text:
Freedom of speech
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about freedom of speech in general. For freedom of speech in specific jurisdictions, see freedom of speech by country. For free speech restrictions on Wikipedia, see WP:Free speech. For other uses, see Freedom of speech (disambiguation).
"Freedom of expression" redirects here. For other uses, see Freedom of expression (disambiguation).
Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1949). Article 19 states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."[1]
Orator at Speakers' Corner in London, 1974
Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.[2][3][4][5] The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[6] Therefore, freedom of speech and expression may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[7] The idea of the "offense principle" is also used in the justification of speech limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided.[7] With the evolution of the digital age, application of the freedom of speech becomes more controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise, for example the Golden Shield Project, an initiative by Chinese government's Ministry of Public Security that filters potentially unfavorable data from foreign countries.
The right to freedom of expression has been interpreted to include the right to take and publish photographs of strangers in public areas without their permission or knowledge.[8][9] However, according to a legal case in the Netherlands, the right to freedom of expression does not include the right to use a photograph in a racist manner to incite racial hatred or ethnic discrimination if the photograph was taken without the knowledge of the subject.[10]
Contents
[hide]
1 Origins of freedom of speech and expression
1.1 Relationship to other rights
2 Democracy and social interaction
3 Free speech on university campuses in the United-States
4 Limitations
5 The Internet and information society
5.1 Freedom of information
5.2 Internet censorship
6 History of dissent and truth
7 See also
8 References
9 Further reading
10 External links
Origins of freedom of speech and expression[edit]
Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments.[11] It is thought that ancient Athens' democratic ideology of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC.[12] The values of the Roman Republic included freedom of speech and freedom of religion.[13]
Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents.[11] England's Bill of Rights 1689 legally established the constitutional right of 'freedom of speech in Parliament' which is still in effect.[14] The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.[11] The Declaration provides for freedom of expression in Article 11, which states that:
The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.[15]
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.[16]
Today, freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.[17] Based on John Milton's arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:
the right to seek information and ideas;
the right to receive information and ideas;
the right to impart information and ideas
International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression.[17]
Relationship to other rights[edit]
The right to freedom of speech and expression is closely related to other rights, and may be limited when conflicting with other rights (see limitations on freedom of speech).[17] The right to freedom of expression is also related to the right to a fair trial and court proceeding which may limit access to the search for information, or determine the opportunity and means in which freedom of expression is manifested within court proceedings.[18] As a general principle freedom of expression may not limit the right to privacy, as well as the honor and reputation of others. However greater latitude is given when criticism of public figures is involved.[18]
The right to freedom of expression is particularly important for media, which plays a special role as the bearer of the general right to freedom of expression for all.[17] However, freedom of the press is not necessarily enabling freedom of speech. Judith Lichtenberg has outlined conditions in which freedom of the press may constrain freedom of speech, for example where the media suppresses information or stifles the diversity of voices inherent in freedom of speech. Lichtenberg argues that freedom of the press is simply a form of property right summed up by the principle "no money, no voice".[19]
Democracy and social interaction[edit]
Permanent Free Speech Wall in Charlottesville, Virginia, US
Freedom of speech is understood to be fundamental in a democracy. The norms on limiting freedom of expression mean that public debate may not be completely suppressed even in times of emergency.[18] One of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and democracy is Alexander Meiklejohn. He argues that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal.[20]
Eric Barendt has called this defense of free speech on the grounds of democracy "probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies".[21] Thomas I. Emerson expanded on this defense when he argued that freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between stability and change. Freedom of speech acts as a "safety valve" to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on revolution. He argues that "The principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a more adaptable and at the same time more stable community, of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus." Emerson furthermore maintains that "Opposition serves a vital social function in offsetting or ameliorating (the) normal process of bureaucratic decay."[22]
Research undertaken by the Worldwide Governance Indicators project at the World Bank, indicates that freedom of speech, and the process of accountability that follows it, have a significant impact in the quality of governance of a country. "Voice and Accountability" within a country, defined as "the extent to which a country's citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and free media" is one of the six dimensions of governance that the Worldwide Governance Indicators measure for more than 200 countries.[23] Against this backdrop it is important that development agencies create grounds for effective support for a free press in developing countries.[24]
Richard Moon has developed the argument that the value of freedom of speech and freedom of expression lies with social interactions. Moon writes that "by communicating an individual forms relationships and associations with others – family, friends, co-workers, church congregation, and countrymen. By entering into discussion with others an individual participates in the development of knowledge and in the direction of the community."[25]
Free speech on university campuses in the United-States[edit]
University campuses have historically been bastions of free speech. UC Berkeley was the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement.
In recent times, many colleges and universities in the United States have retreated from historically strong support for free speech, including through the dis-invitation of speakers, promulgation of speech codes that prohibit what is deemed "offensive speech," and students protesting the participation of politically unpopular speakers on campus, including those widely regarded as outside the mainstream as well as those who are traditionalist Christians, pro-Israel, anti-abortion, or otherwise conservative.[26]
This trend of activism by students and occasionally professors favoring the tightening of permissible speech was commented on and condemned by President Obama in 2015.[27] Several high-profile incidents have occurred since 2014 in which large protests, which ranged in nature from peaceful disruption to widespread violence and rioting,[28] periodically occurred on college campuses, such as at Yale University in 2016,[29] at the University of Missouri in 2015,[30] at the University of California Berkeley in 2017,[28] at Middlebury College in 2017,[31] at Evergreen State College in 2017,[32] and elsewhere. The rise of far-left militant groups, such as Antifa, prompted in large part by the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, which are often attracted to college protests, have led to a rise in the level of violence of some protests.[28][33]
University of California, Los Angeles Chancellor Gene Block issued a statement concerning both the value of free speech and the responsibility for civil discourse. The statement was in favor of an environment in which people coming from different beliefs and backgrounds may engage in passionate dialogue without belittling one another. In Block's view, "just because speech is constitutionally protected doesn’t mean that it is wise, fair or productive."[34]
Limitations[edit]
For specific country examples see Freedom of speech by country and Criminal speech.
Legal systems sometimes recognize certain limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other rights and freedoms, such as in the cases of libel, slander, pornography, obscenity, fighting words, and intellectual property. Justifications for limitations to freedom of speech often reference the "harm principle" or the "offense principle". Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.[35] Certain public institutions may also enact policies restricting the freedom of speech, for example speech codes at state schools.
Members of Westboro Baptist Church have been specifically banned from entering Canada for hate speech.[36]
In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[35] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[35]
In 1985, Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offense principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviors of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end."[37] Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm.[37] In contrast, Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle.[35] Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large.[35]
Along similar lines as Mill, Jasper Doomen has argued that harm should be defined from the point of view of the individual citizen, not limiting harm to physical harm since nonphysical harm may also be involved; Feinberg's distinction between harm and offense is criticized as largely trivial.[38]
In 1999, Bernard Harcourt wrote of the collapse of the harm principle: "Today the debate is characterized by a cacophony of competing harm arguments without any way to resolve them. There is no longer an argument within the structure of the debate to resolve the competing claims of harm. The original harm principle was never equipped determine the relative importance of harms."[39]
Interpretations of both the harm and offense limitations to freedom of speech are culturally and politically relative. For instance, in Russia, the harm and offense principles have been used to justify the Russian LGBT propaganda law restricting speech (and action) in relation to LGBT issues. A number of European countries that take pride in freedom of speech nevertheless outlaw speech that might be interpreted as Holocaust denial. These include Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, and Switzerland.[40]
Kurt Westergaard, a Danish cartoonist, created the controversial cartoon of the Islamic prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb in his turban and was met with strong violent reactions worldwide.[41]
Norman Finkelstein, a writer and professor of political science expressed the opinion that Charlie Hebdo's abrasive cartoons of Muhammad exceeded the boundaries of free speech, and compared those cartoons with the cartoons of Julius Streicher,[42] who was hanged by the Allies after World War II for the words and drawings he had published. In 2006, in response to a particularly abrasive issue of Charlie Hebdo, French President Jacques Chirac condemned "overt provocations" which could inflame passions. "Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided", Chirac said.[43]
In the US, the standing landmark opinion on political speech is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969),[44] expressly overruling Whitney v. California.[45] In Brandenburg, the US Supreme Court referred to the right even to speak openly of violent action and revolution in broad terms:
[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not allow a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or cause such action.[46]
The opinion in Brandenburg discarded the previous test of "clear and present danger" and made the right to freedom of (political) speech's protections in the United States almost absolute.[47][48] Hate speech is also protected by the First Amendment in the United States, as decided in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992) in which the Supreme Court ruled that hate speech is permissible, except in the case of imminent violence.[49] See the First Amendment to the United States Constitution for more detailed information on this decision and its historical background.
The Internet and information society[edit]
Free Speech flag, from the AACS encryption key controversy over HD DVD encoding
Jo Glanville, editor of the Index on Censorship, states that "the Internet has been a revolution for censorship as much as for free speech".[50] International, national and regional standards recognise that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the Internet.[17] The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was the first major attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the US Supreme Court partially overturned the law.[51] Judge Stewart R. Dalzell, one of the three federal judges who in June 1996 declared parts of the CDA unconstitutional, in his opinion stated the following:[52]
The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the village green, or the mails. Because it would necessarily affect the Internet itself, the CDA would necessarily reduce the speech available for adults on the medium. This is a constitutionally intolerable result. Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse. Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar – in a word, "indecent" in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice. We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates.[...] My analysis does not deprive the Government of all means of protecting children from the dangers of Internet communication. The Government can continue to protect children from pornography on the Internet through vigorous enforcement of existing laws criminalizing obscenity and child pornography. [...] As we learned at the hearing, there is also a compelling need for public educations about the benefits and dangers of this new medium, and the Government can fill that role as well. In my view, our action today should only mean that Government's permissible supervision of Internet contents stops at the traditional line of unprotected speech. [...] The absence of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one of the plaintiff's experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: "What achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is. The strength of the Internet is chaos." Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so that strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects.[52]
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the "Information Society" in stating:
We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers.[53]
According to Bernt Hugenholtz and Lucie Guibault the public domain is under pressure from the "commodification of information" as information with previously little or no economic value has acquired independent economic value in the information age. This includes factual data, personal data, genetic information and pure ideas. The commodification of information is taking place through intellectual property law, contract law, as well as broadcasting and telecommunications law.[54]
Freedom of information[edit]
Main article: Freedom of information
Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech where the medium of expression is the Internet. Freedom of information may also refer to the right to privacy in the context of the Internet and information technology. As with the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy is a recognised human right and freedom of information acts as an extension to this right.[55] Freedom of information may also concern censorship in an information technology context, i.e. the ability to access Web content, without censorship or restrictions.[56]
Freedom of information is also explicitly protected by acts such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of Ontario, in Canada.[57]
Internet censorship[edit]
Main articles: Internet censorship and Internet censorship by country
The concept of freedom of information has emerged in response to state sponsored censorship, monitoring and surveillance of the internet. Internet censorship includes the control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet.[58] The Global Internet Freedom Consortium claims to remove blocks to the "free flow of information" for what they term "closed societies".[59] According to the Reporters without Borders (RWB) "internet enemy list" the following states engage in pervasive internet censorship: China, Cuba, Iran, Myanmar/Burma, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.[60]
A widely publicized example of internet censorship is the "Great Firewall of China" (in reference both to its role as a network firewall and to the ancient Great Wall of China). The system blocks content by preventing IP addresses from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and proxy servers at the Internet gateways. The system also selectively engages in DNS poisoning when particular sites are requested. The government does not appear to be systematically examining Internet content, as this appears to be technically impractical.[61] Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations, including more than sixty regulations directed at the Internet. Censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.[62][63]
History of dissent and truth[edit]
For more details on this topic, see Dissent.
First page of John Milton's 1644 edition of Areopagitica, in which he argued forcefully against the Licensing Order of 1643.
In Panegyricae orationes septem (1596), Henric van Cuyck, a Dutch Bishop, defended the need for censorship. Van Cuyck argued that Johannes Gutenberg's printing press had resulted in a world infected by "pernicious lies." He singled out the Talmud and the Qu’ran, and the writings of Martin Luther, Jean Calvin and Erasmus of Rotterdam.[64]
Before the invention of the printing press a written work, once created, could only be physically multiplied by highly laborious and error-prone manual copying. No elaborate system of censorship and control over scribes existed, who until the 14th century were restricted to religious institutions, and their works rarely caused wider controversy. In response to the printing press, and the heresies it allowed to spread, the Roman Catholic Church moved to impose censorship.[65] Printing allowed for multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information (see print culture).[66] The origins of copyright law in most European countries lie in efforts by the Roman Catholic Church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers.[66]
In 1501 Pope Alexander VI issued a Bill against the unlicensed printing of books and in 1559 the Index Expurgatorius, or List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time.[65] The Index Expurgatorius is the most famous and long lasting example of "bad books" catalogues issued by the Roman Catholic Church, which presumed to be in authority over private thoughts and opinions, and suppressed views that went against its doctrines. The Index Expurgatorius was administered by the Roman Inquisition, but enforced by local government authorities, and went through 300 editions. Amongst others, it banned or censored books written by René Descartes, Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, David Hume, John Locke, Daniel Defoe, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire.[67] While governments and church encouraged printing in many ways because it allowed for the dissemination of Bibles and government information, works of dissent and criticism could also circulate rapidly. As a consequence, governments established controls over printers across Europe, requiring them to have official licenses to trade and produce books.[66]
Title page of Index Librorum Prohibitorum, or List of Prohibited Books, (Venice 1564).
This 1688 edition of Jacobus de Voragine's Golden Legend (1260) was censored according to the Index Librorum Expurgatorum of 1707, which listed the specific passages of books already in circulation that required censorship.[68][69]
The notion that the expression of dissent or subversive views should be tolerated, not censured or punished by law, developed alongside the rise of printing and the press. Areopagitica, published in 1644, was John Milton's response to the Parliament of England's re-introduction of government licensing of printers, hence publishers.[70] Church authorities had previously ensured that Milton's essay on the right to divorce was refused a license for publication. In Areopagitica, published without a license,[71] Milton made an impassioned plea for freedom of expression and toleration of falsehood,[70] stating:
Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.[70]
Milton's defense of freedom of expression was grounded in a Protestant worldview and he thought that the English people had the mission to work out the truth of the Reformation, which would lead to the enlightenment of all people. But Milton also articulated the main strands of future discussions about freedom of expression. By defining the scope of freedom of expression and of "harmful" speech Milton argued against the principle of pre-censorship and in favor of tolerance for a wide range of views.[70]
As the "menace" of printing spread, more governments attempted to centralize control.[72] The French crown repressed printing and the printer Etienne Dolet was burned at the stake in 1546. In 1557 the British Crown thought to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books by chartering the Stationers' Company. The right to print was limited to the members of that guild, and thirty years later the Star Chamber was chartered to curtail the "greate enormities and abuses" of "dyvers contentyous and disorderlye persons professinge the arte or mystere of pryntinge or selling of books." The right to print was restricted to two universities and to the 21 existing printers in the city of London, which had 53 printing presses. As the British crown took control of type founding in 1637 printers fled to the Netherlands. Confrontation with authority made printers radical and rebellious, with 800 authors, printers and book dealers being incarcerated in the Bastille in Paris before it was stormed in 1789.[72]
A succession of English thinkers was at the forefront of early discussion on a right to freedom of expression, among them John Milton (1608–74) and John Locke (1632–1704). Locke established the individual as the unit of value and the bearer of rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. However Locke's ideas evolved primarily around the concept of the right to seek salvation for one's soul, and was thus primarily concerned with theological matters. Locke neither supported a universal toleration of peoples nor freedom of speech; according to his ideas, some groups, such as atheists, should not be allowed.[73]
By the second half of the 17th century philosophers on the European continent like Baruch Spinoza and Pierre Bayle developed ideas encompassing a more universal aspect freedom of speech and toleration than the early English philosophers.[73] By the 18th century the idea of freedom of speech was being discussed by thinkers all over the Western world, especially by French philosophes like Denis Diderot, Baron d'Holbach and Claude Adrien Helvétius.[74] The idea began to be incorporated in political theory both in theory as well as practice; the first state edict in history proclaiming complete freedom of speech was the one issued December 4, 1770 in Denmark-Norway during the regency of Johann Friedrich Struensee.[75] However Struensee himself imposed some minor limitations to this edict in October 7, 1771, and it was even further limited after the fall of Struensee with legislation introduced in 1773, although censorship was not reintroduced.[76]
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) argued that without human freedom there can be no progress in science, law or politics, which according to Mill required free discussion of opinion. Mill's On Liberty, published in 1859 became a classic defence of the right to freedom of expression.[70] Mill argued that truth drives out falsity, therefore the free expression of ideas, true or false, should not be feared. Truth is not stable or fixed, but evolves with time. Mill argued that much of what we once considered true has turned out false. Therefore, views should not be prohibited for their apparent falsity. Mill also argued that free discussion is necessary to prevent the "deep slumber of a decided opinion". Discussion would drive the onwards march of truth and by considering false views the basis of true views could be re-affirmed.[77] Furthermore, Mill argued that an opinion only carries intrinsic value to the owner of that opinion, thus silencing the expression of that opinion is an injustice to a basic human right. For Mill, the only instance in which speech can be justifiably suppressed is in order to prevent harm from a clear and direct threat. Neither economic or moral implications, nor the speakers own well-being would justify suppression of speech.[78]
In Evelyn Beatrice Hall's biography of Voltaire, she coined the following sentence to illustrate Voltaire's beliefs: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."[79] Hall's quote is frequently cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.[79] In the 20th Century, Noam Chomsky states that: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."[80] Lee Bollinger argues that "the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint, the purpose of which is to develop and demonstrate a social capacity to control feelings evoked by a host of social encounters." Bollinger argues that tolerance is a desirable value, if not essential. However, critics argue that society should be concerned by those who directly deny or advocate, for example, genocide (see limitations above).[81]
See also[edit]
Academic freedom
NUS No Platform Policy
The Confessionals
Digital rights
Election silence
Forbidden number
Freedom of thought
Global Network Initiative
Heckler's veto
Je suis Charlie
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Laws against Holocaust denial
Market for loyalties theory
Media transparency
Open court principle
Paradox of tolerance
Parrhesia
Photography is Not a Crime
Political correctness
Right to pornography
Symbolic speech
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Jump up ^ Mill, John Stuart (1859). "Introductory". On Liberty (4th ed.). London: Longman, Roberts & Green (published 1869). para. 5. Society can and does execute its own mandates ... it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough...
Jump up ^ Mill, John Stuart (1859). "Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion". On Liberty (4th ed.). London: Longman, Roberts & Green (published 1869). para. 19. In respect to all persons but those whose pecuniary circumstances make them independent of the good will of other people, opinion, on this subject, is as efficacious as law; men might as well be imprisoned, as excluded from the means of earning their bread.
Jump up ^ Ten Cate, Irene M. (2010). "Speech, Truth, and Freedom: An Examination of John Stuart Mill's and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's Free Speech Defenses". Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities. 22 (1). Article 2. [A] central argument for freedom of speech in On Liberty is that in order to maximize the benefits a society can gain ... it must permanently commit to restraining dominant groups from their natural inclination to demand conformity.
Jump up ^ Wragg, Paul (2015). "Free Speech Rights at Work: Resolving the Differences between Practice and Liberal Principle" (PDF). Industrial Law Journal. Oxford University Press. 44 (1): 11. (Subscription required (help)). Comparison may be made between Mill's ‘tyrannical majority’ and the employer who dismisses an employee for expression that it dislikes on moral grounds. The protection of employer action in these circumstances evokes Mill's concern about state tolerance of coercive means to ensure conformity with orthodox moral viewpoints and so nullify unorthodox ones.
Jump up ^ "Article 19". International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by UN General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976. 23 March 1976. Archived from the original on 5 July 2008. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b van Mill, David (1 January 2016). Zalta, Edward N., ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 ed.).
Jump up ^ [1]
Jump up ^ "Know Your Rights: What To Do If You Are Detained For Taking Photographs". Photographer's Rights. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 29 April 2017.
Jump up ^ [2]
^ Jump up to: a b c Smith, David (5 February 2006). "Timeline: a history of free speech". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
Jump up ^ Raaflaub, Kurt; Ober, Josiah; Wallace, Robert (2007). Origins of democracy in ancient Greece. University of California Press. p. 65. ISBN 0-520-24562-8.
Jump up ^ M. P. Charlesworth (March 1943). "Freedom of Speech in Republican Rome". The Classical Review. The Classical Association. 57 (1): 49. doi:10.1017/s0009840x00311283.
Jump up ^ Williams, E. N. (1960). The Eighteenth-Century Constitution. 1688–1815. Cambridge University Press. pp. 26–29. OCLC 1146699.
Jump up ^ Arthur W. Diamond Law Library at Columbia Law School (26 March 2008). "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen". Hrcr.org. www.hrcr.org. Retrieved 25 June 2013.
Jump up ^ United Nations (10 September 1948). "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights". UN.org. www.un.org. Retrieved 25 June 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Andrew Puddephatt, Freedom of Expression, The essentials of Human Rights, Hodder Arnold, 2005, p. 128
^ Jump up to: a b c Brett, Sebastian (1999). Limits to tolerance: freedom of expression and the public debate in Chile. Human Rights Watch. p. xxv. ISBN 978-1-56432-192-3.
Jump up ^ Sanders, Karen (2003). Ethics & Journalism. Sage. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-7619-6967-9.
Jump up ^ Marlin, Randal (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press. pp. 226–27. ISBN 978-1551113760.
Jump up ^ Marlin, Randal (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press. p. 226. ISBN 978-1551113760.
Jump up ^ Marlin, Randal (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press. pp. 228–29. ISBN 978-1551113760.
Jump up ^ "A Decade of Measuring the Quality of Governance" (PDF). World Bank. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 April 2008.
Jump up ^ "Freedom of expression promotes democracy" http://www.dandc.eu/en/article/alexander-matschke-promoting-free-media-task-development-policy, by Alexander Matschke in E+C/E+Z January 2015
Jump up ^ Marlin, Randal (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press. p. 229. ISBN 978-1551113760.
Jump up ^ McLaughlin, Eliott (May 1, 2017). "War on campus: The escalating battle over college free speech". CNN. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Obama Warns Campus Protesters Against Urge to 'Shut Up' Opposition". NPR. December 21, 2015. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b c Steinmetz, Katy (June 1, 2017). "Fighting Words: A Battle in Berkeley Over Free Speech". Time. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
Jump up ^ Friedersdorf, Conor (May 26, 2016). "The Perils of Writing a Provocative Email at Yale". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
Jump up ^ Pérez-Peña, Richard (February 25, 2016). "University of Missouri Fires Melissa Click, Who Tried to Block Journalist at Protest". The New York Times. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
Jump up ^ Beinart, Peter (March 6, 2017). "A Violent Attack on Free Speech at Middlebury". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
Jump up ^ Hartocollis, Anemona (June 16, 2017). "A Campus Argument Goes Viral. Now the College Is Under Siege.". The New York Times. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
Jump up ^ St. John, Paige; Queally, James (August 29, 2017). "'Antifa' violence in Berkeley spurs soul-searching within leftist activist community". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
Jump up ^ "A message from Chancellor Block on the importance of civil discourse." Newsroom. 16 May 2014. 19 May 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Freedom of Speech". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 17 April 2008. Retrieved 29 May 2011.
Jump up ^ Church members enter Canada, aiming to picket bus victim's funeral, CBC News, 8 August 2008.
^ Jump up to: a b Harcourt. "Conclusion". The Collapse of the Harm Principle. Retrieved 7 September 2015.
Jump up ^ Doomen 2014, pp. 111, 112.
Jump up ^ Kenneth Einar Himma. "Philosophy of Law". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
Jump up ^ Lechtholz-Zey, Jacqueline: Laws Banning Holocaust Denial. Genocide Prevention Now.. Retrieved September 29, 2010.
Jump up ^ "Tenemos Que Librar Con Ferocidad La Lucha Por La Libertad De Expresión", "Libertad Digital Internacional", 2010
Jump up ^ Caglayan, Mustafa (19 January 2015). "Norman Finkelstein: Charlie Hebdo is sadism, not satire". www.aa.com.tr. Anadolu Agency. Retrieved 26 January 2015.
Jump up ^ "Culte Musulman et Islam de France". CFCM TV. 22 March 2007. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
Jump up ^ Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Jump up ^ Jasper 1999, p. 32.
Jump up ^ Brandenburg, at 447
Jump up ^ Brandenburg, at 450–01
Jump up ^ Lewis 2007, p. 124.
Jump up ^ "ABA Division for Public Education: Students: Debating the "Mighty Constitutional Opposites": Hate Speech Debate". www.americanbar.org. Retrieved 12 October 2016.
Jump up ^ Glanville, Jo (17 November 2008). "The big business of net censorship". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 26 March 2014.
Jump up ^ Godwin, Mike (2003). Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age. MIT Press. pp. 349–52. ISBN 0-262-57168-4.
^ Jump up to: a b Rowland, Diane (2005). Information Technology Law. Routledge-Cavendish. pp. 463–65. ISBN 978-1859417560.
Jump up ^ Klang, Mathias; Murray, Andrew (2005). Human Rights in the Digital Age. Routledge. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-904385-31-8.
Jump up ^ Guibault, Lucy; Hugenholtz, Bernt (2006). The future of the public domain: identifying the commons in information law. Kluwer Law International. p. 1. ISBN 9789041124357.
Jump up ^ Protecting Free Expression Online with Freenet – Internet Computing, IEEE
Jump up ^ Pauli, Darren (14 January 2008). "Industry rejects Australian gov't sanitized Internet measure". The Industry Standard.
Jump up ^ Martin, Robert; Adam, G. Stuart (1994). A Sourcebook of Canadian Media Law. McGill-Queen's Press. pp. 232–34. ISBN 0886292387.
Jump up ^ Deibert, Robert; Palfrey, John G; Rohozinski, Rafal; Zittrain, Jonathan (2008). Access denied: the practice and policy of global Internet filtering. MIT Press.
Jump up ^ "Mission". Global Internet Freedom Consortium. Retrieved 29 July 2008.
Jump up ^ Internet Enemies, Reporters Without Borders, Paris, March 2011
Jump up ^ Watts, Jonathan (20 February 2006). "War of the words". London: The Guardian.
Jump up ^ "II. How Censorship Works in China: A Brief Overview". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 30 August 2006.
Jump up ^ Chinese Laws and Regulations Regarding Internet
Jump up ^ "6. Henric van Cuyck, Bishop of Roermond (1546–1609). Panegyricae orationes septem. Louvain: Philippus Zangrius, 1596.". Ecclesiastical Censorship, "Heresy and Error": The Ecclesiastical Censorship of Books, 1400–1800. Bridwell Library. 17 December 2000. Retrieved 26 June 2011.
^ Jump up to: a b de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). Technologies of freedom. Harvard University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-674-87233-2.
^ Jump up to: a b c MacQueen, Hector L; Waelde, Charlotte; Laurie, Graeme T (2007). Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy. Oxford University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-19-926339-4.
Jump up ^ Castillo, Anastasia (2010). Banned Books: Censorship in Eighteenth-Century England. GRIN Verlag. p. 12. ISBN 978-3-640-71688-3.
Jump up ^ "The index of expurgations". "Heresy and Error": The Ecclesiastical Censorship of Books, 1400–1800. Bridwell Library. 17 December 2000. Retrieved 26 June 2011.
Jump up ^ "52. Jacobus de Voragine (c. 1230–1298). Legenda aurea sanctorum. Madrid: Juan Garcia, 1688". The Index of Expurgations, "Heresy and Error": The Ecclesiastical Censorship of Books, 1400–1800. Bridwell Library. 17 December 2000. Retrieved 26 June 2011.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Sanders, Karen (2003). Ethics & Journalism. Sage. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-7619-6967-9.
Jump up ^ "13. John Milton (1608–1674). Areopagitica; A Speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicenc’d Printing, to the Parlament of England. London: [s.n.], 1644". Early Censorship in England, "Heresy and Error": The Ecclesiastical Censorship of Books, 1400–1800. Bridwell Library. 17 December 2000. Retrieved 26 June 2011.
^ Jump up to: a b de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). Technologies of freedom. Harvard University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-674-87233-2.
^ Jump up to: a b Jonathan Israel (2002). Radical Enlightenment. Oxford University Press. pp. 265–67.
Jump up ^ Jonathan Israel (2006). Enlightenment Contested. Oxford University Press. pp. 155ff, 781ff.
Jump up ^ Jonathan Israel (2010). A Revolution of the Mind. Princeton University Press. p. 76.
Jump up ^ H. Arnold Barton (1986). Scandinavia in the Revolutionary Era – 1760–1815. University of Minnesota Press. pp. 90–91.
Jump up ^ Sanders, Karen (2003). Ethics & Journalism. Sage. p. 67. ISBN 978-0-7619-6967-9.
Jump up ^ Warburton, Nigel (2009). Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford. pp. 24–29. ISBN 978-0-19-923235-2.
^ Jump up to: a b Boller, Jr., Paul F.; George, John (1989). They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 124–26. ISBN 0-19-505541-1.
Jump up ^ Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick (1992). Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media.
Jump up ^ Lee Bollinger (1988). The Tolerant Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Further reading[edit]
Curtis, Michael Kent (2000). Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege": Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History. Duke University Press. ISBN 0822325292.
Godwin, Mike (2003). Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age. MIT Press. ISBN 0262571684.
Grossman, Wendy M. (1997). Net.wars. New York University Press. ISBN 0814731031.
Kors, Alan Charles (2008). "Freedom of Speech". In Hamowy, Ronald. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 182–85. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n112.
Lewis, Anthony (2007). Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment. Basic Books. ISBN 9780465039173. OCLC 494134545.
McLeod, Kembrew (2007). Freedom of Expression: Resistance and Repression in the Age of Intellectual Property. Lawrence Lessig (foreword). University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0816650314.
Nelson, Samuel P. (2005). Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0801881730.
Doomen, Jasper (2014). Freedom and Equality in a Liberal Democratic State. Bruylant. ISBN 9782802746232.
External links[edit]
Find more aboutFreedom of speechat Wikipedia's sister projects
Definitions from Wiktionary
Media from Commons
News from Wikinews
Quotations from Wikiquote
Texts from Wikisource
Textbooks from Wikibooks
Learning resources from Wikiversity
"Timeline: a history of free speech", David Smith and Luc Torres, The Guardian, 5 February 2006.
"Original Meaning of Freedom of Speech or of the Press" (U.S.A), P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog, 18 October 2008.
"Free Speech in the Age of YouTube", Somini Sengupta, New York Times, 22 September 2012.
Article19.org, Global Campaign for Free Expression.
Free Speech Debate, a research project of the Dahrendorf Programme for the Study of Freedom at St Antony's College in the University of Oxford.
Index on Censorship, an international organisation that promotes and defends the right to freedom of expression.
International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of organisations defending and promoting freedom of expression as a fundamental human right.
Media Freedom Navigator: Media Freedom Indices at a Glance, Deutsche Welle Akademie.
Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Organization of American States.
[show]
v
t
e
Censorship
Media regulation
Books (books banned)
Films (banned films)
Internet
circumvention
Music
Post
Press
Radio
Speech and expression
Thought
Video games
Methods
Bleeping
Book burning
Broadcast delay
Burying of scholars
Censor bars
Chilling effect
Concision
Conspiracy of silence
Content-control software
Euphemism
Minced oath
Expurgation
Fogging
Gag order
Heckling
Heckler's veto
Internet police
Memory hole
National intranet
Newspaper theft
Pixelization
Prior restraint
Propaganda
Purge
Revisionism
Sanitization
Self-censorship
Speech code
Strategic lawsuit
Surveillance
computer & network
mass
Whitewashing
Word filtering
Damnatio memoriae
Contexts
Criminal
Corporate
Hate speech
Ideological
Media bias
Moralistic fallacy
Naturalistic fallacy
Politics
Propaganda model
Religious (Islamic)
Suppression of dissent
Systemic bias
By country
Censorship
Freedom of speech
Internet censorship
[show]
v
t
e
Liberty
Concepts
Positive liberty
Negative liberty
Cognitive liberty
Social liberty
Rights
Free will
Moral responsibility
Goddess of Liberty
By type
Academic
Civil
Economic
Intellectual
Morphological
Political
By right
Assembly
Association
Choice
Education
Information
Movement
Press
Religion
Public speech
Thought
[show]
v
t
e
Substantive human rights
Note: What is considered a human right is controversial and not all the topics listed are universally accepted as human rights.
Civil and political
Equality before the law
Freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention
Freedom of assembly
Freedom of association
Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment
Freedom from discrimination
Freedom from exile
Freedom of information
Freedom of movement
Freedom of religion
Freedom from slavery
Freedom of speech
Freedom of thought
Freedom from torture
Legal aid
Liberty
LGBT rights
Nationality
Personhood
Presumption of innocence
Right of asylum
Right to die
Right to a fair trial
Right to family life
Right to keep and bear arms
Right to life
Right to petition
Right to privacy
Right to protest
Right to refuse medical treatment
Right of self-defense
Security of person
Universal suffrage
Economic, social
and cultural
Digital rights
Equal pay for equal work
Fair remuneration
Labor rights
Right to an adequate standard of living
Right to clothing
Right to development
Right to education
Right to food
Right to health
Right to housing
Right to Internet access
Right to property
Right to public participation
Right of reply
Right of return
Right to science and culture
Right to social security
Right to water
Right to work
Trade union membership
Sexual and
reproductive
Abortion
Family planning
Freedom from involuntary female genital mutilation
Intersex human rights
LGBT rights
Reproductive health
Right to sexuality
Violations
Corporal punishment
War and conflict
Civilian
Combatant
Freedom from genocide
Prisoner of war
War rape
[show]
v
t
e
Internet censorship and surveillance by country
Africa
Algeria
Angola
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Chad
Congo DR
Congo RO
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Ivory Coast
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Madagascar
Malawi
Mauritania
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Western Sahara
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Asia
Afghanistan
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Cambodia
China (Hong Kong)
East Timor
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Malaysia
Mongolia
Myanmar
Nepal
North Korea
Oman
Pakistan
Palestinian territories
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Thailand
Turkey
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Europe
Albania
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Georgia
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Moldova
Montenegro
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Ukraine
United Kingdom
North America
Bahamas
Belize
Canada
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Greenland
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Trinidad and Tobago
United States (Puerto Rico)
Oceania
Australia
Fiji
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
South America
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Guyana
Paraguay
Peru
Suriname
Uruguay
Venezuela
[show]
v
t
e
Media culture
Media
Mass media
Mainstream media
24-hour news cycle
Corporate media
News broadcasting
News media
Film
Internet
Radio
Television
Ideology
Mainstream
Advanced capitalism
American Dream
Bipartisanship
Consumerism
Pensée unique
Pop music
Deception
Forms
Advertising
Propaganda
Public relations
Spin
Tabloid journalism
Techniques
Cult of personality
Dumbing down
Framing
Media circus
Media event
Narcotizing dysfunction
Recuperation
Sensationalism
Others
Crowd manipulation
Managing the news
Media manipulation
Philosophers
Theodor W. Adorno
Jean Baudrillard
Edward Bernays
Noam Chomsky
Guy Debord
Walter Lippmann
Marshall McLuhan
Counterculture
Boycott
Civil disobedience
Culture jamming
Demonstration
Graffiti
Occupation
Political satire
Protest
Punk
Strike action
In academia
Influence of mass media
Media studies
Semiotic democracy
The Lonely Crowd
Issues
Anonymity
Concentration of media ownership
Freedom of speech
Media bias
Privacy
Synonyms
Advanced capitalism
Culture industry
Mass society
Post-Fordism
Society of the Spectacle
[show]
v
t
e
Sexual revolution
Main topics
Free love
Summer of Love
Milestones
Abortion law
Divorce law by country
Freedom of speech
Golden Age of Porn
"Porno chic"
Pornography
Pornography in the United States
Swinging
The Pill (1965)
United States v. One Book Called Ulysses
Slogans
"Make love, not war"
"The personal is political"
Struggles
Playboy
Protests of 1968
Stonewall riots
People
Gerard Damiano
Hugh Hefner
Related topics
Counterculture of the 1960s
Feminist views of pornography
Hippie
LGBT
LGBT culture in New York City
Lust
Peace movement
Freedom of speech portal
Human rights portal
Internet portal
Journalism portal
Law portal
Philosophy portal
Society portal
Writing portal
Authority control
GND: 4038463-9
NDL: 00563847
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_speech&oldid=801537103"
Categories:
Freedom of speech
Censorship
Freedom of expression
Human rights by issue
Hidden categories:
Pages containing links to subscription-only content
Use dmy dates from October 2016
Articles prone to spam from March 2014
Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers
Articles with inconsistent citation formats
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Wikiquote
Languages
العربية
Bân-lâm-gú
Башҡортса
Беларуская
Български
Bosanski
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Føroyskt
Français
Galego
گیلکی
客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî
한국어
Հայերեն
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Kurdî
ລາວ
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Magyar
Македонски
മലയാളം
मराठी
مصرى
Bahasa Melayu
မြန်မာဘာသာ
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk
Norsk nynorsk
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
پښتو
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Scots
Shqip
Sicilianu
Simple English
سنڌي
Slovenčina
کوردی
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
Tiếng Việt
吴语
ייִדיש
粵語
Zeêuws
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 20 September 2017, at 08:05.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

attrs: id class style

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: href title

attrs: href class title

attrs: role class

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

value: img

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

values: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

values:
/wiki/Copyright_violation
mw-redirect
Copyright violation

values:
/wiki/Trade_secrets
mw-redirect
Trade secrets

values:
/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreements
mw-redirect
Non-disclosure agreements

values:
/wiki/Digital_age
mw-redirect
Digital age

values: Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China

values: Edit section: Origins of freedom of speech and expression

values: Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

values:
/wiki/Human_rights_law
mw-redirect
Human rights law

values: African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

values: Edit section: Relationship to other rights

values:
/wiki/Property_right
mw-redirect
Property right

values: Edit section: Democracy and social interaction

values: Edit section: Free speech on university campuses in the United-States

values: Censorship of broadcasting in the United States

values:
/wiki/Russian_LGBT_propaganda_law
mw-redirect
Russian LGBT propaganda law

values:
/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court
mw-redirect
United States Supreme Court

values: First Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Edit section: The Internet and information society

values:
/wiki/Free_Speech_flag
mw-redirect
Free Speech flag

values:
/wiki/Reno_v._ACLU
mw-redirect
Reno v. ACLU

values:
/wiki/Stewart_R._Dalzell
mw-redirect
Stewart R. Dalzell

values:
/wiki/Print_media
mw-redirect
Print media

values:
/wiki/Personal_data
mw-redirect
Personal data

values:
/wiki/Genetic_information
mw-redirect
Genetic information

values:
/wiki/Contract_law
mw-redirect
Contract law

values:
/wiki/Human_right
mw-redirect
Human right

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_by_country
mw-redirect
Internet censorship by country

values:
/wiki/Reporters_without_Borders
mw-redirect
Reporters without Borders

values:
/wiki/Great_Firewall_of_China
mw-redirect
Great Firewall of China

values:
/wiki/Firewall_(networking)
mw-redirect
Firewall (networking)

values:
/wiki/DNS_poisoning
mw-redirect
DNS poisoning

values: Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China

values: Edit section: History of dissent and truth

values:
/wiki/Jean_Calvin
mw-redirect
Jean Calvin

values:
/wiki/Erasmus_of_Rotterdam
mw-redirect
Erasmus of Rotterdam

values:
/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church
mw-redirect
Roman Catholic Church

values:
/wiki/Copyright_law
mw-redirect
Copyright law

values:
/wiki/Index_Expurgatorius
mw-redirect
Index Expurgatorius

values:
/wiki/Jacobus_de_Voragine
mw-redirect
Jacobus de Voragine

values:
/wiki/Index_Librorum_Expurgatorum
mw-redirect
Index Librorum Expurgatorum

values:
/wiki/Protestant_Reformation
mw-redirect
Protestant Reformation

values:
/wiki/French_crown
mw-redirect
French crown

values:
/wiki/Etienne_Dolet
mw-redirect
Etienne Dolet

values:
/wiki/British_Crown
mw-redirect
British Crown

values:
/wiki/Stationers%27_Company
mw-redirect
Stationers' Company

values:
/wiki/Printing_presses
mw-redirect
Printing presses

values:
/wiki/Right_to_liberty
mw-redirect
Right to liberty

values:
/wiki/Pursuit_of_happiness
mw-redirect
Pursuit of happiness

values:
/wiki/NUS_No_Platform_Policy
mw-redirect
NUS No Platform Policy

values:
/wiki/Forbidden_number
mw-redirect
Forbidden number

values: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

values:
/wiki/Right_to_pornography
mw-redirect
Right to pornography

values: div-col columns column-count column-count-2

values: -moz-column-count: 2; -webkit-column-count: 2; column-count: 2;

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html

values:
nofollow
http://www.bartleby.com/130/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html

values: The site requires a paid subscription to access this page.

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1017%2Fs0009840x00311283

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/oclc/1146699

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html

values:
nofollow
https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.cbc.ca/1.703285

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/law-phil.htm

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 395

values: Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.internetfreedom.org/mission

values: Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege"

values:
nofollow
external text
//lccn.loc.gov/2008009151

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/oclc/750831024

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/oclc/494134545

values: padding-bottom: 0.75em; text-align: center;

attrs: alt src width height style srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: display: inline-block; width: 31px; line-height: 31px; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center;

values: display: inline-block; margin-left: 4px; width: 182px; vertical-align: middle;

values: border-top:1px solid #aaa; padding-top: 0.75em;

values: metadata plainlinks plainlist mbox-small

values: border:1px solid #aaa; padding:0.75em; background:#f9f9f9;

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.article19.org

values:
nofollow
external text
http://freespeechdebate.com

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.indexoncensorship.org

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.ifex.org

values:
nofollow
external text
http://akademie.dw.de/navigator

values:
/wiki/Censorship_of_music
mw-redirect
Censorship of music

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: Example of redaction on (a copy of) a document

values:
navbox-image
4
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

values: Burning of books and burying of scholars

values: Strategic lawsuit against public participation

values: Internet censorship and surveillance by country

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: navigation navbox Censorship padding:3px

values:
/wiki/Social_liberty
mw-redirect
Social liberty

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

values: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

values:
/wiki/Right_to_water
mw-redirect
Right to water

values: Sexual and reproductive health and rights

values: Template talk:Internet censorship by country

values: Telecommunications in the Central African Republic

values: Human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

values: Telecommunications in the Republic of the Congo

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Egypt
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Egypt

values:
/wiki/Internet_in_Libya#Internet
mw-redirect
Internet in Libya

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Azerbaijan
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Azerbaijan

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Bhutan
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Bhutan

values:
/wiki/Internet_in_East_Timor#Censorship
mw-redirect
Internet in East Timor

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Kazakhstan
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Kazakhstan

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Malaysia
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Malaysia

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Myanmar
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Myanmar

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Nepal
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Nepal

values: Communications in the Palestinian territories

values:
/wiki/Censorship_in_Sri_Lanka
mw-redirect
Censorship in Sri Lanka

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Turkey
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Turkey

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Uzbekistan
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Uzbekistan

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Belarus
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Belarus

values: Telecommunications in Bosnia and Herzegovina

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Denmark
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Denmark

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Finland
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Finland

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Iceland
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Iceland

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Ireland
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Ireland

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Italy
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Italy

values:
/wiki/Internet_in_Lithuania#Censorship
mw-redirect
Internet in Lithuania

values: Telecommunications in the Republic of Macedonia

values: Internet censorship in the United Kingdom

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Canada
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Canada

values: Telecommunications in the Dominican Republic

values: Telecommunications in Trinidad and Tobago

values: Internet censorship in the United States

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Brazil
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Brazil

values:
/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Paraguay
mw-redirect
Internet censorship in Paraguay

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: United States v. One Book Called Ulysses

values:
/wiki/Feminist_views_of_pornography
mw-redirect
Feminist views of pornography

values: Sample 09-F9 protest art, Free Speech Flag by John Marcotte.svg

values:
noprint metadata navbox
navigation
Portals
font-weight:bold;padding:0.4em 2em

values:
nofollow
external text
http://d-nb.info/gnd/4038463-9

values: Category:Pages containing links to subscription-only content

values: Category:Use dmy dates from October 2016

values: Category:Articles prone to spam from March 2014

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers

values: Category:Articles with inconsistent citation formats

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: حرية التعبير – Arabic

values: Һүҙ азатлығы – Bashkir

values: Свабода слова – Belarusian

values: Свобода на словото – Bulgarian

values: Ελευθερία του λόγου – Greek

values: آزادی بیان – Persian

values: گۊتنرهایی – Gilaki

values: 표현의 자유 – Korean

values: Խոսքի ազատություն – Armenian

values: अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता – Hindi

values: חופש הביטוי – Hebrew

values: ເສລີພາບໃນການເວົ້າ – Lao

values: Слобода на говорот – Macedonian

values: അഭിപ്രായസ്വാതന്ത്ര്യം – Malayalam

values: अभिव्यक्तिस्वातंत्र्य – Marathi

values: လွတ်လပ်စွာဟောပြောခွင့် – Burmese

values: ਬੋਲਣ ਦੀ ਆਜ਼ਾਦੀ – Punjabi

values: د وينا ازادي – Pashto

values: Свобода слова – Russian

values: اظهار جي آزادي – Sindhi

values: ئازادیی دەربڕین – Central Kurdish

values: Слобода говора – Serbian

values: கருத்து வெளிப்பாட்டுச் சுதந்திரம் – Tamil

values: เสรีภาพในการพูด – Thai

values: Свобода слова – Ukrainian

values: آزادی گفتار – Urdu

values: פרייהייט פון ווארט – Yiddish

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Freedom_of_speech rootpage-Freedom_of_speech skin-vector action-view