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 | Audio/Video | Richard Stallman on free software

Richard Stallman on free software

The founder of the free software movement talks about internet giants Google and Facebook, Creative Commons and internet freedom.

Print
Published on: February 10, 2012 | 1 Comment

Comments (1)

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. As a start up of one, my organisation is on a strictly limited budget, including old equipment without working sound.

    However, as a general comment from a developing country perspective, my experience does not serve as convincing evidence that “free” software is really “free”, in terms of either speech or cost.

    FOSS stuff is frequently complicated to install and learn, representing barriers to implementation and communication.

    In their fervour to evangelize for free software and declare social media giants like Facebook, Twitter and Google “evil”, the free software movement is unwittingly causing incalculable damage to countries that can least afford it – in the so-called developing world.

    I have personally seen so-called IT sections force overly complicated software on micro-orgs that do not need anywhere near the level of sophistocation foisted onto them – for example, an island NGO having to use Joomla over patchy net links to update their site – doomed to failure. This is an appalling misuse of scarce resources. Especially when simpler, faster and more reliable options are freely available. Such as Blogger, or Tumblr and so on.

    Third world countries need appropriate technology to cross the digital divide, and appropriate advice from first world advocates.

    It is my impression that there should be a two phase approach, one that sees micro-orgs, NGOs and SMEs start up with simple software. IF such orgs progress to scale, then, sure, set them up with Joomla, if audience demand requires such complexity.

    Otherwise, advocates would do well to stop wasting valuable time and resources with this obsession about large players like Google. Thing about Google? It works, quickly and simply. I cannot say the same for most FOSS.

    How much free speech, time and other resources are lost to complex alternatives? I am sure the totals would run into the billions, forming another sort of resource drain from the third world to the first.

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