In any entanglement, where all protagonists are civil and respectfully mindful of alternative viewpoints presented by other participants, an honest and constructive conclusion may fruitfully be arrived at.

But where one party is wilfully vulgar, with no regard for the sensitivities of the company, I doubt very much whether even the saintly would remain unoffended and temperate - as much as everyone knows two wrongs do not make a right ("Vitriol from 'offended' individuals a concern" by Mr Paul Tobin of the Humanist Society (Singapore); Dec 18).

The rise of social media sees the emergence of the easy perpetuation of half-truths and outright lies.

A common argument against online censorship is that netizens - as a sensible community - can see through and condemn any nascent evil and injustice making its rounds, hopefully making the Internet a self-regulating entity.

What then, if not notifying the authorities when blatant instances of fraudulence, shenanigans, blasphemy or slander are then found and perpetuators seem determinedly recalcitrant and unrepentant?

Yik Keng Yeong (Dr)