![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"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)
Is there a source for this?
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
"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)
"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?
One of the following things need to be done with this article:
What do you think? Monkeyblu e 09:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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 beg your pardon, but I'd really like to understand this phrase ([ [1]]):
Freedom of speech is crucial inbe compatible with democracy
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 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)
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
The following images also have this problem:
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)
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)
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)
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.
"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)
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)
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)
I have removed the following paragraphs from Freedom of Speech:
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 222.64.22.162 ( talk) 04:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
VR talk 08:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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
See also Freedom of expression (disambiguation). -- Cirt ( talk) 00:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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. [13] 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. [14]"
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)
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)
— Cirt ( talk) 19:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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
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.
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) |
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've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 23:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
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. [15] verification needed 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. [16]"
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)
Redlinks in main article page, possible articles to create. — Cirt ( talk) 22:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
— Cirt ( talk) 17:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
— Cirt ( talk) 19:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Added sect, Further reading, to article, diff. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 19:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Templates used at article, Freedom of speech, to converted to footer templates using {{ Navbox}}.
Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 03:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at
At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:
Your input on this question would be very much welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Listing above some good basic overview sources. — Cirt ( talk) 19:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"... 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 want a full review of this section by a competent admin, immediately please. 75.164.226.48 ( talk) 19:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Recently added to the section on limitations:
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)
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)
"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)
Some parts of this article are very good, but I suggest these areas need attention:
MartinPoulter ( talk) 20:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The Free speech on university campuses in the United States section seems out of place in this page.
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
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:
Cordially, 71.229.207.224 ( talk) 23:39, 21 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)
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)
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:
'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)
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)
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)
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.
My inquiry; What would be more significance ? the human life(Children and citizens) or the secret of the one of the Governments
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)
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", [17] while Glenn Greenwald sharply condemned the efforts and Farago's column. [18]
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite document}}
: Unknown parameter |accessdate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |contribution=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |format=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |url=
ignored (
help)
dead link
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)
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)
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)
Ok, Thx HKT3593 ( talk) 23:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"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)
Is there a source for this?
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
"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)
"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?
One of the following things need to be done with this article:
What do you think? Monkeyblu e 09:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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 beg your pardon, but I'd really like to understand this phrase ([ [1]]):
Freedom of speech is crucial inbe compatible with democracy
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 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)
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
The following images also have this problem:
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)
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)
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)
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.
"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)
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)
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)
I have removed the following paragraphs from Freedom of Speech:
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 222.64.22.162 ( talk) 04:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
VR talk 08:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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
See also Freedom of expression (disambiguation). -- Cirt ( talk) 00:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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. [13] 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. [14]"
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)
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)
— Cirt ( talk) 19:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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
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.
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) |
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've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 23:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
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. [15] verification needed 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. [16]"
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)
Redlinks in main article page, possible articles to create. — Cirt ( talk) 22:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
— Cirt ( talk) 17:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
— Cirt ( talk) 19:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Added sect, Further reading, to article, diff. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 19:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Templates used at article, Freedom of speech, to converted to footer templates using {{ Navbox}}.
Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 03:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at
At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:
Your input on this question would be very much welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Listing above some good basic overview sources. — Cirt ( talk) 19:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"... 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 want a full review of this section by a competent admin, immediately please. 75.164.226.48 ( talk) 19:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Recently added to the section on limitations:
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)
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)
"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)
Some parts of this article are very good, but I suggest these areas need attention:
MartinPoulter ( talk) 20:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The Free speech on university campuses in the United States section seems out of place in this page.
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
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:
Cordially, 71.229.207.224 ( talk) 23:39, 21 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)
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)
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:
'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)
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)
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)
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.
My inquiry; What would be more significance ? the human life(Children and citizens) or the secret of the one of the Governments
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)
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", [17] while Glenn Greenwald sharply condemned the efforts and Farago's column. [18]
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite document}}
: Unknown parameter |accessdate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |contribution=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |format=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |url=
ignored (
help)
dead link
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)
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)
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)
Ok, Thx HKT3593 ( talk) 23:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)