Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Freedom of speech" in English language version.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)The freedom of speech does not extend to include defaming the prophet of Islam, the European Court of Human rights ruled Thursday.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)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...
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.
[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.
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.
The freedom of speech does not extend to include defaming the prophet of Islam, the European Court of Human rights ruled Thursday.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.