Talk:Freedom of speech

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elizatangen98. Peer reviewers: Cristalg827, Lmaness3, Amhumphr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Is freedom of speech is insulting other faiths and attitudes?
The definition of freedom of speech is one's expression of his/her own ideas opinion and stereotypes. But it doesn't mean insulting other faiths and attitudes. Western people hold the concept with insulting or attacking faiths and religion - this is called their freedom of expression because they prioritized their freedom/liberty. Misconception in freedom of speech in most developed country is to insult and contempt other religion and faiths while maintaining their liberty, freethought rather not getting in critique. See religious intolerance. The Supermind (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What suggestions do you have for improving the article? Your personal opinion of the definition of "free speech" is not of interest to Wikipedia. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems unwanted question about this Wikipedia page, but I had noticed little misinterpretation of freedom of speech from different medium, such as journals. So I suggested Wikipedia must continue with neutral definition of freedom of speech with sourced highlights and every source should be examined per statement insertion in order to detect personal opinion. The Supermind (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. You are Wikipedia, after all. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 21:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that the underlying point is addressed by noting that freedom of speech is not an absolute right. "Free expression" includes letting anti-religious bigots communicate that they are, indeed, bigots, but there are some limits.  There is a "freedom to self-identify as a bigot" but not a "freedom to impugn other people's reputations".
 * We might also need to explain that there is no "freedom from consequences": If someone says he's a bigot, then people are entitled to treat him as a person who holds the opinions that he professed.  Or, in a more mundane example, when kids use inappropriate language within the hearing of their adults, the freedom of speech is not harmed if the result is writing lines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It would probably be better to say that while freedom of speech does in fact mean freedom from consequences like censorship, retaliation, and sanction, the legal protections of that freedom are typically narrow.
 * For example, in the United States, freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution. However that amendment generally only applies to governments and government institutions. It typically doesn't apply to private entities like forums, businesses, and individual citizens who aren't acting on behalf of the government.
 * With that in mind, freedom of speech (as a principle) does cover hate speech and insults, but private entities aren't required to respect your freedom. So (in the US) you can insult the government and the government cannot impose consequences, but if you insult a person, they can censor, retaliate, and sanction you as long as it doesn't violate some other law. If you go door to door to solicit or proselytize, the home owners can slam the door in your face or shout over you. If you go to someone's house and insult a member of the family, you can be asked to leave. If you argue with your boss, they can fire you. If you break a forum's rules, they can delete your comment/post or suspend or even ban your account. These entities can do all of this because they're not part of the government or it's institutions, so they're not bound by the first amendment.
 * So despite freedom of speech itself being "absolute", it simply isn't protected in most cases. Or if you prefer, you can say that you "don't have freedom of speech" or "don't have a right to freedom of speech" in the contexts I mentioned above.
 * So the answer to the question above is "yes", but there are some gigantic caveats. TalenPhillips (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Insulting other religions is within the limits of free speech, you can't criticise without risking offense, that is basic logic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.165.105.11 (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Free speech absolutism(or nigh absolutism)
I suggest adding a section about this, when I say nigh absolutism, I mean it in the sense that you can nullify it with things such as contracts(for all practical purposes absolute). Quite a few people take this into the extreme, including Chomsky(whom I consider a genocide denier), myself, and a few others, to explain what I mean by extremes, I condemn the Charlie Hebdo massacre as an affront to free speech, but also the imprisonment of "apologists for terrorism" as an insult to the same principles we use to condemn the terrorists(if you want to find the "apologists for terrorism" look at the article for the Charlie Hebdo massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.165.105.11 (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"Offenses" sub-section
The "Offenses" sub-section seems rather out of place. It is tacked on to the end of the "History of dissent and truth" section, but doesn't seem to flow from there. It appears to be mostly about offenses such as Lèse-majesté, but focuses on the killing of Jamal Khashoggi (who, to my knowledge, was never convicted or charged with any such offense, but just murdered because he had upset the Saudi regime). Iapetus (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Communication Studies - 2
— Assignment last updated by CommDocBDS (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

freedom of speech within the private sector
Any thoughts on whether a new section is needed, about freedom of speech within the private sector as for example here:

Freedom of speech in the United States

DTMGO (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)