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.

Home | Archives | Case studies
KKK_night_rally_in_Chicago_c1920_cph.3b12355

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.

Published on: April 29, 2013 | Principle 6 | Comments: 0

flickr-3777084437-original

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.

Published on: April 17, 2013 | Principle 4 | Comments: 0

Palace_of_Europe_-_plenary_hall

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.

Published on: April 9, 2013 | Principle 7 | Comments: 1

General view of the European Court of Human Rights hearing room in Strasbourg

Does the Strasbourg court allow too much for local taboos?

En 2005, l’arrêt I.A. contre Turque constituait un précédent controversé concernant l’interprétation restrictive de l’article 10 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme au nom de la religion explique Michèle Finck

Published on: March 8, 2013 | Principle 7 | Comments: 0

A Kenyan reads a burnt copy of the Standard newspaper at the printing press in the Kenyan capital Nairobi

“If you rattle a snake…” The Kenyan government bites its media

In 2006 the Kenyan police violently raided the offices and printing press of the Standard Group media organisation. What was the government afraid of seeing reported? Dominic Burbidge explores a revealing case.

Published on: March 5, 2013 | Principle 3 | Comments: 1

Screen Shot 2012-11-20 at 15.40.38

Cyber-bullying that led to suicide

On 10 October 2012 the Canadian teenager Amanda Todd committed suicide after years of cyber-bullying and harassment. Judith Bruhn describes a shocking case.

Published on: February 27, 2013 | Principle 2 | Comments: 1

First Amendment US Constitution

A right to lie about government?

In the landmark case of New York Times v Sullivan, in 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that criticism of public officials must be protected, even if some of the claims were inaccurate. Jeff Howard explains.

Published on: February 6, 2013 | Principle 9 | Comments: 0

Murder

Does a murderer have the right to be forgotten?

In 2008 two convicted murderers asked for their names to be removed from Wikipedia and other online media outlets, in accordance with German law. Does the individual’s right to be forgotten take priority over the public’s right to know?

Published on: November 16, 2012 | Principle 8 | Comments: 4

Facetag

Facebook’s over-zealous face tagging

Should Facebook automatically suggest who is in a photo? Sebastian Huempfer asks whether Facebook’s photo tagging software infringes the privacy of its users.

Published on: November 14, 2012 | Principle 8 | Comments: 0

Bettina Wulff

Can Google’s algorithm slander a politician’s wife?

Type 'Bettina Wulff', the name of a former German president’s wife, into Google and the autocomplete function will add 'escort'. Is this algorithmic addition a form of defamation? Sebastian Huempfer explores the case.

Published on: October 26, 2012 | Principle 9 | Comments: 2

Students in Singapore

A university of less-than-liberal arts?

Should Yale University refuse to operate in Singapore where human rights and free expression face significant restrictions? Katie Engelhart weighs the arguments for and against.

Published on: October 14, 2012 | Principle 5 | Comments: 0

Cows in India

What’s your beef with my freedom to eat it?

Bans on eating beef and pork are contested in India. Manav Bhuhshan discusses why this is an issue of caste discrimination and can be seen as a restriction on freedom of expression.

Published on: October 8, 2012 | Principle 7 | Comments: 0

Cartoonist Aseem Trivedi

Satire or sedition? Political cartoons in India

Indian Cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was recently arrested on sedition charges. Manav Bhushan discusses how an archaic section of India's penal code has been used to silence government critics.

Published on: October 3, 2012 | Principle 10 | Comments: 0

Wang Xiaoning

Yahoo, free speech and anonymity in China

In 2002 Wang Xiaoning was sent to prison for 10 years after Yahoo passed on personal information Chinese authorities used to identify him. Judith Bruhn explores a case of conflicting laws and moral expectations.

Published on: October 1, 2012 | Principle 10 | Comments: 0

Duchess of Cambridge

The topless duchess

Judith Bruhn explores the theory and practice of privacy in Europe and whether a court injunction was enough to salvage the Duchess of Cambridge's privacy.

Published on: September 27, 2012 | Principle 8 | Comments: 1

Orlando Figes

Orlando Figes and the anonymous poison pen

What exactly was wrong with a historian publishing caustic anonymous reviews of his competitors' books on Amazon? Katie Engelhart explores the issues raised by a tragic-comic case.

Published on: August 30, 2012 | Principle 9 | Comments: 2


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