Todd Landman explores the contradictions between the American Constitution and the freedoms it seeks to preserve.
Iginio Gagliardone explores the surprising technopolitics of two competing visions of the internet, US and Chinese, in Ethiopia.
Boycotts betray free enquiry, but Viktor Orbán’s moves against the Central European University at least make them worth debating, says Eric Heinze
Timothy Garton Ash in conversation with Nigel Warburton, as part of the Philosophy in the Bookshop series at Blackwell’s, Oxford.
Ben Wizner, Edward Snowden’s ACLU lawyer, reflects on the state of and importance of the right to free speech in 2017. He argues we must not overuse the term ‘national security’ or surrender our right to privacy because we have nothing to hide, for we would not deny somebody the right to free speech because they had nothing to say.
Eric Heinze argues that the radicals and liberal grounds for free speech are not mutually exclusive.
Paul Cliteur and Tom Herrenberg, editors of a book on The Fall and Rise of Blasphemy Law, consider the changing nature of censorship.
Martin Poulter, Wikimedian in residence at Oxford University, considers the active encyclopedia’s first 15 years.
Expression can be dangerous, but that should not necessarily make it a crime. Jeffrey Howard evaluates the best argument for banning hate speech.
Noam Chomsky talks about Edward Snowden, laws regulating historical memory, no-platforming, internet echo chambers and the lack of diversity in the American media.
Timothy Garton Ash introduces the report of a committee on freedom of expression at the University of Chicago
Evgeny Morozov highlights the dangers that can emerge when governments and corporations harness the internet to serve their own objectives.
Josh Cowls discusses the Oxford Internet Institute’s report on the complexities of balancing security and privacy online.
Jonathan Leader Maynard examines the difficulties in assessing and managing the role of speech in violence.
Monica Richter argues that no-platforming is more about censoring unpalatable views than protecting marginalised groups.
Dana Polatin-Reuben examines the fiercely contested 2015 FCC rules and their free speech implications.
Sarah Glatte explores the controversy over trigger warnings and asks whether they help or hinder free speech.
Max Harris explains how Britain legislated against it and compares this with the position in other common law countries