This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Freedom of speech article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | A news item involving Freedom of speech was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 October 2021. | ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Elizatangen98. Peer reviewers:
Cristalg827,
Lmaness3,
Amhumphr.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The definition of freedom of speech is one's expression of his/her own ideas opinion and stereotypes. But it doesn't mean insulting other faiths and attitudes. Western people hold the concept with insulting or attacking faiths and religion - this is called their freedom of expression because they prioritized their freedom/liberty. Misconception in freedom of speech in most developed country is to insult and contempt other religion and faiths while maintaining their liberty, freethought rather not getting in critique. See religious intolerance. The Supermind ( talk) 11:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
It seems unwanted question about this Wikipedia page, but I had noticed little misinterpretation of freedom of speech from different medium, such as journals. So I suggested Wikipedia must continue with neutral definition of freedom of speech with sourced highlights and every source should be examined per statement insertion in order to detect personal opinion. The Supermind ( talk) 21:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Insulting other religions is within the limits of free speech, you can't criticise without risking offense, that is basic logic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.165.105.11 ( talk) 04:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I suggest adding a section about this, when I say nigh absolutism, I mean it in the sense that you can nullify it with things such as contracts(for all practical purposes absolute). Quite a few people take this into the extreme, including Chomsky(whom I consider a genocide denier), myself, and a few others, to explain what I mean by extremes, I condemn the Charlie Hebdo massacre as an affront to free speech, but also the imprisonment of "apologists for terrorism" as an insult to the same principles we use to condemn the terrorists(if you want to find the "apologists for terrorism" look at the article for the Charlie Hebdo massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.165.105.11 ( talk) 04:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The "Offenses" sub-section seems rather out of place. It is tacked on to the end of the "History of dissent and truth" section, but doesn't seem to flow from there. It appears to be mostly about offenses such as Lèse-majesté, but focuses on the killing of Jamal Khashoggi (who, to my knowledge, was never convicted or charged with any such offense, but just murdered because he had upset the Saudi regime). Iapetus ( talk) 13:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 9 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Gstefani17,
Mattw3700 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
HJudge38.
— Assignment last updated by CommDocBDS ( talk) 18:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Any thoughts on whether a new section is needed, about freedom of speech within the private sector as for example here:
Freedom of speech in the United States#Private actors, private property, private companies
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Freedom of speech article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | A news item involving Freedom of speech was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 October 2021. | ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Elizatangen98. Peer reviewers:
Cristalg827,
Lmaness3,
Amhumphr.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The definition of freedom of speech is one's expression of his/her own ideas opinion and stereotypes. But it doesn't mean insulting other faiths and attitudes. Western people hold the concept with insulting or attacking faiths and religion - this is called their freedom of expression because they prioritized their freedom/liberty. Misconception in freedom of speech in most developed country is to insult and contempt other religion and faiths while maintaining their liberty, freethought rather not getting in critique. See religious intolerance. The Supermind ( talk) 11:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
It seems unwanted question about this Wikipedia page, but I had noticed little misinterpretation of freedom of speech from different medium, such as journals. So I suggested Wikipedia must continue with neutral definition of freedom of speech with sourced highlights and every source should be examined per statement insertion in order to detect personal opinion. The Supermind ( talk) 21:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Insulting other religions is within the limits of free speech, you can't criticise without risking offense, that is basic logic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.165.105.11 ( talk) 04:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I suggest adding a section about this, when I say nigh absolutism, I mean it in the sense that you can nullify it with things such as contracts(for all practical purposes absolute). Quite a few people take this into the extreme, including Chomsky(whom I consider a genocide denier), myself, and a few others, to explain what I mean by extremes, I condemn the Charlie Hebdo massacre as an affront to free speech, but also the imprisonment of "apologists for terrorism" as an insult to the same principles we use to condemn the terrorists(if you want to find the "apologists for terrorism" look at the article for the Charlie Hebdo massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.165.105.11 ( talk) 04:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The "Offenses" sub-section seems rather out of place. It is tacked on to the end of the "History of dissent and truth" section, but doesn't seem to flow from there. It appears to be mostly about offenses such as Lèse-majesté, but focuses on the killing of Jamal Khashoggi (who, to my knowledge, was never convicted or charged with any such offense, but just murdered because he had upset the Saudi regime). Iapetus ( talk) 13:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 9 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Gstefani17,
Mattw3700 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
HJudge38.
— Assignment last updated by CommDocBDS ( talk) 18:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Any thoughts on whether a new section is needed, about freedom of speech within the private sector as for example here:
Freedom of speech in the United States#Private actors, private property, private companies