In this age of uncivil discourse (at least in the US), the canard of unrestricted freedom of speech has been bandied about as an all encompassing defence by those who should know better.

Using the defence of seemingly unrestricted freedom of speech is the self righteous justification of those who would be irresponsible in what they say against others, just to win an argument, or more. It does disservice to the guaranteed right of citizens in a democracy to freedom of speech.

After all winning the argument is the prize, given to he or she who shouts the loudest, or repeats the most outrageously unbelievable statements until they become true in the minds of the maddened, stoked up crowd. Right? Given the ability of anyone to self publish on the Internet, it seems that everyone now has a foghorn.

However, I think most reasonable people would say it is wrong to engage in an argument or discussion about hot issues by spreading falsehoods or unsubstantiated claims. This preamble is simply a means of saying to all bloggers out there that the Internet has given you the power to publish yourself, but responsibility is needed.

Secondly, you may be exposing yourself to libel suits if, by chance, you forget that your blogs or comments can be read by anyone. In the heat of the moment you may go way too far and actually harm someone's reputation, and even business, by making unsubstantiated claims, or claims that cannot be substantiated, even though you believe them to be true.

And as a Bermuda blogger found out earlier this month, a post that allegedly made a death threat against the Premier on bermudaisanotherworld.org can lead to a Police investigation. It does not matter whether the alleged post was made in jest, as some have said. If those who you are criticising have been looking at a way to get you to stop, they will seize the opportunity.

Of course making death threats is wrong, even in jest, if you are publishing on the Internet, and may even possibly be illegal. So much can be misconstrued due to a moment of indiscretion. Sometimes, it is wise just to put a post in draft and wait an hour or so until you can read it again with much less passion.

A recent article by the Chicago Tribune shows just how nasty postings can end up with a blogger in court trying to fend off a suit, or even a criminal proceeding. The article mentions a recent surge in lawsuits against bloggers as a growing trend and cites a few examples.

There is Hal Turner, a right-wing blogger from New Jersey, who faces up to 10 years in prison after being convicted by a jury for posting a comment that three Chicago judges "deserve to be killed" due to their decision to uphold the city's handgun ban in 2009. His defence is it "was political trash talk".

In Pennsylvania, a judge has ordered a community website to identify the Internet address of individuals who posted comments calling a township official a "jerk", and alleged he was putting taxpayers money in "his pocket". The official has sued for defamation.

A judge in North Carolina has also ordered the identification of a group of anonymous bloggers who called a local official a "slumlord" online. The article quotes Eric Goldman, a teacher of Internet law at Santa Clara University, as noting that: "A whole new generation can publish now, but they don't understand the legal dangers they could face. People are shocked to learn they can be sued for posting something that says, 'My dentist stinks'."

Of course, I am not advocating the idea that you curtail your thoughts out of fear of a suit or a criminal charge. As a journalist for the past 20 years, I am a staunch defender of freedom of the press and freedom of speech. In the case of a suit, the media calls what happens afterwards as a 'chilling effect' or 'libel chill'.

Simply put, once a suit or allegation is made, writers in the media are much more careful about what they write, censoring themselves, in effect.

Sometimes the suit or allegation is made precisely for that purpose. Just be careful about what you write about others. Above all, be civil.

Of course, you should also be careful about what you write in emails, whether personal or business. Those too can land you in court, or lead to job loss.

A survey by a PR company for 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment UK to promote the release of the DVD film of the Going Postal, found that one in 20 office workers have been reprimanded by their employer for sending inappropriate emails.

One in five said they had sent an inappropriate email in the heat of the moment, while about a third said they had accidentally hit "reply all" instead of "reply".

And more than one in 10 of the 2,000 people surveyed had mistakenly sent an email criticising a colleague to the person they were insulting.

The survey is timely. Google Labs, where new features are beta tested for Google, just announced the release of a new "undo" feature that allows you to stop an email from being sent. You can enable the experimental feature by going into your 'Settings' page. You only have 30 seconds to do so after clicking the send button, so that "Oh no" moment better happen fast.

Send any comments to elamin.ahmed@gmail.com