It's a time for soul-searching. Is there such a thing as "too much freedom"? Intense debate has taken place recently and it revolves around a major issue involving Thailand. The controversial YouTube video clip, no matter what the motive behind it, has opened a Pandora's box. It has raised fresh questions about freedom and responsibility, about cultural sensitivity, about the rights of one person against millions of others, and so on.

The YouTube incident can no longer be classified as a "press freedom" issue. Defenders of the anonymous video clip poster have defended him or her on the grounds of "freedom of expression". But with the word "media" undergoing a major redefinition, the whole mainstream media community, as well as the general public, have to brace themselves for the possibility that the right to speak, to criticise, or even to ridicule, will soon no longer be limited to established newspapers.

The media as we know it is coming to an end. Bloggers, citizen reporters or simply general users have been contributing to media content in ever-increasing quantity and quality. The information flow has for some time ceased to be one-way, and it's only a matter of time before what initially was called "feedback" matches or overtakes the "output" in terms of reliability and credibility. But before we reach that point, the issue at hand is how to deal with the avalanche of information, true or false, and expression, good or bad or even dangerous. The newfound freedom provided by the Internet comes cheap and easy and it's understandably being wielded to the extreme. While the mainstream media is restricted by laws and accountability, the online animal is roaming free. And more importantly, the right to roam free is being fiercely guarded, which largely explains why the Thai blockage of YouTube faced more international criticism than the offending and highly controversial content itself.

The world needs to stop and think. The Internet has democratised the way information is disseminated, but it also means that highly offensive content - as far as some peoples or cultures are concerned - can hurt millions at the same time or even cause turmoil in some places. Rules, laws, and their implementation as well as general principles, have been inconsistent to say the least. Google acquiesced to China's demands over Tiananmen video clips but insisted that postings insulting the Thai monarchy did not violate its policies. At the same time, pornography is banned on YouTube.

All parties concerned have to be both open-minded and pragmatic. The mainstream media needs to "understand" the changes and help facilitate the transformation. While digital freedom presents so many opportunities - such as citizen journalism and fast information - it also contains potential trouble. Thailand, facing a political crisis, learned before many other countries the dilemma between embracing total freedom and risking national peace and security. Yet the Thai government must understand the changes, as well. The Thai authorities have to adopt a positive attitude toward the democratisation that the digital phenomenon has presented to the world. Problems or threats associated with this "freedom" must be dealt with and with absolute understanding and tolerance.

Digital freedom must not be looked at as a monster that would destroy. It must be looked at as a great opportunity to educate people, to expose them to world views and to provide a forum for everyone to exchange viewpoints and useful information. Flaws or shortcomings in this "freedom" must be dealt with strictly on a case by case basis.

This uncharted territory is inseparable from the people making the journey across it. All parties should strive to serve as a productive and constructive part of this ongoing change. Only then can we turn this new challenge into a blessing for our democratisation process.