Talk:Freedom of speech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Freedom of speech as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Arabic language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Source needed

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

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

Is there a source for this?

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

[edit] Self-governance

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

[edit] History

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

[edit] Which Country has the Best Protection?

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

There are different rankings Reporters without borders have their ranking rsf.org, and according to this Denmark has ranked top a few years. In fact, most of Scandinavia is top ranked, except for sweden, which has had trouble with some nazi and motor cycle gangs threatening journalists.DanielDemaret 09:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, RSF only rank press freedom, not freedom of speech in general. Although press freedom is a subset of freedom of speech, it's by no means the entire thing. Also, Denmark isn't ranked the highest Nil Einne 13:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of article

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

In my view parentheses are ugly and should only be used for disambiguation. So I'd support "Freedom of speech around the world" or "Freedom of speech by country" over the current title. "International" in the current title might also falsly imply the article is about freedom of speech in international law or something like that. Iota 00:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I support that, Iota. Will one of you two do the honours and change it? DanielDemaret 09:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur that the name should be changed. --Coolcaesar 20:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden

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

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

[edit] Africa section

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

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

[edit] India section

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

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

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

[edit] Rename/Merge

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

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

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

Put this article as Freedom of speech and move the other one to something like Freedom of speech by country. Christopher Connor 11:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Makes more sense than the current arrangement. Monkeyblue 12:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This move/swap (Freedom of speech → Freedom of speech by country & Freedom of speech (international) → Freedom of speech) will occur in one week (on the 2007-05-16), unless negative sentiments. Monkeyblue 08:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Completed. Monkeyblue 10:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom of speech in America- A students answer

3. Freedom of speech is limited by the amount of money you can spend to express it. If your version of freedom of speech is profitable then it is going to be widely expressed. 69.112.202.176 19:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Shimmi

Freedom of speech seems to barely even exist, if it did, we would be able to say whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted, regardless of if it offends somebody, or maybe ESPECIALLY because it does. For example: I once had a teacher that, after I swore in class, had the ardacity to say that the first amendment doesn't apply in schools; and a person is able to sue someone for simply insulting them.24.118.227.213 10:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is limited by the context you're in. If I remember correctly the legal principle for this is that the school stands in loco parentis or in place of the parent. Your teacher is sort of wrong and sort of right; the First Amendment actually does apply but is severely limited in the schools (the latest Supreme Court case just this year was that the First Amendment is limited in the public schools by the strong public policy in favor of suppressing illegal controlled substances and discouraging their use). Also, a person can sue someone for insulting them but it's usually impossible to recover damages for a brief one-time remark; it has to be an extreme, repeated campaign of harassment that can be characterized as intentional infliction of emotional distress.
But if you're walking around in public, and you're swearing but you are doing so in a way that makes sense (i.e. you're using swear words to communicate a point about something as opposed to just harassing random people), then you're probably protected under the First Amendment. That's the implication of Cohen v. California. In many other countries you could never get away with what Cohen was doing.--Coolcaesar 07:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Freedom of speech is limited by the context you're in" is my point. What you are describing is nothing more than a loop hole, the way around that people use to crush this freedom. Freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do with wrong or right, it is the right to say whatever you want, and no one has the power to either prevent you from saying it or punish you for saying it; not the teachers, parents or any other authority figure. At least, that is supposedly what freedom of speech is supposed to mean, as I understand it.24.118.227.213 06:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation

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

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

[edit] Canada?

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

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

[edit] Discovering truth

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

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

[edit] Section marked as npov

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

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


[edit] "inbe"?

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

Freedom of speech is crucial inbe compatible with democracy

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

[edit] Switzerland

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

[edit] freedom to be silent

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

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

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Debs campaign.jpg

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

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

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)