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 seek, 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 freedom of expression and information justified on such grounds as national security, public order, morality and the protection of intellectual property.»

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. Or start the debate in your own language.
Have your say!
Help us work on the principles below
so they work for you.
1We – all human beings – must be free and able to express ourselves, and to seek, 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 freedom of expression and information justified on such grounds as national security, public order, morality and the protection of intellectual property.»

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. Or start the debate in your own language.

Readers' comments

↑
Ushahidi

How Ushahidi maps the voices of those in need

Dominic Burbidge discusses how Ushahidi’s transformative crowdsourcing techniques have alleviated crises in Kenya and beyond.

"It is said that truth does not love crowds. But why lend it this aristocratic disdain? For myself, I consider truth to have a single reason for and a single […]

Dominic Burbidge, United Kingdom
7887048118_2c41da8a9a_z

When does hate speech become dangerous speech? Consider Kenya and Rwanda

The forthcoming trial of Kenyan broadcaster Joshua Arap Sang poses vital questions about the connections between words and violence, argues Katherine Bruce-Lockhart.

This is an interesting piece. My question would be: You mentioned the Kass FM rhetoric was in response to a perceived rigged election where most Kalenjin identified with candidate Raila […]

Dominic Burbidge, United Kingdom
min2_nagroda_54_logo_biale

Poland marks World Press Freedom Day with new award

Freedom of expression is in good shape in Poland. Yet, freedoms need to be continuously cultivated and defended. The new Article 54 journalism award in Poland is a great initiative to remind society of this responsibility, writes Annabelle Chapman.

A new reward is available to be a fresh symbol of the ancient landmark. Sometimes, it may endue the special meaning to annotate the thing we are familiar with and […]

Alexander Ye, China

Is nothing sacred?

This draft principle addresses one of the most difficult issues for freedom of expression. It balances an essential respect for the humanity, dignity and personal choice of every individual believer with an equally vital freedom to question the claims of any belief system, organisation or group.

Hi JB, Thanks for replying to my comment! I think we should respect other people in the sense that we allow them to have their freedoms - but, as I […]

imos.org.uk, United Kingdom

Is nothing sacred?

This draft principle addresses one of the most difficult issues for freedom of expression. It balances an essential respect for the humanity, dignity and personal choice of every individual believer with an equally vital freedom to question the claims of any belief system, organisation or group.

Hi imos thanks for this thoughtful comment. Might your problem with the word 'respect' be the definition? Because if we take 'respect' at its most basic - accepting that others […]

Judith Bruhn, Germany
↓

Highlights

Poland marks World Press Freedom Day with new award

Freedom of expression is in good shape in Poland. Yet, freedoms need to be continuously cultivated and defended. The new Article 54 journalism award in Poland is a great initiative to remind society of this responsibility, writes Annabelle Chapman.

The difference between genocide and crimes against humanity

We regularly highlight comments that have made an impression on us. Antoon de Baets left an insightful response to Josie Appleton's discussion of memory laws in France.

Jesus Christ Superstar? Not in Rostov, Russia

The Russian parliament’s vote in support of a declaration against acts offending religious sentiments is symptomatic of worrying trends, write Olga Shvarova and Dominic Burbidge.

Free Speech Bites

Nigel Warburton spoke with Timothy Garton Ash for Index on Censorship's Free Speech Bites about the Free Speech Debate Project and global free speech standards.

The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence

In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court made history by ruling that, to merit conviction, the violence advocated must be intended, likely and imminent. By Jeff Howard.

When does hate speech become dangerous speech? Consider Kenya and Rwanda

The forthcoming trial of Kenyan broadcaster Joshua Arap Sang poses vital questions about the connections between words and violence, argues Katherine Bruce-Lockhart.

Child pornography and freedom of expression

Did the European Court of Human Rights wrongly considered the distribution of child pornography to be an exercise of freedom of expression in the case Karttunen v. Finland, asks Rónán Ó Fathaigh.

George Orwell, Burma and three challenges to free expression

Timothy Garton Ash delivers the Orwell Lecture at an unprecedented literary festival in Rangoon. He talks about three Orwells and three Burmas.

Brigitte Bardot’s repeated convictions for inciting racial hatred

Should a world famous actress be allowed to denounce an ‘overpopulation’ by foreigners? By Michèle Finck.

A Turkish journalist’s censored plea for press freedom

Kerem Oktem introduces our translation of a column by Hasan Cemal, which his newspaper, Milliyet, refused to print.

The Copyright Alert System: coming to a home near you?

The question of how best to respond to the unauthorised dissemination of copyright-protected expression over the internet has long troubled copyright owners. But the proposed solution of a Copyright Alert could potentially erode free speech, writes Graham Reynolds.

Is the European Court of Human Rights merely defending the uncontroversial?

A famous case of state censorship in Austria highlights the tendency of governments to pander to the majority, leaving controversial views unprotected. By Michele Finck.

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