On Freedom of Speech, Religion and Lee Kuan YewThe idea of free speech was opined by Thomas Jefferson and other Founders of the United States of America, who believed that minimizing the limits on what people were free to say was essential for a liberal democracy to thrive. The marketplace of ideas belief holds that the truth and good public policy arise from the competition of widely varying ideas freely shared in public discourse. The proponents of free speech also believed that open exchanges of ideas would encourage tolerance among people with opposing views.Be it as it may, the powers of freedom of speech does not include the right:1. To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., Deliberately raising a fire/bomb alarm in a crowded area to incite a stampede or general disorder, without any basis for doing so")Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).2. To make or distribute obscene materials.Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).3. Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).To determine whether our dear Amos Yee's rant on youtube qualifies as a speech that ought to be defended under the banner of Free Speech, let us examine his words:Lee Kuan Yew, contrary to popular belief, was a horrible person and an awful leader to our country. He was a dictator, but managed to fool most of the world to think he was democratic. And he did so by still granting us the opportunity to vote, to make it seem like we have freedom of choice.However, during [his] rule, he controlled the entire media and education, proliferating nationalistic propaganda on a daily basis. And he placed an excessive surplus of his books in popular bookstores. In most of his books, look at how he self-indulgently plasters reams of pages with these montages of pictures of his experiences. Like Ooh, look how much better I am compared to you.And of course he is absolutely notorious for suing people who criticised him, forcing them into jail and leading them into bankruptcy. Apparently, his thirst for suing is hereditary, too. So he created an environment where his blatant flaws as a leader were hidden, because most people were afraid of criticising him in fear of being found guilty by the judicial system that he controls. So everything that people hear is about how great Lee Kuan Yew is.In short, Amos Yee's rant holds more shit than a jammed sewage tank, and should not be protected under any form of freedom of speech argument.1. Load of defamatory remarks that can hardly qualify as personal opinionFor someone who was not even born when Lee Kuan Yew stepped down as prime minister, and whose command of History and the ability to evaluate it is limited to his secondary school educational background, he is as much qualified to discuss Singapore politics and history as I am qualified to lecture on the Theory of Quantum Physics. Perhaps it would be more forgivable had he opted to give us some elaboration on why he finds LKY a personally horrible person; perhaps he had met our prime minister when he was busy swimming around as a sperm. Without any evidence, facts, all Amos has is a bag of defamatory remarks.For a 17 year old who feels he is as qualified as Henry Kissinger to give his view of society and the world and be taken equally seriously, his usage of terms such as "criticised, judicial system that he controls" are as misused as me saying " I was effected so much by Amos Yee's rant I cried" when the correct term should be "affected". The difference between insult and criticism is intent. The intent of criticism is to point out where you have gone wrong so that you can correct the problem. The intent of insult is to do emotional harm. Clearly Amos's rant aims to play to popular public opinion of the deficiencies of the current government. Herein lies the difference, opposition members and their supports do actually have valid points and issues to debate with the government. Amos does not.Making baseless claims like the "judicial system that he controls" only opens Amos up to getting served with contempt of court. Baseless allegations that attack the institution you expect to protect your rights is as wise as attempting to load an empty magazine into your rifle, pointing at a policeman, then squeezing your trigger and hearing just an empty click. You dont take up arms without basis against someone, stating it is in your right to do so, then complain of abuse and I-told-you-so when the opponent retaliates with even greater force. It is well within in the policeman's rights to defend him/herself.Now seeing what LKY has done, Im sure many individuals who have done similar things comes to mind. But Im going to compare him to someone that people havent really mentioned before: Jesus. And the aptness of that analogy is heightened, seeing how Christians seem to be a really big fan of him. They are both power-hungry and malicious, but deceive others into thinking that they are compassionate and kind. Their impact and legacy will ultimately not last as more and more people find out that theyre full of bull. And LKYs followers are completely delusional and ignorant, and have absolutely no sound logic or knowledge about him that is grounded in reality, which LKY very easily manipulates, similar to the Christian knowledge of the Bible and the work of a multitude of priests.2. Christianity is a delusion? LKY's policies are bullshit?Being creative is a positive skill. Amos attempts to outdo his wonderful speech himself by comparing LKY to Jesus. Sadly, Amos disappoints us again by reaching into his bag of defamatory remarks and scooping out a pile of crap, giving no reason why LKY is similar to Jesus, but instead launching into an all out attack on their supporters/believers. Apart from the obvious fact that it is extremely hard to give his sweeping statement that believers/supporters of LKY are "both power-hungry and malicious", "delusion and ignorant" any basis, he fails badly at making an argument between Faith and Delusion.Like Richard Dawkings, Amos's implication is that religious belief is never based on evidence or perhaps that it exists despite the evidence. But even while Dawkins discussed various arguments for Gods existence, he was aware that religious faith can be based on argument. Dawkins might have rejected those arguments as false, but that does not change the fact that his own definition of faith is limited. Even if someone has a bad reason for believing in something like homoeopathy or acupuncture, they are not then accepting it unquestioningly they just may not have looked at all the evidence or at the right sort of evidence. If I, as many others have done, decide that God is the best explanation of all the available evidence, then my belief, my faith, is grounded in fact.The Problem of Free SpeechThe primary rationale behind freedom of expression in the United States of America, as put forth by Cass Sunstein, is due to the principle of "government by discussion." The framers of the American constitution realized that the only way the people can be sovereign while at the same time subject to the law was to organize government around a system of deliberative discussion. As James Madison explained, freedom of expression is the cornerstone of the whole system of American government since it ensures discussion and debate among people of genuinely different perspectives and positions. The process of deliberation, Madison said, encourages the development of general political truths. "A distinctive feature of American republicanism is extraordinary hospitality toward disagreement and heterogeneity, rather than fear of it," Sunstein writes. "The framers believed that a diversity of opinion would be a creative and productive force."The First Amendment, understood in this light, is not so much a matter of protecting rights as ensuring sound public judgment through the process of public deliberation. The true meaning of the law should therefore be determined, and limited, by matters having to do with the political process (broadly defined). Political speech should be encouraged since it is essential to the functioning of democracy, while non-political speech should be less fully protected when it conflicts with other interests and rights, such as privacy.Amos Yee and Lee Kuan YewAs pointed out from the start of this lengthy argumentative essay, even if Amos was in the United States of America with its vaunted First Amendment that Freedom of Speech die-hards would sell their soul for, there have been legal precedents similar to Amos's case where the judge ruled that in favor of the United States Prosecution against the individuals of Schnek and Roth.Amos's speech serves only to stir the increasing resentment against the current ruling Party in Singapore, hoping that amongst the bagful of mud he slings, enough will stick to earn him credibility, and that proponents of the opposition will pick up his slack and add much needed weight to his arguments.Amos questioned how a great leader is quantified. What is political greatness? Aristotle provides which is that political greatness is the ability to translate wisdom into action on behalf of the public good." So a great leader must not only know what is best for himself, he must also know what his best for society. This would be a leader that possesses moral virtue, judgment, and public spirit in a fine balance.More than likely potential greats of our day will be viewed as odd or controversial. Their greatness will likely be obscured by the political opposition they face in the current political climate. Another reason for not recognizing their greatness in their own time is that often the events that modern leaders are currently involved with have not yet resolved themselves. Britons in the 1930s did not know the role that Churchill would play in the undermining of fascism, and Americans had even less knowledge in the early 1980s that Reagans actions would bring about a collapsing Berlin Wall and Soviet-styled communism with it.Ronald Reagan once stated Greatness is ultimately a question of character. Good character does not change with the times: it has eternal qualities." Lee Kuan Yew might have clamped down harshly on the Barisan Socialists and the Malayan Communist Party cadre, as well as political opponents deemed detrimental to the functioning of Singapore as a city-state. In Lee Kuan Yew's own words, "I did some sharp and hard things to get things right. Maybe some people disapproved of it. Too harsh, but a lot was at stake and I wanted the place to succeed, that's all" For all his Machiavellianism attitude towards the opposition, Lee Kuan Yew's widely publicised traits of integrity, vision and conviction brought Singapore to where it is today.Prof. Bernard Bass says succinctly, "Leaders are truly transformational when they increase awareness of what is right, good, important and beautiful, when they help to elevate followers' needs for achievement and self-actualisation, when they foster in followers high moral maturity, and when they move followers to go beyond their self-interests for the good of their group, organisation or society.Judging by the numerous well opined debates that are raging on today effects of his leadership and policies across his many years at the helm of Singapore's wheel, I believe that it is fair to conclude that Lee Kuan Yew is a great leader.