freedom of speech: Definition from Answers.com

Top

The modern American conception of freedom of speech derives from the principles of freedom of the press (mainly in the context of political criticism) and freedom of religion as they developed in England, starting in the seventeenth century. The arguments of John Milton and others on the importance of an unlicensed press, and of John Locke and others on religious toleration, were the precursors to the idea of freedom of speech, although also relevant is the much narrower concept of "freedom of speech" as an immunity for prosecution for anything said in the course of parliamentary debate.

By 1791, when the First Amendment was ratified, the idea of "freedom of speech" was sufficiently entrenched that it became the primary language of the amendment, with "freedom of the press" being added to ensure that written and printed as well as oral communication was protected: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Still, the focus both in law and in political discussion at the time was on printed political argument, whether in newspapers or the kinds of tracts distributed by men like Thomas Paine.

The period from 1791 to the early twentieth century saw almost complete judicial noninvolvement in free speech and free press questions, and public discussion was devoted largely to free press rather than free speech ideas. But when the Supreme Court actively began in 1919 to concern itself with judicial enforcement of the First Amendment, it was in the context not of newspapers or magazines or books but of speakers, or occasionally pamphleteers, who were protesting American involvement in the First World War or promoting anarchist, socialist, or syndicalist causes. Although the convictions were upheld and the speakers imprisoned in cases involving the now-forgotten figures Charles T. Schenck, Jacob Abrams, and Jacob Frohwerk, as well as prominent ones such as Eugene V. Debs, the Supreme Court's language in those cases has had an enduring effect. In upholding the convictions of Schenck, Frohwerk, and Debs, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., enunciated the principle of the "clear and present danger," according to which, to justify regulation, the harms resulting from speech had to be greater in likelihood and immediacy than harms of other varieties. And in dissenting from the conviction of Abrams, Holmes developed the notion of the "marketplace of ideas," which has dominated public understanding of the importance of freedom of speech.

The development of freedom of speech for the next forty years was also dominated by Supreme Court protection of largely oral and frequently socially marginal communicators, of whom the most important were the Jehovah's Witnesses. In case after case in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, they challenged restrictions on their proselytizing activities and won in the Supreme Court and in the lower courts with sufficient frequency that their victories established in legal doctrine and public consciousness the principle that even annoying, intrusive, and offensive speech is to be protected by the courts and tolerated by the public as incidental to an open society.

Contemporary understandings of freedom of speech, however, owe even more to developments in the 1960s, during which first civil rights protesters and then objectors to the Vietnam War found the courts upholding their activities against governmental efforts to restrict them. Increased public acceptance of such activities followed. In this respect, the modern protection of freedom of speech is partly fortuitous, for the protection of civil rights demonstrators, paraders, and picketers in the 1960s was largely an adjunct to judicial protection of the civil rights movement generally. Nevertheless, the First Amendment principles developed to further the civil rights movement remained in place to be used for other speakers promoting other causes.

The most important manifestation of this transfer started in the late 1960s, when the Supreme Court with some consistency recognized the right of speakers in the "public forum" to articulate ideas that not only were in opposition to established military and political authority but also were highly likely to offend unwilling listeners or viewers. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Court protected with some frequency those who desecrated the American flag, who displayed offensive language, such as obscene words on an article of clothing, and who conveyed messages often as likely to be harmful as they were offensive. Operating on the assumption that underregulation of even harmful speech was the only way in an imperfect world to protect against the overregulation of harmless speech, the Court went from the protection of Vietnam protesters to the protection of the speech of groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Indeed, it was the Klan case of Brandenburg v. Ohio that in 1969 established the current extraordinarily strict understanding of the Holmesian idea of "clear and present danger." Speech leading to violence or other unlawful activities can be restricted only if the ensuing lawless activity is likely to be "imminent" and even then only if the speaker has explicitly urged that activity. By 1977 it was considered an "easy case" when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting in Chicago, upheld the right of the American Nazi party to march in a community (Skokie, Illinois) heavily populated by Holocaust survivors, a decision the Supreme Court refused to review.

Legal doctrine has not always translated into public understanding or freedom in fact, but here the result of a large number of Supreme Court cases protecting even harmful and offensive speech in the public forum, and narrowing to virtual disappearance the legal definition of "obscenity," has created an environment in which the presence of unpleasant speech is tak- en for granted by most of the public, whether they agree with that state of affairs or not. There will, of course, continue to be disputes about the actual boundaries of this very broad principle, but the legacy of the Jehovah's Witnesses, of the civil rights movement, and of the Vietnam protesters is one that is unlikely to be very much narrowed, in large part because the legacy of the red scare of 1919 and the McCarthy era of the late 1940s and early 1950s is one whose avoidance also influences current understanding.

Bibliography:

Harry Kalven, Jr., A Worthy Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America (1988); Richard Polenberg, Fighting Faiths: The Abrams Case, the Supreme Court, and Free Speech (1987).

Author:

Frederick Schauer

Wikipedia: Freedom of speech

Top

For freedom of speech in specific jurisdictions, see Freedom of speech by country.

For other uses, see Freedom of speech (disambiguation).

Concepts
Freedom
Freedom · Liberty Negative liberty Positive liberty Rights
Freedom by area
Civil · Economic Intellectual · Political
Freedoms
Assembly Association Movement Press Religion Speech Information Thought


Part of a series on
Censorship

By media
Banned books Banned films · Re-edited film Internet · Music · Press Speech and expression Video games
Methods
Book burning · Bleeping Broadcast delay Content-control software Expurgation · Gag order Pixelization · Postal Prior restraint Self-censorship Whitewashing Chilling effect Conspiracy of silence Verbal offence
Contexts
Corporate · Political Religious Criminal speech · Hate speech
By country
Censorship Freedom of speech
v • d • e

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to denote not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are closely related to, yet distinct from, the concept of freedom of thought. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".

The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".^[1]^[2] Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional human rights law.

1 The right to freedom of speech and expression
- 1.1 Relationship to other rights
2 Origins and academic freedom
3 Freedom of speech and truth
4 Freedom of speech and tolerance
5 Democracy
6 Social interaction and community
7 Limitations on freedom of speech
8 The Internet
- 8.1 Freedom of information
- 8.2 Internet censorship
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links

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 the British Magna Carta (1215) and The Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789), a key document of the French Revolution.^[4] 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]

Relationship to other rights

The right to freedom of speech is closely related to other rights, and may be limited when conflicting with other rights (see Limitations on freedom of speech). The right to freedom of speech is particularly important for media, which plays a special role as the bearer of the general right to freedom of expression for all (see freedom of the press).^[3]

Origins and academic freedom

Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments. Ancient Athenians believed that the power of persuasion is the most enduring force in a culture, one that must not and can not be stifled.^[5] It is thought that ancient Athens’ democratic ideology of free speech emerged in the later 6th or early 7th Century BC.^[6] In Islamic ethics freedom of speech was first declared in the Rashidun period by the caliph Umar in the 7th century.^[7] In the Abbasid Caliphate period, freedom of speech was also declared by al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph al-Ma'mun) in a letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to convert through reason.^[8] According to George Makdisi and Hugh Goddard, "the idea of academic freedom" in universities was "modelled on Islamic custom" as practiced in the medieval Madrasah system from the 9th century. Islamic influence was "certainly discernible in the foundation of the first deliberately-planned university" in Europe, the University of Naples Federico II founded by Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor in 1224.^[9]

Freedom of speech and truth

First page of the 1644 edition of Areopagitica

One of the earliest Western defences of freedom of expression is Areopagitica (1644) by the 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: 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.^[10]

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."^[11] An often cited quote that describes the principle of freedom of speech comes from Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often mis-attributed to Voltaire) "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs.^[12]

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).^[13]

Democracy

One of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and democracy is Alexander Meiklejohn. He argues 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 are able to 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.^[14] Eric Barendt has called the 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".^[15]

Thomas I. Emerson expanded on this defence when he argued that freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between stability and change. Freedom of speech acts as a "safety valve" to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on revolution. He argues that "The principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a moral 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."^[16]

Research undertaken by the Worldwide Governance Indicators project at the World Bank, indicates that freedom of speech, and the process of accountability that follows it, have a significant impact in the quality of 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 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.^[17]

Social interaction and community

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."^[18]

Limitations on freedom of speech

A National Geographic Magazine censored by Iranian authorities. The picture hidden beneath the white sticker is of an embracing couple.^[19] February 2006.

For specific country examples see Freedom of speech by country, and Criminal 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.^[20] Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech".^[21] Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction and/or social disapprobation.^[22]

Members of Westboro Baptist Church have been specifically banned from entering Canada for hate speech.^[23]

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."^[22] 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.^[22]

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."^[24] 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.^[24] In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle.^[22] 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.^[22]

The Internet

International, national and regional standards recognise that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the Internet.^[3]

Freedom of information

Main article: freedom of information

Jo Glanville, editor of the Index on Censorship, states that "the Internet has been a revolution for censorship as much as for free speech". ^[25] 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 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.^[26] Freedom of information may also concern censorship in an information technology context, i.e. the ability to access Web content, without censorship or restrictions.^{[citation needed]}

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 reaffirms democracy and the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Declaration also makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the "Information Society" in stating:

"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. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers."^[27]

The Internet opens new possibilities for exercising freedom of speech. The pseudonymity of the Internet allows people to communicate. Data havens (such as Freenet) and gripe sites allow free speech by guaranteeing that material cannot be removed (censored).^{[citation needed]}

Internet censorship

Main article: Internet censorship

Main article: Internet censorship in mainland China

The concept of freedom of information has emerged in response to state sponsored censorship, monitoring and surveillance of the internet. Internet censorship includes the control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet.^{[citation needed]} The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an organization dedicated to protecting freedom of speech on the Internet. The Open Net Initiative (ONI) is a collaboration between the Citizen Lab at the Munk Centre for International Studies, the University of Toronto, the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, the Advanced Network Research Group at the Cambridge Security Programme (University of Cambridge), and the Oxford Internet Institute, at Oxford University which aims to investigate, expose, and analyze Internet filtering and surveillance practices in a credible and non-partisan fashion.^{[citation needed]} Groups such as the Global Internet Freedom Consortium advocate for freedom of information for what they term "closed societies".^[28]

According to the Reporters without Borders (RSF) "internet enemy list" the following states engage in pervasive internet censorship: China, Cuba, Iran, Maldives, Myanmar/Burma, North Korea, Syria, Tunisia, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.^[29]

A widely publicised example is the "Great Firewall of China" (in reference both to its role as a network firewall and to the ancient Great Wall of China). The system blocks content by preventing IP addresses from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and proxy servers at the Internet 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.^[30] Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. In accordance with these laws, more than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the People's Republic of China (PRC) government, and censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.^[31]^[32]

References

^ OHCHR
^ Using Courts to Enforce the Free Speech Provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights | Australia & Oceania > Australia & New Zealand from All Business...
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Andrew Puddephatt, Freedom of Expression, The essentials of Human Rights, Hodder Arnold, 2005, pg.128
^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/05/religion.news
^ Murphy, James; Katula, Richard (2003), A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric, Lawrence Erlbaum, p. 18, ISBN 1880393352
^ Raaflaub, Kurt; Ober, Josiah; Wallace, Robert (2007), Origins of democracy in ancient Greece, University of California Press, p. 65, ISBN 0520245628
^ Boisard, Marcel A. (July 1980), "On the Probable Influence of Islam on Western Public and International Law", International Journal of Middle East Studies 11 (4): 429–50
^ Ahmad, I. A. (June 3, 2002), "The Rise and Fall of Islamic Science: The Calendar as a Case Study" (PDF), “Faith and Reason: Convergence and Complementarity”, Al-Akhawayn University, http://images.agustianwar.multiply.com/attachment/0/RxbYbQoKCr4AAD@kzFY1/IslamicCalendar-A-Case-Study.pdf, retrieved on 2008-01-31
^ Goddard, Hugh (2000), A History of Christian-Muslim Relations, Edinburgh University Press, p. 100, ISBN 074861009X
^ Andrew Puddephatt, Freedom of Expression, The essentials of Human Rights, Hodder Arnold, 2005, pg.127
^ Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, 1992
^ Boller, Jr., Paul F.; George, John (1989). They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 124–126. ISBN 0-19-505541-1.
^ Lee Bollinger, The Tolerant Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988
^ Marlin, Randal (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press. pp. 226–227. ISBN 1551113767 978-1551113760. http://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&pg=PA226&dq=%22free+speech%22+democracy&lr=#PPA229,M1.
^ Marlin, Randal (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press. p. 226. ISBN 1551113767 978-1551113760. http://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&pg=PA226&dq=%22free+speech%22+democracy&lr=#PPA229,M1.
^ Marlin, Randal (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press. pp. 228–229. ISBN 1551113767 978-1551113760. http://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&pg=PA226&dq=%22free+speech%22+democracy&lr=#PPA229,M1.
^ http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi2007/pdf/booklet_decade_of_measuring_governance.pdf A Decade of Measuring the Quality of Governance
^ Marlin, Randal (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press. p. 229. ISBN 1551113767 978-1551113760. http://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&pg=PA226&dq=%22free+speech%22+democracy&lr=#PPA229,M1.
^ Lundqvist, J.. "More pictures of Iranian Censorship". http://jturn.qem.se/2006/more-pictures-of-iranian-censorship/. Retrieved on August 2007-01-21.
^ When May Speech Be Limited?
^ Freedom of Speech (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Freedom of Speech
^ Church members enter Canada, aiming to picket bus victim's funeral
^ ^a ^b Philosophy of Law
^ Glanville, Jo (17 November 2008). "The big business of net censorship". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/17/censorship-internet.
^ Protecting Free Expression Online with Freenet - Internet Computing, IEEE
^ Klang, Mathias; Murray, Andrew (2005). "Human Rights in the Digital Age". Routledge. 1. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=USksfqPjwhUC&dq=%22digital+rights%22+human+rights&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0.
^ "Mission". Global Internet Freedom Consortium. http://www.internetfreedom.org/mission. Retrieved on 2008-07-29.
^ List of the 13 Internet enemies RSF, 2006 November
^ "War of the words". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,1713317,00.html.
^ "II. How Censorship Works in China: A Brief Overview". Human Rights Watch. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/3.htm. Retrieved on 2006-08-30.
^ Chinese Laws and Regulations Regarding Internet

External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Freedom of speech

Freedom of Speech Is It Being Abused?
Speaking Out for Free Expression: 1987-2007 and Beyond
Timeline: a history of free speech
UN-Resolution 217 A III - (Meinungsfreiheit.org)
ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression
The journalist fired for calling Bush a coward after 9/11
Banned Magazine, the journal of censorship and secrecy.
International Freedom of Expression Exchange
Index on Censorship
irrepressible.info - Amnesty International's campaign against internet repression
Organization of American States - Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe - Representative on Freedom of the Media
African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights - Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression in Africa
Freedom of Speech Is It Being Abused?
UNESCO - Programme on Freedom of Expression
FREEMUSE - Freedom of Musical Expression
Ringmar, Erik A Blogger's Manifesto: Free Speech and Censorship in the Age of the Internet (London: Anthem Press, 2007)
The BOBs - weblog award promoting freedom of speech
UN undermines freedom of expression, rapporteur to nail anti-Islamic speech
The Expressionist: India's track record
Worldwide Governance Indicators Worldwide ratings of country performances on Voice and Accountability and other governance dimensions from 1996 to present.
Free Speech Links - weblog linked to A Very Short Introduction to Free Speech

Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

General principles

Article 1: Freedom, Egalitarianism, Dignity and Brotherhood Article 2: Universality of rights

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 1 and 2: Right to freedom from discrimination · Article 3: Right to life, liberty and security of person · Article 4: Freedom from slavery · Article 5: Freedom from torture and cruel and unusual punishment · Article 6: Right to personhood · Article 7: Equality before the law · Article 8: Right to effective remedy from the law · Article 9: Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention and exile · Article 10: Right to a fair trial · Article 11.1: Presumption of innocence · Article 11.2: Prohibition of retrospective law · Article 12: Right to privacy · Article 13: Freedom of movement · Article 14: Right of asylum · Article 15: Right to a nationality · Article 16: Right to marriage and family life · Article 17: Right to property · Article 18: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion · Article 19: Freedom of opinion and expression · Article 20.1: Freedom of assembly · Article 20.2: Freedom of association · Article 21.1: Right to participation in government · Article 21.2: Right of equal access to public office · Article 21.3: Right to universal suffrage

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Article 1 and 2: Right to freedom from discrimination · Article 22: Right to social security · Article 23.1: Right to work · Article 23.2: Right to equal pay for equal work · Article 23.3: Right to just remuneration · Article 23.4: Right to join a trade union · Article 24: Right to rest and leisure · Article 25.1: Right to an adequate standard of living · Article 25.2: Right to special care and assistance for mothers and children · Article 26.1: Right to education · Article 26.2: Human rights education · Article 26.3: Right to choice of education · Article 27.1: Right to participate in culture · Article 27.2: Right to intellectual property

Context, limitations and duties

Article 28: Social order · Article 29.1: Social responsibility · Article 29.2: Limitations of human rights · Article 29.3: The supremacy of the purposes and principles of the United Nations
Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Category:Human rights · Human rights portal

v • d • e Particular human rights

Civil and political	Freedom from discrimination · Right to life · Right to die · Security of person · Liberty · Freedom of movement · Freedom from slavery · Personhood · Right to bear arms · Equality before the law · Adequate remedy · Freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention · Freedom from torture · Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment · Right to a fair trial · Presumption of innocence · Right of asylum · Nationality · Freedom from exile · Privacy · Freedom of thought and conscience · Freedom of religion · Freedom of expression (freedom of information) · Freedom of assembly · Freedom of association · Right to protest · Universal suffrage · Marriage · Family life

Economic, social and cultural	Labor rights · Fair remuneration · Equal pay for equal work · Trade union membership · Right to social security · Leisure and rest · Right to work · Right to property (and intellectual) · Right to culture · Right to public participation · Right to education · Right to adequate standard of living · Right to housing · Right to development · Right to health · Right to healthcare · Right to water · Right to food · Right of return

Reproductive	Family planning · Reproductive health · Abortion · Freedom from involuntary female genital cutting

War and conflict	Civilian · Combatant · Freedom from genocide · Prisoner of war

Note: What is considered a human right is controversial and not all the topics listed are universally accepted as human rights.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Donate to Wikimedia

		Political Dictionary. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more
		Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more
		US History Companion. The Reader's Companion to American History, Eric Foner and John A. Garraty, Editors, published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more
		Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/ Read more
		Politics. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved. Read more
		Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Freedom of speech". Read more

	Ehrenburg, Ilya G. (Quotes By)
	Mckern, Leo (Quotes By)
	parrhesia

	Is freedom of speech freedom of press freedom of religion in the bill of rights? Read answer...
	What writer fought for tolerance reason freedom of religious belief and freedom of speech? Read answer...
	What document states that all Virginians have certain rights including freedom of religion and freedom of speech? Read answer...

	What of the following is not a freedom that was associated with the US constitution freedom of speech freedom of the press freedom of association freedom of housing freedom of religion?
	What is the value of the boxed set of 4 rockwell plates freedom of speech freedom from want freedom from fear and freedom of worship all are 1976 gorham edition?
	What limits exist on the freedom of the press freedom of speech and freedom to petition and assemble?

freedom of speech

Contents