Talk:Freedom of speech

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • It sounds like what both Kephir and Saddhiyama and I agree on is improving the other article Freedom of information, rather than merging stuff here. — Cirt (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per my above. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• 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)
• This is an old suggestion, but Oppose and clarify: the freedom of expression and the right to information are not the same thing in law. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

What suggestion do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

Was Chirac proposing that people choose not to use certain kinds of speech, or that people should be prohibited from certain kinds of speech? If the former, then the remark is irrelevant to an article about freedom of speech. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Why "Freedom of speech" and not "Freedom of expression"?

"Freedom of expression" redirects to "freedom of speech", but it should really be the other way around. "Expression" is more recognised internationally, and is the more accurate term. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Freedom of expression incorporates freedom of speech and is in line with the language used in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, etc. Does anyone have any idea if there is a reason that the article is titled "Freedom of speech"? Graham (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how the title came about but the most likely reason is that much of the jurisprudence in this area is traditionally phrased in terms of speech, not expression. I would oppose any attempt to move the article as freedom of speech is the more common phrase in English and Wikipedia policy is to go with a concept's most common name. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the jurisprudence you're referring to primarily American? I don't get the sense that the term "freedom of speech" is used as frequently outside the United States. Looking at the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution of Ireland, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, they all use "expression" rather than "speech". Graham (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

But if you search on Google Books for those respective phrases, using quotation marks to ensure that only phrases are being detected, "freedom of speech" returns 508,000 hits versus 383,000 hits for "freedom of expression." Of course, part of the problem is that the majority of the published materials in this area of law are in American English because freedom of speech is so broad in the United States. For example, I haven't seen any other country that has allowed a limited constitutional right (under state constitutions) to freedom of speech in private shopping centers. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

They are not the same thing. Freedom to make certain kinds of art, for example, is freedom of expression but it's not speech, so it's external to freedom of speech. Freedom of expression includes freedom of speech but not vice versa. Declarations of human rights naturally focus on the broad category of expression rather than the narrow category of speech. Hence there ought to be an article about freedom of speech because it has such a history of being argued for and challenged in its own right, but there is justification for a separate article about freedom of expression, covering non-speech categories of expression. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC) On second thoughts, the present article probably has the correct balance and framing. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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.

Suggestions for improvement

Some parts of this article are very good, but I suggest these areas need attention:

• Lots of people are mentioned without saying who they are and why their opinions are relevant. "Jo Glanville, editor of the Index on Censorship, states..." is good, but "Richard Moon has developed the argument..." "Thomas I. Emerson expanded on this defense..." "Judith Lichtenberg has outlined conditions..." need some phrase so we are not assuming the reader knows who they are.
• I really think the image "Free speech zone at the 2004 Democratic National Convention" needs to go. It looks like a cage, but it's not really clear from the image what is going on and what the connection is to free speech. Even reading the wikilinked article did not help me grasp what the image was supposed to illustrate about free speech. It's also presuming a US-based audience, and Wikipedia is for a global audience.
• The quote from the Dalzell judgement in the section on The Internet and Information Society is huge. It's not normal to have such a large quotation: it's 301 words and takes up a full screen on my computer. I don't question that the judgement is important. Important rulings like this should be copied in full into Wikisource. I don't question that it should be quoted in this article: the quotation should be small and proportionate and we should be prepared to summarise the argument.
• Events are described without saying when they occurred or why they are central to the topic. "Gene Block issued a statement..." When? Why is this statement important to an overview of the topic? "Norman Finkelstein, ... expressed the opinion..." Ditto.
• "Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech where the medium of expression is the Internet." This is a very strange statement that needs lots of explanation. There was a freedom of information movement, and freedom of information laws, long before the World Wide Web, and they were nothing to do with online expression. At least the article needs to distinguish freedom of access to information from freedom to spread information.
  • Having written this, I now notice the earlier Talk-page discussion about exactly this distinction, and endorse Saddhiyama's comment '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"' MartinPoulter (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• There is/was some overlinking. "Internet" does not need to be wikilinked every time it appears: nor does Freedom of the press.

MartinPoulter (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

government or society etc

Freedom of speech by country: that page says: “Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.”

On this page it has become: “Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship.”

“without interference” does not specify government only. I am asking for clarification here because it does seem that liberals are saying that “Freedom of speech" does not mean it will go unpunished etc just that the government won’t be the ones retaliating. After all there is the freedom of speech of the censors to consider. 87.102.44.18 (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of speech does not mean that your speech will not have adverse consequences for you. It is merely a limit on what kinds of consequences may legally befall you for speaking.

Strictly speaking, it is not a right (something that others must give you) nor a privilege (something that you may do). It is an immunity, that is, no one has the power to take away any of your rights or privileges (except privileges granted at will) because of the content (meaning) of what you said.

If you say something that offends someone, then he may say bad things about you. Or the owner of the medium may remove what you said and deny you the ability to use that medium again.

It is possible that some thug will attack you physically. However, the government may not punish you for saying it, and it must punish the thug just as it would have done if he had attacked you without you having spoken. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of speech doesn't apply only to the government. It can be a value that other institutions, such as colleges, choose to follow or not follow. Lots of sources back this up, for example the ACLU. The lede right now doesn't even have any sources, and it seems like a much less accurate opening than the page the OP is talking about. 108.41.148.7 (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

To IP 108.41.148.7: Please do not confuse freedom of speech with subsidies to speech. Freedom of speech is a necessity for civilized society to be able to function. A subsidy to speech (such as the subsidy a college might give to the speech of its students by allowing them to use a room for discussion of a controversial subject) may ethically be extended where it serves the purposes of the institution providing the subsidy, but should be withdrawn when it is abused to primarily promote false and destructive ideas. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The lede should represent what freedom of speech is agreed upon to mean by reliable sources. The fact that the first 2 paragraphs don't even have sources, plus its odd, unconventional wording, is troubling. 108.41.148.7 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The American Civil Liberties Union on "What is Censorship?": https://www.aclu.org/what-censorship "In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression." The government isn't the only entity that can have free speech. If you expect academic facilities to be an institution for learning, it would be wrong if they suddenly decided to start closing their doors to people from certain political ideologies, such as communism. 108.41.148.7 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Doing further research, the sources may already support this point. The first source includes a discussion of John Stuart Mill's "Harm Principle". Although it is mostly a discussion of legal censorship, the page also points out that Mill identified to possible threats to speech, legal sanction and social disapprobation. Section 5, "Back to the Harm Principle" examines the latter. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#BacHarPri 108.41.148.7 (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to introduce and summarize the contents of the article. Normally the references should be in the body of the article, not in the lead. Of course, each point in the lead would be based on a sentence or paragraph in the body of the article where it should be supported by references.

Boycotts not supported by violence or the threat of violence are ultimately ineffective and will fail. If violent (including threats and obstruction of movement), then they are illegal and should be suppressed by the government. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm just saying, making it about government censorship only seems pretty inaccurate, since free speech is also a value. People discuss academic free speech, corporate free speech, moderation on social media, etc. 108.41.148.7 (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the assertion that non-violent boycotts "will fail". Surely there are counter-examples e.g. (http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/boycotts/successfulboycotts.aspx)? It seems hard to justify the implication that illegal "violent threats or obstruction" are involved, and must be involved, in all successful boycotts 46.239.244.225 (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)