Freedom of expression or Social responsibility?

Singapore is a multi-racial society consisting of many races living together in harmony. Being democratic, it therefore allows and practises freedom of expression which may sometimes be contradictive to the various beliefs that different ethnic cultures have in Singapore. The provided views by Singer firstly states his grief over his demised grandparents due to the Holocaust, alerting readers that his views are not blatantly spawned from an outsider, but on the other hand taking into account his ability to address the problem of freedom of expression despite being an indirect victim of an incident himself, his opinions can be taken seriously to a larger extent due to impartiality. Thereafter, he states strongly that the views expressed freely due to democratic policies do not change cold hard facts, henceforth such expressions do not pose significant threats to others, and that we should look to the future than dwell on the past. He then states that we should make use of freedom of expression to its fullest extent, and not limit its range leading to hindering of human progression. Sizlagyi, on the contrary, focuses on the presence of globalization and multi-culturism, hence there is an absence of barriers which limit us to a certain community. Hence social responsibility must be practised in order to limit freedom of expression so as to prevent offending other ethnic groups or communities which may spark off racial clashes or even global conflicts.
In such a country such as ours, in my opinion, it is apparent to practise szilagyi's views. It is indeed conspicuous that there are no barriers between the various ethnic groups in Singapore as we live in one community. As in Singer's case, it can be aptly described by a person raining profanities on another, but the truth remains that the latter may not be what is rudely spoken of him/her. Respect is not given to that person however. Though freedom of expression in Singapore prior to race and religious differences may be positive or negative, we are strongly fuelled by ethnic and racial differences to demean the other, and with our country having inproportionate amounts of people, freedom of expression and racism will hence be related. More of Chinese will speak against other races, thereafter leading to violent conflicts and more violation of human right laws and privileges. People will also be classified hence by race or religion, which is undesirable in a democratic society. Besides, racial conflicts are detrimental to a country's economic and social progress, and furthermore, there is no link between racial criticism and positive mankind progression, as Singer's views addresses more so on the issue on the Holocaust, which is a different issue from racial discrimination, the main problem in Singapore if freedom of expression is not controlled or limited by law.
On the other hand, Singapore cannot be flourishing in a totalitarian state. Freedom of expression must be allowed, but again be controlled by social responsibility or law. What is most important is the content of the opinions voiced, as well as the motives. To help improve government policies, or to agitate and provoke alternative racial groups may be some motives of people. As such, we must strike a balance between making use of freedom of expression for benefit, simultaneously not disrespecting or offending other racial or ethnic groups of people, henceforth a limit must exist so as to prevent going overboard on these views. Social responsibility provides the answer, whereby mature and constructive views can be voiced to help others, at the same time taking into account the beliefs and faiths, feelings and opinions of others. I feel that then will freedom of expression serve its true purpose.