Débat sur la Liberté d'Expression

Treize langues. Dix principes. Une conversation.

Connexion | Inscription | Mailing list

Loading...
1Nous, tous les êtres humains, devons être libres et avoir la possibilité de nous exprimer, et de chercher, recevoir et répandre informations et idées indépendamment des frontières.»
2Nous défendons l’internet et toute autre forme de communication contre l’invasion illégitime des pouvoirs publics et privés.»
3Nous exigeons et voulons créer des médias ouverts et divers afin de pouvoir prendre des décisions informées et participer pleinement à la vie politique.»
4Nous parlons ouvertement et avec civilité de tout type de différence humaine.»
5Nous n’autorisons pas de tabous dans le débat et la dissémination de connaissances.»
6Nous ne formulons pas de menace de violence et n’acceptons pas l’intimidation par la violence.»
7Nous respectons le croyant mais pas nécessairement le contenu de sa croyance.»
8Nous avons droit à une vie privée mais devrions aussi accepter la surveillance pour le bien public.»
9Nous devrions pouvoir contrer des insultes qui portent atteinte à notre réputation sans étouffer un débat légitime.»
10Nous devons être libres de débattre de toute limite à la liberté d’expression et d’information, justifiée par des raisons telles que la sécurité nationale, l’ordre public, la moralité et la protection de la propriété intellectuelle.»

Que manque-t-il?

Y a-t-il un sujet essentiel que nous n'avons pas évoqué? Un 11ème principe? Une étude de cas particulièrement éclairante? Dans cette rubrique, nous vous invitons à partager vos suggestions.

Accueil | 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)

Imprimer
Publié le : février 10, 2012 | 12 commentaires

Commentaires (12)

Les traductions automatiques sont fournies par Google Translate. Elles devraient vous donner l'idée générale de ce que le contributeur a essayé de faire part, mais ne comptez pas dessus pour vous donner une traduction exacte et nuancée. Lisez les avec ceci en tête.

  1. Jack dit :

    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 dit :

    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. carola chiarpenello dit :

    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

  4. Stogumber dit :

    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.

  5. Klaus dit :

    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 ?

  6. Essoulami dit :

    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.

  7. Essoulami dit :

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

  8. Essoulami dit :

    The UK government human rights strategy in the Middle East

  9. annemarie_detlef dit :

    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?

  10. Fran Sauri dit :

    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

Laissez un commentaire dans la langue de votre choix


Le Débat sur la liberté d'expression est un projet de recherche du Dahrendorf Programme pour l'étude de la liberté à St Antony's College à l'Université d'Oxford. www.freespeechdebate.ox.ac.uk