Talk:Freedom of information

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sources for extension[edit]

[1] [2] --SasiSasi (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


I don't see how freedom of information can possibly be an extension of the right to privacy. Can someone explain this? .froth. (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I came here to post the exact same comment. This sounds an awful lot like double speak to me. Harburg (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I just got hacked ....under the freedom of info act......they did not obey the laws......they are evil.....i need some help! Confusedntired (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Redlinked articles to create[edit]

  1. United Nations Commission on Transnational Corporations
  2. Harrington Investments

Cirt (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Primary subject[edit]

In my view, this article is not about the primary 'Freedom of information' topic, which is currently at Freedom of information legislation. Would be better if this article is renamed Freedom of information (Internet)? Any views on this? --Kleinzach 01:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually looking at this again, maybe the easiest thing to do with be to move the first two sentences (first paragraph0 to the beginning of the internet section)? Then the article can cover the subject in a broad way. --Kleinzach 06:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I've now followed up on this. I hope the structure of the article is now clearer and more coherent. It may be an idea to split this article in the future. --Kleinzach 01:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC concerning the Lavabit email service[edit]

There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at

Talk:Lavabit#RfC: Should information about Lavabit complying with previous search warrants be included?

At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:

Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user for alleged possession of child pornography.

Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

I suggest replacing the title word INFORMATION with COMMUNICATION

People do not actually have a right to information - particularly when it can be private

They do have a right to communication HPearce (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom of information. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Topic title/name change from "Information" to "Communication"[edit]

Rather than Freedom of Information. the title would seem to be more appropriate if changed to Freedom of Communication which more directly relates to freedom of oral communication (speech) and freedom of printed communication (press) and freedom of communication by expression (or simply freedom of expression)

The new title would make more explicit what I see as the real or underlying concept implied in the first amendment of the U.S. constitution rather than those listed by specific modes of communication that were generally used or available at the time of the writing. It would also make clear that Freedom of Internet Communication is included too and any newer modes of communication that technology brings along.

As things stand now, this connection remains blurred although the current title and article come very close.

I have yet to really parse out the entire article for what may be appropriate changes to fit with my suggested title change. I have no sources as such to cite as the conclusion above is based upon my own conclusions.

HPearce (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Opening paragraph is a mess[edit]

Access to education and information is not even mentioned. Privacy, as mentioned in another topic below, is another legal principle altogether. There is circular logic in the statement that freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech, which is fine, but then someone adds that freedom of information is generally understood as freedom of speech. Useless citation.

This article needs attention from a lawyer or legal expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)