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 | Discussions | Suggest a case study

Suggest a case study

Our case studies are real-life examples from across the world that illustrate and challenge our draft principles for global free expression. If there's a case you think we should write up for debate, let us know here.

(Photo by hashmil under a Creative Commons Attribution-only licence)
(Photo by hashmil under a Creative Commons Attribution-only licence)

Print
Published on: February 10, 2012 | 12 Comments

Comments (12)

Automated machine translations are provided by Google Translate. They should give you a rough idea of what the contributor has said, but cannot be relied on to give an accurate, nuanced translation. Please read them with this in mind.

  1. Jack says:

    I copy here the case of a university academic department inhibiting the freedom of expression of people they disagree with:
    Michael Ross: Welcome to the University of Victoria, a.k.a. Che Guevara U
    National Post Feb 3, 2012 – 7:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 2, 2012 4:36 PM ET

    http://natpo.st/zdIVYI

  2. iassersohn says:

    The case of David Jones, creator of Fireman Sam, is illuminating. According to AOL he was going through airport security at Gatwick when he noticed a woman in a hijab passing through the area without showing her face. He said to the security official: “If I was wearing this scarf over my face, I wonder what would happen.” He was then confronted by another guard who said that he was being detailed because he had made “an offensive remark”.
    The guard took his passport and boarding pass and he was escorted back through the security zone into the outer area. Here the female security guard proceeded to question him further, “inferring many things that I had not said”. It was impossible to get her to listen to reason. We were then joined by a second female security guard who stated that she was Muslim and was deeply distressed by my comment.

    “I again staged that I had not made a racist remark but purely an observation that we were in a maximum security situation being searched throughly whilst a woman with her face covered walked through. I made no reference to race or religion. I did not swear or raise my voice.”

    He was told by police that he would only be allowed to continue on his journey if he apologised to the Muslim guard. Eventually he was told by the airport manager that he would be allowed to board his flight if he would agree that what he said “could” be considered offensive by the Muslim guard, and he agreed to the compromise.

  3. annemarie_detlef says:

    Since there’s no case study on Russia yet – what about this one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/11/putin-russia-president-election-protests ?

  4. carola chiarpenello says:

    I would love to debate the role of Hate media during the Rwanda genocide, facing both the domestic and internationa responses…. I have work about it and i would love to post my research and ask for further opinions

  5. Stogumber says:

    The most interesting case study which was really performed some years ago – a book everyone should have studied: Ezra Levant: “Shakedown” (describing how Canada bypassed its free speech laws by the implementation of “human rights commissions” which weren’t bound to “due process” rules). With this book, Levant has qualified himself as the unsung hero of free speech in the contemporary West AND succeeded in reducing the power of those human rights commissions.

  6. Klaus says:

    The guard took his passport and boarding pass and he was escorted back through the security zone into the outer area. Here the female security guard proceeded to question him further, “inferring many things that I had not said”. It was impossible to get her to listen to reason. We were then joined by a second female security guard who stated that she was Muslim and was deeply distressed by my comment.
    Since there’s no case study on Russia yet – what about this one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/11/putin-russia-president-election-protests or http://www.human-growth-hormone-hgh.net ?

  7. Essoulami says:

    One case study could be the new limitations imposed by newly elected governments and new emerging informal pressure groups on women’s right to freedom of expression in the Middle East and North Africa.

  8. Essoulami says:

    The silence imposed on the media regarding media censorship and prosecution of Israeli journalists.

  9. Essoulami says:

    The UK government human rights strategy in the Middle East

  10. annemarie_detlef says:

    The German Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) will soon discuss whether the German National Party (NPD) can be banned.
    Morally supportable or restriction of free speech?

  11. Fran Sauri says:

    En España, la Plataforma de Afectados por la Hipoteca (PAH) han comenzado a realizar “escraches” frente a los domicilios de ciertos parlamentarios. La razón es que tales parlamentarios van a votar en contra de determinadas medidas que la PAH respalda. ¿Son legítimas estas acciones?

    In Spain, the Plataforma de Afectados por la Hipoteca [Mortgage Victims Platform] (PAH) are doing “escraches” on the doorstep of some members of parliament. The reason is that these MPs will vote against some measures supported by PAH. ¿Are these “escraches” legitimate?

    http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/04/02/inenglish/1364910004_218874.html

Leave a comment in any language


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