Thursday, June 14, 2018
That is freedom of speech
Comment by Denis Rancourt
Vehemently arguing that someone should not utter certain words or express certain views does not violate freedom of speech. It presumes freedom of speech.
Campaigning and arguing in favour of censorship does not violate freedom of speech. It presumes freedom of speech.
Demonstrating to an institution or corporation that a speaker should be deplatformed does not violate freedom of speech. It presumes freedom of speech.
Cancelling one's own event because there is demonstration against the event, in circumstances where the event could have continued one way or another, is to deny one's own freedom of speech.
An institution or corporation that deplatforms (cancels) a scheduled speaker violates freedom of speech.
An institution or corporation that refuses or frustrates access to its venues because of partizan or social pressures violates freedom of speech.
Governments that have active laws (civil "defamation" tort, "hate speech" criminal code provisions, Human rights codes against expression, codes of language conduct...) against free speech violate freedom of speech.
Rules and laws that prescribe speech violate freedom of speech.
Rules and laws against "disturbing" expression violate freedom of speech.
Governments that have secrecy laws (e.g., so-called access to information statutes) and practices violate freedom of speech.
Governments, institutions and corporations that silence employees and observers by rule or intimidation or prosecution violate freedom of expression.
Judges that do not protect, extend and enforce the open court principle violate freedom of speech.
Media providers that sensor content violate freedom of expression.