Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Latest Articles

Many people are left speechless when a companion uses ethnic, sexist or racist slurs. But researchers say there are ways to cut such remarks short.

By BENEDICT CAREY and JAN HOFFMAN

The National Coalition Against Censorship writes that schools that punish protesters are impeding constitutionally protected political speech.

An advocacy group wanted to place a billboard at Newark Liberty International Airport which explained that requiring a passenger to switch seats based on gender was illegal. It was rejected.

By GINIA BELLAFANTE

A few blocks from the arena hosting the Republican convention, in a 10-acre downtown commons, a full-throated national conversation is taking place.

By DAN BARRY

Conservatives take it too far, but Im tired of liberals pretending its not a problem.

By JUDITH SHULEVITZ

Liliane Daoud, a Lebanese-British journalist who was sent to Beirut, Lebanon, in June, is one of many people who say they have been barred from the country.

By NOUR YOUSSEF

Kem Ley, a prominent commentator who recently helped found a political party, was gunned down Sunday at a gas station in the capital.

By JULIA WALLACE

A judges words about freedom of expression belong at the top of Prime Minister Modis reading list.

Lam Wing-kee, who went public about his monthslong detention in mainland China, was one of five men connected with Mighty Current Media who disappeared last year.

By AUSTIN RAMZY

The right-wing Law and Justice Partys effort to impose its nationalist message on the state broadcaster has prompted wide concern about press freedom.

By ALISON SMALE and JOANNA BERENDT

The court did not give the artist and liberal political activist, Chen Yunfei, a new date for the trial or explain the delay, his lawyer said.

By EDWARD WONG

Lam Wing-kee had indicated that he had been followed over the previous two days by people he did not recognize, an official said.

By AUSTIN RAMZY

Mr. Snowden, who took refuge in Russia after leaking classified United States data, called a Russian bill an assault on free speech.

Lu Yuyu, whom the authorities have accused of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, was taken into custody on June 16 in Dali, his friends said.

Mr. Chen, an artist, has been detained for more than a year after visiting the grave site of a victim of the Tiananmen Square crackdown.

By EDWARD WONG

Measures approved by the lower house of Parliament include a prison term for failing to report a planned terrorist act, as well as restrictions on religious activities.

Our campuses must be places where students can learn from those of different races, ethnicities and beliefs and do so with genuine openness.

By JOHN PALFREY

To protect American values and promote civic discourse, universities need to show that disagreement is not oppression and argument is not assault.

By NICHOLAS A. CHRISTAKIS

Schools seek to balance the conflicts between allowing free expression and maintaining a sensitivity to those offended by language that is deliberatively upsetting.

By ABBY ELLIN

Lam Wing-kee publicly described months in mainland Chinese custody, but former colleagues and a woman who says she is his girlfriend have disputed what he said.

By MICHAEL FORSYTHE

Many people are left speechless when a companion uses ethnic, sexist or racist slurs. But researchers say there are ways to cut such remarks short.

By BENEDICT CAREY and JAN HOFFMAN

The National Coalition Against Censorship writes that schools that punish protesters are impeding constitutionally protected political speech.

An advocacy group wanted to place a billboard at Newark Liberty International Airport which explained that requiring a passenger to switch seats based on gender was illegal. It was rejected.

By GINIA BELLAFANTE

A few blocks from the arena hosting the Republican convention, in a 10-acre downtown commons, a full-throated national conversation is taking place.

By DAN BARRY

Conservatives take it too far, but Im tired of liberals pretending its not a problem.

By JUDITH SHULEVITZ

Liliane Daoud, a Lebanese-British journalist who was sent to Beirut, Lebanon, in June, is one of many people who say they have been barred from the country.

By NOUR YOUSSEF

Kem Ley, a prominent commentator who recently helped found a political party, was gunned down Sunday at a gas station in the capital.

By JULIA WALLACE

A judges words about freedom of expression belong at the top of Prime Minister Modis reading list.

Lam Wing-kee, who went public about his monthslong detention in mainland China, was one of five men connected with Mighty Current Media who disappeared last year.

By AUSTIN RAMZY

The right-wing Law and Justice Partys effort to impose its nationalist message on the state broadcaster has prompted wide concern about press freedom.

By ALISON SMALE and JOANNA BERENDT

The court did not give the artist and liberal political activist, Chen Yunfei, a new date for the trial or explain the delay, his lawyer said.

By EDWARD WONG

Lam Wing-kee had indicated that he had been followed over the previous two days by people he did not recognize, an official said.

By AUSTIN RAMZY

Mr. Snowden, who took refuge in Russia after leaking classified United States data, called a Russian bill an assault on free speech.

Lu Yuyu, whom the authorities have accused of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, was taken into custody on June 16 in Dali, his friends said.

Mr. Chen, an artist, has been detained for more than a year after visiting the grave site of a victim of the Tiananmen Square crackdown.

By EDWARD WONG

Measures approved by the lower house of Parliament include a prison term for failing to report a planned terrorist act, as well as restrictions on religious activities.

Our campuses must be places where students can learn from those of different races, ethnicities and beliefs and do so with genuine openness.

By JOHN PALFREY

To protect American values and promote civic discourse, universities need to show that disagreement is not oppression and argument is not assault.

By NICHOLAS A. CHRISTAKIS

Schools seek to balance the conflicts between allowing free expression and maintaining a sensitivity to those offended by language that is deliberatively upsetting.

By ABBY ELLIN

Lam Wing-kee publicly described months in mainland Chinese custody, but former colleagues and a woman who says she is his girlfriend have disputed what he said.

By MICHAEL FORSYTHE

See original here:
Freedom of Speech and Expression - The New York Times

ENTERTAINMENT

June 17, 1990 | RANDY LEWIS

W ithout freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech; which is the right of every man as far as by it he does not hurt and control the right of another: and this is the only check it ought to suffer, and the only bounds it ought to know. --Benjamin Franklin, 1722 (at age 16) Warning: This column contains words and ideas that may be offensive to some readers.

NEWS

May 26, 1990 | LARRY GORDON, TIMES EDUCATION WRITER

Stanford University, joining a national trend, has adopted new rules against racial and sexual harassment by students, officials announced Friday. However, as at other campuses, opponents contend that the regulations violate freedom of speech.

ENTERTAINMENT

February 16, 1994 | ESTHER IVEREM, NEWSDAY

Comedian Martin Lawrence has titled his first film "You So Crazy," after the name of his national stand-up comedy tour. But the Motion Picture Assn. of America ratings board, which has slapped the film with an NC-17 rating, thinks it's more like "You So Nasty." Lawrence held a press conference Tuesday at Manhattan's Omni Berkshire Hotel to announce his appeal of the rating. The appeal is scheduled to be heard Feb. 23, nine days before the film opens in New York and Los Angeles.

ENTERTAINMENT

October 5, 1989 | STEVE HOCHMAN

First Amendment activists and a member of Congress said this week that the FBI may have stepped out of line with a letter accusing a Compton rap group of encouraging "violence against and disrespect" for law enforcement officers. "The FBI should stay out of the business of censorship," said Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on civil and constitutional rights, when informed of an Aug.

NEWS

January 25, 1999 | STEPHANIE SIMON, TIMES STAFF WRITER

What the

Originally posted here:
Articles about Freedom Of Speech - latimes

People have a right to say what ever they want to say. No one has the right to stop them. You may not like some of the opinions people voice, or the words that they use, but this is absolutely no reason to have the government trample people's natural rights.

Arresting those protesting on private "no trespassing" property is not a denial of free speech. I really get irked about that kind of misrepresentation and people crying over first amendment rights. Death threats are not a form of free speech. They are a threat. Calling a soldier that has never done anything but served his country in good faith a "baby killer" is defamation of character. You say that to someone that is being tried or investigated, that is a gray area. You say that to someone that has been convicted it is free speech. Protest that the government should give amnesty to illegals? It's an opinion, and free speech as long as you don't do it on my private property.

It's when freedom of speech isn't freedom of speech that the problem arises. "Hate Speech" is freedom of speech to the extent that the language used does not incite or encourage violence or violation of the law. There is a huge difference in toting a sign that says "No more (fill in the blank) and "Yes, send us more dead (fill in the blank)". One shows your lack of tolerance and opinion that there should be no more whatever. The second shows distinct encouragement for the acceptance of violence against the group being protested.

Freedom of speech is NOT the ability to say whatever you feel like when you feel like it where you feel like it. Yelling BOMB in a theater is not freedom of speech. Advertising or protesting you wish someone dead or are looking forward to seeing a group of people dead is not freedom of speech. Reporting that gets people killed is not freedom of speech. Profanity & Sexual suggestions are not free speech.

When the government censors certain "unallowable" opnions, and at the same times pretends to protect "freedom of speech", it is essentially saying "you are free to say whatever you want, as long as you don't say this." This is the same principle that exists in even the most totalitarian societies; saying that that society has "free speech" becomes meaningless.

Freedom of speech helps the world to change. Without this kind of expression, the world wouldn't be aware of all the problems we have, and wouldn't help to change them. For example, with the Charlie Hebdo problem going around, the world and France got aware of the problem of religion, as well as malala or nelson mandela. Those kind of person broke the limit of speech and it helped to change life positively.

Freedom of speech is not the same as promoting violence. Freedom of speech is not violating the law, promoting violence or 'waiting (fill in blank) dead'. Everyone has a right to voice their opinions and believes. If the government takes away that right, then that is the starting point for being able to neglect other human rights.

In the United States, where I live, we allow citizens to be free from government interference for speaking. This is one of our cherished rights, so much so that it's the very first amendment to our Constitution. However, this right does not extend to private businesses or individuals, who are free to penalize you all they want for saying stupid, damaging, or inflammatory things. This is a public-private balance that is appropriate, and additional restrictions are not required.

I disagree with a lot of people on a lot things either being religion, politics, hate speech, and so on they should not be silenced. They have just as much of a right, to say what they believe. That's we have the right to free speech. Just because I don't like or agree means it should be restricted. This also goes into if you say what you mean freely, you're going to have to deal with the backlash. The thing is free speech either get's people on your side and look smart, or have everyone hate you.

Free speech is the corner stone of a free society. All ideas must be heard no matter how crazy and all ideas must be criticized. If we start burning books because we find them offensive; it means anyone can shout down dissent by saying they are offended. Tell me this when has an idea which is exempt from criticism been good. It is important that we realize that saying this can be censorship should never be used to combat bad ideas. If our ideology is so much better then the person we wish to censor; we should have no such problem debunking there theories; because even if we believe that the person we want censored is a complete monster. Denying anyone there basic human rights turns us into monsters.

It's people's freedom. Most of us living in America take for granted this privilege. Corrupt countries have taken away this privilege, and that's why they won't change. A person's voice can be the difference of life and death for a person, so that's why I think it's necessary. Two words

I don't think so that there should be restriction because what is going in the mind of an individual we don't know, if he suffering from any deficiency and he speaks so that the thing on which we can secure him we can at-least guide. There should b freedom of speech.

See the original post here:
Should there be restrictions on freedom of speech? | Debate.org

To begin, I am greatly happy that you, Mdal, joined my debate. It appears that your arguments appeals to logic, which is, in my opinion the most persuasive type of argument. I will primarily be appealing to logic, however will also touch on the ideals of value, as it is one of the main moral reasons I support this idea. I have also adapted the format of my arguments to suit your style.

Voltaire, an enlightenment thinker, regarded with as intuitive and influential a mind as Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Locke. All influential people who host beliefs that influenced the framers of the Constitution, and all of which created ideals that support, and influence my own belief on restricting the rights of the first amendment to hate group's gathering in public areas.

I agree with your definition of what the constitution is advancing us towards, "a stable, liberty driven, peaceful, prosperous state" and would in turn like to define hate groups as any groups that gather with the intentions of breeding fear, terror, hate, or violence towards any particular group of people (defined as a group of similar races, religion, or belief [such as sexual orientation].) More specifically, I will be focusing on, and discussing the two groups you mentioned, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Aryan Brotherhood.

Now, before I begin my own arguments, I will answer your question: "who gets to say what is ok and what isn't?"

I have long meditated in search of a proper way for our nation to adapt to such a monumental change as I have proposed. The only way that I could think of was to add a fourth branch to our current system of checks and balances. This branch would be in charge of adapting the constitution to better suit the nation as it evolves (including any exceptions the members of this branch deem necessary to create.) They would have equal power to the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and would their adjustments would be checked by both the legislative branch (requiring a majority vote as opposed to the current two thirds vote necessary to create an amendment) and the judicial branch to make sure that any and all changes and exceptions created by this new branch follow the main ideals that are upheld within our nation, and do not violate the main intentions of the framers ideals. I realize that this is also a very controversial topic, and would love to hear any and all concerns you have regarding this issue; however, I do not want this to distract us from the main topic of our debate.

Rebuttal #1: In response to the "slippery-slope" argument Logic: The system of checks and balances was created in order to stop one particular group from gaining power. Adapting this system by creating another branch should quite any worries you had about the "slippery-slope" that may occur, as the extent of the branches power will be modified by two other branches, the Legislative and the Judicial. Therefore, the new branch will not be able to abuse this power, and they, because of these restrictions, would not be able to quiet the entire, "market place of ideas."

Rebuttal #2: In response to the argument that this will limit the market place of ideas Logic: You brought up the argument that if we allow bad ideas to mix with good ideas, then the good ideas will "rise to the top." In response to this, I would like to bring up the case of Osama Bin Laden, a terrorist who has, what are commonly assumed to be "bad ideas." Because of Bin Laden's influential abilities, his bad ideas were able to rise above the good ideas, and eventually led to a great influx of new members into terrorist beliefs, and further led to the tragic destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001.

I am in no way saying that the KKK or the Aryan Brotherhood has equal power to Terrorists, but I am instead proposing that they have similar bad ideas focused on fear and hatred towards a group of people. If the KKK were to gain an influential leader (horrendous, but influential none-the-less) as Osama Bin Laden, who's to say whether or not our current small national terrorist group the KKK would turn into a world-wide terrorist organization such as that created by Osama Bin Laden?

It is better to regulate the public meetings of these organizations now, as opposed to later when their power may exceed that of the government they are encompassed by.

Rebuttal #3: In response to the argument that Free speech keeps our government accountable. Logic: As the government is not a group of people regulated by race, religion, or belief (refer to definition of groups of people). And the branch will only have the power to regulate hate groups from publicly discussing (note I am not restricting their right to gather in privacy, purely in public) their ideas, the proposition will have no effect on those who wish to speak out against the government.

Now onto my main argument:

Argument: We are currently not fully acknowledging people's natural rights Logic: According to the natural rights originally proposed, and supported by enlightenment thinkers such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau all people are born with the right to live his/her life any way he/she likes without causing physical harm to another individual, directly or indirectly.

What I question within this right is the restriction, "without causing physical harm to another individual, directly or indirectly." I concede that I am working under the assumption that hate groups gather with a common goal to assert their superiority (through violence or terror) over a different group of people. I also concede that I work under the assumption that mental harm can become so intense that it can eventually harm a person physically (I only state this because this was not common knowledge around the time of the enlightenment, and therefore was not included in their right.) I believe that these are fairly common assumptions, and therefore will continue with my argument. If we allow groups that have a goal of asserting superiority over a specific group of people, whether they currently act upon this goal, or whether they plan on accomplishing this goal in the future, they either directly or indirectly threaten the safety of others.

I also could go on, however do not wish to state all of my arguments in the first round of our five round discussion.

Thank you again for accepting this debate, so far it proves to be quite promising.

I will first respond to tsmart's rebuttals to my 3 opening arguments, from there I will counter tsmart's single argument, finally I must respond to the possible creation of a 4th branch of government as the actor created by tsmart in this case. Though I too do not want this debate dramatically side tracked by a debate about the actor who will create the proposed new laws set forth by tsmart. However as he uses this new 4th branch as an answer to my 3rd argument it has become very important to the core of this debate and will thus be discussed when answering Tsmart's first rebuttal.

With this signposting finished, lets get to some arguments.

Rebuttal #1: Tsmart's Rebuttal assures us that through the creation of the 4th branch of government who's sole job is two interpret freedom of speech, and decide what is and what is not allowable under our new laws which limit certain types of speech. Tsmart's exact quote of what the 4th branch of government would be is: "This branch would be in charge of adapting the constitution to better suit the nation as it evolves (including any exceptions the members of this branch deem necessary to create.) They would have equal power to the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and would their adjustments would be checked by both the legislative branch (requiring a majority vote as opposed to the current two thirds vote necessary to create an amendment) and the judicial branch to make sure that any and all changes and exceptions created by this new branch follow the main ideals that are upheld within our nation, and do not violate the main intentions of the framers ideals."

My response: Whooooooo eeee! Where to start on this one?

To begin with it seems at first blush that the 4th branch is going to usurp what has been the power of the Supreme Court, namely interpreting the constitution. However upon closer examination it seems that Tsmart actually has created a body whose job is much more than merely interpreting the constitution, it is actually a body whose job is to CHANGE the constitution. So basically this new body is invented to abridge and thus destroy the power of the 1st amendment (one of the most important amendments in our constitution, one who has been upheld through countless court cases) take the power of the states and congress (the governmental structures who usually keep all of the checks and balances on the creation of new amendments)and given it all to this new 4th branch. Basically we have reorganized the very makeup of American government for the express reason of censoring people. *****In a cost benefit analysis the cost of destabilizing the government by shifting around the powers set in our government by our founding fathers to a new, strange, and untested power structure for the possibly non-existent benefit of censoring hate groups seems dramatically unbalanced. Under this cost benefit analysis it seems as if any marginal benefits we might get from censorship are DRAMATICALLY outweighed by the dangers of the radical upsetting of our governmental structure and thus shows that the CON's proposed solutions just aren't worth the trouble.

Rebuttal #2: In response to my argument for an open Market Place of Ideas (something we have now but will lose if we lose Freedom of Speech) Tsmart brings up the example of Osoma Bin Laden and how his ideas have risen to the top in some places and beat out better ideas, so we should instead keep these sort of ideas out of the public's purview.

My Response: Tsmart actually just proved my point by using the example of Osoma Bin Laden, tell me readers (and Tsmart) have you been convinced by listening to Bin Laden on our television? It wasn't hidden from us. Everyone in the US is allowed to listen to what Bin Laden has to say, yet HERE in the US where the market place of ideas flourishes Bin Laden's brand of extremism hasn't gained a foothold. The places where he is much more popular don't have the myriad of view points like we have the capacity of getting here in the States, instead in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other nations in the Middle East we find a correlation between the free-er the speech, the less extremist the views in the country. This is because when the market place of ideas is allowed to work, people are able to make well informed decisions and that usually leads them away from extremist views and towards the center ground when considering an issue. Thus we can see how Tsmart's example just proves exactly how important the market place of ideas really is and how important it is to keep from abridging the first amendment which is SO key to keeping the market place of ideas viable.

Rebuttal #3: I stated that freedom of speech is a huge check on the government. Tsmart says: "...the branch will only have the power to regulate hate groups from publicly discussing (note I am not restricting their right to gather in privacy, purely in public) their ideas, the proposition will have no effect on those who wish to speak out against the government." My Response: What about the hate groups Tsmart? What happens if an incredibly racist, cruel, mean, hate filled Neo Nazi has a well conceived critique of the the government, but wants to express this brilliant critique in hate filled language? His speech, though offensive to you and me, will also give a benefit to the society because he will point out something about the government which needs to be looked at. Re-reading your quote you say that the hate group will be unable to discuss their ideas in public, what if their ideas have to do with the government? Is this a new exception? Are Hate groups allowed to talk about the government? You see how restricting even a small part of Freedom of Speech has huge ramifications for everyone in our society? Rather than risk the benefit of one of the best checks on our government (freedom of speech) we should play it safe and not try to silence people we don't agree with.

On to Tsmart's argument of expanded natural rights, His claim is that if people are railed against in public by hate groups they may be harmed mentally and that may eventually lead to physical harm. Thus we should protect these minorities and targeted groups from the hate groups.

Response to Tsmart's Argument: Tsmart, it seems as though you have come to an overreaching understanding of what the government is supposed to do in situations like this. Your solution is to take preemptive action by taking away freedoms from people who might threaten others. However it seems as though the goal you are trying to accomplish is to make certain that the targeted minority groups ARE safe as well as help them FEEL safe. This goal can be met much better by an investment in anti-hate laws which will increase the punishment for hate crimes, or better yet you could increase the capabilities of the police and thus keep extremist groups like the hate organizations in line. However abridging freedom of speech is not the best, or even a decent, way of defending targeted minority groups.

Read more:
Debate: Freedom of Speech | Debate.org

Freedom of speech is at the heart of individual liberty and democracy. Yet, in Australia and around the Western world, it is under attack on all sides: from regulations to force balance on the press, to new human rights like the right not to be offended.

In this important new book, Chris Berg offers a bold reinterpretation of why freedom of speech matters. Only by understanding how the right to free expression and freedom of conscience arose can we understand the magnitude of the threats we now face.

The liberty to express our thoughts and opinions is one of the central foundations of Western Civilisation. When governments threaten that freedom of speech, they threaten the foundations of liberty and the democratic system.

Chris Berg is a Research Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs, and a columnist with the Sunday Age and Sun-Herald, and ABCs The Drum. He is an award-winning former editor of the IPA Review.

Other books by Chris Berg:

To read articles and newspaper columns by Chris Berg, visit the IPA website.

For more Institute of Public Affairs work on freedom of speech, click here.

Read more from the original source:
In Defence of Freedom of Speech: from Ancient Greece to ...

A NATION'S GREATNESS DEPENDS ON ITS LEADER

To vastly improve your country and truly make it great again, start by choosing a better leader. Do not let the media or the establishment make you pick from the people they choose, but instead choose from those they do not pick. Pick a leader from among the people who is heart-driven, one who identifies with the common man on the street and understands what the country needs on every level. Do not pick a leader who is only money-driven and does not understand or identify with the common man, but only what corporations need on every level.

Pick a peacemaker. One who unites, not divides. A cultured leader who supports the arts and true freedom of speech, not censorship. Pick a leader who will not only bail out banks and airlines, but also families from losing their homes -- or jobs due to their companies moving to other countries. Pick a leader who will fund schools, not limit spending on education and allow libraries to close. Pick a leader who chooses diplomacy over war. An honest broker in foreign relations. A leader with integrity, one who says what they mean, keeps their word and does not lie to their people. Pick a leader who is strong and confident, yet humble. Intelligent, but not sly. A leader who encourages diversity, not racism. One who understands the needs of the farmer, the teacher, the doctor, and the environmentalist -- not only the banker, the oil tycoon, the weapons developer, or the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyist.

Pick a leader who will keep jobs in your country by offering companies incentives to hire only within their borders, not one who allows corporations to outsource jobs for cheaper labor when there is a national employment crisis. Choose a leader who will invest in building bridges, not walls. Books, not weapons. Morality, not corruption. Intellectualism and wisdom, not ignorance. Stability, not fear and terror. Peace, not chaos. Love, not hate. Convergence, not segregation. Tolerance, not discrimination. Fairness, not hypocrisy. Substance, not superficiality. Character, not immaturity. Transparency, not secrecy. Justice, not lawlessness. Environmental improvement and preservation, not destruction. Truth, not lies.

Most importantly, a great leader must serve the best interests of the people first, not those of multinational corporations. Human life should never be sacrificed for monetary profit. There are no exceptions. In addition, a leader should always be open to criticism, not silencing dissent. Any leader who does not tolerate criticism from the public is afraid of their dirty hands to be revealed under heavy light. And such a leader is dangerous, because they only feel secure in the darkness. Only a leader who is free from corruption welcomes scrutiny; for scrutiny allows a good leader to be an even greater leader.

And lastly, pick a leader who will make their citizens proud. One who will stir the hearts of the people, so that the sons and daughters of a given nation strive to emulate their leader's greatness. Only then will a nation be truly great, when a leader inspires and produces citizens worthy of becoming future leaders, honorable decision makers and peacemakers. And in these times, a great leader must be extremely brave. Their leadership must be steered only by their conscience, not a bribe. Suzy Kassem, Rise Up and Salute the Sun: The Writings of Suzy Kassem

See the article here:
Quotes About Freedom Of Speech (231 quotes) - Goodreads

Freedom of speech, Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a clear and present dangeri.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint (see Pentagon Papers). See also censorship.

Corrections? Updates? Help us improve this article! Contact our editors with your Feedback.

Citations

While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.

More here:
freedom of speech | Britannica.com

Freedom of speech is the right to state one's opinions and ideas without being stopped or punished. Sometimes this is also called Freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is thought to also include Freedom of information. However, new laws are usually needed to allow information to be used easily.

Most people think freedom of speech is necessary for a democratic government. In countries without free speech, people might be afraid to say what they think. Then, the government does not know what the people want. If the government does not know what they want, it cannot respond to their wants. Without free speech, the government does not have to worry as much about doing what the people want. Some people say this is why some governments do not allow free speech: they do not want to be criticised, or they fear there would be revolution if everyone knew everything that was happening in the country.

A well-known liberal thinker, John Stuart Mill, believed that freedom of speech is important because the society that people live in has a right to hear people's ideas. It's not just important because everyone should have a right to express him or herself.

Few countries with "free speech" let everything be said. For example, the United States Supreme Court said that it was against the law to shout "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire, because this might cause people to panic. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also says that it is not okay to cause national, racial or religious hatred.[1] Also, some countries have laws against hate speech. [2]

As Tocqueville pointed out, people may be hesitant to speak freely not because of fear of government retribution but because of social pressures. When an individual announces an unpopular opinion, he or she may face the disdain of their community or even be subjected to violent reactions. While this type of suppression of speech is even more difficult to prevent than government suppression is, there are questions about whether it truly falls within the ambit of freedom of speech, which is typically regarded as a legal right to be exercised against the government, or immunity from governmental action.

Read more:
Freedom of speech - Simple English Wikipedia, the free ...

6.1 Importance Of Freedom Of Speech And Expression The importance of free speech as a basic and valuable characteristic of western society cannot be underestimated. As well as emphasizing the value of free speech, it is proposed to make an evaluation of some of the traditional restrictions on what may be freely said or published, such as the defamation laws, contempt of court, national security and so on. The approach is one which makes the case for free speech, since the world is now a place where people's unfettered freedoms are by and large in retreat. One of the difficulties inherent in discussing freedom of speech is that it contains what libertarians often describe as the paradox of freedom. The classical exposition of this paradox was described by John Stuart Mill in his essayOn Liberty in Utilitarianism Etc: (London, 1910) p 83

In other words, unless we ensure to the enemies of freedom the liberties which they are keen to abuse, then we deny the essence of what we ultimately stand for and are therefore no better than those to whom we are opposed. Or as Voltaire has been paraphrased,

On a more practical plane, freedom of speech serves many functions. One of its most important functions is that decision-making at all levels is preceded by discussion and consideration of a representative range of views. A decision made after adequate consultation is likely to be a better one which less imperfectly mirrors the opinions, interests and needs of all concerned, than a decision taken with little or no consultation. Thus freedom of speech is important at all levels in society. Yet it is most important for government. A government which does not know what the people feel and think is in a dangerous position. The government that muzzles free speech runs a risk of destroying the creative instincts of its people.

Freedom of speech is also important to governments because when criticisms of a government are freely voiced, the government has the opportunity to respond to answer unfair comments and criticisms about its actions. On the other hand, when freedom of speech is restricted, rumours, unfair criticisms, comments and downright falsehoods are circulated by word of mouth. These have a habit of spreading across the length and breadth of the country through conversation and surreptitiously circulated writings. The government is in no position to answer these views, because they are not publicly stated. It is in a government's interest to have criticisms in the public arena where it can answer its critics and correct its mistakes. The government generally has access to electronic and printing communication far in excess of individuals and groups. It is able to present its view only if the opposing views are in the open and known.

Finally, the freedom of speech is the single most important political right of citizens, although private property is required for its operation. See further chapter 8. Without free speech no political action is possible and no resistance to injustice and oppression is possible. Without free speech elections would have no meaning at all. Policies of contestants become known to the public and become responsive to public opinion only by virtue of free speech. Between elections the freely expressed opinions of citizens help restrain oppressive rule. Without this freedom it is futile to expect political freedom or consequently economic freedom. The sine qua non of a democratic society is the freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech involves toleration of a great deal of nonsense, and even of matters which are in bad taste. There are those, among them notably Justice Douglas of the American Supreme Court, who have argued for near absolute freedom of speech and against the restrictions based on many of the common exceptions. In Roth v US 354 US 476 (1957) a case about obscenity, Justice Douglas said in dissent:

Similarly, in Australia, Robert Pullan has recently published a book (Guilty Secrets: Free Speech in Australia (North Ryde, 1984)) in which he finds not only the obscenity laws but also the defamation and sedition laws so repugnant, he would throw them all out. But while it is thought that even the most open-minded people would draw the line somewhere (child pornography) it must also be recognised that there is an increasing tendency to argue that views based merely on bad taste and offensiveness to particular groups should be censored. Yet bad taste, discrimination and mere offensiveness to individuals are not grounds for restricting free speech. They have to be accepted as an unavoidable by-product of the advantages of freedom of speech.

It must be realized that what constitutes bad taste or discrimination or offensiveness is to a very great extent subjective. The folly of the increasing practice, in recent times, of placing censorship powers in the hands of bureaucrats and tribunals is illustrated by the manner in which the works of authors like D H Lawrence were banned from sale. Even recently the Chief Commonwealth Film Censor banned a Brazilian film by Hector Babenco portraying the desperate hand-to-mouth existence of a Brazilian boy from being shown at the Sydney Film Festival on the grounds of child abuse, even though it was the first censoring since 1969 of a film entered for the Melbourne or Sydney Film Festivals. After an outcry from the directors of both Festivals, the ban was overruled by the Films Board of Review. The film, titled Pixote, was shown and voted the best film by the Film Festival subscribers.

Larger problems arise where some people call for groups such as National Action to be made illegal as tending to encourage racism. In a recent incident at a University, where National Action had set up some tables to distribute literature, tables were overturned and groups of students shouted against racism.

Those who attempt to resort to such tactics to stifle presentation of an opposing view give the impression that reason and logic are not on their side. Freedom of speech has as its necessary corollary the expression of a wide range of views, some of which of course will be unpalatable, or clearly wrong. But the alternative of placing the agenda for public discussion in the hands of paternalistic bureaucrats (who as human beings will be fallible and have subjective views and personal prejudices) whose rulings often cannot or can only with difficulty and cost be reviewed in the courts, is increasingly becoming the norm. It is an undesirable and unfortunate trend.

The attacks on Geoffrey Blainey are symptomatic of developing trends. History demonstrates that problems have arisen in multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious societies. The Blainey view should be freely expressible as part of the public discussion about our immigration policy, along with any other views, without his being subjected to personal and vituperative abuse and threatened with violence. The process of public debate provides an opportunity for an evaluation of his views.

6.2 The Racial Discrimination Act Amendments One of the thorniest issues that has arisen in recent times is that of the proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act by the Human Rights Commission which would:

While some may find this a laudable weapon against racists, this is yet another serious restriction upon free speech. What the amendment really strikes at is hurtful speech or wounding words. For example, if somebody publicly said, "Aboriginals are just lazy drunks", it is likely that such a person could be prosecuted under the Act. Such a statement is a deplorable generalization, no more applicable to aboriginals than any other race or nationality. But why give the statement any more treatment than it deserves simply to be ignored? Doubtless, many aboriginals may feel deeply hurt by such a comment. But what mature person expects to pass through life without having wounding words spoken to him or her?

Any sensible person can see that the statement reflects more upon the person who made it than it does on Australian aboriginals. Why should migrants or members of ethnic groups be protected from the slings and arrows of normal human living? Indeed, many traits of the various cultures may well deserve severe criticism for the sake of social discipline and national cohesion. For example, the aboriginal practice of organized infanticide or some of their customs relating to treatment of women, may legitimately be strongly criticised. Have not other cultures been criticised in the past for their sanitary habits which were a danger to public health? Members of these communities and groups may be deeply offended or hurt by such criticisms. But should the Commonwealth Parliament be legislating to forbid this simply because it arouses ill feeling?

Further, should we not be free to criticise white South African members of the Australian community who are unrepentant about apartheid policies maintained in their home country, irrespective of whether it causes intolerance of their community in Australia? It is ludicrous that such a condemnation of a racist policy would in fact be a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Laws already exist to adequately deal with any physical attacks which are made by one group or person against another, whether of racist origin or not and to deal with incitement to violence. New laws which enable prosecution at a much earlier time are both unnecessary and exceedingly vague (and therefore potentially dangerous) in their operation. Indeed, the freedom to make such statements is an important safety valve which society needs in order to lessen the likelihood of resort to physical aggression. Tensions of a racial nature are bound to develop in all walks of life and should not be suppressed. A heated public debate does not necessarily lead to, and is far more desirable than violence.

Those in Australia who are proponents of the fashionable term, Multiculturalism, mostly politicians, journalists and certain segments of academia (very few of whom are actually migrants), make strange bedfellows with those who promote the latest version of the Racial Discrimination Act. Indeed, it seems that most of these people wear two night-caps. They cannot be ignorant of what Italians feel about Greeks, Ukrainians about Russians, Chinese about Vietnamese, Turks about Armenians, Indians about Pakistanis, Nigerians about Ghanians, or Croats about Slavs and vice versa.

Australia's attitude to all this should be that we welcome immigrants from any country, with the stern proviso that their national politics be firmly left at home. But the transformation of theory into reality may at times be more aptly described as metamorphosis, except that this time the butterfly can be uglier than the caterpillar. One simply cannot legislate to prevent people from holding what may be racist attitudes, especially migrants who could have fought against each other in the World Wars. The best we can do is to educate and attempt to change attitudes and let time heal these wounds as new generations of Australian-born children leave these views behind. Certainly legislating to make these thoughts inexpressible is likely only to harden people's feelings and prolong the whole process. Professor Lauchlan Chipman has this to say (Quadrant May 1984, p 24) about the amendment (quoted above) proposed by the Human Rights Commission:

It is not excessively dramatic to say that not since the Second World War have we seen proposals for limiting freedom of expression as restrictive as some that are currently under discussion. All of them derive from the progressives of the new class and more importantly all of them are put forward in the name of protection of the innocent from hurtful speech. At first, the proposed amendment might seem unexceptionable; something that only racists or people insensitive to the hurt caused by racists would oppose. And indeed, as is so often the case, people who oppose this amendment in good faith will be called racists. Regular readers of Quadrant will recall that the present Commonwealth Attorney General was, as Shadow Attorney, not averse to using parliamentary privilege to describe Quadrant contributors who criticised multiculturalism as "sophisticated" and "more dangerous" racists. Late last year the Evans speech was cited at a multiculturalism conference in Adelaide as proof that this writer "hated ethnics").

One thing that is particularly worrying about the Human Rights Commission's proposed amendment is that it has deliberately chosen (it considered the alternative and rejected it) to construct the offence in terms of objective consequence rather than intended effect, in a way that is modelled on the defamation laws of most States. Thus if a newspaper were to report, in good faith, claims about the comparative alcoholism rates among Aborigines and non-Aboriginal Australians... and as a result a minority of the readers were reinforced in an intolerant attitude to Aborigines, an offence may have been committed. Now we will be hastily reassured that the proposed legislative amendment is not intended to extend to "bona fide public discussions", scientific reports, or works of art (the latter exemption no doubt intended to save Wagner and Irish jokes).

It is difficult to imagine anything more ludicrous than the Human Rights Commission making judgements about whether something is a work of art, whether a public discussion is bona fide, or whether a report is genuinely scientific. It is not just ludicrous. It reeks of all of the classical dangers of censorship. Moreover it is doubtful if it will achieve anything in relation to its declared and legitimate objective of diminishing racial tensions. (Comparative English legislation actually correlates with a rise in overt racist activity, and in the proportion of racist smut which is anonymous.) It may succeed in having Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf banned in Australia, unless it qualifies as a work of art.

6.3 Defamation Free speech is simply what is left when many other things are taken out. One of those things is the effect of defamation laws, which seek to protect an individual's reputation. The central problem is to reconcile this purpose with the competing demands of free speech or to put the problem another way (through the eyes of a journalist):

In a free society there is a strong presumption that people should be able to speak freely, especially in relation to public issues and an individual's behaviour in relation to these issues. However, the reality of potential for abuse of this freedom remains and so with it the need for defamation laws.

In an action for defamation, there has for a long time been the defence of truthfulness but the onus is on the defence (the defamer) to prove it. Beevis v Dawson (1957) 1 QB 195. The truth of all material statements contained in the libel must be proven.

There is also the legal defence of "absolute privilege". In simple language this means that whatever is said (however defamatory) is "absolutely privileged" and no action can be maintained. "Absolute privilege" attaches to whatever is said in Parliament or during evidence given in the course of judicial proceedings. There is also the defence of "qualified privileged" which is where an action cannot be maintained unless there is malice, such as in the reporting by the media of matters in respect of which "absolute privilege" exists. Privilege is often justified on the ground that

But, adds FlemingP

It is in view of these often extreme abuses of Parliamentary Privilege that there is good reason for exposing parliamentarians to the same liability as anyone else. Truth of the statements should be a complete defence. Perhaps a balance could be struck that those with privilege not carry the burden of proof. Rather, they would be liable if the plaintiff proved the ntruthfulness of the statement.

In the United States a person holding political or public office has no right to sue for defamation. The reason given is that a person who enters public office, unlike the private citizen, should come under unrestrained public scrutiny. This is considered essential to the workings of the US democracy. Thus the law of defamation offers no refuge to the holder of public office. There is an important lesson here for Australia.

However, last year the Attorney General proposed new Uniform Defamation Laws which would place much greater restrictions on freedom of speech than do Australia's already restrictive laws. The most severe aspect was that truth would not be a sufficient defence, as it is in Victoria, nor truth and public interest, as it is in New South Wales; rather, truth and public benefit would have to be proved. Of course, none of these new restrictions applied to Parliamentarians or others with Absolute Privilege.

In view of the criticisms which the draft Bill received from the media, it now appears to have been put to one side. While there may be a need to codify the law of defamation which at present is in a very disorganised state, it should not be taken as an opportunity to impose further constraints on freedom of speech. In the following extract Professor Lauchlan Chipman (Quadrant, May, 1984 p 25) has spelt out the ominous nature of the reforms proposed to the law of defamation:

The proposed amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act is not the only proposal to restrict freedom of speech associated with the present government A proposed Uniform Defamation Law, floated last year, has been withdrawn in the light of the belting it received from the media, but it has not been scrapped. Much publicity has already been given to many of its provisions which, if implemented, would have given Australia, already suffering an international reputation for restrictive defamation laws, the most restrictive defamation laws in the English speaking world. The draft legislation which is now in limbo was originally presented in a curiously disjunctive form. Parliamentarians would have been free to pick and choose which provisions of varying degree of illiberality they would seek to impose uniformly throughout Australia. Among the options was one that would give the dead a right to sue (through their living representative) for up to three years, thus finally ending the career of the honest obituary writer. Moreover truth would not be a sufficient defence, as it is in Victoria, nor truth and public interest, as in New South Wales; rather, under one proposed option, truth and public benefit would have to be proved.

This last idea is a complete reversal of the fundamental principle of freedom of expression as set out by John Stuart Mill and quoted at the beginning of this article. The traditional principle is one which presumed the right to express oneself as one wishes unless some substantial harm to innocent people will result. Under the proposed "reform" in one of the draft options in the uniform Defamation Law the presumption would be that you should not make statements about identifiable living or recently dead people unless some public good will be furthered. Many people have made useful and sound criticisms of this proposed legislation, and yet I think it has been insufficiently realized how profoundly questionable are the principles implicit in it.

What the proposed amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act and the more restrictive proposed provisions of the uniform Defamation law have in common is a "wetter" view than Mill would ever have countenanced as to what constitutes a sufficient degree of harm to innocent people, or indeed how "innocent" they need be, to justify restricting freedom of expression. At the time Mill wrote, privacy the value which the uniform Defamation law is really attempting to protect was not seen as an important competitor. Indeed it was not until later in the nineteenth century that the American Judge Cooley and later Judges Warren and Brandeis, writing in the Harvard Law Review made privacy what Judge Cooley had called "the right to be let alone" an intellectual issue.

Mill's famous principle that it is only the prevention of harm to others which justifies the state in restricting our voluntary conduct a principle derived from Kant has always caused practical problems because of the vagueness of the notion of harm. Some have attempted to give a "Millian" justification for the proposed anti-racist and defamation laws under discussion on the ground that the restrictions they introduce are motivated by a desire to prevent harm; the deep feeling of hurt in having one's racial ancestry denigrated, or the dignity and embarrassment of having what one thought were private shames publicised. But plainly this is not good enough. As Mill himself once wrote:

The issue is thus not whether some people are profoundly hurt by what others are now permitted to say and write freely, but rather whether this hurt is so great as to justify curtailing by law the present right to do things which may produce it. The issue is not whether people engage in ethnic defamation and outrageous intrusions of privacy. It is whether, and if so in what circumstances, the real hurt that such people can and do sometimes produce is a sufficiently great evil to justify further curtailing that freedom of expression for which Voltaire, Milton, and Mill spoke so eloquently and passionately. I do not believe it is. Those who take the view I have just endorsed will of course, be called fallaciously racists or friends of racists, and disrespecters of privacy. It has not changed since that time of Mill who, in the same essay, wrote:

6.4 The New Censorship The issue of the new censorship would not be complete without note being taken of the new guidelines which have been circulated by the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations (FAUSA) titled Towards Non-Sexist Language. These guidelines have the very objective which is set out for Newspeak in the appendix to Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four. The objective is to make certain thoughts (sexist thoughts and attitudes) inexpressible. Needless to say the guidelines are ridiculous in their justification, and inaccurate embarrassingly so in an organization which claims to represent the interests of those in our highest institutions of learning in their substantial linguistic claims. But what is more important is that in several Australian universities committees have been established to consider recommendations, inter alia, that compliance with the guidelines in university lectures, tutorials, administrative documents and research publications, be university policy. While serious scholars will certainly ignore the positive recommendations which are predictable given the sorts of people who gravitate to such committees, the real indictment of the quality of our tertiary academic community is that there are sections within it who would take it seriously at all.

What sort of attitude to scholarship is held by someone who would actually recommend, to take a real example, that in lectures, tutorials, or research publications about Aristotle, he should not in future be quoted directly as saying "Man is a political animal", but rather, as university policy, should be paraphrased as saying that people are naturally political (or other non-sexist words to that effect)? It is difficult to take a principled stand on university autonomy against attacks from without, when it is being wilfully subverted from within by people who, in the unlikely event that they have read Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four, have interpreted his discussion of Newspeak as a set of useful positive recommendations. When a satirist provides an archetype for a social policy within our institutions of higher learning, retreat and withdrawal are very tempting.

During 1983 several proposals were floated to re-write school textbooks and revise school curricula so that men and women are portrayed as having socially interchangeable roles. A new organisation of Western Australian school teachers wants history texts rewritten to write out wars and war heroes and write in peace and peace heroes. More significant is the actual culling of certain school and municipal libraries, under the direction of committees filled with moral zeal, of racist, sexist, and militarist works. In New South Wales, former federal Commissioner for Community Relations and former Immigration Minister in the Whitlam Labor Government Al Grasby, is reported to have called for the removal of Clive of India from New South Wales school libraries on the ground that it is racist.

The argument given for removing these books from school and municipal libraries could be extended to removing them from all libraries. The arguments are essentially those offered by Plato in Book X of The Republic. Indeed the parallels between Plato's Republic, Oceania in Nineteen Eighty Four and the new illiberalism in Australia are striking. In all cases a publicly educated elite, sure in its values but untrusting of the rest of the community to quickly endorse or understand its values, adopts a paternalistic (The Republic) or Big Brotherly (Nineteen Eighty Four) protective role. Plato's Guardians, and the new moralists of the new class in Australia, who are associating themselves with such very worrying agencies as the Commonwealth Human Rights Commission (itself an interesting specimen of Newspeak terminology, of which more below), various Anti-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity Boards, and a number of other advisory boards and ad hoc panels with direct access to Attorneys-General and other political leaders, have a remarkable amount in common. Like the Party in Nineteen Eighty Four under the sternly protective but nonetheless sibling image of Big Brother, these people believe that not only do they know the truth on important matters of social order, but they know it with a certainty which justifies them in legislating for the implementation of this certain truth by whatever measures are necessary. Like Plato's Guardians, they fear that the lower classes (Orwell's proles or quite simply "ordinary people") will be too lethargic, weak-minded (the effects of prior "structural social conditioning") or too weak-willed to achieve voluntarily the rapid implementation of these selectively revealed goods.

6.5 Relative Freedom Of Speech It is well to remember that in spite of the valid criticisms which can be made of the way western societies have allowed governments to place restrictions upon freedom of speech, it virtually pales into insignificance when a comparison is made with the countries which lie between the Elbe and the China Sea. One vivid example is the care which the leader of the Polish trade union Solidarity, Lech Walesa, has had to employ in any "statement" which he makes about the problems confronting that country. It is all the more of concern because it seems clear that it is only the threat of criticism from the international media which has prevented this episode from being dealt with in the usual way. A similar problem has been shown recently in the USSR by the controversy surrounding the health of the Soviet dissident, Sakharov.

This association of restrictions with socialism and freedom with capitalism, is no matter of chance. Capitalism is, with all its faults, a pluralist system. Power within it is dispersed and various, and it is this pluralism which is the necessary though not sufficient condition for freedom's existence and continuance. Socialism, on the other hand, is a highly centralized system, with political and economic power concentrated in very few hands. Freedom of speech in the Socialist bloc is all the more restricted where all causes must bend to the Communist doctrine.

6.6 Conclusions A common justification for the restrictions upon the liberty of individuals is the supposedly overriding interests of efficient government and the public benefit. It is conveniently overlooked that what constitutes "efficient government" and "public benefit" are subjective concepts, the interpretation of which will be in the hands of legislators, bureaucrats and judges with human failings and feelings, lack of vision, imperfect knowledge and understanding, subjective views and personal prejudices. However, while public benefit is an important factor, the test for allowing further restrictions upon free speech should strive to be somewhat more stringent. Legal restraints upon individual freedom of speech should only be tolerated where they are absolutely necessary to prevent infliction of actual harm or to secure the liberties of others. A more or less remote possibility that someone will be harmed or unbased claims that the stability of society will be undermined is not sufficient justification for legal prohibition.

A balance must be struck between the ability of individuals to be unrestricted in the free expression of thoughts and ideas, and the need to ensure that governments are able to efficiently carry out their function of administration, law and order, and preserving the rights of individuals vis-a-vis each other.

Read the original here:
Freedom Of Speech And Freedom Of Expression

Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. It is also one of the most dangerous rights, because freedom of expression means the freedom to express one's discontent with the status quo and the desire to change it. As such, it is one of the most threatened rights, with governments - and even human rights groups - all over the world constantly trying to curtail it.

The United States, probably like no other nation, has recognized the importance of freedom of expression to safeguard democracy and grow as a nation. However, this does not mean there are no efforts to try to curtail it. The internet has often been the target of this efforts, as it provides practically everyone with the ability to communicate their ideas to wide audiences and escapes the ability of the state to control it.

This page is just being born, but in the future we hope to provide you with thorough information about what freedom of speech means, why it is important to protect it and what are the attempts to curtail it. Meanwhile we hope you find the information we do offer useful.

Derechos was an amicus on the ACLU cases against the US government vis a vis the so called Communication Indecency Act which criminalized the "making available" of "indecent" information to minors, and punished it with 2 years in prison. The statute was declared to violate the first ammendment by the Supreme Court. This is an example of clearly protected speech that was jeopardized by the statute.

A report by the US Justice Department. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Joseph Biden were/are trying to pass a law criminalizing thedistribution of bomb making information, both online and offline. This will interfere with the right of individuals to impart and obtain information. Bomb making information has many legitimate uses. Derechos Human Rights, for example, has published the Spanish version of the Urban Terrorism manual used at the US Army School of the Americas to teach foreign military. The manual contains information on how to make a car bomb.

The following are web sites whose existence or whose authors have been threatened.

The web site of a pro-Basque-Independence organization. The site was the subject of a mail-bombing attack by Spaniards who linked it with the terrorist group ETA. Nothing on the site that we could see, however, implies such connection or advocates the use of violence. Their provider, IGC, was forced to take the site down, which caused it to be mirrored at other sites.

The Canadian Government is enforcing a law that prohibits anonymous political speech - including online - and has threatened to charge the individual who published this page that we are now mirroring. You can find more information about the issue at http://insight.mcmaster.ca/org/efc/pages/elections/.

International

Regional/National

Read the original:
Freedom of Speech - Derechos