Free Speech Debate

Thirteen languages. Ten principles. One conversation.

Log in | Register | Mailing list

Loading...
1We – all human beings – must be free and able to express ourselves, and to receive and impart information and ideas, regardless of frontiers.»
2We defend the internet and all other forms of communication against illegitimate encroachments by both public and private powers.»
3We require and create open, diverse media so we can make well-informed decisions and participate fully in political life.»
4We speak openly and with civility about all kinds of human difference.»
5We allow no taboos in the discussion and dissemination of knowledge.»
6We neither make threats of violence nor accept violent intimidation.»
7We respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief.»
8We are all entitled to a private life but should accept such scrutiny as is in the public interest.»
9We should be able to counter slurs on our reputations without stifling legitimate debate.»
10We must be free to challenge all limits to free expression justified on such grounds as national security, public order and morality.»

What’s missing?

Is there a vital area we have not addressed? A principle 11? An illuminating case study? Read other people's suggestions and add your own here.

Together let us write 10 principles for global free speech. Click. Discuss. Vote.

1We – all human beings – must be free and able to express ourselves, and to receive and impart information and ideas, regardless of frontiers.»
2We defend the internet and all other forms of communication against illegitimate encroachments by both public and private powers.»
3We require and create open, diverse media so we can make well-informed decisions and participate fully in political life.»
4We speak openly and with civility about all kinds of human difference.»
5We allow no taboos in the discussion and dissemination of knowledge.»
6We neither make threats of violence nor accept violent intimidation.»
7We respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief.»
8We are all entitled to a private life but should accept such scrutiny as is in the public interest.»
9We should be able to counter slurs on our reputations without stifling legitimate debate.»
10We must be free to challenge all limits to free expression justified on such grounds as national security, public order and morality.»

What’s missing?

Is there a vital area we have not addressed? A principle 11? An illuminating case study? Read other people's suggestions and add your own here.

Highlights

Does ACTA threaten online freedom of expression & privacy?

An academic, an NGO worker, a Member of European Parliament and an activist go head-to-head on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

Is it time for a global conversation on free speech?

Join Free Speech Debate and BBC Arabic at the Frontline Club in London on Tuesday 15 May for a discussion on global free speech norms.

Richard Sambrook on the BBC & impartiality

The former director of BBC Global News explains what Britain's historic public service broadcaster means by 'impartiality' - and why it has not always achieved it

The tension between data protection & freedom of expression

EU member states should reform the data protection framework to address the realities of life in the Web 2.0 age, writes David Erdos

Is China actually helping free media in Africa?

China may provide censorship tools to autocratic regimes in Africa, but western companies still dominate this market, writes Iginio Gagliardone, a post-doctoral fellow at Oxford University.

The vital presence of the past

History is a sensitive issue in China with some of it desperately remembered and some, deliberately forgotten, writes Judith Bruhn.

World Press Freedom events end with “Carthage Declaration”

The declaration calls on governments, media outlets and Unesco to enhance press freedom around the world.

The distribution of all Wikipedia articles

The distribution of knowledge on Wikipedia shows vast geographical inequalities, according to research from the Oxford Internet Institute.

Punishing users of extremist websites

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has proposed a law to punish readers of websites promoting terrorism and violence, writes Clementine de Montjoye.

Teaching creationism in US schools

A new Tennessee law will permit teachers to discuss creationism alongside theories of evolution, writes Casey Selwyn.

Open government in Chongqing?

Environmental information is tightly controlled in China despite the existence of access to information regulations, writes Sam Geall.

Why hate speech should not be banned

Restrictions on hate speech are not a means of tackling bigotry but of rebranding often obnoxious ideas or arguments are immoral, argues writer Kenan Malik.

Free Speech Debate is a research project of the Dahrendorf Programme for the Study of Freedom at St Antony's College in the University of Oxford. www.freespeechdebate.ox.ac.uk