Even in democratic society, we don't have good answers how to balance the need for security on one hand and the protection of free speech on the other in our digital networks.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
That said, the question remains: how to strike the balance between free speech and mutual respect in this mixed-up world, both blessed and cursed with instant communication? We should not fight fire with fire, threats with threats.
The potential for the abuse of power through digital networks - upon which we the people now depend for nearly everything, including our politics - is one of the most insidious threats to democracy in the Internet age.
We all need to decide what makes it safe and secure on the Internet. It can't be anybody else's decision. We have to have a voice.
Free speech is a valuable commodity, which we preserve and protect, but there quite rightly is restriction on free speech in the best interest of the good order of the community and common sense.
It is not possible to debate the balance between privacy and security, including the rights and wrongs of intrusive powers, without also understanding the threats.
The balance between freedom and security is a delicate one.
The critical question is: How do we ensure that the Internet develops in a way that is compatible with democracy?
In commendably seeking to protect freedom of speech, we must not lower our defences against the evil of racial and religious intolerance.
We have an illusion of security, we don't have security.
We can't have democracy if we're having to protect you and our users from the government over stuff we've never had a conversation about. We need to know what the parameters are, what kind of surveillance the government is going to do, and how and why.
No opposing quotes found.