Talk:Freedom of speech by country

Freedom of Speech UK?

British free speech needs to be reviewed ASAP

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/08/20/free-speech-twitter/

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/07/april-jones-matthew-wood-charged-facebook_n_1946348.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992

people are being jailed for tasteless jokes and petty insults. Matthew Wood told a few offensive tasteless jokes which resulted in 12 weeks in prison. Hardly 'free' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.222.53 (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The UK has never had a freedom of speech law. The current law is taken from the European Human Rights law but the second paragraph completely invalidates the first paragraph. The UK should NOT be included in any lists of nations with freedom of speech/expression. Other EU nations have their own interpretations of the law which is sometimes much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6488:A601:4105:9EF3:9FC1:F4C9 (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Australia

The section on Australia is so totally wrong it's completely misleading! It was plainly written by an ignorant layman, with no knowledge of Australian Law, for it represents a fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Australian Law.

Rarely have I seen a less accurate wikipedia section -- there is so much political spin in it, the truth is completely lost! It needs to be removed, or rewritten.

For example, our hate speech laws were written with extreme care, by a conservative government, and they are not like those of Canada, the US, UK etc. And despite what some claim, mere offence is not enough to violate them (which is how our publications were freely able to reprint the Mohammed cartoons, and much more besides). To qualify as 'Hate Speech' an expression must include an incitement to violence, or criminal activity, or illegal discrimination, etc. But our Equal Opportunity Act protects the latter to a point, for it has a list of exclusions ~ including the freedom to discriminate on religious grounds, for just one example; just as our Racial Discrimination Act exempts expressions or acts in private, or those for genuine artistic, scientific and academic purposes, or for "any other genuine purpose in the public interest". To violate the Law, an expression must, in short, be truly hateful!

Hack-journalist Andrew Bolt was rightly prosecuted under these Laws, not because he finds problems in Aboriginal society and can't pontification on them - he can indeed - but because he blatantly lied about, and committed slander against, specific, named individuals, specifically of a racist nature (whomever wrote this article obviously doesn't know anything about his cases, plural!). So here's some sources, about what actually happened in the Racial Vilification case:-
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/racial-vilification-laws-the-bolt-case-from-a-st/Racial%20vilification%20laws%20E%20Brief.pdf
http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2011/2011fca1103
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3181946.htm

And here is Bolt's own wikipedia page -- it would profit the author to read it...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt

Bolt is an unreasonable, irresponsible 'shock-jock' -- a proven racist according to our courts, who thought he didn't have to take any grown-up responsibility for publically spreading racially-motivated, and other, lies. Our courts taught him otherwise. An Australian is perfectly free to privately be the most racist pig on the planet, because, to be hate speech or racial vilification, an expression must be public, it must serve no legitimate scientific, academic or artistic purpose, it must be motivated by bigotry, and, generally, it must incite others to break the same areas - plural - of Law. Here's a couple of comparison pieces, produced honestly, without racism, and genuinely in the public interest, which pull no punches on the problems in Aboriginal society, but do not violate any Australian law:-
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/culture-of-denial/news-story/3dd28525dc85e34c1fb549813bd4d9f4
https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/health/aboriginal-sexual-abuse

Just because we don't have a US-style 'First Amendment' doesn't mean we need one! Indeed, we don't, for our right to Freedom of Expression is repeatedly expressed, and contained in many different legislative instruments, as well as the Decisions of our High Court, and our ratification of the UNHCR. Our right to Freedom of Expression is in fact far more broad, and far less limited, than that of the US -- it just comes with some grown-up responsibilities when one is in public. The "reasonable person" test is the guiding principle behind all such Law. And, for example, our professors, teachers, colleges and universities are having none of the problems of those in the US or Canada, for the academic freedom of ours has extensive legal protection.

For reference, look-up what Bolt gets away with! The political cartoons of Bill Leak are another excellent example of 'offensive' expressions which are perfectly legal. Similarly, one can look at the foul publications of the recent Equal-Marriage 'No' campaign (many of which are truly repugnant, but not illegal -- though some of them are); and so on. One could also view the following:- it's a film of Senator Mitch Fifield tearing strips off feminist Senator Katy Gallagher - in Parliament - for her sexist and repugnant accusation that he was "mansplaining". It's very revealing of just how real our commitment to Freedom of Expression is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOXh5repOWI

For further reference:-

1. See Sections 18c AND 18d for what constitutes racial vilification, and one's protected exemptions, at http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18d.html
   
2. See this newspaper article for a Government minister's very accurate thoughts on Freedom of Expression, at http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/second-australian-paper-publishes-cartoon/2006/02/08/1139074274027.html
   
3. And here's a page about Australian Law itself, with many links to the various legislative instruments I mention, at https://www.humanrights.gov.au/freedom-information-opinion-and-expression
   

In accordance with Australian and international Law, I will give the author 90 days from today to retract and rewrite the section to accurately reflect the truth of Australian Law where it protects, and limits, freedom of expression. If he/she chooses not to, and persists in publically sharing such utter falsehoods, I will delete the entire section, and will continue to do so until it is accurate.
Sinnergism (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Turkey in Asia?

What sense does it make to include Turkey in Asia and talk about its allegiance to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights? Would it not be more consistent to have Turkey under Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordi71 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I inserted a better introductory sentence:

Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.

The second sentence (formerly the first sentence) implied that freedom of speech is something mandated by the U.N., and worse, did not actually explain what that right is. — Loadmaster 00:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The right is "inherent" or not depending on your philosophy on the origins of rights. Though I personally agree that it is inherent I think it might be POV.Sjö 08:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Total change

This article has totally changed since the version that existed a year ago - and not for the better. There is more international detail, which is good I guess, but the theoretical and historical discussion has been wiped out, and what was a reasonably well-structured article is now a mess. Anyone prepared to go back and try to rescue this, without losing any genuine improvements? Metamagician3000 03:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the old material has been moved to Freedom of speech (international). We basically have two rival articles. This doesn't seem satisfactory. Can someone briefly explain how it happened? Metamagician3000 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this was the unfortunate result of a bad case of vandalism that went unnoticed [1]. Pascal.Tesson 21:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Who else thinks that freedom of speech should apply to spoken/written/etc. information or opinions only, and should absolutely in no way apply to actions supposed to represent information or opinions? I think there are too many people who say they should be able to do any number of things because it's freedom of speech. VolatileChemical 02:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What sort of actions would be disallowed? Where do you draw the line? Let us try a thought experiment--

From now on, you can say or write whatever you wish. But you can no longer exercise free speech via stage plays, or in television shows, for that requires someone to ACT. No movies, oh, no. All movies that express opinions will be unprotected. Might as well ban them all.

There will be no art. Art entails the ACT of creation. No ACTion allowed.

No picket signs (because then you have to carry them,) no travelling to discuss a matter with your congressional representatives (for the act of travelling would entail something more than just SPEAKING or WRITING.) These are actions, and we don't recognize any sort of action as protected-- after all, that isn't SPEAK-ing or WRITE-ing.

Hmmm. Sounds like a great way to start the slide down the slippery slope.

Richard Myers 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We're only here on this page to discuss how to improve the article. Metamagician3000 10:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But along the lines of differentiating between "speech" and "actions", I've added a sentence to the intro para stating that "speech" is generally taken to include "other forms of expresssion". This wasn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, and some people do think there is a distinction between the two. Note that there is no such phrase as "freedom of expression" in the U.S. Constitution, but the meaning of "speech" has evolved over time through many Supreme Court cases to cover additional forms of "expression". — Loadmaster 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

i just think its ironic wikipedia has an article on freedom of speech. (unsigned comment by User:81.134.191.44 2007-04-16T03:31:54)

Why? Are you saying Wikipedia should contain opinions in addition to facts, that it should be a forum for free speech instead of an encyclopedia with citable references? — Loadmaster 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Stromberg v. California in 1931 formally protected "symbolic speech" and "expressive conduct" in addition to verbal speech in the United States, in particular the right to fly a Communist flag. This by what has been described as a conservative (American) court. Int21h (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Currently (where article actually has references) the style of references varies. Most of the article seems to favour the <ref></ref> style. The rest likes the in-line external links ([2]). See freedom of speech#Sweden for the worst example. Can we have one style? <ref></ref> Please. Thanks, Monkeyblue 09:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

wiadomosci.onet.pl

If anyone can read Polish could they find out if http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1446470,11,item.html is a possible reference for

In the December of 2006, a leader of Polish National Party, Leszek Bubel, was sent by force for a psychiatric examination, supposedly on the basis of his antisemitic publications.

This content has been removed until verified. Thanks, Monkeyblue 09:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Other removed content

Everything under here will be from Monkeyblue

The principle of freedom of speech promotes dialogues on public issues, but it is most relevant to speech which is unpopular at the time it is made. As Pennsylvania state legislator Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia once argued in a legislative debate, "Freedom of speech which is limited to freedom to say whatever a majority of the Pennsylvania legislature agrees with is not real freedom of speech."Free Speech Rules! - The First Amendment to the United States

Reason: Not reliable source. Cannot find this info anywhere else online. Not even on mentioned on Mark B. Cohen. 09:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Move/Swap with Freedom of speech (international)

This move/swap (Freedom of speech → Freedom of speech by country & Freedom of speech (international) → Freedom of speech) will occur in one week (on the 2007-05-16), unless negative sentiments. Monkeyblue 08:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Completed Monkeyblue 10:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We need a California Clarification

Of all states, the state of California permits its citizens the broadest possible range of free speech under the state constitution (whose declaration of rights includes a strong affirmative right to free speech in addition to a negative right paralleling the federal prohibition on laws that abridge the freedom of speech).

Does anyone have any idea what this means? Is my free speech really freer in California than,say, in Oregon? What is a "strong affirmative right to free speech" as opposed to "simply" preventing government from prohibiting the exercise of free speech? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.12.117 (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, AFAIK freedom of speech in Oregon is much greater in Oregon than it is in California, due to the language in its state constitution. (I don't know the state supreme court case that made the ruling, otherwise I'd add it to the article.) The best known example of this is the fact that Oregon has no legal definition for "obscenity", which means while the level of political of intellectual discourse here is probably not noticeably higher than in the rest of the US there are more strip clubs & adult book stores per capita in Portland than any other US city. Which is the reason I don't boast about this fact. :-/ -- llywrch (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel section

The recently added section on Israel stands out like a sore thumb. So I decided to track down the editor who added that, and it turns out that it was posted in a single edit by an anon. IP whose only other edit is the following, from his talk page:

"The Part on Israel is just a translation of the WIKI from the hebrew wikipedia"

Perhaps that bit of info will be of some assistance to any editors who might take on the task of cleaning it up (assuming it can be). Cgingold (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

UK section

"UK laws on defamation are also considered among the strictest in the Western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant" - this is a very vague and weaselly assertion: I've flagged it with a "by whom?" until some evidence can be found to back up this claim Dom Kaos (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of the Treason Felony Act 1848, still the law , which makes it illegal to call in published print for the abolition of the monarchy in the UK. The Guardian Newspaper tried to challenge this law in 2003 but were stopped by the unelected House of Lords, so much for freedom of speech! See - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/jun/26/pressandpublishing.themonarchy

Anyway what does freedom of speech mean in the UK when the unelected House of Lords can always overrule the House of Commons (the democratic voice of the people)? The Parliament Act is a joke, because it can only be used a few times. The voice of the people is only heard if it does not challenge the interests of those in the ruling establishment, in the unelected House of Lords, more than twice(?) in five years?!

I too agree with the first point, who has advised that English rules of defamation are stricter than other jurisdictions? Can I have some authority or academic commentary please. However, I don't see anywhere in the Parliament Acts 1911 or 1949 limits as to the frequency of their use during any one sitting of Parliament. Furthermore, I feel the writer before me has confused the (partially)*1 unelected upper house that is the House of Lords, with the 12 Law Lords who sit in the judicial branch of the House of Lords, the former highest Court in the UK*2. Whilst the 12 Law Lords retain the right to sit in the House of Lords during Parliamentary business they have often respected the separation of powers and opted not to offer their skills to the legislative branch.

• 1 Most hereditary peers had their rights to sit in the upper chamber removed some time ago, the House of Lords is now mostly comprised with life peers.
• 2 Now the Supreme Court of England and Wales. Whilst we're touching on this point; UK law is misleading. We're an entity of separate legal jurisdictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.207.201 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Beats Germany, where denigrating (Verunglimpfung) the President, state or its symbols is illegal. And of course, Germany has the right to freedom of speech (just like Nazi Germany did.) I'm going to just say it: so-called "freedom of speech" in these countries is, as it always has been, nothing but a barefaced lie. "You have the right to be free from torture; exceptions may be regulated by law." Int21h (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Free speech in California, USA

Some claims regarding the freedom of speech in California were recently removed and then the removal was reverted. The text removed is:

Within the U.S., the freedom of speech also varies widely from one state to the next. Of all states, the state of California permits its citizens the broadest possible range of free speech under the state constitution (whose declaration of rights includes a strong affirmative right to free speech in addition to a negative right paralleling the federal prohibition on laws that abridge the freedom of speech). More specifically, through the Pruneyard case ruling, California residents may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public.

Note that I added the tags three weeks ago, hoping that someone would provide a source for these claims. Unfortunately, none were provided. I support the removal for the following reasons:

• The claim that "freedom of speech also varies widely from one state to the next" is unsourced and appears to represent the personal views of the editor (see WP:SOAPBOX). While it is true that there are variations among the states, I think the use of the word "widely" is highly questionable. Most free speech protections in the United States apply equally to all states and the differences are at the fringes. But regardless of one's opinions if how wide the variations are, this statement demands a reference per WP:Verifiability.

• The claim that California permits its citizens the "broadest possible range of free speech" is also unsourced and also highly questionable. While it is true that California law guarantees its citizens the right to speak in private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, it is not the only state that does so. And even if the article had identified an aspect in which California guarantees broader free-speech rights that all other states, that would not prove the claim; it is quite possible that another state guarantees broader free-speech rights in some other respect. Like the first claim, this demands a reference.

• Even if the above claims were sourced, speech on the private property of others is a relatively minor aspect of free speech, when compared to people being jailed for expressing political views criticizing the government or that are unpopular. As such, it gives undue weight to this aspect of free speech, is a violation of [[WP:NPOV], or more specifically WP:UNDUE. Note that I do not suggest that it should not be covered, but the appropriate article is Freedom of speech in the United States, and it is covered there.

I have removed the text, along with the image that is related only to the removed text.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Iran is in Africa?

These Mideastern nations are not in Africa.184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC).

Russia?

Something should be said about freedom of speech (or lack of such) in Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.181.34 (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Norway On Twice

Norway has two sections under Europe, one independent and one under the European Union. However, Norway is not part of the European Union, therefore, it should only be listed once independently under Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.234.65 (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jeff Ogden (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Formatting standardization

I think the formatting should be standardized across the sections by opening with a summation of the state of affairs followed by the additional information, if any. I think this summary should open with the specific grants of freedoms, in paragraph form, along with the source and form of the aforementioned grants, if known. This should be followed by the exceptions to the grant(s), if known, also in paragraph form and possibly in a separate paragraph if warranted.

The reason is that currently, some sections use lists to specify the grants, while others use paragraphs, while still other use anecdotal evidence. The same goes for exceptions; some use paragraph form, some use lists, and some use examples of exceptions including anecdotal evidence. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for the formatting.

I think the opening should be kept short and concise. Any material that is outside of that which is currently already here should follow, expanding on the summary information.

What say you, Wikipedia? Int21h (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Anti-constitutional" as doublespeak for "banned"

I propose the German section be changed from use of "anti-constitutional" and "unconstitutional" to the more common word "banned". The "anti-constitutional" is the reason, but the "ban" is the verb and noun of importance. "Anti-constitutional" may be the word used, but obviously Germany always has an official, legal reason to do what it always has: ban political parties. Whether that be the Nazi Party, the Communist Party, or all non-Nazi parties, they always had a reason, but the reason is less important than the fact they were "banned". Int21h (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech history for Canada is written very poorly

It uses words like "I, we, our" and talks about issues very subjectively, like in "This is a double edge sword". Frankly, it's written very poorly. It should be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.54.41 (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands section is outdated

The section on the Netherlands is outdated. It mentions a minister which is no longer in power, the blasphemy laws have been abolished, and it refers to a 2008 public debate in the present tense. Gerard RvE (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Chinese versus EU POV

From an American jurisprudence POV, it is disingenuous to say that "strict censorship is widespread in mainland China" while not saying the same of the European Union. Either such statement must be removed, or the same must be said about the EU. The Chinese have "exceptions" to freedom of speech, it is true, but the same can be said about Europe. To single out the Chinese is simply, quite frankly, racist, or at a minimum, culturally discriminatory. Int21h (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I am of the opinion that the same should be said of Europe, which at this point can be clearly be said to be lacking any "freedom of speech" as defined by the US Supreme Court, if the definition can be said to have any absolute meaning. Saying the EU has freedom of speech is doublespeak. These EU laws would be unconstitutional under US law because they simply do not meet the definition. (Which, I should note, is based upon the British definition as enjoyed by UK MPs, but apparently not UK citizens.) This article has obliterated any notion to the contrary, IMO. Int21h (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Rename?

This may be nitpicky, but should this article be renamed to "Freedom of speech and press by country"? Most of the sections relate not only to speech but to the press as well (as well as some that cross into religion). Or do the authors consider speech to include press? I can see both viewpoints of that question, so thought I'd throw it up to everyone else. Leobold111 (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"Free Speech" severely limited

It is almost comical how the article states that the EU has free speech given the current censorship we are all seeing in the news regarding any speech relating to migrants and rape. Perhaps it is hard for Americans to understand how a "human right" can be so limited and still claimed to exist at all.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.241.137 (talk)

It is comical. But a more important question to be answered is why. To me it is a question of who may amend the "constitution", however it may be called, of a state; and for some states (such as Germany), who may not amend it. (In the US, the People may amend the constitution, any part of it, as the People are sovereign; compare this to many states, such as Germany etc., wherein the People may only do as their rulers have stated many generations ago.) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog, and these comments are beyond the scope of this Talk page. If you don't understand European constitutionalism, learn more about it. --Dans (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree or not, such discussions are needed and valid. WP articles are essentially shared academic research papers. The nexus between the discussion and the article is, in this instance, rather clear: this topic of international free speech has intricate interactions with, e.g., European Continental constitutionalism and European American constitutionalism, and it would be remiss if we did not, or could not, hold discussions about them. The discussions, as here, often include statements of research conclusions that underly our individual research aims, research results, and our resulting output that goes into the articles. Such seemingly innocuous or erroneous comments (in this case, a comment about a research conclusion, and a comment that includes research aims) in one man's eyes may the foundation for another man's research, and without them, our collective research would be very negatively impacted. It often also has the effect of giving a globalized viewpoint on this research, which can be sorely lacking in many nationalized research contexts. In sum: such discussions, and individual editors' hypotheses and conclusions, are required for collective research projects like Wikipedia. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of speech by country editing help needed

I would appreciate if somebody could please evaluate the following references, and add them here or in another more appropriate page. Thank you.

Over half of all American college students think that it is acceptable to silence people who disagree with them, and a fifth that it is fine to use violence for this purpose:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/

Silicon Valley is systematically getting rid of anybody with conservative rightwing opinions:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20857/fired-googler-damore-underground-conservative-robert-kraychik#

The German government has created very extreme laws of censorship for social media such as Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. Accounts that break the rules have to immediately be shut down, or the companies will have to pay 50 million Euros in fines:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-23/germany-full-censorship-now-official

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/06/30/with-new-law-germany-tells-social-media-companies-to-erase-hate-or-face-fines-up-to-57-million/

A large statistical survey about the views regarding freedom of speech among US citizens:

https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america

David A (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 No action The edit request system is in place for those editors who have been identified as having a conflict of interest, to make proposals for changes to articles on which the conflict has arisen. If you suspect that an editor has a conflict of interest, the proper place to report that conflict is the COI Noticeboard. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  04:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of flags

Is anyone strongly attached to the flags in each section title? To me it appears distracting enough to be WP:FLAGCRUFT. Wikipedia isn't endorsing these government positions, we are providing information about them. Flags imply that content is official, but not every section is exclusively about a single government's position. Many specifically discuss opposition to a government position, and a person who was sued or imprisoned by a government would not typically be represented by that government's flag. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection, I have removed them. It's also worth noting that MOS:HEAD specifically cautions against including icons and links in section headers, both of these are part of the flag template. Grayfell (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The main problem with these flag icons in this article is that the flags were there for a long time, so most sections do not have an internal link to the country they are referring to. Emass100 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, you mean there is no link to South Africa (for example) in the South Africa section, right? That's a good point. Links in section headers are enough of a problem that I don't think this is a reason to keep them, but perhaps it is. I don't mind going through and linking to the countries as part of the prose. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what I mean. It would be good if you would add these link into the prose, a;though I do think the flag incons should be reinstated because I think they look nicer.Emass100 (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nicer or not, they introduce multiple problems, per MOS:HEAD, and WP:FLAGCRUFT. Since this is both a accessibility issue, and a neutrality issue, I don't think that's enough reason to preserve them. Grayfell (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

a british man was convicted by a judge of making a video where his dog raise his paw to the phrase gas the jews

completly unprecedented in a western country with the famous british comedian ricky gervais saying: "A man has been convicted in a UK court of making a joke that was deemed 'grossly offensive'. "If you don't believe in a person's right to say things that you might find 'grossly offensive', then you don't believe in Freedom of Speech."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925

BBC News:A man who filmed a pet dog giving Nazi salutes before putting the footage on YouTube has been convicted of committing a hate crime. Mark Meechan, 30, recorded his girlfriend's pug, Buddha, responding to statements such as "gas the Jews" and "Sieg Heil" by raising its paw. But police were alerted and he was arrested for allegedly committing a hate crime.

He claimed Jewish comedian David Baddiel had voiced his support for Meechan and had asked for him to walk free. He added: "I can see that the video may not be to everyone's taste. "Others may be able to see the comedic or satirical element to it. "The court should seek to acquit Mr Meechan for no other reason but to show it is 2018 and not 1984." Prosecutors had earlier asked for Meechan to be convicted and branded the video "an odious criminal act that was dressed up to look like a joke." Comedian Ricky Gervais took to Twitter to comment on the case after the verdict. He tweeted: "A man has been convicted in a UK court of making a joke that was deemed 'grossly offensive'. "If you don't believe in a person's right to say things that you might find 'grossly offensive', then you don't believe in Freedom of Speech."

should this be added in to the uk section in part because as i said before, it's unprecedented and flies in the face of free speech as an idea on such a basic level, if you can't say something offensive which is not a threat how do you even have it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menacinghat (talk • contribs) 21:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There were at least two problems with this content.

Celebrities tweet about news items all the time, but that doesn't make them encyclopedically significant. Ricky Gervais is very noteworthy, and has a vested interest in allowing people to say challenging things, but he isn't an expert on freedom of speech, nor is he a legal expert. His opinion may be interesting enough to pad-out a short news article, but that's not enough, by itself, to make this story have long term significance to the entire topic of freedom of speech for an entire country. The two sources are both reliable, but neither demonstrate that this is of lasting encyclopedic significance. WP:NOTNEWS means we need to judge content on its long-term significance. If this does turn out to be significant, sources will reflect that in time.

The other problems was that "raises questions" is a form of WP:EDITORIALIZING. What questions? Who's doing the "raising", and why do their questions matter so much we mention their existence, but not what they actually asked? The phrasing was implying that this was a threat to free speech, but it doesn't provide enough information to justify that implication. If sources don't say something, we shouldn't read between the lines to imply that thing anyway, and if they do, we should be able to summarize it in neutral terms. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it is best to have very strict criteria for what goes in this article. It covers every country after all. However, I'll just mention that the first section of this talk page links to similar over-reaches by the UK in 2012 and this could help in establishing a pattern. Connor Behan (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

We are free to describe this as overreach, but until reliable sources do that, it's just editor opinion, isn't it? Unless I misunderstand you, the pattern you're suggesting seems like it would quickly make this article even more of a mess. If this article has problems with WP:IINFO, recentism will make these problems worse, not better. Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Canada

As a continuation of the above discussion on the UK, I have removed the subsection "Prosecutions involving expression" from the Canada section. Both examples were relatively mundane incidents based on news sources that fail to indicate they were of lasting significance to the larger topic. If such sources exist, this could potentially belong at either of the two sections linked at the top of the section (History of free speech in Canada and Censorship in Canada). Otherwise, these seem like strange things to emphasize in an summary article about many different countries. WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS, basically. Listing specific news items seems like it's inviting WP:POVFORK problems, also. Grayfell (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"De facto" stats

This is regarding this edit by Backarn:

No country has a 100% flawless track record for protecting free speech in practice, nor is there a universally accepted definition for free speech in the first place. This addition appears empty and obvious, as well as editorializing. If there is a source for this, let's see it, but even with a source it's not clear what the purpose of this addition is. Adding a hidden note is meaningless without prior consensus, also. Grayfell (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I side with Greyfell on this one. When putting editorialised content, you should have a third-party source to back it up. Getting "De Facto Stats" for every country on this list will take forever, and we don't want to keep an unsoursed editorialised claim on this page forever. Emass100 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, much of this article is kind of garbage since it's just spreading dictatorships' state propaganda without listing any stats from independent organizations. I didn't delete anything though, but I added a disclaimer which in my opinion should remain up until de facto stats are listed for all countries. Backarn (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The article being garbage is not a valid excuse to add more garbage. Editorializing is garbage. If you have stats from independent sources, add them. If you have a sourced reason to believe current information is incorrect, explain it. You do not have consensus for these changes. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

After looking over the article again, I am still confident this is inappropriate. The article is not "mostly" repeating governments' own positions. It is a mix of unsourced speculation, alarmist WP:RECENTISM, and not enough reliably sourced, neutral coverage of larger patterns in specific countries. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Russophoby statements in article

The blatant russophoby should be removed. All about Russia is not agree with reality, and demonstrates russophobic view from pseudodemocratic agencies, controlled and financed by western governments. This section article is a shame for Wikipedia. Extremism means terrorism and insulting nationalities. This is prohibited in Russia. Moreover, if you write about violations of freedom of speech, you must write about many cases of such violations in USA and Europe. https://ruxpert.ru/Свобода_слова_на_Западе‎

This article gathers examples of violations of freedom of speech in the West, such as harassing carriers of an objectionable point of view, repressions and murders of journalists and dissidents , censorship in the media, hindering journalistic activities. As is known, in the course of the information war, Western countries constantly accuse Russia of restricting and violating freedom of speech - the Western media widely exaggerate both real and, for the most part, alleged violations of freedom of speech in Russia. However, this often ignores or ignores the numerous problems with freedom of speech in the West itself.

1.1 Voice of America "will return the tone of propaganda to defend the interests of the United States 1.2 Ofcom freedom of speech regulator 1.3 A White House spokesperson gathers questions before a press conference. 1.4 The US Army Blocks Opposition Sites 1.5 US journalists protest against Obama against media censorship 1.6 “Soft” censorship on the “BBC” 1.7 Vladimir Pozner encountered censorship while working on the American channel CNBC 1.8 German journalist Udo Ulfkott on freedom of speech in Germany 1.9 Inter-American Press Association: Obama continues to harass journalists in the US 1.10 Censorship in the United States set a record for the number of denials of access to official documents 1.11 The EU has created a special group to combat the "Russian propaganda" 1.12 Foreign Policy removed the words about the absence of evidence of the presence of Russia in the Donbas

2.1 Censorship at the request of the UN Cultural Committee 2.2 The silence of the American media problems when the first docking on the ISS 2.3 The American channel NBC did not allow Snowden to criticize US intelligence 2.4 The American television channel NBC otsenzuril interview of Russian President Vladimir Putin 2.5 Hushing up the facts of CNN and ignoring the thousands protest rally 2.6 CNN "cut out" from an interview with a Russian diplomat words about Bashar Assad 2.7 Censorship on the “BBC” because of the “Bukov” 2.8 Bias journalists of the Air Force in covering the issue of the independence of Scotland 2.9 Washington Post devoted only a couple of lines of tragedy in Odessa 2.10 The silence of the New York Times about the bombing of Lugansk 2.11 CNN host: "You can be sure that I will not miss it on the air" 2.12 BBC cut from the English version of the interview with Viktor Yanukovych quote about Crimea 2.13 CBS cuts out unflattering fragments for the USA from Putin’s interview 2.14 Facebook banned from invoking an article on US plans for a nuclear bombardment of the USSR 2.15 German media hush up PEGIDA 2.16 Western media silence the justification by the court of Slobodan Milosevic and the circumstances of his death

3.1 Russian journalists are not allowed to the press conference of Obama and Yatsenyuk 3.2 Journalist revolt in the USA: working conditions are worse than under Bush 3.3 The arrest of journalists for covering the riots in Ferguson (USA) 3.4 8 methods of hiding information by the Obama administration 3.5 Huffington Post censures an “awkward” blog 3.6 Twitter deletes RT's message about sponsors of the British “Troll Factory”

4.1 Posner talks about the dismissals of journalists for criticizing US military actions 4.2 Dismissal of famous American journalist Phil Donahue 4.3 Radio Liberty journalist was removed for the post about the Crimea and fired for publishing the crimes of the Supreme Court of Ukraine 4.4 Dismissing New York Times Editor-in-Chief Jill Abramson 4.5 CNN dismissed the lead for harsh language on radio 4.6 Peter Arnett dismissed for “non-patriotic” 4.7 The journalist was fired from CNN due to sending a tweet expressing her personal opinion from the official CNN account. 4.8 The journalist was fired from NBC because of disrespect for US President Obama

5.1 Death of a Journalist Sandy Hume 5.2 Death of Tony Moser, who specialized in anti-corruption investigations 5.3 The death of reporter Gary Webb 5.4 Death of journalist Andrew Breitbart 5.5 Death of Journalist Michael Hastings 5.6 Death of an eyewitness to events at the WTC-7 building on September 11, 2001 5.7 The death of computer security specialist Barnaby Jack 5.8 The death of the author of the investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 Philip Marshall

6.1 Harassment of anti-war activists from American showbiz 6.2 Canadian athlete had to apologize for the photo with Putin 6.3 Penalty for anti-war comments in Polish media 6.4 US Department of State: Mickey Rourke and Steven Seagal should be more restrained in their speeches 6.5 The world-famous pianist Valentina Lisitsa was kicked out of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra for “under-the-top” 6.6 The dismissal of scientists who revealed the ill effects of shale mining 6.7 Suspension from work for two weeks in the United States of two leading due to obscene expressions to Obama 6.8 Dismissing a Lead in the US Due to the Insult of Obama's Wife 6.9 Dismissing the mayor of an American city because of insulting Obama's wife 6.10 Suppression of Dissent in US Universities 6.11 Harassment of Republican congressmen visiting Russia

7.1 Western Establishments Fight Russia Today 7.2 In London, advertising RT was banned as provocative 7.3 The fight of the Western establishment with the MIA “Russia Today” 7.4 Freedom of speech in Lithuanian 7.5 Freedom of Speech in Latvian 7.6 Freedom of speech in Estonian 7.7 Freedom of speech in Moldavian 7.8 Fighting the US against WikiLeaks 7.9 “Reporters without Borders”: USA in terms of freedom of speech in 46th place 7.10 The Finnish Ministry of Defense got angry at Newsweek

8.1 Replays of the same texts on different TV channels in the USA

9.1 Bribing journalists by the Soros Foundation

10.1 In Britain, a blogger was arrested for 2.5 years and called up a rebellion on Facebook 10.2 In the United States, they demoted the rank of police officer for a T-shirt shot with bullets with a portrait of US President Barack Obama 10.3 In the US, imprisonment for threats and insults to Obama, officials, FBI agents and Muslims 10.4 In the US, Republican Joshua Black resigned from public service for publishing on the Internet a proposal to hang US President Barack Obama

11.1 George Lucas: Soviet directors had more freedom 11.2 The Pentagon censors American movies, TV shows and TV shows.

5.167.168.47 (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)SpiritOfWashington

Violations of free speech right on western countries

On Putin's visit to Vienna and freedom of speech in the West http://ruskline.ru/opp/2018/iyun/7/o_vizite_putina_v_venu_i_svobode_slova_na_zapade/

The European Commission declared war on freedom of speech on the Internet http://politrussia.com/society/evrokomissiya-obyavila-voynu-616/

Público: there is “freedom of speech” in Europe, but not for Russians https://russian.rt.com/inotv/2017-12-01/Pblico-svoboda-slova-v-Evrope

Peskov condemned the violation of freedom of speech in relation to the Russian media in the West https://life.ru/t/новости/1171658/pieskov_osudil_narushieniie_svobody_slova_v_otnoshienii_rossiiskikh_smi_na_zapadie

In Moscow, hard walked on the "freedom of speech" in the West https://www.politnavigator.net/v-moskve-zhestko-proshlis-po-svobode-slova-na-zapade.html

Western universities have done away with free speech https://vz.ru/world/2018/6/7/926554.html

The scheme to combat the "enemies of the people" in the United States brought to perfection https://vz.ru/politics/2017/12/11/898633.html

Freedom of speech in the United States finally strangled. Who is next? https://tsargrad.tv/articles/svobodu-slova-v-ssha-okonchatelno-zadushili-kto-sledujushhij_152911

The Kremlin condemned violations of freedom of speech in relation to the Russian media in the West https://tass.ru/obschestvo/5817854

Censorship in the West: Freedom of Speech in a “Democratic” Europe https://politobzor.net/77136-cenzura-na-zapade-svoboda-slova-v-demokraticheskoy-evrope.html

Censorship in Facebook https://ria.ru/20190127/1549970274.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.255.228.113 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

5.167.172.53 (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)SpiritOfWashington

Russia section

Links deleted: International Press Institute: Russia - not working. Human Rights Reports: Russia - US BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, official american government organization, USA propaganda. Reporters Without Borders - financed by USA oligarch and russophobe Jorge Soros and French government and NED (prooved in Russia to be foreign agent). Human Rights Watch - financed by USA oligarch and russophobe Jorge Soros, countries in North America, headquarter in USA.

Is HRW really independant? Nobel Peace Laureates to Human Rights Watch: Close Your Revolving Door to U.S. Government, http://www.alternet.org/world/nobel-peace-laureates-human-rights-watch-close-your-revolving-door-us-government

Oleg Popov, from 1969 to 1982 who participated in the human rights movement, argued that

 “HRW assumed the functions of advocacy for the diplomatic, economic and military intervention of NATO countries, primarily the United States, in the internal affairs of other countries” .

https://web.archive.org/web/20061005051609/http://www.moskvam.ru/2004/08/popov.htm

Amnesty International - financing by USA dept, UK department of international development and Eurocomission. Western russophobic propaganda, agents of bringing "USA democracy" to independent countries.

"The October 2009 Concluding Observations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee" - very outdated, 2003 year

Крупа, Владислав (22 January 2014). Депутаты ужесточили наказание за экстремизм [MPs toughen penalties for extremism]. Утро.ru (in Russian) - there is nothig about freedom of speech, but about extremism (terrorism and so on).

Weir, Fred (1 April 2014). "A bit of satire in Russia earns a big backlash". The Christian Science Monitor. - non-authorithative source. The article based on one post in FB from unknown troll.

5.167.172.1 (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)SpiritOfWashington

I restored these citations. They seems like reliable sources to me, and the Russian IP address editor didn't delete any of the claims they were supporting, which are attributed to organizations other than Wikipedia. -- Beland (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

'Government' addition

Someone made the major change of adding 'government' to the opening line, and it crept it without any discussion, and now it's rather difficult to revert that. It comes across as very US '1st amendment' in its new scope and does not really reflect what free speech is. Can we please keep the removed al 'government' in the first line until a proper discussion has been had? Creeping redefinition of terms is not cool. 80.6.99.197 (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)