| Revision as of 23:39, 14 January 2009 editJ.delanoy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers310,263 editsm Reverted edits by 69.14.104.57 to last version by 67.91.26.205 (HG)← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:00, 15 January 2009 edit undo74.37.119.48 (talk) ←Replaced content with 'all dogs do got to heaven trust me'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| all dogs do got to heaven trust me | |||
| {{otheruses}} | |||
| {{for|freedom of speech in specific jurisdictions|Freedom of speech by country}} | |||
| {{Freedom}} | |||
| {{Censorship}} | |||
| '''Freedom of speech''' is the freedom to speak freely without ] or ]. The synonymous term '''freedom of expression''' is sometimes used to denote not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression is closely related to, yet distinct from, the concept of ] or ]. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech". This is because exercising freedom of speech always takes place within a context of competing values. | |||
| The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a ] under Article 19 of the ] and recognized in ] in the ] (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".<ref></ref><ref></ref> Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional human rights law. | |||
| == The right to freedom of speech and expression == was in 1976 | |||
| Freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional ]. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the ], Article 10 of the ], Article 13 of the ], and Article 9 of the ].<ref name=autogenerated1>Andrew Puddephatt, Freedom of Expression, The essentials of Human Rights, Hodder Arnold, 2005, pg.128</ref> | |||
| The freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents, such as the British ] (1215) and "The Declaration of the Rights of Man" (1789), a key document of the ].<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/05/religion.news</ref> Based on ]'s arguments, freedom of speech today 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.<ref name=autogenerated1 /> | |||
| International, regional and national standards also recognise that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the ] 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.<ref name=autogenerated1 /> | |||
| === Relationship to other rights === | |||
| The right to freedom of speech are closely related to other rights, and may be limited when conflicting with other rights (see Limitations on freedom of speech). The right to freedom of speech is particularly important for ], which plays a special role as the bearer of the general right to freedom of expression for all (see ]).<ref name=autogenerated1 /> | |||
| ==Origins and academic freedom== | |||
| Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern ]. In ] freedom of speech was first declared in the ] period by the ] ] in the 7th century.<ref name=Boisard>{{citation|title=On the Probable Influence of Islam on Western Public and International Law|first=Marcel A.|last=Boisard|journal=International Journal of Middle East Studies|volume=11|issue=4|date=July 1980|pages=429–50}}</ref> In the ] period, freedom of speech was also declared by al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph ]) in a letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to ] through ].<ref>{{citation|first=I. A.|last=Ahmad|contribution=The Rise and Fall of Islamic Science: The Calendar as a Case Study|title=“Faith and Reason: Convergence and Complementarity”|publisher=]|date=June 3, 2002|url=http://images.agustianwar.multiply.com/attachment/0/RxbYbQoKCr4AAD@kzFY1/IslamicCalendar-A-Case-Study.pdf |format=PDF|accessdate=2008-01-31}}</ref> According to George Makdisi and Hugh Goddard, "the idea of ]" in ] was "modelled on Islamic custom" as practiced in the medieval ] system from the 9th century. Islamic influence was "certainly discernible in the foundation of the first deliberately-planned university" in Europe, the ] founded by ] in 1224.<ref>{{citation|title=A History of Christian-Muslim Relations|first=Hugh|last=Goddard|year=2000|publisher=]|isbn=074861009X|page=100}}</ref> | |||
| == Freedom of speech and truth == | |||
| ]'']] | |||
| One of the earliest Western defences of freedom of expression is '']'' (1644) by the English poet and political writer ]. Milton wrote in reaction to an attempt by the English republican parliament to prevent "seditious, unreliable, unreasonable and unlicensed pamphlets". Milton advanced a number of arguments in defence of freedom of speech: a nation's unity is created through blending individual differences rather than imposing homogeneity from above; that the ability to explore the fullest range of ideas on a given issue was essential to any learning process and truth cannot be arrived upon unless all points of view are first considered; and that by considering free thought, censorship acts to the detriment of material progress. | |||
| Milton also argued that if the facts are laid bare, truth will defeat falsehood in open competition, but this cannot be left for a single individual to determine. According to Milton, it is up to each individual to uncover their own truth; no one is wise enough to act as a censor for all individuals.<ref>Andrew Puddephatt, Freedom of Expression, The essentials of Human Rights, Hodder Arnold, 2005, pg.127</ref> | |||
| ] states that: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. ] was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was ]. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."<ref>], 1992</ref> An often cited quote that describes the principle of freedom of speech comes from ] (often mis-attributed to ]) "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs.<ref>{{cite book |last=Boller, Jr. |first=Paul F. |authorlink= |coauthors=George, John |title=They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions |year=1989 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=New York |pages=124–126 |isbn=0-19-505541-1 }}</ref> Professor ] 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." The free speech principle is left with the concern of nothing less than helping to shape "the intellectual character of the society". According to Bollinger ] is a desirable, if not essential, value and protecting unpopular speech is itself an act of tolerance. Such tolerance serves as a model that encourages more tolerance throughout ]. However, critics argue that society need not be tolerant of the intolerance of others, such as those who advocate great harm, such as ]. Preventing such harms is claimed to be much more important than being tolerant of those who argue for them.<ref>Lee Bollinger, The Tolerant Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988</ref> | |||
| == Democracy== | |||
| One of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and ] is ]. 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.<ref>{{cite book |title=Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion |last=Marlin |first=Randal |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2002 |publisher=Broadview Press |location= |isbn=1551113767 978-1551113760 |pages=226–227 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&pg=PA226&dq=%22free+speech%22+democracy&lr=#PPA229,M1 }}</ref> Eric Barendt has called the defence of free speech on the grounds of democracy "probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies".<ref>{{cite book |title=Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion |last=Marlin |first=Randal |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2002 |publisher=Broadview Press |location= |isbn=1551113767 978-1551113760 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&pg=PA226&dq=%22free+speech%22+democracy&lr=#PPA229,M1 |page=226 }}</ref> | |||
| Thomas I. Emerson expanded on this defence when he argued that freedom of speech helps to provide a good balance between ] and ]. Freedom of speech acts as a "safety valve" to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on ]. He argues that that "The principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a moral 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."<ref>{{cite book |title=Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion |last=Marlin |first=Randal |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2002 |publisher=Broadview Press |location= |isbn=1551113767 978-1551113760 |pages=228–229 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&pg=PA226&dq=%22free+speech%22+democracy&lr=#PPA229,M1 }}</ref> Research undertaken by the ] project at the ], indicates that freedom of speech, and the process of accountability that follows it, have a significant impact in the quality of ] of a country. "Voice and Accountability" within a country, defined as "the extent to which a country's ]s are able to participate in selecting their ], as well as freedom of expression, ], and ]" is one of the six dimensions of governance that the Worldwide Governance Indicators measure for more than 200 countries.<ref>http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi2007/pdf/booklet_decade_of_measuring_governance.pdf A Decade of Measuring the Quality of Governance</ref> | |||
| == Social interaction and community == | |||
| 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."<ref>{{cite book |title=Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion |last=Marlin |first=Randal |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2002 |publisher=Broadview Press |location= |isbn=1551113767 978-1551113760 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&pg=PA226&dq=%22free+speech%22+democracy&lr=#PPA229,M1 |page=229 }}</ref> | |||
| == Limitations on freedom of speech == | |||
| ] censored by ]ian authorities. The picture hidden beneath the white sticker is of an embracing couple.<ref>{{cite web|last=Lundqvist |first=J. |title=More pictures of Iranian Censorship |url=http://jturn.qem.se/2006/more-pictures-of-iranian-censorship/ |accessdate=August 2007-01-21}}</ref> February 2006.]] | |||
| For specific country examples see ] | |||
| The freedom of speech is not absolute. Legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.<ref></ref> Exercising freedom of speech always takes place within a context of competing values. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "]".<ref></ref> Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction and/or social disapprobation.<ref name="leeds1"></ref> | |||
| ] have been specifically banned from entering ] for ].<ref></ref>]] | |||
| In "]" (1859) ] 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."<ref name="leeds1"/> 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."<ref name="leeds1"/> | |||
| In 1985 ] introduced what is known as the "offence principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours 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."<ref name="ref1"></ref> 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.<ref name="ref1"/> In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle.<ref name="leeds1"/> 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.<ref name="leeds1"/> | |||
| == The Internet == | |||
| International, national and regional standards recognise that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the ].<ref name=autogenerated1 /> In the U.S. there have been several attacks on freedom of opinion expressed on the Internet, but in December 2008 Oregon Judge ] ruled a ] in favor of Internet free speech.<ref></ref> | |||
| === Freedom of information === | |||
| {{main|freedom of information}} | |||
| Jo Glanville, editor of the ], states that "the internet has been a revolution for ] as much as for free speech". <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/17/censorship-internet |title=The big business of net censorship |last=Glanville |first=Jo |date=17 November 2008 |publisher= The Guardian}}</ref> Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech where the medium of expression is the ]. Freedom of information may also refer to the ] in the context of the ] and ]. As with the right to freedom of expression, the ] is a recognised ] and freedom of information acts as an extension to this right.<ref name=autogenerated2></ref> Freedom of information may also concern ] in an information technology context, i.e. the ability to access ], without ] or restrictions.{{Fact|date=October 2008}} | |||
| The ] (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 reaffirms ] and the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of all ] and fundamental freedoms. The Declaration also makes specific reference to the importance of the right to ] for the "]" in stating: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| "We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the ], and as outlined in Article 19 of the ], that everyone has the right to ]; 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 ] offers."<ref>{{Cite web | last1 = Klang | first1 = Mathias| last2 = Murray| first2 = Andrew| title = Human Rights in the Digital Age| Publisher = Routledge| year = 2005|pages=1 | url = http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=USksfqPjwhUC&dq=%22digital+rights%22+human+rights&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0}}</ref> | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| The ] opens new possibilities for exercising freedom of speech. ], ]s (such as ]) and ] allow free speech by guaranteeing that material cannot be removed (censored).{{Fact|date=September 2008}} | |||
| ===Internet censorship=== | |||
| {{main|Internet censorship}} | |||
| {{main|Internet censorship in mainland China}} | |||
| <!-- Image with inadequate rationale removed: ] ], one of the ] ] of the Internet Surveillance Division of the Public Security Bureau in ], ].]] --> | |||
| The concept of ] 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 ].{{Fact|date=September 2008}} The ] (EFF) is an organization dedicated to protecting freedom of speech on the Internet. The ] (ONI) is a collaboration between the ] at the ], the ], the ] at ], the Advanced Network Research Group at the Cambridge Security Programme (]), and the ], at ] which aims to investigate, expose, and analyze Internet filtering and surveillance practices in a credible and non-partisan fashion.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} Groups such as the Global Internet Freedom Consortium advocate for freedom of information for what they term "closed societies".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.internetfreedom.org/mission |title=Mission| publisher =Global Internet Freedom Consortium |accessdate=2008-07-29}}</ref> | |||
| According to the ] (RSF) "internet enemy list" the following states engage in pervasive internet censorship: ], ], ], ]/], ], ], ], ] and ].<ref> RSF, 2006 November</ref> A widely publicised example is the "]" (in reference both to its role as a ] and to the ancient ]). The system blocks content by preventing ]es from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and ]s at the ] ]s. The system also selectively engages in ] when particular sites are requested. The government does not appear to be systematically examining Internet content, as this appears to be technically impractical.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,1713317,00.html|title=War of the words |publisher=]}}</ref> ] is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. In accordance with these laws, more than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the ] (PRC) government, and censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ]s, business companies, and organizations.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/3.htm|title= II. How Censorship Works in China: A Brief Overview|accessdate= 2006-08-30|accessmonthday= |accessyear= |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher=] |archivedate=}}</ref><ref> | |||
| </ref> | |||
| == See also == | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{reflist|2}} | |||
| ==Further reading== | |||
| *{{cite journal |last=Sunstein |first=Cass |authorlink=Cass Sunstein |coauthors= |year=1995 |month= |title=Democracy and the problem of free speech |journal=Publishing Research Quarterly |volume=11 |issue=4 |pages=58–72 |doi=10.1007/BF02680544 |url= |accessdate= |quote= }} | |||
| *{{cite journal |last=Callamard |first=Agnes|authorlink=Agnes Callamard|coauthors=ARTICLE 19 |year=2008|month= |title=Speaking Out for Free Expression: 1987-2007 and Beyond|journal= |volume= |issue= |pages= |doi= |url= |accessdate= |quote= }} | |||
| == External links == | |||
| {{wikiquote}} | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * - (Meinungsfreiheit.org) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * Ringmar, Erik (London: Anthem Press, 2007) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * Worldwide ratings of country performances on Voice and Accountability and other governance dimensions from 1996 to present. | |||
| * | |||
| {{Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights}} | |||
| {{Particular human rights}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 06:00, 15 January 2009
all dogs do got to heaven trust me