Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Q: Why did you conduct a hearing to examine free speech on college campuses?

A: On July 4, Americans will celebrate 241 years of independence. We will celebrate our nation's sovereignty and cherished individual freedoms that have been passed down from one generation to the next. As Americans, we are endowed with unalienable rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." As citizens, we are challengedto protect and defend the sacred blessings of freedom enshrined in our nation's founding charters. During tumultuous periods of war and social upheaval, these founding principles have served as an unbending arc to keep America united, from the nation's Civil War and civil rights movement to the Vietnam War and 21st century terrorism. Through it all, the U.S. Constitution enshrines the protection of freedom, liberty and justice for all. The five freedoms of the First Amendment are arguably the most well-known among Americans of all ages and walks of life: freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom to assemble peaceably; and, freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances. Upholding this legacy and heritage of freedom for posterity depends on the next generation to stand up for and champion the free flow of ideas. Indeed, a consequential dissent written by JusticeOliver Wendell Holmes one year after World War I heralds the "marketplace of ideas" that has influenced the protections of the First Amendment for decades. Opendialogue and diversity of thought are vital hallmarks of self-government. Throughout my public service representing Iowa in the United States Senate, I prioritize constituent dialogue by holding meetings with Iowans in every county, every year. That's why I view efforts to thwart free speech on college campuses as a red flag to self-government. The censorship of ideas on college campuses has a chilling effect on a student's ability to digest, analyze and question opposing opinions. Banning speakers from campus to prevent certain messages from being heard does a disservice to the studentbody. It assaults the First Amendment. Institutions of higher learning should not be in the business of shielding students from opposing views. It poisons the well of democracy and erodes constitutional protections that generations of men and women in uniform have sacrificed life and limb to protect.

Q: What is your takeaway from the Judiciary Committee hearing?

A: We heard from seven witnesses who shared their views about the state of free speech on college campuses. The good news is not all college campuses are censoring free speech or restricting who comes to speak to the student body. However, two college students reported on "free speech zones" and other measures that they say results in intolerance and even fosters violence towards opposing viewpoints. In my opening statement, I referred to Northwestern University's president who supports "safe spaces" for students to avoid uncomfortable debates. Carving out "free speech zones" and "safe spaces" creates a disconnect on college campuses that unplugs young adults from reality. Colleges need to help open their eyes to the world, not muddy the lens through which they see it. Restricting the free flow of ideas at an institution of learning flunks common sense. It fosters a conformist culture that will shrink mindful learning and stunt schools of thought. Expanding tolerance for differing viewpoints comes from exposure to dialogue, not censorship. College administrators who testified raised concerns about limited resources for maintaining campus security and student safety amid recent incidents of violent protests. Certainly, campus safety is critical to families who send their kids off to college and a critical responsibility of a college administration. However, using it as a scapegoat to undercut the First Amendment is a flawed argument. It's very troubling that some college administrators are discriminating against speakers based on their points of view and political ideology. America does not subscribe to one single political orthodoxy. And while it's no secret that prevailing political orthodoxy among many universities leans to the liberal end of the political spectrum, it's unacceptable to prevent students from exploring the free flow of ideas and nurturing their ability to compromise and negotiate differences of opinion with civility and respect. Polarization and gridlock in Washington won't ever improve if the next generation is indoctrinated to shut down free speech and shut out opposing views. Even liberal university administrators agree that conservative views are often unwelcome on campus. A provost from Stanford University has said, "There is growing intolerance at universitiesa political one-sidedness that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for." It's promising that not all schools are adopting the censorship approach. America would be better served if more colleges adopted the University of Chicago's policy. It expressly prohibits "obstructing or otherwise interfering with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe." Instead, it calls for counter-speech and peaceful protest to express disagreement. My takeaway from the hearing confirms what I have long practiced in public office. America is better off when all voices have the freedom to be heard.

Read more:
Q&A: Free Speech 101 - Traer Star-Clipper

by Cody Gohl 12h ago

After being forced out of the United States by LGBT activists, the anti-trans Freedom of Speech bus has made its way to Mexico, where its beenonce againmet with protest.

National Organization for Marriage

Sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage, CitizenGo, the International Organization for the Family, and other anti-LGBT groups, the orange shuttle has been visiting cities around the world imparting a hateful message: Boys are boys and always will be. Girls are girls and always will be. You cant change sex. Respect all.

The bus has since been vandalized, defaced with graffiti and denounced by city leaders, including Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, who spoke out against the bus before raising the transgender pride flag at city hall.

Instead of parking the bus for good, organizers responded to the resistance by taking their campaign to Guadalajara, Mexico, where they were promptly greeted by protesters.

Twitter

Twitter

On the day the vehicle was scheduled to roll through the city, activists from National Congress of GLBTI, Inclusive Vote and Codise gathered to prevent the bus from moving by surrounding it in a large rainbow flag.

Twitter

These right-wing groups want to remove the rights [of the most vulnerable], said Jaime Cobin, a protester. Gay people are not what you fear. They are your sons, fathers, brothers, bishops and priests.

He concluded: Since Mexico is moving forward on LGBTI rights, we will not let there be a setback.

Texas native with a penchant for strong margaritas, early Babs and tastefully executed side-eye.

Read more here:
Transphobic Freedom Of Speech Bus Wrapped In Rainbow Flag: Gay People Are Not What You Fear - NewNowNext

Campus leftists have so tramped upon freedom of speech that a legislative reaction was inevitable. A model bill, the Campus Free Speech Act, has been drafted and introduced in quite a few state legislatures this year. One state is North Carolina. The bill has passed both the House and Senate and now sits on Governor Coopers desk. I dont know whether he will sign it or not. The state has a lot of rabid progressives who helped elect Cooper in last falls nail-biter election and they might persuade him to veto the bill on the grounds that it interferes with what they view as their terrain the UNC system.

One reason why the campus Left opposed the bill is that it requires that state colleges and universities adhere to institutional neutrality. Thats a crucial feature argues Jay Schalin in todays Martin Center article.

While individual administrators and faculty members should naturally be free to take any position on political issues, the institutions should not take sides. Schalin provides several examples. When colleges insist that faculty members and applicants submit diversity statements, that amounts to an official position that only if you are willing to declare your support for a set of extremely debatable notions are you fit to teach there. Another example is the Climate Leadership Statement that many college presidents have signed. It means that the school has taken sides in the argument over climate change. That could silence faculty members who disagree but dont want to jeopardize their jobs.

Schalin concludes, With the Free Speech Act, the North Carolina legislature has provided some powerful safeguards against future politicization of the states colleges and universities, and it deserves great praise for securing those protections. Of course, more needs to be done, so it should not rest on this years laurels but continue to improve the academic atmosphere in the states higher education institutions for the benefit of all North Carolinians. Thats right, and if the campus leftists cant stand operating under rules that protect free speech and depoliticize academe, they are free to leave.

Follow this link:
A State Steps Up to Protect Campus Free Speech - National Review

Grant Strobl Published 10:48 p.m. ET July 4, 2017 | Updated 10:48 p.m. ET July 4, 2017

The Michigan Daily editorial not only has a perverted understanding of First Amendment jurisprudence but also ignores the University of Michigans current policy, Strobl writes.(Photo: John T. Greilick / The Detroit News)Buy Photo

The Michigan Daily recently published an editorial voicing opposition to two free speech bills pending in the Michigan Senate on the grounds that hecklers should be allowed to veto speech.

The editorial not only has a perverted understanding of First Amendment jurisprudence, but also ignores the University of Michigans current policy.

The Michigan Daily is wrong to suggest that our Constitution does not protect the right to listen to a speech classified as freedom of speech. In less confusing words, students have no right to listen to speech.

This is absurd. Public university facilities are considered limited public forums, meaning they cannot discriminate based upon viewpoint. Constitutionally, administrators must provide equal access to campus facilities for all students. They have an obligation to protect the freedom of expression of speakers sponsored by student groups in university venues. When the university allows hecklers to veto speech of only one viewpoint, they are de facto suppressing speech based on content.

In fact, the University of Michigan has a policy Standard Practice Guide 601.1 on Freedom of Speech and Artistic Expression to protect the free speech rights of speakers and the students hosting them. That policy states, when hecklers try to subvert a speech on campus, the effect is just as surely an attack on freedom of speech or artistic expression as the deliberate suppression or prohibition of a speaker or artist by authorities. Hecklers subverting an event, according to existing University of Michigan policy, can also be removed.

Although some sections of Standard Practice Guide 601.1 need improvement, the policy is largely sound free speech policy.

The editorial also wrongly supports the university for allowing Black Lives Matter activists students and outsiders alike to subvert a Michigan Political Union debate. The university should have abided by its policy and removed the protesters who prevented the event from occurring as planned. Instead, university leaders stood silently as hundreds of protesters invaded and shut down the scheduled debate. This is why there are needed improvements to Standard Practice Guide 601.1, and why the State of Michigan needs to take further action to protect speech on campuses statewide.

The Michigan Daily ends its editorial by implying that the two Senate bills uphold free speech for speakers, but not for students. Their argument suggests that speakers exist on campus against the will of the students. This could not be further from the truth. Liberal student groups host leftist speakers without interruption, but when students hosts a conservative speaker, then it is okay to veto speech.

This mentality is antithetical to free speech and the mission of the University of Michigan. This is exactly the reason why Michigans legislators must act to ensure free speech for all students.

Michigan universities should be forced to remove disruptors who unduly interfere with events held by student groups, regardless of speakers viewpoints. When the radicals break the law, they should face the consequences. It is imperative to prevent situations in Michigan, like those at the University of California, Berkeley, where campus police have issued stand-down orders for protests against conservative speakers and have outright denied conservative student groups access to university venues.

Young Americas Foundation is currently suing Berkeley to secure the free speech, due process, and equal protection rights of students.

The two proposed bills, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Colbeck, will help protect students right to free speech and expression on campus, conservative and liberal alike. As a side benefit, if enforced, the two laws just might save taxpayers thousands of dollars in attorneys fees to defend future violations of free speech on campus.

Grant Strobl is the national chairman of Young Americans for Freedom.

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2tKjQpk

Read this article:
Column: UM paper should support free speech - Detroit News - The Detroit News

This Fourth of July, many solemnly salute our nations independence, but for 91 years, satire and parody have ruled the Ancient and Horribles Parade in Chepachet.

Even the parades name is a spoof on the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, the nations oldest chartered military organization. Parade floats take aim at local and national politics, with costumes and flashy signs.

Last year, the Parade sparked controversy when a local landscaping company included the Confederate Flag on its float. But parade chair Mike DeGrange says the event is a celebration of free speech.

Its a good side. Its a bad side. Its all sides of freedom of speech. DeGrange said.

Just what issues the floats will take on this year are a mystery until the day of the parade.

Controversy aside, DeGrange said the parade faces shrinking numbers of sponsorships and volunteers.

Hopefully well be getting more volunteers and more donations. And if we do that, I hope it continues the way it is keeps on going for a very long time, DeGrange said.

Read the original here:
Freedom Of Speech Reigns At The Ancient And Horribles Parade - Rhode Island Public Radio

I long for the days of perspective. When a wise voice could step to the fore with a calm, reasoned approach; when common sense prevailed and a settling demeanor won the day.

That's what I kept thinking recently after reading what later turned out to be yet another politically-charged, wildly inaccurate story in one of our nation's leading newspapers. It was opinion masquerading as straight news, only giving fodder to the term Fake News which is so prevalent today.

Richland Source managing editor Larry Phillips

The topics span from politics to news to religion to pollution to sports to the weather and beyond. There are polarizing, extreme opinions in all of them. You think LeBron James is great? Obviously you are spitting at Michael Jordan, or vice-versa, right?

Too often I've blamed social media for this distressing landscape where so many run to their echo chamber. Others of my generation have blamed the younger generation, following an incredibly consistent and equally ignorant tradition that dates to the dawn of time.

Unfortunately, we're all wrong.

Perspective has rarely been part of the equation in the United States since the Founding Fathers put pen strokes to the Constitution, and well before that.

As a history minor in college, I've often found comfort and answers to today's questions in yesterday's newspapers, magazines, TV shows, movies and books. The older I get the less patient I become with those who repeat mistakes we've seen so many times in history.

But the truth is knee-jerk evaluations and stubborn, wrong-headed thinking are simply the residue of freedom of speech. Thank goodness it's a right, one we all enjoy. Yet there's a price for it.

I especially enjoy the way writer Aaron Sorkin put it during his 1995 movie The American President.

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad 'cause it's gonna put up a fight," said Michael Douglas in his portrayal of fictional president Andrew Shepard. "It's gonna say 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that what you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

It has always been this way. Perspective has too often been locked in a closet with time the only key.

You think politics are nasty today? At least Trump and Hillary didn't pull pistols on each other. Yes, we've had national political rivals do exactly that.

The hottest Broadway musical of the day is Hamilton, based on the life and times of Founding Father Alexander Hamilton. Spoiler Alert, Hamilton's incredible political career ended far too early. He died on July 12, 1804 at age 47 (or 49 depending on your preferred source) after a political feud led to a rash pistol duel with vice president Aaron Burr.

Unfortunately, that's not an outlier. Ever heard of the Civil War?

Ah, those were the days, when slavery was clearly wrong. Everyone can agree with that, right?

Hardly.

Contrary to popular opinion today, Abraham Lincoln was not beloved in his lifetime. His critics were everywhere. Much of the press despised him, and teed off at the slightest provocation. Sound familiar?

When Lincoln, a Republican, delivered his landmark speech at Gettysburg, it was immediately ripped by the Chicago Times, a Democratic, pro-slavery newspaper with ties to the president's former political rival Stephen A. Douglas. The Chicago Times reporter covering Lincoln's Gettysburg Address filed this masterpiece of a sentence, which has long lived in journalism infamy:

"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flab, dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the president of the United States."

How would you like to have your byline attached to that review of what is generally considered one of, if not the greatest speech in U.S. history? That's a 154-year-old embarrassment, and the count will continue as long as students are taught those eloquent words.

My father worked as a barber and owned a bar among other business interests. He had a standing rule in all of his establishments: Never discuss politics or religion. You're not going to change anyone's mind. You're only going to make someone mad. You will lose customers.

He wasn't trying to convert anyone. He had no political interest. He simply wanted his business to succeed.

We can't operate that way in the media. We shouldn't if we're going to hold our public officials responsible for our tax money and trust.

However, there's a difference between being a watchdog and being an instigator. I sigh at our lack of perspective in identifying that difference today. I see far too many examples of our refusal to learn the lessons of past failures from our country's brief, glorious, tumultuous history.

But the truth is we've had few examples of perspective through the years.

It's not the fault of social media, or the Baby Boomers or Gen X, Gen Y, Gen Z, or the Millennials. It's not the I-Phone or text messaging, radio, TV, newspapers, chat rooms or the internet.

It's all of us. This is the price we pay for freedom of speech. It's a love-hate relationship. Long may it live.

But it will be a lot easier to live with if we can find room for that elusive element of perspective that has evaded us for far too long.

See the article here:
From Lincoln to LeBron, freedom of speech defeats perspective - Richland Source

By David Ingram and Dustin Volz | SAN FRANCISCO/WASHINGTON

SAN FRANCISCO/WASHINGTON Facebook Inc (FB.O) is challenging a gag order from a U.S. court that is preventing the company from talking about three government search warrants that it said pose a threat to freedom of speech, according to court documents.

Facebook said it wants to notify three users about the search warrants seeking their communications and information and also give those users an opportunity to object to the warrants, according to a filing in a Washington, D.C., appeals court seen by Reuters.

"We believe there are important First Amendment concerns with this case, including the government's refusal to let us notify three people of broad requests for their account information in connection with public events," Facebook said in a statement on Monday.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees certain rights including freedom of speech.

William Miller, a spokesman for U.S. prosecutors, declined to comment.

Facebook decided to challenge the gag order around the three warrants because free speech was at stake and because the events underlying the government's investigation were generally known to the public already, Facebook said in the undated court document.

The precise nature of the government's investigation is not known. One document in the case said the timing of proceedings coincides with charges against people who protested President Donald Trump's inauguration in January.

More than 200 people were arrested in Washington the day Trump was sworn in. Masked activists threw rocks at police, and multiple vehicles were set on fire.

Tech firms comply with thousands of requests for user data annually made by governments around the world, but in extraordinary circumstances, companies such as Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) and Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) have challenged government secrecy orders.

Facebook recently fought a secrecy order related to a disability fraud investigation, losing in April in New York state's highest court.

Companies and privacy advocates argue that gag orders rely on outdated laws and are applied too often, sometimes indefinitely, to bar them from notifying customers about government requests for their private online data. Facebook says about half of U.S. requests are accompanied by a non-disclosure order prohibiting it from notifying affected users.

In April, a local judge in Washington denied Facebook's request to remove the gag order there, according to the document. Facebook is appealing and has preserved the relevant records pending the outcome, the document said.

"The government can only insulate its actions from public scrutiny in this way in the rarest circumstances, which likely do not apply here," said Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit group that advocates for digital rights.

Facebook is getting support in court papers from several organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as eight tech companies such as Microsoft and Apple Inc (AAPL.O).

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in Washington for local matters, is scheduled to hear the case in September, according to an order obtained by BuzzFeed News, which first reported Facebook's challenge to the gag order on Monday.

(Reporting by David Ingram in San Francisco and Dustin Volz in Washington; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

BRUSSELS Uber [UBER.UL] played down an EU court opinion on Tuesday that some of its services could be illegal, saying that the case concerned only a ride-hailing app service in France which it no longer provides.

SEOUL Samsung Electronics Co Ltd said on Tuesday it will invest at least $18.6 billion in South Korea to extend its lead in memory chips and next-generation smartphone displays, in a plan that promises to create almost half a million jobs.

Follow this link:
Facebook fights US gag order that it says chills free speech - Reuters

The United States is an exceptional nation in many respects. This fact cuts both ways. It shouldnt spare us from others criticism or our own soul-searching about any of our peculiar national excesses or injustices. Asserting that we are special isnt the same as saying were perfect.

But as our letters to the editor remind us today, our countrys 241st birthday, there is much to celebrate about being an American.

High on our list is the guarantee of free speech found in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, adopted in 1791, includes the immortal words that bar Congress from passing any law abridging the freedom of speech. Subsequent court decisions extended that prohibition to all other levels of government. Its the foundation for another First Amendment guarantee, freedom of the press. But free speech is a blessing enjoyed by all Americans, not just by those who buy their ink by the barrel full.

In his 2017 book The Soul of the First Amendment, lawyer Floyd Abrams wrote that while other nations promise free expression, America does so more often, more intensely, and more controversially than is true elsewhere. The U.S. is an outlier when it comes to protecting free speech, according to Abrams. Thats a good thing. It means Americans are at liberty more than just about anyone else in the world to speak their minds. Speech that would invite official harassment, imprisonment or worse in many countries is protected in the United States.

U.S. courts have consistently ruled that Americas constitutional guarantee of free speech doesnt allow the government to exclude views deemed to be erroneous or offensive. This principle was reiterated just last month in a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned a government decision to withhold trademark protection from a dance-rock band whose name is a racial slur for Asians. In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free-speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate' a memorable phrase first used by legendary Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a 1929 dissent.

Expansive protection for free speech reflects a radical faith, dating back to the Founding Fathers, that Americans can be trusted to sift through ideas for themselves. The primary author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, reaffirmed this faith when he founded the University of Virginia in 1820: For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it. Holmes, writing more than a century later, wrote the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.

In the 21st century, this faith in the wisdom of the American people and the free marketplace of ideas is not always shared by partisan media outlets. And its withering at some universities under pressure from students and faculty who object to providing a forum for contrary views a hazard that Jeffersons current successor as head of the University of Virginia, Teresa A. Sullivan, warned about in a speech earlier this year: The danger in shutting out viewpoints that differ from our own is that we create a personal echo chamber in which our deeply held beliefs are continually reinforced by those who share those beliefs.

Beware of that echo chamber. Dont shun the debate join it. Bear in mind the words of another high court justice, John Marshall Harlan, who wrote in a 1971 case, That the air may at times seem filled with verbal cacophony is not a sign of weakness but of strength.

Honor the nation and the faith of its founders, today and every day, by embracing free speech yours and your fellow Americans.

More:
We celebrate America's commitment to free speech - Orlando Sentinel

.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

Thats especially relevant this year given the all-too-often successful attempts to muzzle speech on college campuses by people who opposed the viewpoint of the speakers speakers who more often than not were conservatives. Members of that same conservative movement, meanwhile, expressed outrage over a comedian holding up a severed head of Donald Trump and a New York City production of Julius Caesar in which Trump was depicted as the assassination plot victim.

As this debate rages, the Supreme Courts decision is important for a couple of reasons. First, it reinforces that principle that freedom of speech is a fundamental right in our democracy and the government cant ban speech just because it finds it to be offensive. Second, it should remind all of us that this right of free speech often brings a lot of discomfort with it. For better or worse, Americans have the right to say things that offend others.

In its ruling, the court struck down part of a law that banned offensive trademarks, ruling in favor of an Asian-American rock band called the Slants.

Slants founder Simon Tam had tried to trademark the name in 2011, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied the request on the grounds that it disparaged Asians. The decision would also appear to resolve the long-running legal battle over the name of the Washington Redskins football team. The federal government trademark office in 2014 ruled the name was offensive to Native Americans and canceled the teams trademark. A lawsuit ensued, which was put on hold pending a decision in the Slants case.

Both Tam and Redskins owner Daniel Snyder contend their respective names actually honor Asians and Native Americans even though many in those groups find the names offensive.

But as the court ruled, thats beside the point.

As Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court: It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.

So on this Fourth of July, cherish the fact that we can speak freely, that we can disagree and espouse views others dont like. Can we criticize offensive speech and those who utter it? Absolutely. Thats fundamental to the marketplace of ideas.

But, at the end of the day, the government isnt the arbiter of what we can say, and it cant be used by one side or the other to suppress speech.

Thats a fundamental American right, and thats something worth celebrating on our Independence Day.

This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.

Here is the original post:
Editorial: Let free speech ring on this Independence Day - Albuquerque Journal

Basically, when it comes to the freedom of speech you must know that it is the political right for communicating ones own option and express the own ideas. Or we can say that the right to speak and express personal emotions is called the freedom of speech. Though sometimes it is used synonymously but it always includes the act of receiving, seeking and imparting the information or ideas regardless of source used. In fact, the right to the freedom of speech is not absolute in any nation and the rights are mostly subject to the limitations as with the slander, sedition, libel and slander.

No doubt the freedom of speech is a much important thing in decision-making at all the levels and it is a significant factor in the deliberation of a representative range of views. Basically the Right to speech is more important factor for the individual liberty. There is no right more important than the right to think what you damn well please and then talk about it. It is not important only for an individual but it is also more important for the different communities living in the different parts of the world. it is the best way to get the new and fresh ideas for that are much important for the improvement of nations and their economies as well as it also affects directly on the political power, development of nations and their characters as well. So no one can deny the importance of the Right to speech freely.

While you are searching for the most libertarian nations on the earth, then you will find great difficulty because there is not any specific and particular way for ranking the nations based on their right to express their opinions and voice. To figure out the list of nations that are considered the freest nations around the globe, you must sacrifice in some of the areas famous for the freedom. Following is a list of top five countries that are considered the freest countries around the globe.

It is one of the most beautiful and richest nations around the globe and for this reason it is a place where anyone would love to go, to live and everyone has the desire to spend his moments in it. It has number of attractions that are making it a beautiful nation on the earth. It is not only famous for its beauty but it is also famous for the liberty of speech. It is one of the most socially free nations in the world. It is providing more freedom to its citizens as compared to many other countries of the world.

United States is also one of the most popular, rich, beautiful and strongest countries in the world. Having a great history of freedom loving, the communication within the country has been pretty astonishing. United States of America may be the most controversial nation in the list, but within the few years, its ranking has dropped more quickly. But still it is on the fourth number in the list.

Switzerland is considered a peaceful nation in the world. Do you know what the reason behind this beautiful reality is? Basically it is only because it has about 200 years without war and this is a greatest record in the world. It is also one of the most beautiful and richest countries in the world. Its inhabitants have the right to raise their voice and every individual has the liberty to speak and raise his own voice.

Canada is one of the famous countries for the best education in the world. It is taking a great part in the most libertarian countries in the world. Here every person has the liberty to speech and express and has the right to work and perform his own ideas. And as the result Canada is given the second rank in the list of countries that are famous for the most speech freedom.

Ireland is considered one of the most socially free countries in the world. Here the inhabitants enjoy all type of freedoms that are making it one of the best and free countries in the world. People have the right to speak, right to share their ideas and to raise their voice. Ireland is also one of the richest countries in the world. All the people are enjoying the freedom of speech and it is the freest country in terms of liberty of expression.

Also See :

Previous post

Next post

Originally posted here:
Top Countries with most Freedom of Speech - WhichCountry