Talk:Freedom of speech by country

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

There is an archive of past discussions. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so here.

Contents 1 Opening sentence 2 Wow! Total change 3 Clarification 4 References 5 wiadomosci.onet.pl 5.1 Other removed content 6 Move/Swap with Freedom of speech (international) 7 Fair use rationale for Image:Charter.jpg

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Charter.jpg

Image:Charter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)