Talk:Freedom of speech

Basic overview sources

• Smith, David (4 February 2006). "Timeline: a history of free speech". The Observer. Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved 9 May 2013. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Listing above some good basic overview sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Overloaded with top notes

This page is overloaded with too many top notes.

WP:NOTFREESPEECH is probably best located at Freedom of speech (disambiguation).

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Cite formatting

Going through citations one-by-one and formatting cites with cite templates at WP:CIT.

In some cases, obviously inappropriate sources had to be removed such as BrainyQuote; where possible they were replaced with other better sources. — Cirt (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference required to to Article 20, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 20 ICCPR further limits the right of free expression: "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.". I suggest that sentence should be added to the second para of this article. -- LGC Moyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.75.93 (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech is not restricted in US

When the freedom of speech is restricted in the law in the US, a crime is committed by the person using law to restrict it. What is this supposed to mean: "The right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.64.78 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Even in countries with strong protections for freedom of speech there are limits to what can be said. In the U.S. obscenity is not protected, the laws on libel and slander limit speech as does copyright law and laws prohibiting incitement of violence and other illegal activities or shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Also unfortunately, commercial speech is restricted. In the name of informing the consumers, not only is false advertising prohibited, but also advertising which might be confusing or which fails to contain information required by the government. For example, the nutrition facts labels required on food products and the Monroney stickers required on new cars. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, guys. I should first say: you can't prove that. If you want to tell me more about yourself, I'll read your self-description; but I am currently working on the freedom of speech; and I already know it is not legally restricted. Slander and libel are actions to determine truth; the property gained through those proceedings is simply that, the truth of the claim. Shouting, "fire" in a crowded theater, for example, is not illegal. It might make people scared or mad or whatever, but it's not illegal. I've heard that before. Many people have heard it, but many people have heard a lot of false old wives tales'. Unless you can use the science of the English language, linguistics, to prove your position, you are continuing to spread a false claim. Let me tell you right now. You can't prove that, "... make no law abridging the freedom of speech..."(Amendment I) means that you are allowed to make statutes that are abridging the freedom of speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.64.78 (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You may believe that some or all of the statutes restricting speech are unconstitutional (violate the first amendment) and I might agree with you, but what matters in practice is that the United States government (USG) enforces them nonetheless. In other words, in practice the constitution is not what you or I think it is or should be. Rather it is what USG (especially the Supreme Court) takes it to be.

Copyrights are explicitly provided for in the original constitution, so it takes more than a general hand-waving (aspirational) statement like the first amendment to over-rule that.

Libel and slander were and are torts in common law and predate the constitution (going back to the laws of the United Kingdom). So arguably they are not affected by the first amendment which says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ... ." (emphasis added). Common law is considered valid in the United States (unless over-ruled by a statute) even though it has not been enacted by any American legislature. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And keep in mind that this article isn't about Freedom of speech in the U.S., but about Freedom of speech throughout the world. See Freedom of speech in the United States for information specific to the U.S. That article covers all of the above and has references. The U.S. section in the Freedom of Speech by country article is shorter and pretty good too. And the U.S. section in the article on Hate speech is another good one to look at if you are interested in this subject. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

How about this, we start this section over and focus on the content in the page that I am bringing up. I see that you have written some things, but when I read them, I'm annoyed. I would rather have a more formal debate that does not cite itself (wikipedia) as a source. Also, let's not get into anything personal like my beliefs. I don't want to argue against the United Kingdom in a page about freedom of speech in general. Etc. Etc. What is this supposed to mean: "The right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.220.20 (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Didn't I answer that question in a comment posted above at 05:34 on 30 June 2014 (UTC)? Others elaborated on that answer in their own comments. I think the issue is also covered well in the article itself. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This Talk page isn't really a place for a debate. It is a place for discussion of possible improvements to the article. I am not clear what it is you want to accomplish? Do you feel the article needs to be changed in some fashion? If so, say what it is you would like to change. Include some references from reliable third-partly sources that support the suggested change(s). -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

When I read, "The right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country," I think that means that freedom of speech in the US is legally restricted, but speech in the US is legally not restricted, according to the first amendment of the US Constitution-"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..."