Talk:Freedom of speech/Archive 1

Archive 1

Source needed

"Given that the United States has in many respects the least restrictive governmental policies in the world on freedom of speech" I've actually never heard of this, is there any good sources for this? Also, a source saying that "the United States has in many respects the least restrictive governmental policies in the world on freedom of speech" is needed. It's way POV right now, I do not think that the USA has anywhere near the "least restrictive governmental policy". Ran4 11:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, such a statement is simply false. Less restrictions exist in e.g. Belgium, The Netherlands and Scandinavia, as well as in the League of Six Nations, and existed in other times in Arabia, India, Greece and probably even Rome. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source for this?

1. In the United States, there is no freedom of speech whatsoever in the private sector. For example, per the terms of at-will employment, an employee can be fired for stating an opinion that the employer disagrees with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.197.116 (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Will take out this sentence as there us no ref forthcoming. --SasiSasi (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Freedom house Ranks the US 27th worldwide in freedom of the press. http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop/2009/FreedomofthePress2009_tables.pdf I suggest including this table in the discussion -- at least discussing the methodology, if not the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.241.208 (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Self-governance

There seem to be copy paste errors or typos in this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.188.89 (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

History

There should be about history fo freedom of speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.27.81 (talk) 18:38, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

About the history of freedom of speech, "One of the earliest defense of freedom of expression is "Areopagitica" (1644) by the British philosopher John Milton" Isn't the right to freedom of speech established in the early Caliphate state in the 7th century somewhat eralier than John Milton's? From the "Islamic Ethics" Wiki article:

Freedom of speech

Another reason the Islamic world flourished during the Middle Ages was an early emphasis on freedom of speech. This was first declared in the Rashidun period by the caliph Umar in the 7th century:[39]

"Only decide on the basis of proof, be kind to the weak so that they can express themselves freely and without fear, deal on an equal footing with litigants by trying to reconcile them."

In the Abbasid period, freedom of speech was also declared by al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph al-Ma'mun) in the following letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to convert through reason:[40]

"Bring forward all the arguments you wish and say whatever you please and speak your mind freely. Now that you are safe and free to say whatever you please appoint some arbitrator who will impartially judge between us and lean only towards the truth and be free from the empery of passion, and that arbitrator shall be Reason, whereby God makes us responsible for our own rewards and punishments. Herein I have dealt justly with you and have given you full security and am ready to accept whatever decision Reason may give for me or against me. For "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256) and I have only invited you to accept our faith willingly and of your own accord and have pointed out the hideousness of your present belief. Peace be with you and the blessings of God!"

According to George Makdisi and Hugh Goddard, "the idea of academic freedom" in universities was "modelled on Islamic custom" as practiced in the medieval Madrasah system from the 9th century. Islamic influence was "certainly discernible in the foundation of the first delibrately-planned university" in Europe, the University of Naples Federico II founded by Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor in 1224.[41]

I think some reference to this should be included in some way in the freedom of speech history section.

well spotted, a lot of human rights articles are western centric (because only western stuff is included in standard text books), I have added this info to the article, linking to the main islamic ethics.--SasiSasi (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In this entire article on [Freedom of Speech], there is not a single word about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This is appalling. I suppose others will expect me to write something about the First Amendment, since it is obviously important to me. But why should I. It has been my experience on WP that whenever I write something really good about something really important, someone else comes along and deletes it, usually referring to some obscure WP rule. There is no cooperation or support, just deletions and undos. It is no longer worth my time to contribute to WP. Steven (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no provision in the Magna Carta for free speech as far as I know. And the Wikipedia article on the topic states: "At a rally for the Chartists in 1838 the Reverend Raynor demanded a return to the constitution of the Charter; freedom of speech, worship and congress. This is a perfect example of how the idea of the Charter went so far beyond its actual content." I remove the reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.241.208 (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Which Country has the Best Protection?

Does anybody know which country has the best protection for freedom of speech; in theory as well as in practice? PJ 17:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There are different rankings Reporters without borders have their ranking rsf.org, and according to this Denmark has ranked top a few years. In fact, most of Scandinavia is top ranked, except for sweden, which has had trouble with some nazi and motor cycle gangs threatening journalists.DanielDemaret 09:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, RSF only rank press freedom, not freedom of speech in general. Although press freedom is a subset of freedom of speech, it's by no means the entire thing. Also, Denmark isn't ranked the highest Nil Einne 13:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There are prosecutions in European countries and Canada which would be totally unconstitutional, because of the First Amendment, in the U.S. These cases are usually justified as a crackdown on hate speech. For example Britgit Bardot was prosecuted in France for ridiculing the Muslim holiday Eid.

Name of article

The name "Freedom of speech (international)" is confusing, as it might make people think the main Freedom of speech article (about the concept) is focused only on a specific region. I support renaming this article as "Freedom of speech around the world" or "Freedom of speech (by country)". Opinions? --Krubo 23:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In my view parentheses are ugly and should only be used for disambiguation. So I'd support "Freedom of speech around the world" or "Freedom of speech by country" over the current title. "International" in the current title might also falsly imply the article is about freedom of speech in international law or something like that. Iota 00:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I support that, Iota. Will one of you two do the honours and change it? DanielDemaret 09:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the name should be changed. --Coolcaesar 20:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sweden

I just added a "stub" on Sweden. 1766 means that freedom here of the press precedes that of the US, doesnt it?DanielDemaret 09:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that law didn't include criticism of the state or of the system of government for instance. There was about as much freedom of the press in mid-18th century Sweden as in present-day China. —Gabbe 00:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Africa section

"Freedom of speech is increasing in oil-producing countries (such as Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Cameroon, and Gabon), because it gives the oil companies a good impression."

That last bit sounds like opinion to me. Just checking. CalebNoble 14:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

India section

"Indians enjoy much freedom to criticize the government in newspapers, a right which many Americans do not have."

The second have of this sentence is opinion and POV. Where in the US are americans not allowed to criticize the government? What class of people or in what geographic location are people denied this right?

I removed this sentence. See WP:RS for the relevant guideline. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename/Merge

One of the following things need to be done with this article:

1. Rename to something like Freedom of speech (concept) [this is my favoured option], or
2. Merge with Freedom of speech

What do you think? Monkeyblue 09:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Put this article as Freedom of speech and move the other one to something like Freedom of speech by country. Christopher Connor 11:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes more sense than the current arrangement. Monkeyblue 12:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This move/swap (Freedom of speech → Freedom of speech by country & Freedom of speech (international) → Freedom of speech) will occur in one week (on the 2007-05-16), unless negative sentiments. Monkeyblue 08:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Completed. Monkeyblue 10:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation

The article seems to shift between "Free Speech" (title capitalization) and "free speech" (standard capitalization). I'll be switching all title-cap versions to standard. samwaltz 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please remember WP:MOS. samwaltz 01:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Canada?

This article seems to focus, although it has a few outward examples, overmuch on American free speech. I'm a Canadian law student and I think I can add something to this article about free speech in Canada and how it differs (and it does differ in a huge way) from free speech in America. Is there a reason why a Canadian perspective is not included in this article? Should it be? 71.7.206.159 (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article is rather US-focussed. It could also do with some more info on the different approach taken under the European Convention on Human Rights.131.111.1.66 (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The standard talk page entry of ***US bias***. BTW If _ free speech in Canada does differ in a huge way from free speech in America, there is no free speech in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.161.151 (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Discovering truth

"This marketplace of ideas rationale for freedom of speech has been criticized by scholars on the grounds that it is wrong to assume all ideas will enter the marketplace of ideas, and even if they do, some ideas may drown out others merely because they enjoy dissemination through superior resources."

Could we have a reference for this please. FWadel (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Section marked as npov

I've marked the section Restrictions on free speech as NPOV, since it appears to contain a rather opinionated view on Jani Allan, South Africa. However, I know nothing about her, so I can't really make a change here, without screwing up things. Dylansmrjones (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the language to a more neutral vocabulary and added a citation for her claim of censorship. Any further edits welcome. Caudex.ingeniosus (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"inbe"?

I beg your pardon, but I'd really like to understand this phrase ([[1]]):

Freedom of speech is crucial inbe compatible with democracy

• Just the result of some vandalism (or perhaps just an editing error.) I've corrected it; thanks for pointing it out. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland

A Turkish political leader/ historian is found guilty, because of his denials against Armenian Genocide If a historian cant debate history, if a political leader is resticted to express himself, where is freedom of speech? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.208.79 (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

freedom to be silent

freedom of speech should include freedom to be silent which is not self-obvious. example is movie "Larry Flynt" where judge demanded Larry Flynt to answer his question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.3.224.3 (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To me, these seem to be different rights, if the second is a right at all. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Debs campaign.jpg

The image Image:Debs campaign.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Iran Web screenshot.jpg
• File:Internet police officer jingjing.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Human rights

I cleaned up the intro, it was factually inacurate, the UDHR does not establish human rights law.... also took out some of the inap. language. --SasiSasi (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article contains a massive amount of unreferenced material! I will start cleaning up the article (include ref. material) and move unref material in the discussion, so it can be salvaged if someone finds a source. --SasiSasi (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Internet section

Needs a cleanup and cross ref to existing articles. There are separate articles on Internet censorship in mainland China and freedom of information, so this section only needs to be a summary of the issues.

Sweden

"In Sweden a law called "Hets mot folkgrupp" ("Agitation against an ethnic group"), usually translated to hate speech, denies promotion of racism and homophobia." This is not exactly correct. The law says a little different. --212.247.27.97 (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

removed, unref and the limitations section should probably start general (rather than aiming to list national legislations).--SasiSasi (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

INFLICTOR:... (the second sweden is a russia) 'royal vandalism indenfinite', "dhurgas equalataral ghost in the machine"; ; Since the folding of the 7th paper of publication regards rationalism & the internet being verbatim to certain extents of consession; it is realised that any further dissentive can be regarded as projected internally; ; it is to say that anything in 8th level publication is controlled as indefinite hardware; ; because of this 78th publication of any typical representation will be marked by russian-intelligence as communist page 57; ; the hardware itself that does will be sold to unique invention; ; the idea of 'a speakeasy internet' is now a forbidden-taboo-suggestion, navl-control is the only "loose byzantium" until the revelation of the 12th interaction; ; this itself a hardware cornerstone in the ilk of previous discology; ; lake 68... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.209.220 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Relationship to other rights

Source for extension http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KGS_vAYDdtoC&pg=PP25&lpg=PP25&dq=freedom+of+expression+limitations&source=web&ots=ilrxo2sbSF&sig=JKgB105b1AL_iRASPhyXpVEHO_c&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result (pg.xxv etc)

Hacktivismo

I have removed the following paragraphs from Freedom of Speech:

The group Hacktivismo, an offshoot of CULT OF THE DEAD COW (cDc) and founded in 1999, believes that access to information is a basic human right and advances what may be termed digital rights. The group's beliefs are described fully in the "Hacktivismo Declaration" which is a list of "assertions of liberty in support of an uncensored internet" and seeks to apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to the Internet. The Declaration recalls the duty of member states to the ICCPR to protect the right to freedom of expression with regards to the internet and in this context what is called the "freedom of information". The Hacktivismo Declaration states:

• "...such member states continue to wilfully suppress wide-ranging access to lawfully published information on the Internet, despite the clear language of the ICCPR that freedom of expression exists in all media,"
• "...that transnational corporations continue to sell information technologies to the world's most repressive regimes knowing full well that they will be used to track and control an already harried citizenry,"
• "...that the Internet is fast becoming a method of repression rather than an instrument of liberation,"
• "...that in some countries it is a crime to demand the right to access lawfully published information, and of other basic human rights,"
• "...that denying access to information could lead to spiritual, intellectual, and economic decline, the promotion of xenophobia and destabilization of international order,"

The Hacktivismo Declaration recognises "the importance to fight against human rights abuses with respect to reasonable access to information on the Internet" and calls upon the hacker community to "study ways and means of circumventing state sponsored censorship of the internet" and "implement technologies to challenge information rights violations".

The Hacktivismo Declaration does however recognise that the right to freedom of expression is subject to limitations, stating "we recognised the right of governments to forbid the publication of properly categorized state secrets, child pornography, and matters related to personal privacy and privilege, among other accepted restrictions." However, the Hacktivismo Declaration states "but we oppose the use of state power to control access to the works of critics, intellectuals, artists, or religious figures."

This article is about freedom of speech, not about one group with a manifesto. Chip Unicorn (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, regarding Hactivismo, that’s ok, the section needs some serious work. It was the only group I could find that made a direct and specific link between existing human rights, freedom of speech and the internet (in a well argued sort of way). If you know of any other groups you can maybe list them in the discussion page of the freedom of speech article, so we can start having a look at them. Once interesting thing is that freedom of speech as human rights law is interrelated to include any medium (hence internet/electronic communication), I think this is ref at some point of the article, maybe that’s a good opener for the section on freedom of speech and the internet. One thing we have to watch out for is the freedom of information article... which admittedly is pretty bad. I guess the correct way of doing this would be a section on Internet censorship (summarising and linking to main article), and a section on freedom of information (summarising and linking to the main article)... but then we would have to get the freedom of information article up to some sort of acceptable standard. I think the freedom of information article would probably be a good place to describe the arguments of different scholars and groups at length.... I would be quite happy to put some work into the freedom of information article, and once that has developed review the internet section of the freedom of speech article again. --SasiSasi (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech and Holocaust denial

Freedom of Speech is restricted to the extent that Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 13 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland.

The above text in italic have been taken from wikipedia article Holocaust denial.

Find sources there.

--ChJameel (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You're adding it to this article. The burden of proof is on you to provide your sources. Other WP articles are not admissible sources. Please learn how to add sourced content to this encyclopedia. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you support the "right to insult and blaspheme".but not the right to Holocaust denial

The discussion here here the do you support the "right to insult and blaspheme".but not the right to Holocaust denial. In my opinion this is one the fundamental tenets of Zionism.

--ChJameel (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for discussing personal opinions, original research, or any general discussion not related to the improvement of the article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of Thought/Freedom of Speech

I think it is a vio of wp:NOR that these are separted entities. Here is book that says they are equal.Tstrobaugh (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Opposition?

There has to be someone out there who has argued against freedom of speech. I can imagine someone thinking it causes disorder or something like that. Or that it allows hate speech. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does seem that this article lacks a section that covers some of the arguments against free speech. For now though, you will have to settle with clicking the various links in the infobar to the right. Especially the "methods" section contains a lot of good examples. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of this article is focused on opposition to freedom of speech. A quick count shows at least 80% of the paragraphs making arguments for limiting the freedom in the name of certain meaningless rights. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

internetfreedom.org and friends flagged as trojan suppliers

In Freedom of speech#Internet censorship I have reworded the meaningless sentence sourced to internetfreedom.org (do not download anything from them by the way) to make sense. I then noticed McAfee siteadvisor has marked internetfreedom.org and all of the sites it links to as providing malware, so I wrapped the address in a <nowiki> tag and placed a warning to readers not to download anything from them. Please adjust this to meet whatever is wikipedia's normal way of dealing with potentially dangerous sites. -84user (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Update both google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic and unmaskparasites.com now list internetfreedom.org as not suspicious and clean respectively. However, McAfee's siteadvisor shows the website and all its affiliations in red (in their words: "downloads on this site that some people consider adware, spyware or other potentially unwanted programs.") Of course, McAfee is merely reporting what others find, and is not itself 100% accurate nor timely in its reports. I have also submitted the UltraSurf client download (u.zip) to McAfee so that they can re-analyse it (they last checked it on 2009 March). -84user (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-update I also submitted 5tools.zip from the internetfreedom.org site (linked as "GIFC Anti-Censorship Tools Bundle") to McAfee (they last checked it in July 2009 and marked it as a Trojan). I then downloaded 5tools.zip and let Microsoft Security Essentials check - it reported component GTunnel1.0.zip as containing a Trojan dropper (details). However, Microsoft Security Essentials found no threats from GTunnel.zip (linked from gardennetworks.org/download via internetfreedom.org). -84user (talk)

FYI.....

• Talk:International Organization for Standardization#Wiki admin, please be aware of the following......it affect the site publishing.....

--222.64.22.162 (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Islamic apologism

This section [2], which was removed by Jayzames, was recently re-instated by SasiSasi without the slightest explanation. Jayzames' removal, however, is on solid ground. The section iss nothing more than a blatant piece of Islamist apologism added by User:Jagged 85, a well-known POV-pusher who was recently the subject of this RfC/U [3]. If one inspects the sources closely, it is quite clear that the "freedom of speech" espoused in fact applied strictly to religious discussions, i.e. people could freely discuss religious matters. This is a far cry from freedom of speech in the modern sense, i.e. where people can criticize those in power without fear of reprisal. It is also a classic case of presentism, in the sense that it projects modern notions into the past. Athenean (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The section I reinstated has not been added by Jagger 85, and does not violate any of the wikipedia quality policies in terms of sourced content. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean it can not be included in this article. The section was originally added by myself in August 2008 based on material included in another article, please see the "history" section of this talk page. I will revert your removal as it is unfounded with regards to wikipedia policies.

The bit Jagger added in March 2010 is as follows and not included in the article (you are confusing the two sections):

Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments. In the ancient Persian Empire, its founder Cyrus the Great declared religious freedom and freedom of expression for all in the mid-6th century BC, as stated in the Cyrus cylinder. He was also the first to extend this freedom to slaves. Ancient Athenians believed that the power of persuasion is the most enduring force in a culture, one that must not and can not be stifled. It is thought that ancient Athens’ democratic ideology of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC. In the Maurya Empire of ancient India, Emperor Ashoka the Great also declared religious freedom for all its inhabitants. Two of the most cherished values of the Roman Republic were freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

--SasiSasi (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of speech against a Roman emperor?

I was intrigued to find this in a work by Lactantius - "Diocletian, whom prosperity had now abandoned, set out instantly for Rome, there to celebrate the commencement of the twentieth year of his reign. That solemnity was performed on the twelfth of the kalends of December; and suddenly the emperor, unable to bear the Roman freedom of speech, peevishly and impatiently burst away from the city.[4] Provided this translation is correct, it gives us a clear mention of "freedom of speech" from 300 AD - and it sounds as if this is being used by the Romans against Diocletian, who history most certainly does not remember as a proponent of freedom of religion. It would be interesting if someone can shed some light on this... Wnt (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wilders

I'm moving the Wilders section here. This is because the trial is underway, and it is not known yet whether his speech constituted "hate speech" or not. Furthermore, there's the issue of balance - the article doesn't mention Wilders' call to ban the Quran, which is also against free speech.

Finally, can't we find more clear cut examples of free speech violations (e.g. Iran/China shutting down opposition newspapers)? VR _talk 08:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved from main page:

In the 2010 trial of Geert Wilders, several groups and persons in The Netherlands called for legal action against Wilders, while others defended his right to free speech. On 15 August 2007, a representative of the Prosecutors' Office in Amsterdam declared that dozens of reports against Wilders had been filed, and that they were all being considered. Attempts to prosecute Wilders under Dutch anti-hate speech laws in June 2008 failed, with the public prosecutor's office stating that Wilders' comments contributed to the debate on Islam in Dutch society and also had been made outside parliament, The office released a statement reading: "That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable. Freedom of expression fulfils an essential role in public debate in a democratic society. That means that offensive comments can be made in a political debate".

VR _talk 08:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I added some stuff on contemporary limitations on free speech: blasphemy laws and Holocaust denial laws. It gives an overview across many countries, and the types of laws they have in place.VR _talk 17:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Examples of limitation on free speech in individual countries

I will integrate the examples of limitations in individual countries that have been added to the "Limitations on freedom of speech" section into the article or move into the freedom of speech by country article. After the section heading it is stated "For specific country examples see Freedom of speech by country, and Criminal speech."--SasiSasi (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

freedom of speech Mobile limitation

This page should includes a section where it discuss the limitation of freedom of speech on mobile devices.09colga (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)09colga

New disambig

See also Freedom of expression (disambiguation). -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

I changed the wording back to this this. While "is the freedom to speak freely without censorship" is far from exhaustive, I think it is better than "refers to the ability of a person to express their opinion as a human right", since that is not completely correct. It can be a human right, but it can also be merely a legal or constitutional right, and has existed as such historically prior to the invention of human rights. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Zindiqs

I agree with the IP that removed this section: "Starting in medieval times, Muslims began to refer to Manichaeans, apostates, pagans, heretics and those who antagonized Islam as zindiqs, the charge being punishable by death. As of the late 8th century the Abbasid caliphs began to hunt down and exterminate freethinkers in large numbers, putting to death anyone on mere suspicion of being a zindiq."

Firstly it is misplaced, since it does not describe the origins of free speech in any way, secondly it does not even have anything to do with freedom of speech. Quite the contrary, in fact, since it describes religious persecution. It is important to mention that dissenting religious views were crushed, often with violence, but considering the historical period the situation described in the paragraph can be said to be the norm in most places, and as such I am quite baffled as to the relevance of this specific incident, especially in such detail, in this article. I think WP:UNDUE probably applies here. It should be deleted and preferably replaced by a paragraph stating that freedom of speech was not a concept that existed in that historical period, neither in the Middle East or in Europe. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

United States v. The Progressive

• United States v. The Progressive

This is a fascinating legal case, anyone want to collaborate on improving the page with me? Please leave a note on my user talk page, — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Redlinked article to create

• Index Librorum Expurgatorum

— Cirt (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

John Stuart Mill

Further information: John Stuart Mill

Further information: On Liberty

Because Mill's On Liberty is such an important work in justifying freedom of expression, I have made the update of the basis for his argument, as well as stated his only circumstances in which speech could be suppressed. The basis for the value of free speech that Mill argues is that an opinion can only hold value to the owner, and if vocalizing that opinion is suppressed, it is a violation of the right of that individual by denying that individual a basic human ability. Mill's harm principle basically states that speech can only be suppressed when there is a clear and present danger of physical harm to either an individual who is not the speaker, or property that is not owned by the speaker. He gives the example of the corn prices, in which an article in a newspaper criticizing corn dealers is perfectly adequate, however, when the same view is expressed to an angry mob outside the dealers house, or his work, then it can be justifiably suppressed. I feel that these essential ideas of Mill had to be present in this article since he is the basis for all modern justifications of freedom of expression. However, saying both those things as I have done right here seemed a little long, so I have just made the changes I have made instead.Njthibodeau (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The article On Liberty could really use some sourcing improvements. :( — Cirt (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

File:WBC - Dead Miners 2006.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:WBC - Dead Miners 2006.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:WBC - Dead Miners 2006.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that the deletion discussion for this, is at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Guanaco. — Cirt (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The Common Law

The right of free speech was a right in common law in England (and in practice in other countries too) long before it became enshrined in documents such as the First Amendment in the USA and the UDHR. Why does this article not even mention the Common Law basis for freedom of speech? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.105.147 (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are completely accurate in that assumption. The licensing act lapsed in 1694, but it didn't result in complete freedom of speech, although it did result in a relatively free press in the first half of the 18th century as compared to any other country. But "the right of free speech" was not in any way codified in contemporary England. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly more problematic citations

I removed this section added in this edit in 2008 by a now indeffed editor:

"In Islamic ethics, freedom of speech was first declared in the Rashidun period by the caliph Umar in the 7th century AD. In the Abbasid Caliphate period, freedom of speech was also declared by al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph al-Ma'mun) in a letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to convert through reason."

I have JSTOR access and looked up the article, only to find that the Boisard reference is obviously false, as it doesn't even mention caliph Umar or includes any mention of freedom of speech, but is in fact merely concerned with the development of international law, which is a completely different subject. The al-Hashimi claim is unverifiable since the source is now a deadlink. The editor who added this was indeffed for copyvios in October 2011, but poor state of the above edit makes me a bit concerned about this article, since it seems the main core of its current state is based on a long series of edits by this editor who restructured the article and replaced massive amounts of content during 2008 and 2009.

It would perhaps be wise to go over the citations in this article and check for any other blatant misrepresentations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this assessment, good judgment by Saddhiyama (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

For once, it wasn't Jagged ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Redlinks to possible articles to create

1. Index Librorum Expurgatorum
2. Bernt Hugenholtz

Redlinks in main article page, possible articles to create. — Cirt (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This article needs better structure and layout

Initial thoughts

1. This article needs better structure and layout.
2. We could try looking at how similarly-named articles are formatted in other sources.
3. Would additionally be a good idea to consult WP:Featured articles and WP:Good articles for other "core" or "vital" articles on similar subjects and see how they are structured.
4. I'll post more here with examples after some research.

— Cirt (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

History structure, chronological layout

1. The article currently has a topical layout.
2. The best way to organize this info is from a historical perspective.
3. Thus, we should rely on sources that give a very broad chronological overview of the subject matter.
4. Here's a good example, a source found already cited in the article itself: Timeline: a history of free speech

— Cirt (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Added sect, Further reading

Added sect, Further reading, to article, diff. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Freedom of speech - for peer review

• Portal:Freedom of speech

I've placed Portal:Freedom of speech up for portal peer review. Comments would be welcome, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Freedom of speech/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of speech portal for Featured candidate

I've nominated Portal:Freedom of speech for Featured quality consideration, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Freedom of speech. — Cirt (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Update on Liberty and Censorship templates

1. {{Censorship}}
2. {{Liberty}}

Templates used at article, Freedom of speech, to converted to footer templates using {{Navbox}}.

Update on status of footer template

1. I posted a notice about this proposal to convert to a footer template that goes at the bottom of articles, using {{Navbox}}.
2. I cross-posted the same notice to the talk pages for {{Liberty}} and {{Censorship}}.
3. I waited over one week, and received one response in support of this proposal.
4. Therefore, this has now been  Done.
5. I also took the liberty of going ahead and moving the newly converted template to the bottom of pages in the article-main-space where it was being used.

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC concerning the Lavabit email service

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 Joey006@lavabit.com for alleged possession of child pornography.

Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Notices like this are best placed at WT:WikiProject Freedom of speech, instead of here. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

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 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [5] for a reliable source. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have edited the section to try to remove this ambiguity as un-invasively as possible. Frankly, I don't see how concepts like copyright infringement and non disclosure agreements are discussed as mutually exclusive with freedom of speech. How does copyright law prevent people from communicating their ideas and beliefs? I would propose that this section be restricted to laws that actually infringe on this right, such as laws against pornography, obscenity, and blasphemy.95.34.115.89 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

To the IP user: If your above statements are indicative, you do not believe in free speech. Disagreeing with free speech is not a valid reason for narrowing its definition. Therefor, I have reverted you.

For example, a non-disclosure agreement cannot be enforced without punishing the person making the disclosure for communicating the information which is supposed to not be disclosed to others.

Copyright cannot be enforced without prohibiting the communication of works of art which are allegedly copies or derivative works. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not disagree with free speech, but rather I disagree that Freedom of Speech is the right to say anything at any time, which is what you seem to be implying. If Freedom of Speech is truly "the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas.", as the article states in its very first line, then clearly it is not affected by copyright law or NDAs. Either way, the article is ambiguous as to the definition, and that should be rectified.

I would also mention, as you seem to be a fellow proponent of free speech, that your definition actually harms free speech, as you make it seem like most societies have already made numerous concessions to the right.

Opponents use this to argue that we have already made numerous concession, so what's one more? I should mention that I am also 95.34.115.89 92.220.28.214 (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Freedom is the absence of violence; specifically the non-initiation of physical force against the body or property of another person. If speaking or otherwise attempting to communication with another person justified violence against the speaker, then speech would not be free.

The present form of this article is not what I would prefer. It is already a compromise between those who support free speech (like myself) and those who do not. This is the reason for the confusing wording of some parts of the article.

Virtually everyone favors some freedom of speech — the freedom to say things with which they agree (or at least do not violently disagree). I would not categorize such people as advocates of free speech. An advocate of free speech is someone who favors the freedom to say that which he finds extremely disagreeable (for any reason). The only exception I would make is if the speech is itself violence, i.e. it is so loud that it physically injures (or deafens) someone. Merely "harming" someone's emotional state is not such an exception. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

So you are in fact of the opinion that Freedom of Speech is the right to say anything at any time. In my experience, this is precisely the definition that most opponents of free speech use. This definition makes it a paper-right that has already been infringed so many times, that to not make another concession is almost hypocrisy. Considering this is a level-4 vital article I urge that someone in authority speaks on this. This is too important! For the record I 100% support the right to criticize and ridicule everything!92.220.28.214 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Following that literalistic logic, the right to bear arms entitles you to own a bear's arms. Freedom of Speech is not about being free to say whatever, whenever. It's so easy to conceive of situations where you wouldn't want that, that it can't possibly be the definition. It's ridiculous, and I really dislike that you are hijacking this page to promote your own view on the issue. This is in my view a violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion 92.220.28.214 (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

JRSpriggs keeps reverting my edit, and is now refusing to engage me in debate. I must ask an admin to step in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.220.28.214 (talk) 08:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments are incoherent and illogical, so debating you is pointless. Provide an authoritative source to support your absurd position or withdraw! JRSpriggs (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That is an ad hominem argument. 95.34.115.89 (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to put in my two bits: Despite having taken strange positions in the past (see above), it looks like JRSpriggs is generally willing to concede for the time being to Wikipedia's consensus-driven policies, definitely has a clearer understanding of the current consensus on what is freedom of speech, and has the better argument here. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC−)

Is there any good source for freedom of speech being the right to say whatever, whenever? All the definitions in the article clearly state that it relates to opinions and ideas. Under that definition things like ndas and copyright law are clearly not infringements. Let me put it as simply as I can in the form of a question: Is the law against insider trading an infringement on the right to Free Speech? Clearly it is not. It's important to distinguish between freedom of speech as a concept, and freedom of speech the basic human right. The basic human right does not entitle you to do insider trading, perform espionage, or lie under oath. 92.220.28.214 (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that the proper resolution to this issue is through a look at the relevant literature, which is what Wikipedia should reflect. A cursory glance at the article lead shows a definition more consistent with the original wording (which JRSpriggs is currently championing) - the ICCPR Article 19 in the final paragraph of the lead. Whether or not it is an acceptable practice for governments to routinely abridge this right is another matter. Although irrelevant to the definition of freedom of speech, I will say that NDAs being contracts are different from government restrictions - you are deliberately abrogating in a limited way your right to freedom of speech in return for whatever consideration is given (information, money, etc). 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 12:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. However, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that the right relates to opinions. The language in the ICCPR seems to attempt to cast a wider net so to speak, but also specifically mentions opinions and explicitly states that it is subject to certain restrictions, and thus restrictions are not necessarily infringements ( which seems foolish to me ). If it truly is the right to say any thing at any time, why mention opinion at all? 92.220.28.214 (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Different freedoms sometimes come into conflict with one another. When this happens, things can become ambiguous and there needs to be a way to balance the different freedoms. As such, few freedoms are absolute. Because of this, Freedom of Speech is the right to say most anything, anytime, anywhere, but there are exceptions. It is the exceptions that make discussions about Freedom of Speech interesting and complex. Take hate speech as an example. We have Freedom of Speech on the one hand and freedom from violence on the other. And the interesting question is, when does speech cross the line from protected free speech to become prohibited hate speech. Or in the case of an NDA, that is a contractual agreement in which one party gives up their right to talk about something. If they give up their right voluntarily, I'd say that it wasn't a Freedom of Speech violation. But, if they are compelled to give up their right involuntarily, say in order to get or keep a job, then that could well be a free speech issue, particularly if the subject matter covered by the NDA is overly broad or the power balance between the parties to the contract favor one partly over the other. Or take time, place, and manner restrictions. They can limit loud parties after a certain time of night or loud talk at a public library. While that might restrict free speech, it isn't usually considered a Freedom of Speech violation as long as the restrictions are applied fairly without regard to the ideas being expressed or the individuals or groups expressing them. So you can restrict speech or music to some maximum decibel level, but you can't restrict classical music differently from rock and roll. This Wikipedia article has to convey these subtleties. I think the original wording did a fair job of doing that. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"Hate speech" refers to speech which is hated by people who hate freedom of speech. Such speech is falsely alleged to be equivalent to violence against innocents. Hatred is often justified and even necessary. Otherwise, we would not have evolved the ability to hate people, animals or other dangerous things. However, speech, even false and insulting speech, is not dangerous in itself (unless it is extremely loud). So hating speech is not usually justified. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

To JRSpriggs: I've now added several academic citations (with quotes) supporting the argument that "freedom of speech" is an ideal not limited to government, including a Yale Law Review article exploring JS Mill's position. If you want citations as for why John Stuart Mill gets a say in defining "freedom of speech", or from constitutional law scholars discussing the moral principles behind "freedom of speech" (as something distinct from the first amendment), there are plenty to choose from. Just let me know what part of the argument for "freedom of speech" as a liberal principle you feel is lacking a reliable source citation, and I'll find a few more citations for you. 71.196.138.4 (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Since the opening paragraphs are using the UDHR, its article 30 (http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html) should back up 87.102.44.18 (New in Wiki, be kind!) JonathanSmithers (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To JonathanSmithers: I think you mean article 19, not 30. Article 19 says "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.". While this is a nice-sounding approximation of the truth, it is too vague and hand-wavy to answer the hard questions about how to apply freedom of speech (or expression) in controversial cases. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To JRSpriggs nope I meant article 30 (and also article 5 of the ICCPR): "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." My interpretation is that free speech as any other human right is a responsibility of each state, group or individual. Since we are using the UDHR as reference, I believe it's wrong to make the mention that only a government can "violate" it. JonathanSmithers (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

UDHR should not be used as the definition of human rights because it is an internally inconsistent and collectivist (thus anti-freedom) document. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The ICCPR reflects the same logic and no country (as far as I know) made reservations about the position in question. JonathanSmithers (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Locked out from Wikipedia.

Hello, I have contributed to an article in Wikipedia in Sweden. Now they have locked me out, I can't even discuss why I was locked out in my own page. Can they do this? I don't think it is freedom of speech, and I do not know what I can do about it or where to go.

Can someone help me? 79.102.137.81 (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFREESPEECH is apparently one of Wikipedia's official policies. Jarble (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if this were the correct place to make such a request, we have no control over Swedish Wikipedia policy. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Free speech on university campuses

Is there an article specifically about the state of free speech on university campuses?

If not, perhaps there should be a section here.

Benjamin (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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://web.archive.org/web/20080705115024/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Free speech for employees - at work, after work

I am running into more and more claims that a person has no rights to free speech while at work or even possibly after work. I read of one lady who was fired by her employer because she displayed a political bumper sticker on her automobile considered to be counter to the company's interests and the termination was upheld by a US court. How can that be in American democracy? Some blogs claim that employment is slavery where you surrender your rights for the opportunity of earning a wage. DHT863 (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Free speech rights online

I am running into numerous claims that say a person has no rights to free speech online because the venue used is in private ownership meaning if they disagree with a viewpoint then they can remove that comment even if it does not violate any contracts requiring good proper and civil behavior. DHT863 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

That is how I understand it. It's as if you went to someone else's property and wrote on a chalkboard; the owner has every right to erase your "speech", and you have no right to stay there against the owner's wishes. Remember that this holds on wikipedia too; WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Cheers, BananaCarrot152 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Free speech -- at least in the United States -- does not place an obligation on any private party to provide a platform for speech they find loathsome. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

These are profound statements and of vital importance to the topic of free speech. The majority of our lives is denied free speech online and at work then what is the point of a topic on the concept if it is not allowed? The above comments need to be part of the topic of free speech. Is it possible to include the denial of free speech at work and online?DHT863 (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

"Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction." Free speech as a concept is less about censorship (or retaliation etc.) in specific places and more about global forms of censorship. "The internet" as a whole is censored (beyond the usual exceptions given in the intro) in some countries, e.g. China, but not in other countries. "The internet" does not stop you from making your own website and publishing your speech there. The country you live in might try to stop you, but then it's government censorship which is discussed in the article. Perhaps we should give a better explanation in the lede to clarify these differences. I don't know very much about the workplace stuff, but usually that's the employer, not the government or society as a whole, and so not directly covered by a right to free speech.

You bring up and interesting point though, that if people can never speak freely without fear of retribution or censorship, even if not because of government, then having free speech is pretty meaningless. Not sure how many good sources there are that talk about this, but if you can find some this certainly seems relevant to me. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No one wants my opinion, but I'd say there's a distinction between whether there's an obligation to free speech (there's not) vs. whether we can still discuss if the concept of free speech applies to private platforms, which I believe it does. Some people claim that we can't even talk about free speech in the first place, since if I censor and ban you that's just my free speech too, but I think that's fallacious. 108.41.148.51 (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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://web.archive.org/web/20120220052125/http://www.chinaeclaw.com/english/showCategory.asp?Code=022 to http://www.chinaeclaw.com/english/showCategory.asp?Code=022
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905104556/http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy%26Error/Heresy.13.htm to http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy%26Error/Heresy.13.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ifex.org/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Campus free speech out of place as top-level section

The Free speech on university campuses in the United States section seems out of place in this page.

• Most importantly, this is the only section to primarily address free-speech restrictions by non-state actors (which may make a better top-level topic). As such, it is extremely specific - not only does it pertain solely to the United States, it is not self-evidently more important than other such issues such as free speech and employment law; free speech within civil society; free speech on social media, both regarding moderation & harassment; regulation of speech in journalistic & entertainment media by management structures; etc.
• In fact the relevance of the section appears to rest largely on the tension in the statements "University campuses have historically been bastions of free speech. ... In recent times, many colleges and universities in the United States have retreated from historically strong support for free speech." That seems ahistorical, both in a broad scope - the Free Speech Movement cited in the second sentence arose in the 1960s to protest free-speech restrictions which would probably be considered unconscionable in a contemporary US public institution - and in a narrow one - the "speech codes" cited in the second paragraph, for example, have been in decline
• Furthermore the emphasis on protests moves the discussion squarely outside of the apparent scope of the rest of the article, which is to say analysis in terms of legal principles & the philosophy of law. Again, this could be rectified with a section or sections devoted to free speech outside of the legal realm.
• Moreover, the actual content of the section is not of high enough quality to merit inclusion on the page for a major legal principle, from the aforementioned ahistorical statements, to the misleading reference to "widespread violence and rioting" (which seems to refer solely to acts committed in Berkeley by external anarchist & alt-right groups) to the unintentional irony of the final paragraph, in which the controversial actions that Block's quoted remarks specifically reference as protected speech are those by liberal, rather than conservative, activists.

I am removing the section. If it is sufficiently valuable, it should probably be placed in a more appropriate page, or as a sub-section to a more generally appropriate section.Nikko2013 (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2017 (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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

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)

You removed it contrary to the provided citations, and have provided no citations for your own definition. Given your recent edit history regarding gab.ai, is it at all possible that you are not approaching this topic from a NPOV? The free speech principle is well-defined and the article was well-cited. Limitations and specific definitions from different authorities are given considerable coverage in the article. There is no absolute authority to cite that would justify a universal "only government" definition leading the article. If you think the article fails to elaborate a justified, citable POV, then I would suggest making your contribution to the body of the article.

2601:647:4F00:347D:D486:43C8:C955:14FE (talk) 02:29, 5 November 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)

Please see WP:LEAD; the purpose of the lead section is to summarize the article. The article only mentions sanction in the sense of "legal sanction" - it doesn't imply that free speech means that nobody can criticize you (which is the implication given by implying that it means complete protection from sanction.) Based on this, I feel the correct solution is to reword "sanction" to "legal sanction." --Aquillion (talk) 03:50, 9 November 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)

Hate speech is absolutely protected speech has been for the better part of the 20th century to today. For the most recent information on this topic, see here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.3ceb9610e356

'Hate speech' is not a legal concept in the United States; free speech in the United States is speech which does not violate the rights of others (or run up against a compelling governmental interest). FreeSpeechGuy (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraphs Reflect More Upon Restrictions on Speech and Justifications for Censorship than Free Speech Itself

Why is more than half of the introductory paragraphs devoted to describing ways in which speech is or may be censored? None of these help define "free speech" or describe why such a concept exists in the first place. These are also examples of the opposite of free speech. All of these belong in the "Limitations" section for the most part. At best, what belongs here at the end of the introductory paragraph(s) is possibly a statement to the effect that governments seek to limit the exercise of free speech through censorship premised upon a variety of justifications as explored in the limitations section. The introductory paragraphs may also be generally condensed down into a single paragraph simply expressing/defining free speech possibly with reference to the UDHR. Comments?Felacronom (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Because a huge amount of writing about freedom of speech has been about defining it by determining its limitations. As the "limitations" section says, it sometimes has to be balanced against other rights, like the harm principle, the right to privacy, or even against the free speech rights of others (eg. your right to say what you want vs. my right to denounce what you said; both are freedom of speech.) It's not an accurate summary of the sources to say that the limitations are all about governments seeking to limit the exercise of free speech through censorship; John Stuart Mill, for instance, talked about limitations based on the harm principle, and a bunch of thinkers since have refined that and argued about what it means or how far it goes. Such things are sometimes used as arguments by authoritarian governments (as the article says), but it's inaccurate to dismiss them as solely the domain of such arguments. --Aquillion (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The harsh issues with Australian Media and AFP

Hello experienced Wikipedia Users,

Could we please add the topic below on 'Freedom of the press' or place it to another topic?

I am quite surprised at the actions by the Government Police ;AFP.

• https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-05/why-raids-on-australian-media-present-clear-threat-to-democracy/11183396

• https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/journalists-in-the-firing-line-after-afp-changes-statement-on-media-raids-20190606-p51v0v.html

My inquiry; What would be more significance ? the human life(Children and citizens) or the secret of the one of the Governments

• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48537374efence leak exposes deadly secrets of Australia's special forces

Hundreds of pages of secret defence force documents leaked to the ABC give an unprecedented insight into the clandestine operations of Australia's elite special forces in Afghanistan, including incidents of troops killing unarmed men and children.

The ABC can reveal that some of the cases detailed in the documents are being investigated as possible unlawful killings.

Goodtiming1788 (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2019 (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 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.

Wikipedia keeps allowing fascist editors to delete my edits, postings, even in the talk pages. In the past, I've been banned for a total of 4 (four) years for simply, professionally, and politely, correcting some of the fascist, sexist, racist articles. Wonder if they'll delete this also. I'll keep a screenshot just in case ... The irony of having a Wikipedia article about free speech where, behind the scenes, the free speech of mostly liberals, etc is being squashed is truly amazing. It's 2019, not 1719, stop destroying free speech, WIKIPEDIA. 2604:2000:DDC0:DF00:8D84:B105:5E76:F813 (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Add sections by country or context?

Should there be sections for freedom of speech by country, or by context, such as school, work, etc? Benjamin (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, but somebody should mention that private companies are not required by any 'free speech' law to provide a soap box of any kind to anyone. Because a LOT of people on this planet seem to be very confused about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.212.157 (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that there should be freedom of speech by country, enabling individuals document events positively or negatively affecting the right to freedom of speech in their various nations. Alvin30000 (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Benjamin. An article already exists about that on Wikipedia, see Freedom of speech by country. It isn't necessary to duplicate it here. A link to that freedom of speech by country article should be provided in this article. I will make sure if it has been added since your inquiry.--FeralOink (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to add that context such as school, work, etc. would be governed by the freedom of speech laws (or lack thereof) by country. If there were special caveats by context within a particular country, the WP Freedom of speech by country would be the appropriate place to include it, I believe.--FeralOink (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Zuo zhuan and freedom of speech

I found that the Chinese paper from Taiwan NCCU is the best paper that I found in internet. I have no choice(if so I will use english paper because here is english wiki) but why my page was deleted by original research and translation didn't mention as an original research in wiki or translation is also a kind of analysis and synthesis? HKT3593 (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, assume I didn't say it, sorry. HKT3593 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Said is said, everyone can commemt. HKT3593 (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, just assumed I didn't say it, translation is also a kind of analysis, I think it before but wiki didn't mention so I didn't mention now I think translation is a kind of analysis in word meaning HKT3593 (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

. HKT3593 (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@HKT3593: Please see my most recent comments at the bottom of your Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 23:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Thx HKT3593 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)