View source for Philosophy:Freedom of speech

{{short description|Right to communicate one's opinions and ideas}}
{{hatnote group|
}}
[[File:Eleanor Roosevelt UDHR (27758131387).jpg|thumb|Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)—Article 19 states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/|title=Universal Declaration of Human Rights |website=United Nations|access-date=2 October 2020|archive-date=2 October 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191002225638/https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/|url-status=live}}</ref>]]
[[File:Orator at Speakers Corner, London, with crowd, 1974.jpg|thumb|Orator at Speakers' Corner in London, 1974]]
'''Freedom of speech''' is a principle that supports the [[Social:Freedom|freedom]] of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, [[Social:Censorship|censorship]], or legal sanction. The [[Philosophy:Rights|right]] to '''freedom of expression''' has been recognised as a [[Philosophy:Human rights|human right]] in the [[Philosophy:Universal Declaration of Human Rights|Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] and international human rights law by the {{wipe|United Nations}}. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. Terms like ''free speech'', ''freedom of speech,'' and ''freedom of expression'' are used interchangeably in political discourse. However, in a legal sense, the freedom of expression includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of [[Social:National security|national security]] or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or [[Philosophy:Morality|morals]]".<ref>{{cite news |title= Article 19 |url= http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm |work= International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights |publisher= Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by UN General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976 |access-date=13 March 2014 |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115024/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm |archive-date=5 July 2008 |df=dmy }}</ref>

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, [[Social:Hate speech|hate speech]], classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, [[Social:List of food labeling regulations|food labeling]], non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, [[Philosophy:Dignity|dignity]], the [[Social:Right to be forgotten|right to be forgotten]], [[Social:Public security|public security]], blasphemy and [[Social:Perjury|perjury]]. Justifications for such include the [[Philosophy:Harm principle|harm principle]], proposed by [[Biography:John Stuart Mill|John Stuart Mill]] in ''On Liberty'', which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".<ref name="van Mill">{{Cite book|chapter-url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/freedom-speech/|title=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |chapter=Freedom of Speech |last=van Mill|first=David|date=1 January 2016|editor-last=Zalta|editor-first=Edward N.|edition=Fall 2016|access-date=12 October 2016|archive-date=18 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190318043003/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/freedom-speech/|url-status=live}}</ref>

The idea of the "offense principle" is also used to justify speech limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided.<ref name="van Mill"/> With the evolution of the digital age, application of freedom of speech becomes more controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise, for example, the Golden Shield Project, an initiative by Chinese government's Ministry of Public Security that filters potentially unfavourable data from foreign countries.

The Human Rights Measurement Initiative<ref>{{Cite web |title=Human Rights Measurement Initiative – The first global initiative to track the human rights performance of countries |url=https://humanrightsmeasurement.org/ |access-date=2022-03-09 |website=humanrightsmeasurement.org}}</ref> measures the right to opinion and expression for countries around the world, using a survey of in-country human rights experts.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Right to opinion and expression - HRMI Rights Tracker |url=https://rightstracker.org/ |access-date=2022-03-09 |website=rightstracker.org |language=en}}</ref>

== Historical origins ==
Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments.<ref name="guardiantimeline">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/feb/05/religion.news|title=Timeline: a history of free speech|last=Smith|first=David|date=5 February 2006|work=The Guardian|access-date=2 May 2010|location=London|archive-date=29 August 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130829230153/http://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/feb/05/religion.news|url-status=live}}</ref> It is thought that the ancient [[Social:Athenian democracy|Athenian democratic principle]] of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC.<ref>{{cite book|title=Origins of democracy in ancient Greece|url=https://archive.org/details/originsdemocracy00raaf|url-access=limited|last1=Raaflaub|first1=Kurt|last2=Ober|first2=Josiah|last3=Wallace|first3=Robert|publisher=University of California Press|year=2007|isbn=978-0-520-24562-4|page=[https://archive.org/details/originsdemocracy00raaf/page/n79 65]}}</ref>

Freedom of speech was vindicated by [[Biography:Erasmus|Erasmus]] and [[Biography:John Milton|Milton]].<ref name="guardiantimeline" /> Edward Coke claimed freedom of speech as "an ancient custom of Parliament" in the 1590s, and it was affirmed in the Protestation of 1621.<ref>Ofir Haivry and Yoram Hazony: [https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/what-is-conservatism/ What Is Conservatism?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210407040839/https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/what-is-conservatism/ |date=7 April 2021 }} ''American Affairs'' Summer 2017 / Volume I, Number 2.</ref> Restating what is written in the English Declaration of Right, 1689, England's Bill of Rights 1689 legally established the constitutional right of freedom of speech in Parliament, which is still in effect.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/collections1/collections-glorious-revolution/billofrights/|title=Bill of Rights 1689|access-date=30 April 2019|agency=Parliament UK|archive-date=12 March 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170312063114/https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/collections1/collections-glorious-revolution/billofrights/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=The Eighteenth-Century Constitution. 1688–1815|last=Williams|first=E. N.|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1960|pages=26–29|oclc=1146699}}</ref> This so-called [[Social:Parliamentary privilege in the United Kingdom|parliamentary privilege]] includes no possible defamation claims meaning Parliamentarians are free to speak up in the House without fear of legal action.<ref name="Procedure">{{cite news |title=MPs' Guide to Procedure: Freedom of speech |url=https://guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/articles/szEQlFBF/freedom-of-speech |access-date=23 September 2023 |publisher=UK Parliament}}</ref> This protection extends to written proceedings: for example, written and oral questions, motions and amendments tabled to bills and motions.<ref name="Procedure"/>

One of the world's first freedom of the press acts was introduced in Sweden in 1766 (Swedish Freedom of the Press Act), mainly due to the classical liberal member of parliament and Ostrobothnian priest Anders Chydenius.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____8908.aspx|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930182530/http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____8908.aspx|url-status=dead|title="The Freedom of the Press Act", Sveriges Riksdag|archive-date=30 September 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fecl.org/circular/1507.htm|title=FECL 15 (May 1993): The Swedish Tradition of Freedom of Press|author=Fortress Europe? – Circular Letter|access-date=14 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160308002445/http://fecl.org/circular/1507.htm|archive-date=2016-03-08|url-status=unfit}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/5885744/The-Worlds-First-Freedom-of-Information-Act-SwedenFinland-1766|title=The World's First Freedom of Information Act (Sweden/Finland 1766)|work=Scribd|access-date=14 March 2016|archive-date=15 December 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131215184308/http://www.scribd.com/doc/5885744/The-Worlds-First-Freedom-of-Information-Act-SwedenFinland-1766|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.freedominfo.org/regions/europe/sweden/|title=Sweden|access-date=20 May 2020|archive-date=6 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190406212230/http://www.freedominfo.org/regions/europe/sweden/|url-status=live}}</ref>  In a report published in 1776, he wrote:<ref name=luoma>{{cite web
 |last        = Luoma
 |first       = Jukka
 |title       = Helsingin Sanomat – International Edition
 |access-date  = 2007-11-26
 |url         = http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Self-censorship+has+always+encouraged+censorship/1135218861212
 |url-status     = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20071120112003/http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Self-censorship+has+always+encouraged+censorship/1135218861212
 |archive-date = 2007-11-20
}}</ref><blockquote>No evidence should be needed that a certain freedom of writing and printing is one of the strongest bulwarks of a free organization of the state, as, without it, the estates would not have sufficient information for the drafting of good laws, and those dispensing justice would not be monitored, nor would the subjects know the requirements of the law, the limits of the rights of government, and their responsibilities. Education and ethical conduct would be crushed; coarseness in thought, speech, and manners would prevail, and dimness would darken the entire sky of our freedom in a few years.</blockquote>Under the leadership of Anders Chydenius, the Caps at the Swedish Riksdag in Gävle on December 2, 1766, passed the adoption of a freedom of the press regulation that stopped censorship and introduced the principle of public access to official records in Sweden. Excluded were defamation of the king's majesty and the Swedish Church.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the {{wipe|French Revolution}} in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.<ref name="guardiantimeline" /> Adopted in 1791, freedom of speech is a feature of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-speech|title=Freedom of Speech|website=HISTORY|language=en|access-date=23 February 2020|archive-date=9 March 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200309054307/https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-speech|url-status=live}}</ref> The French Declaration provides for freedom of expression in Article 11, which states that:

{{blockquote|The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html|title=Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen|author=Arthur W. Diamond Law Library at Columbia Law School|date=26 March 2008|work=Hrcr.org|access-date=25 June 2013|publisher=www.hrcr.org|archive-date=6 June 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130606053037/http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html|url-status=live}}</ref>}}

Article 19 of the [[Philosophy:Universal Declaration of Human Rights|Universal Declaration of Human Rights]], adopted in 1948, states that:

{{blockquote|Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/|title=The Universal Declaration of Human Rights|author={{wipe|United Nations}}|work=UN.org|access-date=25 June 2013|date=10 September 1948|publisher=United Nations|archive-date=3 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170703093353/http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/|url-status=live}}</ref>}}

Today, freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognised in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.<ref name=autogenerated1>Andrew Puddephatt, Freedom of Expression, The essentials of Human Rights, Hodder Arnold, 2005, p. 128</ref> Based on [[Biography:John Milton|John Milton]]'s arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas but three further distinct aspects:
# the right to seek information and ideas;
# the right to receive information and ideas;
# the right to impart information and ideas

International, regional and national standards also recognise that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, whether orally, in writing, in print, through the [[Internet|internet]] or art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes the content and the means of expression.<ref name=autogenerated1 />

=== Relationship to other rights ===
The right to freedom of speech and expression is closely related to other rights. It may be limited when conflicting with other rights (see limitations on freedom of speech).<ref name=autogenerated1 /> The right to freedom of expression is also related to the right to a fair trial and court proceeding which may limit access to the search for information, or determine the opportunity and means in which freedom of expression is manifested within court proceedings.<ref name=Limitstotolerance>{{cite book| last = Brett| first = Sebastian| title = Limits to tolerance: freedom of expression and the public debate in Chile| publisher = Human Rights Watch| year = 1999| page = xxv| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=KGS_vAYDdtoC&q=freedom+of+expression+limitations| isbn = 978-1-56432-192-3| access-date = 11 November 2020| archive-date = 9 July 2021| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210709200334/https://books.google.com/books?id=KGS_vAYDdtoC&q=freedom+of+expression+limitations| url-status = live}}</ref> As a general principle freedom of expression may not limit the right to privacy, as well as the honor and reputation of others. However, greater latitude is given when criticism of public figures is involved.<ref name=Limitstotolerance/>

The right to freedom of expression is particularly important for media, which play a special role as the bearer of the general right to freedom of expression for all.<ref name=autogenerated1 /> However, freedom of the press does not necessarily enable freedom of speech. Judith Lichtenberg has outlined conditions in which freedom of the press may constrain freedom of speech. For example, if all the people who control the various mediums of publication suppress information or stifle the diversity of voices inherent in freedom of speech. This limitation was famously summarised as "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one".<ref>New Yorker, 14 May 1960, p. 109</ref> Lichtenberg argues that freedom of the press is simply a form of property right summed up by the principle "no money, no voice".<ref>{{cite book |last= Sanders |first= Karen |title= Ethics & Journalism |publisher= Sage |year= 2003 |page= 68 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=bnpliIUyO60C&q=Areopagitica+freedom+of+speech+britain |isbn= 978-0-7619-6967-9 |access-date= 25 November 2018 |archive-date= 15 February 2022 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20220215023905/https://books.google.com/books?id=bnpliIUyO60C&dq=Areopagitica+freedom+of+speech+britain&as_brr=3 |url-status= live }}</ref>

=== As a negative right ===
Freedom of speech is usually seen as a negative right.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Nossel|first=Suzanne|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2mmnDwAAQBAJ|title=Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All|date=2020-07-28|publisher=HarperCollins|isbn=978-0-06-296606-3|page=10|language=en|access-date=8 March 2021|archive-date=15 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220215023854/https://books.google.com/books?id=2mmnDwAAQBAJ|url-status=live}}</ref> This means that the government is legally obliged to take no action against the speaker based on the speaker's views, but that no one is obliged to help any speakers publish their views, and no one is required to listen to, agree with, or acknowledge the speaker or the speaker's views.

== Democracy in relation to social interaction ==
[[File:Free Speech Wall.jpg|thumb|Permanent Free Speech Wall in Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.]]
Freedom of speech is understood to be fundamental in a democracy. The norms on limiting freedom of expression mean that public debate may not be completely suppressed even in times of emergency.<ref name=Limitstotolerance /> One of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and [[Social:Democracy|democracy]] is [[Biography:Alexander Meiklejohn|Alexander Meiklejohn]]. He has argued that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work, an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power can manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal.<ref>{{cite book |title= Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion |last= Marlin |first= Randal |year= 2002 |publisher= Broadview Press |isbn= 978-1551113760 |pages= 226–27 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&q=%22free+speech%22+democracy&pg=PA226 |access-date= 11 November 2020 |archive-date= 15 August 2021 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210815224338/https://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&q=%22free+speech%22+democracy&pg=PA226 |url-status= live }}</ref>

Eric Barendt has called this defence of free speech on the grounds of democracy "probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies".<ref>{{cite book |title=Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion |last=Marlin |first=Randal |year=2002 |publisher=Broadview Press |isbn=978-1551113760 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&q=%22free+speech%22+democracy&pg=PA226 |page=226 |access-date=11 November 2020 |archive-date=15 August 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210815224338/https://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&q=%22free+speech%22+democracy&pg=PA226 |url-status=live }}</ref> Thomas I. Emerson expanded on this defence when he argued that freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between stability and [[Social:Social change|change]]. Freedom of speech acts as a "safety valve" to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on [[Social:Revolution|revolution]]. He argues that "The principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a more adaptable and at the same time more stable community, of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus". Emerson furthermore maintains that "Opposition serves a vital social function in offsetting or ameliorating (the) normal process of bureaucratic decay".<ref>{{cite book |title=Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion |last=Marlin |first=Randal |year=2002 |publisher=Broadview Press |isbn=978-1551113760 |pages=228–29 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&q=%22free+speech%22+democracy&pg=PA226 |access-date=11 November 2020 |archive-date=15 August 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210815224338/https://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&q=%22free+speech%22+democracy&pg=PA226 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Research undertaken by the [[Social:Worldwide Governance Indicators|Worldwide Governance Indicators]] project at the [[Organization:World Bank|World Bank]], indicates that freedom of speech, and the process of accountability that follows it, have a significant impact on the quality of [[Philosophy:Governance|governance]] of a country. "Voice and Accountability" within a country, defined as "the extent to which a country's citizens are able to participate in selecting their [[Social:Government|government]], as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and free media" is one of the six dimensions of governance that the Worldwide Governance Indicators measure for more than 200 countries.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi2007/pdf/booklet_decade_of_measuring_governance.pdf |title=A Decade of Measuring the Quality of Governance|publisher=World Bank|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080408193105/http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi2007/pdf/booklet_decade_of_measuring_governance.pdf|archive-date=8 April 2008}}</ref> Against this backdrop it is important that development agencies create grounds for effective support for a free press in developing countries.<ref>{{cite web|title = Freedom of expression promotes democracy|url = http://www.dandc.eu/en/article/alexander-matschke-promoting-free-media-task-development-policy|first = Alexander|last = Matschke|date = 25 December 2014|website = D+C Development and Cooperation|access-date = 26 March 2015|archive-date = 2 April 2015|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150402183201/http://www.dandc.eu/en/article/alexander-matschke-promoting-free-media-task-development-policy|url-status = live}}</ref>

Richard Moon has developed the argument that the value of freedom of speech and freedom of expression lies with social interactions. Moon writes that "by communicating an individual forms relationships and associations with others – family, friends, co-workers, church congregation, and countrymen. By entering into discussion with others an individual participates in the development of knowledge and in the direction of the community".<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&q=%22free+speech%22+democracy&pg=PA226|title=Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion|last=Marlin|first=Randal|publisher=Broadview Press|year=2002|isbn=978-1551113760|page=229|access-date=11 November 2020|archive-date=15 August 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210815224338/https://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&q=%22free+speech%22+democracy&pg=PA226|url-status=live}}</ref>

== Limitations ==

[[File:Holocaust Denial Laws 2023.png|thumb|Laws of holocaust denial 2022<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/1.703285 Church members enter Canada, aiming to picket bus victim's funeral] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220215023900/https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/church-members-enter-canada-aiming-to-picket-bus-victim-s-funeral-1.703285 |date=15 February 2022 }}, ''CBC News'', 8 August 2008.</ref>]]

Freedom of speech is not regarded as absolute by some, with most legal systems generally setting limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other rights and protections, such as in the cases of libel, slander, pornography, obscenity, fighting words, and [[Social:Intellectual property|intellectual property]].

Some limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction, and others may occur through social disapprobation.<ref name="leeds1">{{cite encyclopedia|title=Freedom of Speech|encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/|access-date=29 May 2011|date=17 April 2008|archive-date=23 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190323204702/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/|url-status=live}}</ref> In Saudi Arabia, Journalists are forbidden to write with disrespect or disapproval of the royal family, religion, or the government. Journalists are also not given any legal protection for their writing in Saudi Arabia. Journalist Jamal Khashoggi was a critic of the Saudi Arabian government. He was killed in 2018 by Saudi Arabian officials for his writing.

=== Content viewed as harmful and offensive ===
Some views are illegal to express because they are perceived by some to be harmful to others. This category often includes speech that is both false and potentially dangerous, such as falsely shouting "Fire!" in a theatre and causing a panic. Justifications for limitations to freedom of speech often reference the "[[Philosophy:Harm principle|harm principle]]" or the "offence principle".

In ''On Liberty'' (1859), [[Biography:John Stuart Mill|John Stuart Mill]] argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered".<ref name="leeds1" /> Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment.<ref name="Mill 1859 1-5"/><ref name="Mill 1859 2-19"/><ref name="Ten Cate 2010"/><ref name="Wragg 2015"/>

In 1985, [[Biography:Joel Feinberg|Joel Feinberg]] introduced what is known as the "offence principle". Feinberg wrote, "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offence (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end".<ref name="ref1">{{cite book|title = The Collapse of the Harm Principle|url = http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7037&context=jclc|chapter = Conclusion|author = Harcourt|access-date = 7 September 2015|archive-date = 4 March 2016|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160304185839/http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7037&context=jclc|url-status = live}}</ref> Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. Nevertheless, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm.<ref name="ref1" /> In contrast, Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle.<ref name="leeds1" /> Because the degree to which people may take offence varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that several factors need to be taken into account when applying the offence principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offence, and the general interest of the community at large.<ref name="leeds1" />

Jasper Doomen argued that harm should be defined from the point of view of the individual citizen, not limiting harm to physical harm since nonphysical harm may also be involved; Feinberg's distinction between harm and offence is criticized as largely trivial.<ref>Doomen 2014, pp. 111, 112.</ref>

In 1999, Bernard Harcourt wrote of the collapse of the harm principle: "Today the debate is characterized by a cacophony of competing harm arguments without any way to resolve them. There is no longer an argument within the structure of the debate to resolve the competing claims of harm. The original harm principle was never equipped to determine the relative importance of harms".<ref>{{cite book|title=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy|url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/law-phil.htm|chapter=Philosophy of Law|author=Kenneth Einar Himma|access-date=13 March 2014|archive-date=14 September 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080914162006/http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/law-phil.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>

Interpretations of both the harm and offense limitations to freedom of speech are culturally and politically relative. For instance, in Russia, the harm and offense principles have been used to justify the Russian LGBT propaganda law restricting speech (and action) concerning LGBT issues. Many European countries outlaw speech that might be interpreted as [[Unsolved:Holocaust denial#Laws against Holocaust denial|Holocaust denial]]. These include Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovakia, Switzerland and Romania.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/10/16/Italian-Parliament-introduces-holocaust-denial-legislation/32801381924558/|title=Italian Parliament introduces holocaust denial legislation|website=UPI|language=en|access-date=2019-06-28|archive-date=15 March 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200315155137/https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/10/16/Italian-Parliament-introduces-holocaust-denial-legislation/32801381924558/|url-status=live}}</ref> Armenian genocide denial is also illegal in some countries.

In some countries, [[Religion:Blasphemy|blasphemy]] is a crime. For example, in Austria, defaming [[Biography:Muhammad|Muhammad]], the prophet of Islam, is not protected as free speech.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Chase Winter|date=26 October 2018|title=Calling Prophet Muhammad a pedophile does not fall within freedom of speech: European court|work=Deutsche Welle|url=https://www.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile-does-not-fall-within-freedom-of-speech-european-court/a-46050749|access-date=27 October 2018|quote=An Austrian woman's conviction for calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile did not violate her freedom of speech, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday.|archive-date=27 October 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181027013748/https://www.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile-does-not-fall-within-freedom-of-speech-european-court/a-46050749|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Lucia I. Suarez Sang|date=26 October 2018|title=Defaming Muhammad does not fall under purview of free speech, European court rules|work=Fox News|url=https://www.foxnews.com/world/defaming-muhammad-does-not-fall-under-purview-of-free-speech-european-court-rules.amp|access-date=27 October 2018|quote=The freedom of speech does not extend to include defaming the prophet of Islam, the European Court of Human rights ruled Thursday.|archive-date=26 October 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181026184305/https://www.foxnews.com/world/defaming-muhammad-does-not-fall-under-purview-of-free-speech-european-court-rules.amp|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Bojan Pancevski|date=26 October 2018|title=Europe Court Upholds Ruling Against Woman Who Insulted Islam|work=The Wall Street Journal|url=https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/europe-court-upholds-ruling-against-women-who-insulted-islam-1540580231|access-date=27 October 2018|quote=Europe's highest human rights court ruled on Friday that disparagement of religious doctrines such as insulting the Prophet Muhammad isn't protected by freedom of expression and can be prosecuted.|archive-date=26 October 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181026214605/https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/europe-court-upholds-ruling-against-women-who-insulted-islam-1540580231|url-status=live}}</ref> In contrast, in France, blasphemy and disparagement of Muhammad are protected under free speech law.

Certain public institutions may also enact policies restricting the freedom of speech, for example, [[Social:Speech code|speech code]]s at state-operated schools.

In the U.S., the standing landmark opinion on political speech is ''Brandenburg v. Ohio'' (1969),<ref>''Brandenburg v. Ohio'', {{ussc|395|444|1969}}</ref> expressly overruling ''Whitney v. California''.<ref>{{cite book |last=Jasper |first=Margaret C. |title=The Law of Speech and the First Amendment |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ITpDAQAAIAAJ |access-date=April 4, 2013 |year=1999 |publisher=Oceana Publications |isbn=978-0-379-11335-8 |page=32}}</ref> In ''Brandenburg'', the U.S. Supreme Court referred to the right even to speak openly of violent action and revolution in broad terms:{{blockquote|[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not allow a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or cause such action.<ref>''Brandenburg'', at 447</ref>}} The opinion in ''Brandenburg'' discarded the previous test of "clear and present danger" and made the right to freedom of (political) speech protections in the United States almost absolute.<ref>''Brandenburg'', at 450–01</ref>{{sfn|Lewis|2007|p=124}} Hate speech is also protected by the First Amendment in the United States, as decided in ''R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul'', (1992) in which the Supreme Court ruled that hate speech is permissible, except in the case of imminent violence.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html|title=ABA Division for Public Education: Students: Debating the "Mighty Constitutional Opposites": Hate Speech Debate|website=www.americanbar.org|access-date=12 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161013001833/http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html|archive-date=13 October 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> See the First Amendment to the United States Constitution for more detailed information on this decision and its historical background.

=== Time, place and manner ===
Limitations based on time, place, and manner apply to all speech, regardless of the view expressed.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Emanuel|first=Steven L.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=h8XhDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA153|title=Emanuel Crunchtime for Constitutional Law|date=2020-03-25|publisher=Wolters Kluwer Law & Business|isbn=978-1-5438-0727-1|pages=153–154|language=en|access-date=18 September 2021|archive-date=15 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220215023903/https://books.google.com/books?id=h8XhDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA153|url-status=live}}</ref> They are generally restrictions that are intended to balance other rights or a legitimate government interest. For example, a time, place, and manner restriction might prohibit a noisy political demonstration at a politician's home during the middle of the night, as that impinges upon the rights of the politician's neighbors to quiet enjoyment of their own homes. An otherwise identical activity might be permitted if it happened at a different time (e.g., during the day), at a different place (e.g., at a government building or in another public forum), or in a different manner (e.g., a silent protest). Funeral Protests are a complex issue in the United States. It is a right to Americans to be able to hold a peaceful protest against various policies they deem unreasonable. It is a question of whether or not it is appropriate through the time, place and manner outlook to protest funeral proceedings. Because of recent flare ups of this occurring, legislation has been put to action to limit this. Now, funeral protests are governed and prohibited by law on a state-to-state basis inside the United States.

=== The Internet and information society ===
[[File:Sample 09-F9 protest art, Free Speech Flag by John Marcotte.svg|thumb|The [[Social:Free Speech Flag|Free Speech Flag]] was created during the AACS encryption key controversy as "a symbol to show support for personal freedoms".<ref name="2007-05-01 Badmouth">{{cite web |url=http://badmouth.net/free-speech-flag/ |title=free speech flag |last=Marcotte |first=John |date=2007-05-01 |website=Badmouth |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070504012547/http://www.badmouth.net/free-speech-flag/ |archive-date=2007-05-04 |url-status=live |access-date=2017-10-27}}</ref>]]
Jo Glanville, editor of the ''Index on Censorship'', states that "the Internet has been a revolution for [[Social:Censorship|censorship]] as much as for free speech".<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/17/censorship-internet |title=The big business of net censorship |last=Glanville |first=Jo |date=17 November 2008 |work=The Guardian |location=London |access-date=26 March 2014 |archive-date=28 January 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130128195629/http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/17/censorship-internet |url-status=live }}</ref> International, national and regional standards recognise that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the [[Internet]].<ref name=autogenerated1 /> The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was the first major attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of ''Reno v. ACLU'', the US Supreme Court partially overturned the law.<ref>{{cite book | last = Godwin | first = Mike |  year = 2003 | title = Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age | publisher = MIT Press| isbn = 0-262-57168-4|pages=349–52}}</ref> Judge Stewart R. Dalzell, one of the three federal judges who in June 1996 declared parts of the CDA unconstitutional, in his opinion stated the following:<ref name="rowland">{{cite book|title=Information Technology Law|first=Diane |last=Rowland|pages=463–65|year=2005|isbn= 978-1859417560|publisher=Routledge-Cavendish}}</ref>

{{blockquote|The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the village green, or the mails. Because it would necessarily affect the Internet itself, the CDA would necessarily reduce the speech available for adults on the medium. This is a constitutionally intolerable result. Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse. Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar – in a word, "indecent" in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice. We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates.[...] My analysis does not deprive the Government of all means of protecting children from the dangers of Internet communication. The Government can continue to protect children from pornography on the Internet through vigorous enforcement of existing laws criminalising obscenity and child pornography. [...] As we learned at the hearing, there is also a compelling need for public educations about the benefits and dangers of this new medium, and the Government can fill that role as well. In my view, our action today should only mean that Government's permissible supervision of Internet contents stops at the traditional line of unprotected speech. [...] The absence of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one of the plaintiff's experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: "What achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is. The strength of the Internet is chaos." Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so that strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects.<ref name="rowland" />}}

The [[Organization:World Summit on the Information Society|World Summit on the Information Society]] (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the "[[Information society|Information Society]]" in stating:

{{blockquote|We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the [[Information society|Information Society]]. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers.<ref>{{cite book| last1 = Klang| first1 = Mathias| last2 = Murray| first2 = Andrew| title = Human Rights in the Digital Age| publisher = Routledge| year = 2005| page = 1| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=USksfqPjwhUC&q=%22digital+rights%22+human+rights| isbn = 978-1-904385-31-8| access-date = 11 November 2020| archive-date = 15 August 2021| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210815224339/https://books.google.com/books?id=USksfqPjwhUC&q=%22digital+rights%22+human+rights| url-status = live}}</ref>}}

According to Bernt Hugenholtz and Lucie Guibault, the [[Social:Public domain|public domain]] is under pressure from the "commodification of information" as information with previously little or no economic value has acquired independent economic value in the information age. This includes factual data, [[Personal data|personal data]], genetic information and pure [[Philosophy:Idea|idea]]s. The commodification of information is taking place through [[Social:Intellectual property|intellectual property]] law, contract law, as well as broadcasting and telecommunications law.<ref>{{cite book| last1 = Guibault| first1 = Lucy| last2 = Hugenholtz| first2 = Bernt| title = The future of the public domain: identifying the commons in information law| publisher = Kluwer Law International| year = 2006| page = 1| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=KJmNGglq0nwC&q=public+domain| isbn = 9789041124357| access-date = 25 November 2018| archive-date = 15 February 2022| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220215023909/https://books.google.com/books?id=KJmNGglq0nwC&dq=public+domain&as_brr=3| url-status = live}}</ref>

=== Freedom of information ===
Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech where the medium of expression is the [[Internet]]. Freedom of information may also refer to the right to privacy in the context of the Internet and [[Engineering:Information technology|information technology]]. As with the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy is a recognised human right and freedom of information acts as an extension to this right.<ref name=autogenerated2>{{cite magazine|url = http://freenetproject.org/papers/freenet-ieee.pdf|title = Protecting Free Expression Online with Freenet|magazine = Internet Computing|publisher = IEEE|last1 = Clarke|first1 = Ian|last2 = Miller|first2 = Scott G.|last3 = Hong|first3 = Theodore W.|last4 = Sandberg|first4 = Oskar|last5 = Wiley|first5 = Brandon|date = 2002|pages = 40–49|access-date = 15 October 2008|archive-date = 11 October 2017|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20171011183227/https://freenetproject.org/papers/freenet-ieee.pdf|url-status = live}}</ref> Freedom of information may also concern [[Social:Censorship|censorship]] in an information technology context, i.e., the ability to access [[Web content]], without censorship or restrictions.<ref>{{cite news|last=Pauli|first=Darren|date=14 January 2008|url=http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/01/14/industry-rejects-australian-govt-sanitized-internet-measure|title=Industry rejects Australian gov't sanitized Internet measure|work=The Industry Standard|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120912112920/http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/01/14/industry-rejects-australian-govt-sanitized-internet-measure|archive-date=12 September 2012|df=dmy-all}}</ref>

Freedom of information is also explicitly protected by acts such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of Ontario, in Canada. The Access to Information Act gives Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and any person or corporation present in Canada a right to access records of government institutions that are subject to the Act.<ref>{{cite book|title=A Sourcebook of Canadian Media Law|pages=232–34|first1=Robert|last1=Martin|last2=Adam |first2=G. Stuart|publisher=McGill-Queen's Press|year=1994|isbn=0886292387}}</ref>

=== Internet censorship ===

A widely publicized example of internet censorship is the "Great Firewall of China" (in reference both to its role as a network firewall and the ancient Great Wall of China). The system blocks content by preventing [[IP address]]es from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and [[Proxy server|proxy server]]s at the [[Internet|internet]] [[Engineering:Gateway (telecommunications)|gateways]]. The system also selectively engages in DNS poisoning when particular sites are requested. The government does not appear to be systematically examining Internet content, as this appears to be technically impractical.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/china/story/0,,1713317,00.html |author=Watts, Jonathan |date=20 February 2006 |title=War of the words |newspaper={{wipe|The Guardian}} |location=London |access-date=11 December 2016 |archive-date=15 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220215023908/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/feb/20/news.mondaymediasection |url-status=live }}</ref> Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations, including more than sixty regulations directed at the Internet. Censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/3.htm|title= II. How Censorship Works in China: A Brief Overview|access-date= 30 August 2006|publisher= Human Rights Watch|archive-date= 22 April 2015|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150422063645/http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/3.htm|url-status= live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chinaeclaw.com/english/showCategory.asp?Code=022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120220052125/http://www.chinaeclaw.com/english/showCategory.asp?Code=022|url-status=dead|title=Chinese Laws and Regulations Regarding Internet|archive-date=20 February 2012}}</ref>

Saudi Arabia's government had been intensifying the scrutiny of social media accounts, under which they were detaining several activists, critics and even normal social media users over few critical tweets. A law professor, Awad Al-Qarni became a victim of Saudi's [[Social:Internet censorship|internet censorship]] and was facing death sentence. Saudi-controlled media portrayed him as a dangerous preacher due to his [[Company:Twitter|Twitter]] and [[Software:WhatsApp|WhatsApp]] posts, but dissidents considered him as an important intellectual who maintained strong social media influence.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-dissent-crackdown.html|title='Equality of Injustice for All': Saudi Arabia Expands Crackdown on Dissent|work=The New York Times |date=21 February 2023 |accessdate=21 February 2023|last1=Nereim |first1=Vivian }}</ref>

==Relationship with disinformation==
{{further|Social:Disinformation}}

Some legal scholars (such as Tim Wu of [[Organization:Columbia University|Columbia University]]) have argued that the traditional issues of free speech—that "the main threat to free speech" is the censorship of "suppressive states", and that "ill-informed or malevolent speech" can and should be overcome by "more and better speech" rather than censorship—assumes scarcity of information. This scarcity prevailed during the 20th century, but with the arrival of the internet, information became plentiful, "but the attention of listeners" scarce. Furthermore, in the words of Wu, this "cheap speech" made possible by the internet " ... may be used to attack, harass, and silence as much as it is used to illuminate or debate".<ref name="wu-1st-2017">{{cite web |last1=Wu |first1=Tim |title=Is the First Amendment Obsolete? |url=https://knightcolumbia.org/content/tim-wu-first-amendment-obsolete |website=Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University |access-date=23 September 2020 |date=1 September 2017 |archive-date=21 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200921185405/https://knightcolumbia.org/content/tim-wu-first-amendment-obsolete |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Yaffa-NYer-7-9-2020">{{cite magazine |last1=Yaffa |first1=Joshua |title=Is Russian Meddling as Dangerous as We Think? |magazine=The New Yorker |date=7 September 2020 |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/14/is-russian-meddling-as-dangerous-as-we-think |access-date=21 September 2020 |archive-date=14 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214130002/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/14/is-russian-meddling-as-dangerous-as-we-think |url-status=live }}</ref> The [[Organization:Electronic Frontier Foundation|Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) has argued that "censorship cannot be the only answer to disinformation online" and that tech companies "have a history of overcorrecting and censoring accurate, useful speech—or, even worse, reinforcing misinformation with their policies."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gebhart |first=Jillian C. York, David Greene, and Gennie |date=2019-05-01 |title=Censorship Can't Be The Only Answer to Disinformation Online |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/05/censorship-cant-be-only-answer-disinformation-online |access-date=2022-05-03 |website=[[Organization:Electronic Frontier Foundation|Electronic Frontier Foundation]] |language=en}}</ref>

According to Wu, in the 21st century, the danger is not "suppressive states" that target "speakers directly", but that:

{{blockquote|...targets listeners or it undermines speakers indirectly. More precisely, emerging techniques of speech control depend on (1) a range of new punishments, like unleashing "troll armies" to abuse the press and other critics, and (2) "flooding" tactics (sometimes called "reverse censorship") that distort or drown out disfavored speech through the creation and dissemination of fake news, the payment of fake commentators, and the deployment of propaganda robots.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://cyber.harvard.edu/works/lessig/what_things.pdf|title=What things regulate speech|access-date=2021-01-12|archive-date=27 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201127152516/https://cyber.harvard.edu/works/lessig/what_things.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> As journalist Peter Pomerantsev writes, these techniques employ "information ... in weaponized terms, as a tool to confuse, blackmail, demoralize, subvert and paralyze."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.interpretermag.com/the-menace-of-unreality-how-the-kremlin-weaponizes-information-culture-and-money/|title=The Menace of Unreality: How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money|access-date=2021-01-12|archive-date=12 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210112075434/https://www.interpretermag.com/the-menace-of-unreality-how-the-kremlin-weaponizes-information-culture-and-money/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="wu-1st-2017"/>|author=|title=|source=}}

== History of dissent and truth ==

[[File:Index Librorum Prohibitorum 1.jpg|thumb|left|upright=0.7|Title page of ''[[Religion:Index Librorum Prohibitorum|Index Librorum Prohibitorum]]'', or ''List of Prohibited Books'' (Venice, 1564)]]

Before the invention of the printing press, a written work, once created, could only be physically multiplied by highly laborious and error-prone manual copying. No elaborate system of censorship and control over scribes existed, who until the 14th century were restricted to religious institutions, and their works rarely caused wider controversy. In response to the printing press, and the theological heresies it allowed to spread, the Roman Catholic Church moved to impose censorship.<ref name="de Sola Pool 1983 14">{{Cite book| last = de Sola Pool| first = Ithiel| title = Technologies of freedom| publisher = Harvard University Press| year = 1983| page = [https://archive.org/details/technologiesoffr00ithi/page/14 14]| url = https://archive.org/details/technologiesoffr00ithi/page/14| isbn = 978-0-674-87233-2}}</ref> Printing allowed for multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information (see [[Social:Print culture|print culture]]).<ref name="MacQueen 2007 34">{{Cite book | last1 = MacQueen | first1 = Hector L | last2 = Waelde | first2 = Charlotte | last3 = Laurie | first3 = Graeme T | title = Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 2007 | page = 34 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=_Iwcn4pT0OoC&q=contemporary+intellectual+property | isbn = 978-0-19-926339-4 | access-date = 11 November 2016 | archive-date = 15 February 2022 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220215023903/https://books.google.com/books?id=_Iwcn4pT0OoC&dq=contemporary+intellectual+property | url-status = live }}</ref> The origins of copyright law in most European countries lie in efforts by the Roman Catholic Church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers.<ref name="MacQueen 2007 34" />

[[File:Henric van Cuyck Panegyricae orationes septem 1596.jpg|thumb|upright=0.7|In ''Panegyricae orationes septem'' (1596), Henric van Cuyck, a Dutch Bishop, defended the need for censorship and argued that Johannes Gutenberg's printing press had resulted in a world infected by "pernicious lies"—so van Cuyck singled out the Talmud and the Qur'an, and the writings of Martin Luther, Jean Calvin and Erasmus of Rotterdam.<ref>{{cite web| title = 6. Henric van Cuyck, Bishop of Roermond (1546–1609). Panegyricae orationes septem. Louvain: Philippus Zangrius, 1596.| work = Ecclesiastical Censorship, "Heresy and Error": The Ecclesiastical Censorship of Books, 1400–1800| publisher = Bridwell Library| date = 17 December 2000| url = http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy&Error/Heresy.06.htm| access-date = 26 June 2011| url-status = dead| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120908033046/http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy%26Error/Heresy.06.htm| archive-date = 8 September 2012| df = dmy-all}}</ref>]]
In 1501, Pope Alexander VI issued a Bill against the unlicensed printing of books. In 1559, Pope Paul IV promulgated the ''Index Expurgatorius'', or ''List of Prohibited Books''.<ref name="de Sola Pool 1983 14" /> The ''Index Expurgatorius'' is the most famous and long-lasting example of "bad books" catalogues issued by the Roman Catholic Church, which presumed to be in authority over private thoughts and opinions, and suppressed views that went against its doctrines. The ''Index Expurgatorius'' was administered by the Roman Inquisition, but enforced by local government authorities, and went through 300 editions. Amongst others, it banned or censored books written by [[Biography:René Descartes|René Descartes]], [[Biography:Giordano Bruno|Giordano Bruno]], [[Biography:Galileo Galilei|Galileo Galilei]], [[Biography:David Hume|David Hume]], [[Biography:John Locke|John Locke]], Daniel Defoe, [[Biography:Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] and [[Biography:Voltaire|Voltaire]].<ref>{{cite book| last = Castillo| first = Anastasia| title = Banned Books: Censorship in Eighteenth-Century England| publisher = GRIN Verlag| year = 2010| page = 12| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=CqaAGfL-IQIC&q=Giordano+Bruno+censorship| isbn = 978-3-640-71688-3| access-date = 11 November 2020| archive-date = 15 August 2021| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210815224341/https://books.google.com/books?id=CqaAGfL-IQIC&q=Giordano+Bruno+censorship| url-status = live}}</ref> While governments and church encouraged printing in many ways because it allowed for the dissemination of [[Religion:Bible|Bible]]s and government information, works of dissent and criticism could also circulate rapidly. Consequently, governments established controls over printers across Europe, requiring them to have official licenses to trade and produce books.<ref name="MacQueen 2007 34" />

[[File:Areopagitica bridwell.jpg|thumb|upright=0.7|left|First page of John Milton's 1644 edition of ''Areopagitica'', in which he argued forcefully against the Licensing Order of 1643]]
The notion that the expression of dissent or subversive views should be tolerated, not censured or punished by law, developed alongside the rise of printing and the press. ''[[Philosophy:Areopagitica|Areopagitica]]'', published in 1644, was [[Biography:John Milton|John Milton]]'s response to the Parliament of England's re-introduction of government licensing of printers, hence publishers.<ref name="Sanders 2003 66" /> Church authorities had previously ensured that Milton's essay on the right to divorce was refused a license for publication. In ''Areopagitica'', published without a license,<ref>{{cite web| title = 13. John Milton (1608–1674). Areopagitica; A Speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicenc'd Printing, to the Parlament of England. London: [s.n.], 1644| work = Early Censorship in England, "Heresy and Error": The Ecclesiastical Censorship of Books, 1400–1800| publisher = Bridwell Library| date = 17 December 2000| url = http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy&Error/Heresy.13.htm| access-date = 26 June 2011| url-status = dead| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120905104556/http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy%26Error/Heresy.13.htm| archive-date = 5 September 2012| df = dmy-all}}</ref> Milton made an impassioned plea for freedom of expression and toleration of falsehood,<ref name="Sanders 2003 66">{{cite book| last = Sanders| first = Karen| title = Ethics & Journalism| publisher = Sage| year = 2003| page = 66| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=bnpliIUyO60C&q=Areopagitica+freedom+of+speech+britain| isbn = 978-0-7619-6967-9| access-date = 25 November 2018| archive-date = 15 February 2022| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220215023854/https://books.google.com/books?id=bnpliIUyO60C&dq=Areopagitica+freedom+of+speech+britain&as_brr=3| url-status = live}}</ref> stating:

{{blockquote|Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.<ref name="Sanders 2003 66"/>}}

[[File:Jacobus de Voragine Legenda aurea sanctorum.jpg|thumb|upright=0.7|This 1688 edition of Jacobus de Voragine's ''Golden Legend'' (1260) was censored according to the ''Index Librorum Expurgatorum'' of 1707, which listed the specific passages of books already in circulation that required censorship.<ref>{{cite web| title = The index of expurgations| work = "Heresy and Error": The Ecclesiastical Censorship of Books, 1400–1800| publisher = Bridwell Library| date = 17 December 2000| url = http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy&Error/Heresy.Expurgations.htm| access-date = 26 June 2011| url-status = dead| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120908031633/http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy%26Error/Heresy.Expurgations.htm| archive-date = 8 September 2012| df = dmy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| title = 52. Jacobus de Voragine (c. 1230–1298). Legenda aurea sanctorum. Madrid: Juan Garcia, 1688| work = The Index of Expurgations, "Heresy and Error": The Ecclesiastical Censorship of Books, 1400–1800| publisher = Bridwell Library| date = 17 December 2000| url = http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy&Error/Heresy.52.htm| access-date = 26 June 2011| url-status = dead| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120908032716/http://smu.edu/bridwell_tools/specialcollections/Heresy%26Error/Heresy.52.htm| archive-date = 8 September 2012| df = dmy-all}}</ref>]]
Milton's defense of freedom of expression was grounded in a [[Religion:Protestantism|Protestant]] worldview. He thought that the English people had the mission to work out the truth of the Reformation, which would lead to the [[Philosophy:Age of Enlightenment|enlightenment]] of all people. Nevertheless, Milton also articulated the main strands of future discussions about freedom of expression. By defining the scope of freedom of expression and "harmful" speech, Milton argued against the principle of pre-censorship and in favor of tolerance for a wide range of views.<ref name="Sanders 2003 66" /> Freedom of the press ceased being regulated in England in 1695 when the Licensing Order of 1643 was allowed to expire after the introduction of the Bill of Rights 1689 shortly after the Glorious Revolution.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/gordon-rayner/8812486/Leveson-Inquiry-British-press-freedom-is-a-model-for-the-world-editor-tells-inquiry.html | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111007183949/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/gordon-rayner/8812486/Leveson-Inquiry-British-press-freedom-is-a-model-for-the-world-editor-tells-inquiry.html | url-status=dead | archive-date=7 October 2011 | title=Leveson Inquiry: British press freedom is a model for the world, editor tells inquiry | publisher=Telegraph Media Group Limited | work=The Telegraph | date=7 October 2011 | access-date=9 May 2018 | author=Rayner, Gordon | quote=Mr Rusbridger said: “When people talk about licensing journalists or newspapers the instinct should be to refer them to history. Read about how licensing of the press in Britain was abolished in 1695.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2012/11/david-blunkett-comes-out-against-press-regulation/ | title=David Blunkert warns MPs against regulating the Press | publisher=The Spectator | date=24 November 2012 | access-date=9 May 2018 | author=Nelson, Fraser | quote=Jeremy Paxman famously said he went into journalism after hearing that the relationship between a journalist and a politician was akin to that of a dog and a lamppost. Several MPs now want to replace this with a principle whereby MPs define the parameters under which the press operates – and "work together". It is a hideous idea that must be resisted. The last time this happened was under the Licensing Order of 1643, which was allowed to expire in 1695 after the introduction of the 1688 Bill of Rights shortly after the Glorious Revolution. As I wrote in my Daily Telegraph column yesterday, it's amazing that so many Tory MPs should want to turn the clock back 300 years. | archive-date=19 October 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171019013011/https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2012/11/david-blunkett-comes-out-against-press-regulation/ | url-status=live }}</ref> The emergence of publications like the ''Tatler'' (1709) and the ''Spectator'' (1711) are credited for creating a 'bourgeois public sphere' in England that allowed for a free exchange of ideas and information.

More governments attempted to centralize control as the "menace" of printing spread.<ref name="de Sola Pool 1983 15">{{Cite book| last = de Sola Pool| first = Ithiel| title = Technologies of freedom| publisher = Harvard University Press| year = 1983| page = [https://archive.org/details/technologiesoffr00ithi/page/15 15]| url = https://archive.org/details/technologiesoffr00ithi/page/15| isbn = 978-0-674-87233-2}}</ref> The French crown repressed printing and the printer Etienne Dolet was burned at the stake in 1546. In 1557 the British Crown thought to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books by chartering the Stationers' Company. The right to print was limited to the members of that guild. Thirty years later, the Star Chamber was chartered to curtail the "greate enormities and abuses" of "dyvers contentyous and disorderlye persons professinge the arte or mystere of pryntinge or selling of books". The right to print was restricted to two universities and the 21 existing printers in the [[Finance:City of London|city of London]], which had 53 printing presses. As the British crown took control of type founding in 1637, printers fled to the Netherlands. Confrontation with authority made printers radical and rebellious, with 800 authors, printers, and book dealers being incarcerated in the Bastille in Paris before it was stormed in 1789.<ref name="de Sola Pool 1983 15" />

A succession of English thinkers was at the forefront of early discussion on a right to freedom of expression, among them [[Biography:John Milton|John Milton]] (1608–74) and [[Biography:John Locke|John Locke]] (1632–1704). Locke established the [[Philosophy:Individual|individual]] as the unit of value and the bearer of rights to [[Social:Right to life|life]], liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. However, Locke's ideas evolved primarily around the concept of the right to seek salvation for one's soul. He was thus primarily concerned with theological matters. Locke neither supported a universal toleration of peoples nor freedom of speech; according to his ideas, some groups, such as atheists, should not be allowed.<ref name="jonathanisrael">{{cite book|author=Jonathan Israel|title=Radical Enlightenment|publisher=Oxford University Press|year= 2002|pages= 265–67}}</ref>

[[File:George Orwell statue - BBC London (38562767202).jpg|thumb|left|upright=0.7|George Orwell statue at the headquarters of the BBC. A defence of free speech in an open society, the wall behind the statue is inscribed with the words "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear", words from George Orwell's proposed preface to ''Animal Farm'' (1945).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/41a0eedb-c435-479d-aa63-a89ad81daf01|title=Orwell statue unveiled|date=2017-11-07|website=BBC|access-date=2017-11-07|last=Jennings|first=Martin|archive-date=14 December 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191214164828/https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/41a0eedb-c435-479d-aa63-a89ad81daf01|url-status=live}}</ref>]]
By the second half of the 17th century philosophers on the European continent like [[Biography:Baruch Spinoza|Baruch Spinoza]] and [[Biography:Pierre Bayle|Pierre Bayle]] developed ideas encompassing a more universal aspect freedom of speech and toleration than the early English philosophers.<ref name="jonathanisrael" /> By the 18th century the idea of freedom of speech was being discussed by thinkers all over the Western world, especially by French [[Philosophy:Philosophes|philosophes]] like [[Biography:Denis Diderot|Denis Diderot]], [[Biography:Baron d'Holbach|Baron d'Holbach]] and [[Biography:Claude Adrien Helvétius|Claude Adrien Helvétius]].<ref>{{cite book|author=Jonathan Israel|title=Enlightenment Contested|publisher= Oxford University Press|year= 2006|pages= 155ff, 781ff}}</ref> The idea began to be incorporated in political theory both in theory as well as practice; the first state edict in history proclaiming complete freedom of speech was the one issued 4 December 1770 in Denmark-Norway during the regency of Johann Friedrich Struensee.<ref>{{cite book|author=Jonathan Israel|title=A Revolution of the Mind|url=https://archive.org/details/revolutionmindra00isra|url-access=limited|publisher= Princeton University Press|year= 2010|page= [https://archive.org/details/revolutionmindra00isra/page/n93 76]|isbn=9780691142005}}</ref> However Struensee himself imposed some minor limitations to this edict on 7 October 1771, and it was even further limited after the fall of Struensee with legislation introduced in 1773, although censorship was not reintroduced.<ref>{{cite book|author=H. Arnold Barton|title=Scandinavia in the Revolutionary Era – 1760–1815|url=https://archive.org/details/scandinaviainrev0000bart|url-access=registration|publisher=University of Minnesota Press|year= 1986|pages= [https://archive.org/details/scandinaviainrev0000bart/page/90 90–91]|isbn=9780816613922}}</ref>

[[Biography:John Stuart Mill|John Stuart Mill]] (1806–1873) argued that without human freedom, there could be no progress in science, law, or politics, which according to Mill, required free discussion of opinion. Mill's ''On Liberty'', published in 1859, became a classic defence of the right to freedom of expression.<ref name="Sanders 2003 66" /> Mill argued that [[Truth|truth]] drives out falsity, therefore the free expression of ideas, true or false, should not be feared. Truth is not stable or fixed but evolves with time. Mill argued that much of what we once considered true has turned out false. Therefore, views should not be prohibited for their apparent falsity. Mill also argued that free discussion is necessary to prevent the "deep slumber of a decided opinion". Discussion would drive the march of truth, and by considering false views, the basis of true views could be re-affirmed.<ref>{{cite book| last = Sanders| first = Karen| title = Ethics & Journalism| publisher = Sage| year = 2003| page = 67| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=bnpliIUyO60C&q=Areopagitica+freedom+of+speech+britain| isbn = 978-0-7619-6967-9| access-date = 25 November 2018| archive-date = 15 February 2022| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220215023909/https://books.google.com/books?id=bnpliIUyO60C&dq=Areopagitica+freedom+of+speech+britain&as_brr=3| url-status = live}}</ref> Furthermore, Mill argued that an opinion only carries intrinsic value to the owner of that opinion, thus silencing the expression of that opinion is an injustice to a basic human right. It is generally held that for Mill, the only instance in which speech can be justifiably suppressed is to prevent harm from a clear and direct threat.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cohen-Almagor |first=Raphael |date=2017-06-06 |title=J.S. Mill's Boundaries of Freedom of Expression: A Critique |journal=Philosophy |volume=92 |issue=4 |pages=565–596 |doi=10.1017/s0031819117000213 |s2cid=149097425 |issn=0031-8191|doi-access=free }}</ref> Neither economic or moral implications nor the speaker's own well-being would justify suppression of speech.<ref>{{cite book| last = Warburton| first = Nigel| title = Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction| publisher = Oxford| year = 2009| pages = 24–29| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=nJ0uf50ZtzsC| isbn = 978-0-19-923235-2| access-date = 6 May 2020| archive-date = 15 August 2021| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210815224342/https://books.google.com/books?id=nJ0uf50ZtzsC| url-status = live}}</ref> However Mill in ''On Liberty'' suggests the speech of pimps — instigating clients and sex workers to have sex — should be restricted. This suggests he may be willing to restrict some speech that, while not harming others, undermines their decisional autonomy.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tunick |first=Mark |date=2022-08-22 |title=John Stuart Mill's Passage on Pimps and the Limits on Free Speech |journal=Utilitas |volume=34 |issue=4 |language=en |pages=392–408 |doi=10.1017/S0953820822000280 |s2cid=251760265 |issn=0953-8208|doi-access=free }}</ref>

In her 1906 biography of [[Biography:Voltaire|Voltaire]], Evelyn Beatrice Hall coined the following sentence to illustrate Voltaire's beliefs: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".<ref name="paulboller" /> Hall's quote is frequently cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.<ref name="paulboller">{{cite book | last=Boller | first=Paul F. Jr. |author2=George, John |title=They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions |year=1989 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=New York |pages=[https://archive.org/details/theyneversaiditb00boll/page/124 124–26] |isbn=0-19-505541-1 |url=https://archive.org/details/theyneversaiditb00boll/page/124 }}</ref> [[Biography:Noam Chomsky|Noam Chomsky]] stated, "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Dictators such as {{wipe|Joseph Stalin}} and Hitler, were in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise".<ref>{{cite AV media|title=Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media|year=1992|people= Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick}}</ref> Lee Bollinger argues that "the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint, the purpose of which is to develop and demonstrate a social capacity to control feelings evoked by a host of social encounters". Bollinger argues that [[Philosophy:Toleration|tolerance]] is a desirable value, if not essential. However, critics argue that society should be concerned by those who directly deny or advocate, for example, genocide (see limitations above).<ref>{{cite book|first=Lee C.|last=Bollinger|title=The Tolerant Society: Freedom of Speech and Extremist Speech in America|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=1986|isbn=0195040007|url=https://archive.org/details/tolerantsocietyf00boll}}</ref>

As chairman of the London-based PEN International, a club which defends freedom of expression and a free press, English author [[Biography:H. G. Wells|H. G. Wells]] met with Stalin in 1934 and was hopeful of reform in the Soviet Union. However, during their meeting in Moscow, Wells said, "the free expression of opinion—even of opposition opinion, I do not know if you are prepared yet for that much freedom here".<ref>{{cite book |title=Freedom of Speech in Russia: Politics and Media from Gorbachev to Putin |date=2016 |publisher=Taylor & Francis, 25 |page=142}}</ref>

[[File:Lady chatterley's lover 1959 US unexpurgated edition.jpg|thumb|upright|An "unexpurgated" edition of ''Lady Chatterley's Lover'' (1959)]]
The 1928 novel ''Lady Chatterley's Lover'' by D. H. Lawrence was banned for obscenity in several countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, and India. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, it was the subject of landmark court rulings that saw the ban for obscenity overturned. Dominic Sandbrook of ''The Telegraph'' in the UK wrote, "Now that public obscenity has become commonplace, it is hard to recapture the atmosphere of a society that saw fit to ban books such as ''Lady Chatterley's Lover'' because it was likely to 'deprave and corrupt' its readers".<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/8066784/Lady-Chatterley-trial-50-years-on.-The-filthy-book-that-set-us-free-and-fettered-us-forever.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220111/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/8066784/Lady-Chatterley-trial-50-years-on.-The-filthy-book-that-set-us-free-and-fettered-us-forever.html |archive-date=11 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |title= Lady Chatterley trial - 50 years on. The filthy book that set us free and fettered us forever |newspaper= The Telegraph |date=16 October 2010 |access-date=9 May 2018 |author= Sandbrook, Dominic |quote= Though few then could have realised it, a tiny but unmistakeable line runs from the novel Lawrence wrote in the late 1920s to an international pornography industry today worth more than £26 billion a year. Now that public obscenity has become commonplace, it is hard to recapture the atmosphere of a society that saw fit to ban books such as Lady Chatterley's Lover because it was likely to "deprave and corrupt" its readers. Although only half a century separates us from Harold Macmillan's Britain, the world of 1960 can easily seem like ancient history. In a Britain when men still wore heavy grey suits, working women were still relatively rare and the Empire was still, just, a going concern, D H Lawrence's book was merely one of many banned because of its threat to public morality.}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Fred Kaplan of ''{{wipe|The New York Times}}'' stated the overturning of the obscenity laws "set off an explosion of free speech" in the U.S.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/opinion/21kaplan.html |title= The Day Obscenity Became Art |newspaper= The New York Times |date= 20 July 2009 |access-date= 9 May 2018 |author= Kaplan, Fred |quote= TODAY is the 50th anniversary of the court ruling that overturned America's obscenity laws, setting off an explosion of free speech — and also, in retrospect, splashing cold water on the idea, much discussed during Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court confirmation hearings, that judges are "umpires" rather than agents of social change. |archive-date= 13 June 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180613160904/https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/opinion/21kaplan.html |url-status= live }}</ref> The 1960s also saw the Free Speech Movement, a massive long-lasting student protest on the campus of the [[Organization:University of California, Berkeley|University of California, Berkeley]], during the 1964–65 academic year.<ref>* {{cite web|url=http://fsm.berkeley.edu/|title=Berkeley FSM {{!}} Free Speech Movement 50th Anniversary|website=fsm.berkeley.edu|ref=0|access-date=2019-05-17|archive-date=8 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170808121625/http://fsm.berkeley.edu/|url-status=live}}</ref>

In contrast to Anglophone nations, France was a haven for literary freedom.<ref name="Beat censors">{{cite news |title=Dirty books and literary freedom: The Lady Chatterley publisher who beat the censors |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/25GtYStZ3wsmZHBt6BCP51p/dirty-books-and-literary-freedom-the-lady-chatterley-publisher-who-beat-the-censors |access-date=17 November 2021 |agency=BBC |archive-date=17 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211117185434/https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/25GtYStZ3wsmZHBt6BCP51p/dirty-books-and-literary-freedom-the-lady-chatterley-publisher-who-beat-the-censors |url-status=live }}</ref> The innate French regard for the mind meant that France was disinclined to punish literary figures for their writing, and prosecutions were rare.<ref name="Beat censors"/> While it was prohibited everywhere else, [[Biography:James Joyce|James Joyce]]'s ''Ulysses'' was published in Paris in 1922. [[Biography:Henry Miller|Henry Miller]]'s 1934 novel ''Tropic of Cancer'' (banned in the U.S. until 1963) and Lawrence's ''Lady Chatterley's Lover'' were published in France decades before they were available in the respective authors' home countries.<ref name="Beat censors"/>

In 1964 comedian [[Biography:Lenny Bruce|Lenny Bruce]] was arrested in the U.S. due to complaints again about his use of various obscenities. A three-judge panel presided over his widely publicized six-month trial. He was found guilty of obscenity in November 1964. He was sentenced on 21 December 1964, to four months in a workhouse.<ref>{{cite news |title=Lenny Bruce Gets 4 Months In Jail |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1964/12/22/archives/lenny-bruce-gets-4-months-in-jail.html |access-date=13 December 2020 |newspaper=The New York Times |date=22 December 1964 |archive-date=25 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210125205123/https://www.nytimes.com/1964/12/22/archives/lenny-bruce-gets-4-months-in-jail.html |url-status=live }}</ref> He was set free on bail during the [[Social:Appeal|appeal]]s process and died before the appeal was decided. On 23 December 2003, thirty-seven years after Bruce's death, New York Governor George Pataki granted him a posthumous [[Social:Pardon|pardon]] for his obscenity conviction.<ref>Minnis, Glenn [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/entertainment/main590005.shtml "Lenny Bruce Pardoned"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121020091031/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/entertainment/main590005.shtml |date=20 October 2012 }}, CBS News/Associated Press, 23 December 2003. Retrieved 8 September 2019</ref>

In the United States, the right to freedom of expression has been interpreted to include the right to take and publish photographs of strangers in public areas without their permission or knowledge.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.newseuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-the-press/photography-first-amendment/ |title= Photography & First Amendment |last= Kenworthy |first= Bill |date= April 2012 |website= Newseum Institute |access-date= 5 April 2018 |archive-date= 2 July 2019 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20190702231811/http://www.newseuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-the-press/photography-first-amendment |url-status= live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/photographers-rights | title=Photographers' Rights | publisher=American Civil Liberties Union | access-date=9 May 2018 | work=aclu.org | quote=Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right—and that includes transportation facilities, the outside of federal buildings, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties. Unfortunately, law enforcement officers have been known to ask people to stop taking photographs of public places. Those who fail to comply have sometimes been harassed, detained, and arrested. Other people have ended up in FBI databases for taking innocuous photographs of public places. | archive-date=9 May 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180509173438/https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/photographers-rights | url-status=live }}</ref> This is not the case worldwide.

===Offences===
[[File:Lese-majeste.svg|thumb|400px|A map of nations which have Lèse-majesté laws as of September 2022]] 
In some countries, people are not allowed to talk about certain things such as Lèse-majesté which is an offence against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state. Doing so constitutes an offence. For example, Saudi Arabia is responsible for executing journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. As he entered the Saudi embassy in Turkey, a team of Saudi assassins killed him.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/jamal-khashoggi-what-the-arab-world-needs-most-is-free-expression/2018/10/17/adfc8c44-d21d-11e8-8c22-fa2ef74bd6d6_story.html |title=Opinion &#124; Jamal Khashoggi: What the Arab world needs most is free expression |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=2018-10-17 |accessdate=2022-02-15 |archive-date=20 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181020001008/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/jamal-khashoggi-what-the-arab-world-needs-most-is-free-expression/2018/10/17/adfc8c44-d21d-11e8-8c22-fa2ef74bd6d6_story.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Another Saudi writer, Raif Badawi, was arrested in 2012 and lashed.<ref>{{cite web|url = https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/17/raif-badawi-saudi-blogger-lashes-prison-ensaf-haidar|title = The first 50 lashes: A Saudi activist's wife endures her husband's brutal sentence|website = TheGuardian.com|date = 17 May 2016|access-date = 30 December 2021|archive-date = 30 December 2021|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20211230083031/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/17/raif-badawi-saudi-blogger-lashes-prison-ensaf-haidar|url-status = live}}</ref>

On 4 March 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law a bill introducing prison sentences of up to 15 years for spreading "fake news" about Russia's military operation in Ukraine.<ref>{{cite news |title=Russia Jails Anti-War Journalist 6 Years for 'Fake News' |url=https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/02/15/russia-jails-anti-war-journalist-6-years-for-fake-news-a80230 |work=The Moscow Times |date=15 February 2023}}</ref> As of December 2022, more than 4,000 Russians were prosecuted under "fake news" laws.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Weir |first1=Fred |title=In Russia, critiquing the Ukraine war could land you in prison |url=https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2022/1205/In-Russia-critiquing-the-Ukraine-war-could-land-you-in-prison |work=CSMonitor.com |date=5 December 2022}}</ref> The 1993 Russian Constitution expressly prohibits censorship in Article 29 of Chapter 2, Rights and Liberties of Man and Citizen.<ref>{{cite news |title=Constitution of the Russian Federation |url=https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b59f4.html |publisher=National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities |date=25 December 1993}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Top Russian Journalist Defiant in Face of Fake News Investigation |url=https://www.voanews.com/a/top-russian-journalist-defiant-in-face-of-fake-news-investigation-/6497836.html |work=VOA News |date=23 March 2022}}</ref>

== See also ==
{{div col |colwidth=25em}}
* [[Social:Academic freedom|Academic freedom]]
* Artistic freedom
* [[Social:Cancel culture|Cancel culture]]
* [[Social:Civic engagement|Civic engagement]]
* [[Social:Civil and political rights|Civil and political rights]]
* [[Digital rights]]
* [[Social:Election silence|Election silence]]
* [[Religion:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day|Everybody Draw Mohammed Day]]
* Forced or compelled speech
* Free speech fights
* [[Philosophy:Freedom of thought|Freedom of thought]]
* Glasnost
* [[Organization:Global Network Initiative|Global Network Initiative]]
* [[Social:Hate speech|Hate speech]]
* Heckler's veto
* IFEX (organization)
* [[Illegal number]]
* Investigative journalism
* Je suis Charlie
* [[Religion:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy|Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]]
* Jamal Khashoggi
* Legality of Holocaust denial
* Post–World War II legality of Nazi flags
** Strafgesetzbuch section 86a
** Verbotsgesetz 1947
* Bans on communist symbols
* Lolicon/Shotacon
** Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors
** Simulated child pornography
* [[Social:Market for loyalties theory|Market for loyalties theory]]
* [[Social:Media transparency|Media transparency]]
* No Platform
* [[Social:Open court principle|Open court principle]]
* [[Paradox of tolerance]]
* Parrhesia
* Photography Is Not a Crime
* [[Pirate Party]]
* [[Social:Political correctness|Political correctness]]
* [[Philosophy:Rights|Rights]]
* Safety of journalists
* [[Social:Social capital|Social capital]]
* ''Stanley v. Georgia''
* Symbolic speech
* [[Social:Victimless crime|Victimless crime]]

{{div col end}}

== References ==
{{Reflist |refs=
<ref name="Mill 1859 1-5">{{cite book |title=On Liberty |last=Mill |first=John Stuart |date=1859 |publication-date=1869 |location=London |publisher=Longman, Roberts & Green |edition=4th |at=para. 5 |url=http://www.bartleby.com/130/ |chapter=Introductory |chapter-url=http://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html |quote="Society can and does execute its own mandates ... it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough..." |access-date=8 September 2016 |archive-date=14 November 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191114084235/https://www.bartleby.com/130/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
<ref name="Mill 1859 2-19">{{cite book |title=On Liberty |last=Mill |first=John Stuart |date=1859 |publication-date=1869 |location=London |publisher=Longman, Roberts & Green |edition=4th |at=para. 19 |url=http://www.bartleby.com/130/ |chapter=Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion |chapter-url=http://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html |quote="In respect to all persons but those whose pecuniary circumstances make them independent of the good will of other people, opinion, on this subject, is as efficacious as law; men might as well be imprisoned, as excluded from the means of earning their bread." |access-date=8 September 2016 |archive-date=14 November 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191114084235/https://www.bartleby.com/130/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
<ref name="Ten Cate 2010">{{cite journal |last=Ten Cate |first=Irene M. |date=2010 |title=Speech, Truth, and Freedom: An Examination of John Stuart Mill's and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's Free Speech Defenses |url=http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlh/vol22/iss1/2 |journal=Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities |volume=22 |issue=1 |at=Article 2 |quote="[A] central argument for freedom of speech in On Liberty is that in order to maximize the benefits a society can gain ... it must permanently commit to restraining dominant groups from their natural inclination to demand conformity." |access-date=8 September 2016 |archive-date=24 September 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160924083057/http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlh/vol22/iss1/2/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
<ref name="Wragg 2015">{{cite journal |last=Wragg |first=Paul |date=2015 |title=Free Speech Rights at Work: Resolving the Differences between Practice and Liberal Principle |journal=Industrial Law Journal |publisher=Oxford University Press |volume=44 |issue=1 |page=11 |doi=10.1093/indlaw/dwu031 |quote="Comparison may be made between Mill's 'tyrannical majority' and the employer who dismisses an employee for expression that it dislikes on moral grounds. The protection of employer action in these circumstances evokes Mill's concern about state tolerance of coercive means to ensure conformity with orthodox moral viewpoints and so nullify unorthodox ones."}}</ref>
}}

== Further reading ==
* {{cite book|last=Curtis|first=Michael Kent|title=Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege": Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History|year=2000|publisher=Duke University Press|isbn=0822325292}}
* {{cite book |last=Doomen |first=Jasper |title=Freedom and Equality in a Liberal Democratic State |publisher=Bruylant |year=2014 |isbn=9782802746232}}
* {{cite book |last = Godwin |first = Mike |year = 2003 |title = [[Cyber Rights|Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age]] |publisher = MIT Press|isbn = 0262571684}}
* {{cite book|last=Grossman|first=Wendy M.|year=1997|title=[[Net.wars]]|publisher=New York University Press|isbn=0814731031}}
* {{cite encyclopedia |last=Kors |first= Alan Charles |editor-first=Ronald |editor-last=Hamowy |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism |chapter=Freedom of Speech |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC |year=2008 |publisher= [[Company:SAGE Publishing|SAGE]]; [[Organization:Cato Institute|Cato Institute]] |location= Thousand Oaks, CA |doi=10.4135/9781412965811.n112 |isbn= 978-1-4129-6580-4 |oclc=750831024|lccn = 2008009151 |pages= 182–85 }}
* {{cite book|title=Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment|first=Anthony|last=Lewis|year=2007|isbn= 9780465039173|oclc=494134545|publisher=Basic Books}}
* {{cite book|first=Kembrew|last=McLeod|others=[[Biography:Lawrence Lessig|Lawrence Lessig]] (foreword)|title=Freedom of Expression: Resistance and Repression in the Age of Intellectual Property|publisher=University of Minnesota Press|year=2007|isbn=978-0816650316}}
* {{cite book|last=Nelson |first=Samuel P. |title=Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism |publisher=The Johns Hopkins University Press |year=2005 |isbn=0801881730}}
* {{cite book|last=Semeraro |first=Pietro|title=L'esercizio di un diritto |publisher= Giuffre Milano|year=2009}}
* Shaw, Caroline. "Freedom of expression and the palladium of British liberties, 1650–2000: A review essay". ''History Compass'' (Oct 2020). Online.
* Minorities, Free Speech and the Internet. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2023.
* [[Biography:Jean Bricmont|Jean Bricmont]] (2014), ''La république des censeurs'', L'Herne, 176p.

== External links ==
<!-- {{No more links}} Please be cautious adding more external links. Wikipedia is not a collection of links and should not be used for advertising. Excessive or inappropriate links will be removed. See Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam for details. If there are already suitable links, propose additions or replacements on the article's talk page, or submit your link to the relevant category at the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org) and link there using {{Dmoz}}.
-->
* {{SEP|freedom-speech|Freedom of Speech|Jeffrey Howard}}
* [http://www.article19.org Article19.org] – global campaign for free expression
* [http://freespeechdebate.com Free Speech Debate] – a research project of the Dahrendorf Programme for the Study of Freedom at St Antony's College in the University of Oxford
* [http://www.indexoncensorship.org Index on Censorship] – an international organisation that promotes and defends the right to freedom of expression
* [http://akademie.dw.de/navigator Media Freedom Navigator: Media Freedom Indices at a Glance], Deutsche Welle Akademie
* [http://www.oas.org/OASpage/humanrights.htm Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression], Organization of American States

{{Particular human rights}}
{{Media culture}}
{{Internet censorship}}
{{Western culture}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Freedom Of Speech}}
[[Category:Philosophy of law]]
[[Category:Political philosophy]]

{{Sourceattribution|Freedom of speech}}