case, insurance company ABC could possibly be in the wrong by being needless aggressive. It was their employees causing some grief, and that is clearly within the control of the company. I think that makes it fair game for you to write that the company sucks (of course to make sure you don’t get sued, please say that’s your personal opinion).
Aiyah, let’s just get to the point about that popular blogger. It’s Xiaxue. I don’t think it’s responsible to stereotype ALL Bangladeshis. The most that one can say is some Bangladeshis. I think we just have to make sure that we don’t get too carried away sometimes. Of course, people make mistakes sometimes, and that’s understandable. But if one repeated does such things, it’s perhaps not so excusable.
about 4 years ago
Do blogs sway opinions?
If written sensibly and logically, readers should see the point. As always, some will agree and some will disagree. Blogging in Singapore has begged people to ask hard questions about the policies and issues. You have brought out good posts. The issue here is WHAT bloggers should write. This is the main concern of our “managing and fixing” authority. It is used to be “take it and don’t ask questions”, but it is getting a little tricky. Even they can get things through, the unanswered hard questions make people changes their stands in the process.
Changes in opinions are not as controllable as before. There are many types of blogs, it is how the individual blogger wants to do with his free will.
about 4 years ago
Dear Aaron Ng,
Thanks for the advice. Totally on the right track on this issue.