Free Speech Debate

Thirteen languages. Ten principles. One conversation.

Log in | Register | Mailing list

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 | William Dalrymple on the Jaipur Literature Festival

William Dalrymple on the Jaipur Literature Festival

The historian and writer explains the reasoning behind author Salman Rushdie's no-show at the 2012 Jaipur Literary Festival.

According to the historian and writer William Dalrymple, one of the biggest mistakes made by the organisers of the Jaipur Literature Festival was to publicise Salman Rushdie’s appearance during a tense election period in the Indian state of Rajasthan (read our case study here). Dalrymple says that although he initially opposed the cancellation of Rushdie’s appearance and the subsequent video address, the risk of violence erupting either through protests or a stampede was too high for it not to be a serious consideration. He adds that “in a volatile situation with a police force that routinely shoots crowds of peaceful protesters, in a venue … which is massively overcrowded already, where even few people throwing chairs could have ignited a rush for the exit, I think we did the right thing.”

Interview by Maryam Omidi and Manav Bhushan

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


Published on: January 25, 2013 | 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. Violence? Okay, violence then. The first question is who creates violence? The answer to this question is easy: the powerful men. Who pushes the people to violence? Injustice. And who creates injustice? The powerful men. Clear enough? Ok then. Then, it’s a vicious circle. In other words, the queen, the pope, the States, the capitalism, Bashar al-Assad king of Siria etc, these people and institutions are violence, legalized violence, not ju-stice then, but violence justified by the law!
    Infact, how much violence there is in all what the rich own, consume and waste? Think about the pope who is a moving fortune with all the jewels and the rich clothes he weares; think about the queen Elizabeth II when she gallops around London in her golden state-coach; think about Berlu-sconi organizing his bunga bunga parties; think how much violence there’s when a politician with all his staff goes to a five stars hotel?
    It’s clear who pays the bill for these gentlemen, isn’t it?
    Our leading institutions, in reality, they do not rappresente democracy, but a subtle enlightened barbarism. If so, our lives and our history are in the hands of legalized criminals; if so, how could modern man, who knows about this human butchery, accepts this kind of social contract?
    As long as we live in this sort of world, the kind of violence created by Salman Rushdie, is really nothing, it is only the point of the iceberg. The real violence has not yet started!

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.