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.
Stand-first: 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
Demotix founder Turi Munthe discusses the role of citizen journalism and Demotix in today’s media environment.
Katie Engelhart attends the public hearing of Google’s Advisory Council, set up in response to a European Court of Justice judgement.
25 years after the fatwa and the fall of the Berlin Wall, Salman Rushdie discusses with Timothy Garton Ash whether there is now more or less freedom of expression in Europe, worrying developments in India and his critical view of Edward Snowden.
In the case of McCullen v Coakley, the US Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling about restrictions on speech around abortion clinics. Max Harris explains.
Anthony Lester and Zoe McCallum discuss the need to balance national security and privacy in the age of internet surveillance.
Professor Jytte Klausen analyses and criticises Yale University Press’s decision to remove images of Muhammad from her scholarly book on the Danish cartoons controversy.
Former US Diplomat Ann Wright speaks to Kim Wilkinson on the need for whistleblowers and institutions like WikiLeaks, but stresses that in some instances secrecy is necessary, such as in peace-making negotiations.
Thomas Fingar, 2013 winner of the Sam Adams Awards for Integrity in Intelligence, argues that leaking classified information from within the intelligence services is unnecessary and dangerous.
Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington must be the beginning of the discussion of race, not the end. Bassam Gergi discusses why the depoliticisation of race in the US is problematic and only open debate can lead to progress.
Political theorist Rob Reich discusses what adaptations we need as freedom of speech and association move increasingly from the offline to the online world. Can the old principles still apply in new circumstances?
Jeff Howard explores the legal basis on which the US is collecting vast amounts of data on foreign and US citizens, despite the Fourth Amendment.
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern has been an outspoken defender of whistleblowers and alternative media sources.
Edward Snowden was not the first NSA official to sound the alarm. Thomas Drake, winner of the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence, makes his case to Free Speech Debate.
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.
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.