Talk:Freedom of speech

This text seems to be in the wrong place

I'm moving this paragraph here from the article's Internet censorship section. I don't deny that it's true, nor that it belongs on Wikipedia, but that section is not the place for it. That section is meant to give a quick overview of the topic of internet censorship in the context of the broader article topic of freedom of speech. That one columnist condemned another columnist, who approved of a politician, who made a proposal that wasn't carried through, is a relatively minor detail. This sort of thing happens every day. There is nothing to indicate what is special about these events in January 2013. That a French minister proposed forcing Twitter to censor hate speech is perhaps relevant, but we don't have to go into every reaction to it, and we should be conveying a global picture of where and whether online hate speech opposes freedom of speech.

Najat Vallaud-Belkacem a French Socialist Minister of Women's Rights proposed that the French government force Twitter to filter out hate speech that is illegal under French law, such as speech that is homophobic. Jason Farago, writing in the The Guardian praised the efforts to "restrict bigotry's free expression", while Glenn Greenwald sharply condemned the efforts and Farago's column.

Free speech for employees - at work, after work

I am running into more and more claims that a person has no rights to free speech while at work or even possibly after work. I read of one lady who was fired by her employer because she displayed a political bumper sticker on her automobile considered to be counter to the company's interests and the termination was upheld by a US court. How can that be in American democracy? Some blogs claim that employment is slavery where you surrender your rights for the opportunity of earning a wage. DHT863 (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Free speech rights online

I am running into numerous claims that say a person has no rights to free speech online because the venue used is in private ownership meaning if they disagree with a viewpoint then they can remove that comment even if it does not violate any contracts requiring good proper and civil behavior. DHT863 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

That is how I understand it. It's as if you went to someone else's property and wrote on a chalkboard; the owner has every right to erase your "speech", and you have no right to stay there against the owner's wishes. Remember that this holds on wikipedia too; WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Cheers, BananaCarrot152 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Free speech -- at least in the United States -- does not place an obligation on any private party to provide a platform for speech they find loathsome. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

These are profound statements and of vital importance to the topic of free speech. The majority of our lives is denied free speech online and at work then what is the point of a topic on the concept if it is not allowed? The above comments need to be part of the topic of free speech. Is it possible to include the denial of free speech at work and online?DHT863 (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

"Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction." Free speech as a concept is less about censorship (or retaliation etc.) in specific places and more about global forms of censorship. "The internet" as a whole is censored (beyond the usual exceptions given in the intro) in some countries, e.g. China, but not in other countries. "The internet" does not stop you from making your own website and publishing your speech there. The country you live in might try to stop you, but then it's government censorship which is discussed in the article. Perhaps we should give a better explanation in the lede to clarify these differences. I don't know very much about the workplace stuff, but usually that's the employer, not the government or society as a whole, and so not directly covered by a right to free speech.

You bring up and interesting point though, that if people can never speak freely without fear of retribution or censorship, even if not because of government, then having free speech is pretty meaningless. Not sure how many good sources there are that talk about this, but if you can find some this certainly seems relevant to me. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No one wants my opinion, but I'd say there's a distinction between whether there's an obligation to free speech (there's not) vs. whether we can still discuss if the concept of free speech applies to private platforms, which I believe it does. Some people claim that we can't even talk about free speech in the first place, since if I censor and ban you that's just my free speech too, but I think that's fallacious. 108.41.148.51 (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freedom of speech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220052125/http://www.chinaeclaw.com/english/showCategory.asp?Code=022 to http://www.chinaeclaw.com/english/showCategory.asp?Code=022
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905104556/http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy%26Error/Heresy.13.htm to http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy%26Error/Heresy.13.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ifex.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Societal Sanction

I'm opening for discussion the inclusion of "societal sanction" as requested by User:Seraphimblade. This definition you object to is supported by all four of the citations that directly follow it (and that were left behind after you removed "societal sanction").

Regarding your justification for ignoring the citations -- that "They're all from a hundred year old reference."

Free speech as a democratic ideal traces back roughly 2,500 years, to Athens; our modern notion of free speech inherits largely from J.S. Mill, whose work is, yes, over a 100 years old. However, two of the four citations are far more recent.

These citations are as follows:

• Mill, John Stuart (1859). "Introductory". On Liberty (4th ed.). London: Longman, Roberts & Green (published 1869). para. 5. "Society can and does execute its own mandates ... it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough..."
• Mill, John Stuart (1859). "Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion". On Liberty (4th ed.). London: Longman, Roberts & Green (published 1869). para. 19. "In respect to all persons but those whose pecuniary circumstances make them independent of the good will of other people, opinion, on this subject, is as efficacious as law; men might as well be imprisoned, as excluded from the means of earning their bread."
• Ten Cate, Irene M. (2010). "Speech, Truth, and Freedom: An Examination of John Stuart Mill's and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's Free Speech Defenses". Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities. 22 (1). Article 2. "[A] central argument for freedom of speech in On Liberty is that in order to maximize the benefits a society can gain ... it must permanently commit to restraining dominant groups from their natural inclination to demand conformity."
• Wragg, Paul (2015). "Free Speech Rights at Work: Resolving the Differences between Practice and Liberal Principle" (PDF). Industrial Law Journal. Oxford University Press. 44 (1): 11. "Comparison may be made between Mill's ‘tyrannical majority’ and the employer who dismisses an employee for expression that it dislikes on moral grounds. The protection of employer action in these circumstances evokes Mill's concern about state tolerance of coercive means to ensure conformity with orthodox moral viewpoints and so nullify unorthodox ones."

Cordially, 71.229.207.224 (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no conceivable way that "societal sanction" could be considered a part of free speech. It's tough to "cite a negative", but I've just looked up dozens of definitions of free speech. None of them include societal sanction as a part of the definition, they include only governmental sanction. Several in fact explicitly state that social censure isn't included. At most, we could state that Mill thought it was so, but when so many other sources disagree, we can't state it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice, let alone as such in the lead section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

While the OED doesn't qualify as a source for the purposes of Wikipedia, the OED definition of "free speech" is a decent enough jumping off point from which to consider the included citations: "The right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint".

The citations included in this article express 1) that '[s]ociety can and does execute its own mandates' (restraint), 2) that a central argument of J.S. Mill's in regards to maximizing the benefits of free speech is that "[society] must permanently commit to restraining dominant groups from their natural inclination to demand conformity", (restrict dominant groups from demanding societal sanction) and to further this point 3) free speech as a liberal principal introduces the notion of a ‘tyrannical majority’, and that a purely private action in the context of a power imbalance -- such as firing of an employee -- "evokes Mill's concern about state tolerance of [private] coercive means to ensure conformity with orthodox moral viewpoints and so nullify unorthodox ones."

There is also U.S. case law supporting an interpretation of "free speech" as an affirmative right that extends beyond protection from government censorship or retaliation. Specifically, in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the California Supreme Court affirmed that California's constitution grants an affirmative right to speech, and that "under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers". The California constitution grants this affirmative free speech right as follows: "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right."

In the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, Mr. Justice Rehnquist described the free speech questions raised by the case as follows: "Those [constitutional questions] are whether state constitutional provisions, which permit individuals to exercise free speech and petition rights on the property of a privately owned shopping center to which the public is invited, violate the shopping center owner's property rights ..." (they did not). This is a clear example of the U.S. Supreme court classifying a positive, affirmative right to speech -- irrespective of government censorship or retaliation -- as being "free speech".

I consider my reply here to merely being an opening to discussion, and I welcome any question/comment. It can be very time consuming to source and cite supporting works, so I'll hope you'll forgive me if it takes me 24-48 hours (or a bit longer, over the holidays) to assemble a reply.

My regards, 71.229.207.224 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I think addressing those things in the article is fine. Individual court cases and state constitutions might be a little too detailed for such a general topic, but that can all be figured. My primary issue, that I'd like you to address directly please, is that we are stating it as undisputed fact in the lead section and even the lead sentence. I do not think there's enough of a consensus among experts and sources to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

How does this sound as a working compromise: "...it has variously been interpreted to be a negative or positive right."? Also, about Pruneyard, the article states that the US (federal) right to free speech is interpreted as entirely negative ("congress shall make no law...") and that several states with similarly worded constitutions and the European Court of Human Rights all decided against cases where a positive interpretations as in Pruneyard were asked for.

I think we must also consider what "societal sanction" means. I'm no expect on this subject but from the article on Social control#Sanctions we have that "Informal sanctions may include shame, ridicule, sarcasm, criticism, and disapproval, which can cause an individual to stray towards the social norms of the society." From the free speech article there seems to be no consensus as to whether the right to free speech protects from these sorts of sanctions.

Lastly, I think that Seraphimblade's point is very good and I hope I have not taken away or distracted from it. Ultimately, the initial definition of the freedom of speech in the article should reflect the consensus among sources, and it does not appear to me that the societal sanctions clause has such consensus. The debate definitely deserves discussion in the article itself. Respectfully, BananaCarrot152 (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

My concern is that these compromises assume "free speech" is purely a legal right; such a definition would of course vary widely between jurisdictions, much like Freedom of religion. However, free speech is a principle foremost, which is then encoded into a legal right in a variety of ways (and in some places, not at all).

The first sentence of the Freedom of religion article may be an example of how we can proceed: "Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance." Further clarification of its legal codification follows: "Freedom of religion is considered by many people and most of the nations to be a fundamental human right."

If we can model our introduction on that of Freedom of religion, we might find a useful compromise that also eliminates any confusion related to the use of "right" in defining free speech: "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction."

Best regards, 71.229.207.224 (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I still think we need to reflect that the consensus among sources, and the current state of most law, is that free speech restricts government authorities from prohibiting speech. I think the proposed wording is still too broad, and would make it seem like, for example, one could not be fired, boycotted, or censured for what one says. That's simply not true. Mills might have thought it should work that way, and we can cover that in the body of the article, but we can't state that as fact in the lead when it isn't. Also, since it's become clear there is no consensus for the last version and several people have now objected to it, it'll need to remain out please. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no such consensus among sources. You've provided no sources, and removed the citations that support the definition as provided. The objections to the well-sourced, well-cited definition are inherently ideological in nature, and need actual supporting citations to justify them. 71.229.207.224 (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)