Talk:Freedom of speech

Source needed

"Given that the United States has in many respects the least restrictive governmental policies in the world on freedom of speech" I've actually never heard of this, is there any good sources for this? Also, a source saying that "the United States has in many respects the least restrictive governmental policies in the world on freedom of speech" is needed. It's way POV right now, I do not think that the USA has anywhere near the "least restrictive governmental policy". Ran4 11:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, such a statement is simply false. Less restrictions exist in e.g. Belgium, The Netherlands and Scandinavia, as well as in the League of Six Nations, and existed in other times in Arabia, India, Greece and probably even Rome. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source for this?

1. In the United States, there is no freedom of speech whatsoever in the private sector. For example, per the terms of at-will employment, an employee can be fired for stating an opinion that the employer disagrees with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.197.116 (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Will take out this sentence as there us no ref forthcoming. --SasiSasi (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Freedom house Ranks the US 27th worldwide in freedom of the press. http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop/2009/FreedomofthePress2009_tables.pdf I suggest including this table in the discussion -- at least discussing the methodology, if not the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.241.208 (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Self-governance

There seem to be copy paste errors or typos in this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.188.89 (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

History

There should be about history fo freedom of speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.27.81 (talk) 18:38, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

About the history of freedom of speech, "One of the earliest defense of freedom of expression is "Areopagitica" (1644) by the British philosopher John Milton" Isn't the right to freedom of speech established in the early Caliphate state in the 7th century somewhat eralier than John Milton's? From the "Islamic Ethics" Wiki article:

Freedom of speech

Another reason the Islamic world flourished during the Middle Ages was an early emphasis on freedom of speech. This was first declared in the Rashidun period by the caliph Umar in the 7th century:[39]

"Only decide on the basis of proof, be kind to the weak so that they can express themselves freely and without fear, deal on an equal footing with litigants by trying to reconcile them."

In the Abbasid period, freedom of speech was also declared by al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph al-Ma'mun) in the following letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to convert through reason:[40]

"Bring forward all the arguments you wish and say whatever you please and speak your mind freely. Now that you are safe and free to say whatever you please appoint some arbitrator who will impartially judge between us and lean only towards the truth and be free from the empery of passion, and that arbitrator shall be Reason, whereby God makes us responsible for our own rewards and punishments. Herein I have dealt justly with you and have given you full security and am ready to accept whatever decision Reason may give for me or against me. For "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256) and I have only invited you to accept our faith willingly and of your own accord and have pointed out the hideousness of your present belief. Peace be with you and the blessings of God!"

According to George Makdisi and Hugh Goddard, "the idea of academic freedom" in universities was "modelled on Islamic custom" as practiced in the medieval Madrasah system from the 9th century. Islamic influence was "certainly discernible in the foundation of the first delibrately-planned university" in Europe, the University of Naples Federico II founded by Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor in 1224.[41]

I think some reference to this should be included in some way in the freedom of speech history section.

well spotted, a lot of human rights articles are western centric (because only western stuff is included in standard text books), I have added this info to the article, linking to the main islamic ethics.--SasiSasi (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In this entire article on [Freedom of Speech], there is not a single word about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This is appalling. I suppose others will expect me to write something about the First Amendment, since it is obviously important to me. But why should I. It has been my experience on WP that whenever I write something really good about something really important, someone else comes along and deletes it, usually referring to some obscure WP rule. There is no cooperation or support, just deletions and undos. It is no longer worth my time to contribute to WP. Steven (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no provision in the Magna Carta for free speech as far as I know. And the Wikipedia article on the topic states: "At a rally for the Chartists in 1838 the Reverend Raynor demanded a return to the constitution of the Charter; freedom of speech, worship and congress. This is a perfect example of how the idea of the Charter went so far beyond its actual content." I remove the reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.241.208 (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Which Country has the Best Protection?

Does anybody know which country has the best protection for freedom of speech; in theory as well as in practice? PJ 17:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There are different rankings Reporters without borders have their ranking rsf.org, and according to this Denmark has ranked top a few years. In fact, most of Scandinavia is top ranked, except for sweden, which has had trouble with some nazi and motor cycle gangs threatening journalists.DanielDemaret 09:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, RSF only rank press freedom, not freedom of speech in general. Although press freedom is a subset of freedom of speech, it's by no means the entire thing. Also, Denmark isn't ranked the highest Nil Einne 13:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There are prosecutions in European countries and Canada which would be totally unconstitutional, because of the First Amendment, in the U.S. These cases are usually justified as a crackdown on hate speech. For example Britgit Bardot was prosecuted in France for ridiculing the Muslim holiday Eid.

Name of article

The name "Freedom of speech (international)" is confusing, as it might make people think the main Freedom of speech article (about the concept) is focused only on a specific region. I support renaming this article as "Freedom of speech around the world" or "Freedom of speech (by country)". Opinions? --Krubo 23:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In my view parentheses are ugly and should only be used for disambiguation. So I'd support "Freedom of speech around the world" or "Freedom of speech by country" over the current title. "International" in the current title might also falsly imply the article is about freedom of speech in international law or something like that. Iota 00:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I support that, Iota. Will one of you two do the honours and change it? DanielDemaret 09:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the name should be changed. --Coolcaesar 20:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sweden

I just added a "stub" on Sweden. 1766 means that freedom here of the press precedes that of the US, doesnt it?DanielDemaret 09:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that law didn't include criticism of the state or of the system of government for instance. There was about as much freedom of the press in mid-18th century Sweden as in present-day China. —Gabbe 00:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Africa section

"Freedom of speech is increasing in oil-producing countries (such as Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Cameroon, and Gabon), because it gives the oil companies a good impression."

That last bit sounds like opinion to me. Just checking. CalebNoble 14:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

India section

"Indians enjoy much freedom to criticize the government in newspapers, a right which many Americans do not have."

The second have of this sentence is opinion and POV. Where in the US are americans not allowed to criticize the government? What class of people or in what geographic location are people denied this right?

I removed this sentence. See WP:RS for the relevant guideline. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename/Merge

One of the following things need to be done with this article:

1. Rename to something like Freedom of speech (concept) [this is my favoured option], or
2. Merge with Freedom of speech

What do you think? Monkeyblue 09:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Put this article as Freedom of speech and move the other one to something like Freedom of speech by country. Christopher Connor 11:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes more sense than the current arrangement. Monkeyblue 12:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This move/swap (Freedom of speech → Freedom of speech by country & Freedom of speech (international) → Freedom of speech) will occur in one week (on the 2007-05-16), unless negative sentiments. Monkeyblue 08:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Completed. Monkeyblue 10:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation

The article seems to shift between "Free Speech" (title capitalization) and "free speech" (standard capitalization). I'll be switching all title-cap versions to standard. samwaltz 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please remember WP:MOS. samwaltz 01:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Canada?

This article seems to focus, although it has a few outward examples, overmuch on American free speech. I'm a Canadian law student and I think I can add something to this article about free speech in Canada and how it differs (and it does differ in a huge way) from free speech in America. Is there a reason why a Canadian perspective is not included in this article? Should it be? 71.7.206.159 (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article is rather US-focussed. It could also do with some more info on the different approach taken under the European Convention on Human Rights.131.111.1.66 (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The standard talk page entry of ***US bias***. BTW If _ free speech in Canada does differ in a huge way from free speech in America, there is no free speech in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.161.151 (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Discovering truth

"This marketplace of ideas rationale for freedom of speech has been criticized by scholars on the grounds that it is wrong to assume all ideas will enter the marketplace of ideas, and even if they do, some ideas may drown out others merely because they enjoy dissemination through superior resources."

Could we have a reference for this please. FWadel (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Section marked as npov

I've marked the section Restrictions on free speech as NPOV, since it appears to contain a rather opinionated view on Jani Allan, South Africa. However, I know nothing about her, so I can't really make a change here, without screwing up things. Dylansmrjones (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the language to a more neutral vocabulary and added a citation for her claim of censorship. Any further edits welcome. Caudex.ingeniosus (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"inbe"?

I beg your pardon, but I'd really like to understand this phrase ([[1]]):

Freedom of speech is crucial inbe compatible with democracy

• Just the result of some vandalism (or perhaps just an editing error.) I've corrected it; thanks for pointing it out. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland

A Turkish political leader/ historian is found guilty, because of his denials against Armenian Genocide If a historian cant debate history, if a political leader is resticted to express himself, where is freedom of speech? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.208.79 (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

freedom to be silent

freedom of speech should include freedom to be silent which is not self-obvious. example is movie "Larry Flynt" where judge demanded Larry Flynt to answer his question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.3.224.3 (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To me, these seem to be different rights, if the second is a right at all. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Debs campaign.jpg

The image Image:Debs campaign.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Iran Web screenshot.jpg
• File:Internet police officer jingjing.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Human rights

I cleaned up the intro, it was factually inacurate, the UDHR does not establish human rights law.... also took out some of the inap. language. --SasiSasi (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article contains a massive amount of unreferenced material! I will start cleaning up the article (include ref. material) and move unref material in the discussion, so it can be salvaged if someone finds a source. --SasiSasi (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Internet section

Needs a cleanup and cross ref to existing articles. There are separate articles on Internet censorship in mainland China and freedom of information, so this section only needs to be a summary of the issues.

Sweden

"In Sweden a law called "Hets mot folkgrupp" ("Agitation against an ethnic group"), usually translated to hate speech, denies promotion of racism and homophobia." This is not exactly correct. The law says a little different. --212.247.27.97 (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

removed, unref and the limitations section should probably start general (rather than aiming to list national legislations).--SasiSasi (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

INFLICTOR:... (the second sweden is a russia) 'royal vandalism indenfinite', "dhurgas equalataral ghost in the machine"; ; Since the folding of the 7th paper of publication regards rationalism & the internet being verbatim to certain extents of consession; it is realised that any further dissentive can be regarded as projected internally; ; it is to say that anything in 8th level publication is controlled as indefinite hardware; ; because of this 78th publication of any typical representation will be marked by russian-intelligence as communist page 57; ; the hardware itself that does will be sold to unique invention; ; the idea of 'a speakeasy internet' is now a forbidden-taboo-suggestion, navl-control is the only "loose byzantium" until the revelation of the 12th interaction; ; this itself a hardware cornerstone in the ilk of previous discology; ; lake 68... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.209.220 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Relationship to other rights

Source for extension http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KGS_vAYDdtoC&pg=PP25&lpg=PP25&dq=freedom+of+expression+limitations&source=web&ots=ilrxo2sbSF&sig=JKgB105b1AL_iRASPhyXpVEHO_c&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result (pg.xxv etc)

Hacktivismo

I have removed the following paragraphs from Freedom of Speech:

The group Hacktivismo, an offshoot of CULT OF THE DEAD COW (cDc) and founded in 1999, believes that access to information is a basic human right and advances what may be termed digital rights. The group's beliefs are described fully in the "Hacktivismo Declaration" which is a list of "assertions of liberty in support of an uncensored internet" and seeks to apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to the Internet. The Declaration recalls the duty of member states to the ICCPR to protect the right to freedom of expression with regards to the internet and in this context what is called the "freedom of information". The Hacktivismo Declaration states:

• "...such member states continue to wilfully suppress wide-ranging access to lawfully published information on the Internet, despite the clear language of the ICCPR that freedom of expression exists in all media,"
• "...that transnational corporations continue to sell information technologies to the world's most repressive regimes knowing full well that they will be used to track and control an already harried citizenry,"
• "...that the Internet is fast becoming a method of repression rather than an instrument of liberation,"
• "...that in some countries it is a crime to demand the right to access lawfully published information, and of other basic human rights,"
• "...that denying access to information could lead to spiritual, intellectual, and economic decline, the promotion of xenophobia and destabilization of international order,"

The Hacktivismo Declaration recognises "the importance to fight against human rights abuses with respect to reasonable access to information on the Internet" and calls upon the hacker community to "study ways and means of circumventing state sponsored censorship of the internet" and "implement technologies to challenge information rights violations".

The Hacktivismo Declaration does however recognise that the right to freedom of expression is subject to limitations, stating "we recognised the right of governments to forbid the publication of properly categorized state secrets, child pornography, and matters related to personal privacy and privilege, among other accepted restrictions." However, the Hacktivismo Declaration states "but we oppose the use of state power to control access to the works of critics, intellectuals, artists, or religious figures."

This article is about freedom of speech, not about one group with a manifesto. Chip Unicorn (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, regarding Hactivismo, that’s ok, the section needs some serious work. It was the only group I could find that made a direct and specific link between existing human rights, freedom of speech and the internet (in a well argued sort of way). If you know of any other groups you can maybe list them in the discussion page of the freedom of speech article, so we can start having a look at them. Once interesting thing is that freedom of speech as human rights law is interrelated to include any medium (hence internet/electronic communication), I think this is ref at some point of the article, maybe that’s a good opener for the section on freedom of speech and the internet. One thing we have to watch out for is the freedom of information article... which admittedly is pretty bad. I guess the correct way of doing this would be a section on Internet censorship (summarising and linking to main article), and a section on freedom of information (summarising and linking to the main article)... but then we would have to get the freedom of information article up to some sort of acceptable standard. I think the freedom of information article would probably be a good place to describe the arguments of different scholars and groups at length.... I would be quite happy to put some work into the freedom of information article, and once that has developed review the internet section of the freedom of speech article again. --SasiSasi (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech and Holocaust denial

Freedom of Speech is restricted to the extent that Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 13 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland.

The above text in italic have been taken from wikipedia article Holocaust denial.

Find sources there.

--ChJameel (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You're adding it to this article. The burden of proof is on you to provide your sources. Other WP articles are not admissible sources. Please learn how to add sourced content to this encyclopedia. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you support the "right to insult and blaspheme".but not the right to Holocaust denial

The discussion here here the do you support the "right to insult and blaspheme".but not the right to Holocaust denial. In my opinion this is one the fundamental tenets of Zionism.

--ChJameel (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for discussing personal opinions, original research, or any general discussion not related to the improvement of the article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of Thought/Freedom of Speech

I think it is a vio of wp:NOR that these are separted entities. Here is book that says they are equal.Tstrobaugh (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Opposition?

There has to be someone out there who has argued against freedom of speech. I can imagine someone thinking it causes disorder or something like that. Or that it allows hate speech. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does seem that this article lacks a section that covers some of the arguments against free speech. For now though, you will have to settle with clicking the various links in the infobar to the right. Especially the "methods" section contains a lot of good examples. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of this article is focused on opposition to freedom of speech. A quick count shows at least 80% of the paragraphs making arguments for limiting the freedom in the name of certain meaningless rights. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

internetfreedom.org and friends flagged as trojan suppliers

In Freedom of speech#Internet censorship I have reworded the meaningless sentence sourced to internetfreedom.org (do not download anything from them by the way) to make sense. I then noticed McAfee siteadvisor has marked internetfreedom.org and all of the sites it links to as providing malware, so I wrapped the address in a <nowiki> tag and placed a warning to readers not to download anything from them. Please adjust this to meet whatever is wikipedia's normal way of dealing with potentially dangerous sites. -84user (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Update both google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic and unmaskparasites.com now list internetfreedom.org as not suspicious and clean respectively. However, McAfee's siteadvisor shows the website and all its affiliations in red (in their words: "downloads on this site that some people consider adware, spyware or other potentially unwanted programs.") Of course, McAfee is merely reporting what others find, and is not itself 100% accurate nor timely in its reports. I have also submitted the UltraSurf client download (u.zip) to McAfee so that they can re-analyse it (they last checked it on 2009 March). -84user (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-update I also submitted 5tools.zip from the internetfreedom.org site (linked as "GIFC Anti-Censorship Tools Bundle") to McAfee (they last checked it in July 2009 and marked it as a Trojan). I then downloaded 5tools.zip and let Microsoft Security Essentials check - it reported component GTunnel1.0.zip as containing a Trojan dropper (details). However, Microsoft Security Essentials found no threats from GTunnel.zip (linked from gardennetworks.org/download via internetfreedom.org). -84user (talk)

FYI.....

• Talk:International Organization for Standardization#Wiki admin, please be aware of the following......it affect the site publishing.....

--222.64.22.162 (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)