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 Party (France)|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.

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 presented thus far. Moreover, your arguments are notable in that they would apply equally to Freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is defined as a negative right in the First Amendment (immediately adjacent to "free speech"): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech".

Freedom of religion is also defined (to a limited extent) as a positive (affirmative) right in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not unlike how the CA and other U.S. state constitutions define an affirmative right to free speech that extends the protections afforded by the federal constitution.

Additionally, employers with fewer than 15 employees are not subject to the employer clauses of 1964 Civil Rights Act, and are free to discriminate on any basis, including not only religion, but race, color, sex, and national origin. Furthermore, protections for freedom of religion vary widely between nations and jurisdictions, including many jurisdictions that provide none at all.

Would you also suggest that Freedom of religion is, as a principle, merely freedom from government restraint or retaliation, and does not encompass freedom from discrimination in the workplace, public accommodations, etc? Would you consider an employer of less than 15 people who discriminated against Islamic applicants -- something that would be entirely legal in the U.S. -- to be operating contrary to the principle of Freedom of religion? If not, why do your arguments apply to Freedom of speech but not Freedom of religion?

I don't mean to debate these issues beyond what is necessary to establish a working consensus on what we're trying to define. Ultimately, this is a matter of sourcing valid citations, and placing well-sourced arguments in the article itself. I believe that with my change to model the article on Freedom of religion, that this has been accomplished; the opening sentence establishes the broad principle, while the second and third paragraphs address prevailing debate on the degree to which free speech should be constrained in deference to potentially conflicting rights; these points are further expanded in detail throughout the article. 71.229.207.224 (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not usually much for modeling any article on any other, but seeing that in practice, it's definitely an improvement over the previous. We still might want to specify that freedom of speech primarily concerns government sanction, as that's often still its primary purpose. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel that removing 'government' entirely is a step too far, especially since most of the article concerns protecting it from the government. At the very least, the lead and the article itself would need to go into more detail on the complexities of trying to forbid 'sanction' in the name of free speech - something that I know is well-covered. Mill himself talked about this, but it is for some reason not touched on; citing just that part and not the discussion of the tension implied there is misleading. Either way, I think that the ultimate solution is probably to avoid defining the term in the omniscient narrator voice, and rather to describe the different thoughts on it and, in particular, say who is saying what. --Aquillion (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Aquillion: That freedom of speech concerns mainly government sanction has been removed entirely from the definition of free speech. I've re-added it, but various non-registered IP addresses keep reverting. Thoughts? Fluous (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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://archive.is/20120912112920/http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/01/14/industry-rejects-australian-govt-sanitized-internet-measure to http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/01/14/industry-rejects-australian-govt-sanitized-internet-measure
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907132419/http://www.internetfreedom.org/mission to http://www.internetfreedom.org/mission
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110315002153/http://march12.rsf.org/i/Internet_Enemies.pdf to http://march12.rsf.org/i/Internet_Enemies.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120908033046/http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy%26Error/Heresy.06.htm to http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy%26Error/Heresy.06.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120908031633/http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy%26Error/Heresy.Expurgations.htm to http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy%26Error/Heresy.Expurgations.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120908032716/http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy%26Error/Heresy.52.htm to http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy%26Error/Heresy.52.htm

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) 19:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hate Speech

• The US Supreme Court did approve the use of hateful words such as cuss words, four letter words, obscene words, and etc. Additionally, the court did approve of the use of hateful ideas such as discussions of topics usually considered disturbing or offensive to sensitive individuals. The US Supreme Court did not approve "hate speech". -- DHT863 (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Free Speech Principle

Are we seriously relitigating the idea that "freedom of speech" is a broad *principle* not limited to government? You don't have to *agree* with the principle to recognize that the body of literature cited *explicitly* defines it as such. 50.237.110.197 (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The cites referred to one part of one document by one person. We can't use that to define the entire scope of the topic in the lead, especially when the vast bulk of the article (which the lead has to summarize) describes it from the perspective of freedom from government sanction. We can describe Mills' opinions as his opinions (rather than as a universal, unquestioned position on the topic), and those could potentially go into the lead described as what he believed, if his beliefs are high-enough profile (which seems reasonable - he's obviously one of the most famous writers on the topic. He's just not so authoritative that we can define the entire topic based on cites for his views alone.) Also, even Mills' beliefs are not simply summarized by removing "government". He felt that minorities and those in a weaker position sometimes needed to be protected from those in the majority and from those in a position of power. He did not argue that it was a universal right for everyone to be free of 'sanction' at all times (in fact, he specifically notes, further on, the balancing act involved, since social sanction is itself a form of free speech that must be protected.) The lead might need to be reworded to reflect all views, but simply clipping "government" out did not produce an accurate summary of even Mills' opinions, let alone a universal summary of the entire topic. (I don't think anyone seriously believes that freedom of speech means universal freedom from all sanction at all times, since, as Mills notes, that would be contradictory when some forms of sanction - in the form of public disapproval - are themselves exercises in free speech.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The citations referred to multiple parts of multiple documents by multiple persons. The rest of your comment is original research, and is directly contrary to the citations given, so I'm not going to bother to respond. Feel free to cite authoritative opinions, not your own.2601:647:4F00:347D:3969:DEBB:45D6:651C (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Let me phrase this a different way. So far you've 1) removed citations that don't support your personal point of view, 2) have added no citations to support your POV, 3) insisted on editing the article to present your POV in "omniscient narrator voice".

There is debate on the limitations of the free speech principle. That debate is covered, in-depth, in the article. The introduction simply lays out the principle in its most basic and uncontested (by authoritative sources) form, such that the article can then expound on the various interpretations of that principle. -- 2601:647:4F00:347D:D486:43C8:C955:14FE (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)