free speech

It is important we do make a distinction between the right to free speech and the rights of others not to be abused, threatened or lied to. Constructive criticism and questioning play a positive role in our society. Hate does not.
The political terminology of left, right, extreme left, far right can be a minefield for anybody trying to make sense of their newspaper. Not only are the terms hard to pin down to a precise definition they are also used interchangeably and (often) wrongly, leading to widespread confusion.
If you clicked on this article hoping for a pithy Hopkinseqsue one liner that claims to solve the problem of terrorism in a soundbite then I am afraid you are out of luck. Terrorism in the modern age is more complex than a few buzz words can easily express. Activists, newspapers and politicians may try to sell the idea of a simple solution but the truth is that terrorism represents the evil in human nature and there is no simple solution to human nature.
As the final week of the UK election descends into yet more name calling and 'fake news', all under the patronage of free speech, one group of people is actively seeking to stop this muddy and ugly form of debate: parents! All over the world they are undermining our precious notion of free speech by actively opposing it.
The Chinese people have been wading through propaganda for decades.
Freedom From Religion Foundation claimed the order was unconstitutional government support for religions.
The Home Affairs Select Committee's latest enquiry into social media companies has highlighted how much further there is
This controversy only reveals our low levels of art literacy and the ever-shrinking space for free expression of unpopular ideas and offending speech.
The right to free speech has become a contested and contentious issue in the arena of anti-hate activism. The pro free speech
While universities across the world have adapted the language of 'safe spaces' and 'no platforming' for speakers with views deemed controversial, others have found their voices subsequently excluded from the debate.
The ability to speak our mind is a much cherished freedom of the society in which we live, but one that I believe recent events at Lincoln University Union have suggested is sadly under threat. The recent brief suspension of Lincoln's Conservative Society simply for sharing an image from a study that suggested Lincoln University ranked as "very intolerant" on freedom of speech, appears to be illustrative of an endemic problem throughout many campuses.
Universities will be compelled to protect free speech on campus and in student unions under new government plans, it has
Rather than simply shouting about it and slandering the opponent, campaign against the view/nomination, debate against it, and most importantly vote against it. That's the only way to prove that the university as a whole doesn't want a hostile, flippant provocateur at the helm.
I am not saying he shouldn't speak (though I wish he wouldn't); but there is a difference between giving a perspective and encouraging an attack on a group. For me that is the difference between hate speech and free speech.
University education must not be treated as a business through prioritizing the satisfaction of their students (perhaps 'customers' a more apposite term) over the formative learning experience that is the very essence of studying at university.
Nowadays its fairly standard to find that when something problematic occurs and people complain about it, there's almost always one person who says "but what about free speech?"
When Milo Yiannopoulos recovers from the weeks events, as I am sure he will, we must be ready and willing to confront him.
There's a 'global trend towards angrier and more divisive politics'.
The “toxic rhetoric” and divisive policies being adopted by politicians are reminiscent of the 1930s, Amnesty International