|
|  |
| some supplements were deleted from this article, see policy | | | Freedom of speech by different philosophers | nn - 14.01.2010 01:03
Freedom of speech and truth
One of the earliest Western defences of freedom of expression is Areopagitica (1644) by English poet and political writer John Milton. Milton wrote in reaction to an attempt by the English republican parliament to prevent "seditious, unreliable, unreasonable and unlicensed pamphlets". Milton advanced a number of arguments in defence of freedom of speech. First, he argued that a nation's unity is created through blending individual differences rather than imposing homogeneity from above; that the ability to explore the fullest range of ideas on a given issue was essential to any learning process and truth cannot be arrived upon unless all points of view are first considered; and that by considering free thought, censorship acts to the detriment of material progress.
Milton also argued that if the facts are laid bare, truth will defeat falsehood in open competition, but this cannot be left for a single individual to determine. According to Milton, it is up to each individual to uncover their own truth; no one is wise enough to act as a censor for all individuals.[15]
Noam Chomsky states that: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators 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."[16]
In Evelyn Beatrice Hall's biography of Voltaire she used the following quote to illustrate Voltaire's believes: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."[17] The quote is frequently cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.[18]
Freedom of speech and tolerance
Professor 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 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 on freedom of speech).[19]
Limitations on freedom of speech
According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[26] Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech".[27] Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction and/or social disapprobation.[28]
In "On Liberty" (1859) 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."[28] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "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.[28]
In 1985 Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offence principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours of others. 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 offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end."[30] 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. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm.[30] In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle.[28] Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense 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 offense, and the general interest of the community at large.[28]
The right to freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized 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.[3]
The freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents, such as Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), a key document of the French Revolution.[4] The Declaration provides for freedom of expression in Article 11, which states that:
"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."[5]
Based on John Stuart Mill's arguments, freedom of speech today 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.[3]
International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression.[3]
| | Freedom of speech as freedom of information | nn - 14.01.2010 01:25
I think, you and me we have right to be inform about potential danger. People have right to be wrong and we have right to be inform about their stupidity.
For example, I prefer freedom of speech for my neighbour who has a shop where I make my grocery, because if he is xenophobic and part of a racist party of a group I will stop supporting him with my cash...or do something with his shop where he makes profit for his racist activities. Otherwise, if my neighbour can't express his political opinions, I am not able to be aware of the problem.
So what will do Antifa if racist (in other words wrong and stupid people) have not freedom of speech?
| | freedom of speech as right for information | nn - 14.01.2010 01:53
I think, you and me have right to be inform that someone is wrong or stupid.
For example, I prefer to be inform about stupidity or racism of my neighbour who has a shop where I make my grocery. If I know that he is xenohobic or part of a racist party, I will stop to spend my cash there..or do something with his shop ;-)
Otherwise, If he has not freedom of speech, I am not aware about his political opinions and by making my groceries at his shop I will support his racist activities.
So what Antifa will do, if those racist (in other words stupid and wrong people) have not right to say, what they think?
| | Wetenschap | NN - 14.01.2010 05:56
"Wetenschappers van de universiteit van Leiden en de Anne Frank Stichting concludeerden onlangs dat de PVV extreemrechts is."
Wat voor wetenschappers? Natuurkundigen? Economen? Molekulair Biologen?
| |
| supplements | |
E-Mail: 
Website: