Jump to content

Talk:Freedom of speech

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.220.28.214 (talk) at 18:46, 24 March 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:Find sources notice

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 illegally restricted, according to the first amendment of the US Constitution-"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..."http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about-the-first-amendment. So yeah, the article is wrong and misleading; and the opening statement should be changed to something like The Right to Freedom of Speech is Natural and Unalienable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.220.20 (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Unalienable"? Your expertise has been called into question in a particularly embarrassing manner, 75.164.220.20. If your knowledge of linguistics were truly up to par, you'd be reticent to accept this as being the correct form of the word. I digress. To the point, using reliable secondary sources in order to make changes to the content of the article, the onus is on you to prove that all you are asserting is true. Actually, you've already covered the fallacy of your own contentions in your own comment, "... you can't prove that." If you were able to prove it, you would have already done so in the relevant article. Finally, as has already been pointed out to you, article talk pages are not WP:SOAP. Please look at the top of the page which provides Wikipedia's rules regarding the usage of article talk pages. By all means, start a blog, join a forum, or 'debate' to your heart's content on YT. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anywhere that editors should cite secondary sources for comments made on talk pages. The word, unalienable" means non-transferable, like the legal right cannot be taken away for example by a statute (law) or judge. Also, I still think this section is becoming diluted straying from the main point to improve the article by correcting erroneous misleading information.75.164.226.48 (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the word 'unalienable' means according to US dictionaries. Unfortunately, it seems that you've not picked up on any subtleties. Nevertheless, your comments here are not indicative of a wish to improve the content of the article (which is the primary objective of using article talk pages) but, rather, to engage in using the page as a forum. In this instance, I believe that there is a strong indication that you are WP:NOTHERE and engaging as if Wikipedia were a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I'll post a quick guide to Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and objectives on your talk page. There is a considerable learning curve in order to get the knack of editing and interacting with other editors but, if you are interested in becoming a contributor, it is well worth doing a little preliminary reading and research into how Wikipedia works. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want a full review of this section by a competent admin, immediately please.75.164.226.48 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP user: If you want an administrator to do something, it is better to ask one of them specifically rather than making such a general statement. If you do not know who they are, you could try searching Category:Wikipedia administrators for someone you know.
More importantly, you need to identify the kind of help you want. For what purpose should this section be reviewed? Do you think that someone has done something wrong?
On a personal note, I changed the paragraph about which you were complaining. Do you think my changes (and the revision of it by W163) were helpful, or not? JRSpriggs (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Freedom of information

I think the current topics of these two articles are sufficiently similar that they can be covered in one article, and "Free speech" should be it, because it is more popular term. Meanwhile, we currently seem to lack an article covering "freedom of information" as understood by the various Freedom of Information Acts; I think it should be put under that title, [[Freedom of information]]. (A good start would be moving Freedom of information laws by country there.) — Keφr 17:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, Freedom of information is most definitely notable and encyclopedic enough for its own independent page on Wikipedia in its own right. The concept spawned multiple Freedom of Information Acts in different countries around the world. — Cirt (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to be confusing two distinct matters here. What is currently discussed at [[Freedom of information]] is pretty much synonymous with freedom of speech (the right to produce and exchange information), but "freedom of information" as understood by the various FOIAs is something else: the right to obtain information from the government. (Some countries which know better do not even call the latter concept "freedom of information".) It is precisely this confusion which I want to clear up, by having the former concept at [[freedom of speech]], and the latter at [[freedom of information]]. — Keφr 21:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Freedom of information article is hopelessly misguided. The first sentences of the lead waffles on about it being "an extension of freedom of speech", but failing to provide any explanation as to what this extension might be. It then carries on about it also (and that is without giving any definition about what its main meaning might be) referring to "right to privacy and in the context of the Internet and information technology", again without providing any citations for this definition.
      • The most general usage of the term "Freedom of information" is in connection with the level of insight given to ordinary citizens into the workings governments, something which technically is not directly connected to "freedom of speech". And the article in question does indeed partially cover that by mentioning some "freedom of information" laws of various countries, but in the last half again strays into what seems to be highly confusing non sequiturs about "hacktivismo" and "internet censorship", at least no citations are provided that connects those parts with the actual title of the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As per my above. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I agree that Freedom of information is confused. It is actually a 'right' to get information from the government. A freedom (privilege) is not a right; rather it is the absence of a duty (correlative to a right). You are free to speak because you have no legally enforceable duty (which would be someone else's right) to refrain from speaking. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. — Cirt (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Citations?

Wikipedia history indicates that on April 25, 2013 JRSpriggs added "property" to the right of free speech. But there is no reference for this and it appears to be just a personal opinion. The addition happens after what appears to be discussion of whether or not there should be a clear distinction between "speech" and "expression". If basic rights are at issue and there is a distinction between "speech" and "expression", it would seem more appropriate to place property in the "expression" scope as opposed to the "speech" scope. But the lack of ANY source for this opinion is the reason for my involvement.The Trucker (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your freedom of speech would be greatly impaired if you could not use: megaphones, microphone-amplifier-loudspeaker, audio or video recording and playback, radio telephones, television, etc. to convey your ideas to others. For some disabled people, the inability to use devices would render them entirely speechless. However, just because such a speech-enhancing device exists does not mean that you may willy-nilly use it, it must belong to you or you must have permission from the owner to use it. To me this is all perfectly obvious, but I am aware that those who seek to suppress speech will use any excuse to try to do so. For example, claiming that since devices were used that they are subject to regulation by the government even though the devices are privately owned. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting point but it appears to be a fringe theory and original research in violation of core policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is not part of the standard discourse on freedom of speech and it is your problem to go get it published somewhere else first besides Wikipedia. The reason it is not part of the general discourse is that it is far too broad---the same point could easily apply to many other human rights---and hence, if that should be on Wikipedia at all, it should be under human rights or property or some other article. Would definitely concur if The Trucker desires to edit that nonsense out of the article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights probably acts as a valid reference. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't support the claim made by User:JRSpriggs though, since it doesn't connect the right of property specifically with free speech, they are two separate rights. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For example, to the extent that speech is conveyed by radio or television, the freedom to engage in such speech was/is impaired by the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal-time rule of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. According to Fairness Doctrine#Basic doctrine, "In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment." (emphasis added). Whether the property rights of radio and television stations are included in freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment is controversial, but so is freedom of speech itself. We should support the expansive interpretation. See [1] for a reliable source. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a source mentioning a specific example as a citation for a general statement on the subject would be also be OR (you are making the interpretation that the effects of this specific doctrine on a specific piece of rights legislation in a specific country proves that freedom of speech is connected to property rights in general). We would need a reliable secondary source that claims the connection exists in general. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The LA times report not only supports the sentence I quoted from our article on the Fairness Doctrine, it also contains this — "[President Ronald Reagan] said the bill 'simply cannot be reconciled with the freedom of speech and the press secured by the Constitution.'", showing that Reagan considered property used for speech to be covered by freedom of speech in this case. Also see "Human Rights as Property Rights" by Murray N. Rothbard, "Property Rights imperative to Free Speech" by Jeremy Hicks. And from Wikiquote, "It is no longer open to doubt that the liberty of the press, and of speech, is within the liberty safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. It was found impossible to conclude that this essential personal liberty of the citizen was left unprotected by the general guaranty of fundamental rights of person and property." -- Charles Evans Hughes, (Near v. Minnesota, 1931). JRSpriggs (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ideas about the relationship between property rights and freedom of speech are controversial (as all rights discussions are). Wouldn't it be appropriate to present freedom of speech as the right to "... communicate one's opinions and ideas to anyone ..." (which seems more NPOV) and then present different ways of interpreting that right in the article? Beao 15:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JRSpriggs, you're getting your specific point completely mixed up with incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states. Please read up on both subjects at a law library. Incorporation is one of those difficult areas of law where most of the decent resources are still unavailable online and you have to go to hard copy or private databases like WestlawNext to fully understand it. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not mixed up. For whatever reason, the Supreme Court chose not to justify applying the Bill of Rights against the States on the basis of the privileges and immunities clause. Instead they used the due process clause. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes is essentially saying that your right to your body and property include (or imply) your rights to free speech and free press. Freedom of action (including speaking) cannot be separated from freedom to own property because an attack upon one is necessarily an attack upon the other. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notions of property rights and its relation to other rights has been a subject of debate within political philosophy for centuries. I don't think Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes changes that. Passing any controversial position as fact is not NPOV. Beao 16:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether people should have such rights is controversial (in some quarters, but not with me). That the rights (if they exist) include what I have said, is not. Any argument that tries to limit those rights by claiming that they are incorrectly defined is merely a disguised argument against the rights themselves. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole issue is highly controversial. Your statements may or may not be correct/sound, but they are moral statements and not NPOV. Beao 21:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Beao. There's a reason why nearly every criminal defense lawyer tells their clients to shut up. Either you directly engage the issues in a way that shows you are willing and able to bring your edits within the boundaries of Wikipedia policy. Or you engage the issues in a way that shows you can not and will not. And then that will be cited as evidence against you. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing all of the discussion above I will repeat my initial position. There are no unbiased authoritative sources for the claim that property is speech or necessary to free speech other than SCOTUS rulings (and thin rulings at that). And it is the thinness of these rulings 5-4 that destroys the credibility of same. It cannot be denied that property can be used to amplify speech, but that does not make these two things equivalent. In the real world, when oligarchs and incorporated legal entities are not restrained from the use of their property (money) in amplifying their particular point of view, all other points of view are denied. This is a monopolization problem in that there is a limited bandwidth to the public discourse and attention span, and the unfettered use of property to enlarge and amplify the speech of a few oligarchs denies speech by, or speech representing, the views of the majority of the citizenry. Money and FREE speech are, to my way of thinking, two different animals. Objective reality seems contradictory to the proposition that they are equivalent or mutually dependent.The Trucker (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Mikcob: Your statement is hardly NPOV. There is no monopolization. People are free to ignore messages from the supposed 'oligarchs' and look to messages from other sources. In the age of the Internet, there is no constraint on overall bandwidth. Indeed those who want to restrict the use of property to convey messages are the ones who are trying to use the power of the State to monopolize the attention of the people. They just cannot accept that many people disagree with them for good reasons of their own. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To JRSpriggs: Whether my statemet is opinion or fact is not really at issue. It is your position that is being discussed and found wanting. The references you have supplied are non authoritative or off topic. For instance, all of the hubub over "The Fairness Docrine" seems to be about "freedom of the press" as opposed to "free speech". I will wait a day or so longer for you to find some crediblle references and if not found I will restore the condition of the article to what it was before your assertion.The Trucker (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A moratorium on thought?

Recently added to the section on limitations:

"Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided", Chirac said.

This is the stupidest idea I have ever heard. How is anyone supposed to learn anything, if their beliefs cannot be challenged? Are we all supposed to wallow in ignorance because of a few people who react violently to any indication that they may be mistaken? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to argue with Chirac, feel free, but this page is about the article, not about our opinion of the subjects discussed in the article. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chirac is offering advice, not making laws. It is not unlike the advice you might get from a forest ranger: don't tease the bears. You ask, "So how are the bears going to learn to tolerate humans if I don't tease them?" Attacking and offending someone is the approach least likely to teach him anything. You might notice that professional teachers rarely use it. I am not attacking or offending you now. I am inviting you to reconsider your ideas on the subject. Slade Farney (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What suggestion do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda like it just as it is -- until we find more "constitutional scholars" who want to gut the Constitution. Then I am looking forward to mounting their heads up beside the other goats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talk • contribs) 05:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are restrictions on speech necessarily an infringement on the right to free speech?

The first words in the article state that "Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas.", but the wording of the first paragraph "Governments restrict speech with varying limitations. Common limitations on speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity[...]" makes it sound as if the right to freedom of speech is the right to say any thing at any time. Which is it? Shouldn't this ambiguity be rectified?92.220.28.214 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freedom_of_speech&oldid=653344711"