In my opinion of whether there would be freedom of expression or not, I believe that we should adopt Szilagyi’s view which is the extent of freedom of expression should be determined by each of our social responsibility. Firstly, as stated in the article written by Singer, freedom of expression is vital to any democracy, however, I trust that the importance of a harmonious society has outweigh the vitality of the freedom of expression. For which, all of us had to ask ourselves if the freedom of expression is so important that we have to put the harmonious society at risk. For example, if Singapore government were to allow full freedom of expression for which the people and media could publicise any of their views, even if it hurts the interests of the other, would the society in Singapore still remains as itself today. I doubt so.

Secondly, Singer believes that only when people allows freedom of expression fully. It would be considered as treating all people fairly. As stated, ‘Only when David Irving has been freed will it be possible for Europeans to turn to the Islamic protesters and say: “We apply the principle of freedom of expression even-handedly, whether it offends Moslems, Christians, Jews, or anyone else.” ‘. However, to refute his argument, treating all people fairly could also mean to respect each of our beliefs and faith, no matter if it is true or not. In my opinion, the aims of each country should first have a united society before developing its economy and etc. One very good example would be the racial riots in Sri Lanka, it is because of these riots that causes the country to lose its revenue, causing a downturn in the economy. Therefore, why would we grant the freedom of expression, when we all know the consequences of the full extent of freedom of expression could be serious as it involves not only the nation itself, but also could affect people globally. Thus, the press should adopt a mindset that whatever she reports would definitely have an impact on the target audience, so focus should be placed more on social responsibility, protecting the interests of everyone, rather than to stubbornly develop the democracy, putting the safety of everyone at risk.