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 | Susan Benesch on dangerous speech

Susan Benesch on dangerous speech

In this interview with Timothy Garton Ash, Susan Benesch, senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, makes a distinction between hate speech and dangerous speech.

Print
Published on: March 22, 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. Jack says:

    Government is in our faces all the time. Governments, no matter how well-meaning they profess to be, are the last people to be telling us what we may say and what we may not say. Their very motives are suspect. Their willingness to control and regulate us have no other purpose than to make life easier for themselves. The first and most fundamental principle of a free people is responsibility for one’s actions. Each person should strive to become impervious to threats and to expressions of hate or to dangerous speech. I will not react. I will treat such people with the disgust they deserve. On the other hand, there have long been adequate laws on the books, both civil and criminal, to take care of all such cases without legislating specifically against inflammatory or dangerous or threatening speech.

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