Thirteen languages. Ten principles. One conversation.
Reader of Free Speech Debate “jagracie” asked us to write on the “appalling article written in Zimbabwe” and respond with something that could help readers hold hate speech to account. Dominic Burbidge gives his best suggestion.
Faisal Devji explores the deeper lessons from the forced withdrawal of an ‘alternative history’ of the Hindus.
For one taxi company in the Russian town of Kostroma, the answer turned out to be yes. Sergey Fadeev explains.
Sebastian Huempfer describes the difficulties in having outdated information removed from Google, and explains why this might be a good thing.
The group Jews for Jesus published a video entitled “That Jew died for you“, depicting Jesus as a victim of the Holocaust. Rabbi Laura Janner –Klausner called for the offensive video to be removed from YouTube. Brian Pellot discusses the free speech implications.
A law banning swear words in the arts in Russia has come into effect in July 2014. Maryam Omidi discusses the implications.
Not if John Kerry’s visit to Cairo and the next day’s verdict in the Al-Jazeera trial are anything to go by, writes Max Gallien.
Charles Taylor asks what motivates practices of exclusion on the basis of religious identity and expression. Dominic Burbidge reports.
Kim Wilkinson looks at an unusual order to ‘correct’ a cartoon, and the cartoonist’s clever reply.
Kim Wilkinson reports on a counter-speech event held at Google London on creating the positive online.
Sebastian Huempfer reviews a new dictionary that may help native speakers better understand the European Union’s weird brand of the English language.
Timothy Garton Ash introduces a translation of our ten principles into Catalan and a reflection on having Catalan as your native language.
Free Speech Debate web developer Simon Dickson describes the new open source code developed for our – or any other – multi-language Word Press site.
Is internet access a human right? What are the limits of free speech online and what should they be? By Judith Bruhn.
The debate raised by revelations of NSA surveillance has drawn our attention to how we are being tracked online. Sebastian Huempfer describes a new tool to show us how those electronic cookies crumble.
Tamás Szigeti explores the asymmetric narrowing of free speech in Hungary.
Josh Black hears the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, discuss the quest for shared laws and standards.
Ang Lee’s winning Oscar speech was censored in China to remove his special thanks to Taiwan.
Sarah Glatte explores the potential and pitfalls of social media in combating sexism.
Four former intelligence professionals, including winners of the Sam Adams Awards for Integrity in Intelligence, reveal their views on whistle-blowing and the legitimate secrecy in democratic societies. By Judith Bruhn and Josh Black.
Gezi Park has become a public square for political free expression, writes Ayşe Kadıoğlu.
Kerem Oktem, in Istanbul, reflects on the pernicious influence of the government and business interests on Turkish broadcasters.
A globally-effective privacy regime is a realistic goal, argues Ian Brown. But it needs giants like Google to get behind it.
Our user imos.org.uk argues with one of our draft principles challenging the idea that privacy is a condition for free speech.
Clementine de Montjoye visits Burmese exiles in Thailand and finds King Zero, the Best Friends Library and the Brilliant Burma School.
The Mormons reacted brilliantly to the musical satirising their faith, but something important is lost when we treat religions so differently - writes Katie Engelhart.
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 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.
The UK’s Director of Public Prosecutions has released guidelines on when social media users should be prosecuted. But there are still not adequate guarantees for freedom of expression, writes Dominic Burbidge.