Free speech: Difference between revisions
John Leach (talk | contribs) (removed claptrap) |
John Leach (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{PropDel}}<br><br>{{subpages}} | ||
{{ | |||
Even in liberal democracies, there are differing views of '''free speech'''. Nations with the greatest tradition still restrict things that are an immediate danger, as Justice [[Felix Frankfurter]] wrote in the unanimous opinion of the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] in the 1919 case, ''[[Schenck v. United States]]'', <blockquote>The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.<ref name=Schenck>Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919)</ref></blockquote> | Even in liberal democracies, there are differing views of '''free speech'''. Nations with the greatest tradition still restrict things that are an immediate danger, as Justice [[Felix Frankfurter]] wrote in the unanimous opinion of the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] in the 1919 case, ''[[Schenck v. United States]]'', <blockquote>The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.<ref name=Schenck>Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919)</ref></blockquote> | ||
==Freedom of thought== | ==Freedom of thought== |
Revision as of 08:39, 28 March 2024
This article may be deleted soon. | ||
---|---|---|
Freedom of thoughtArticle 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) does freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the right to change religions and to practice one's religion. This is not universally accepted, Based on the right of freedom of opinion, Article 19 state a right to transfer "information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Clear and present dangerUDHR Article 20 states a right of peaceful assembly and association. Violence, or threats of violence, are rarely if ever protected speech. Schenck v. United States further said,The 1942 Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire decision[2] affirmed the decision of the New Hampshire on a state law blocking what it called "fighting words" in a face-to-face situation: The Court later refined its definition, in Bradenburg v. Ohio (1969):
Political speechReferences |