↑ “Article 19”. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by UN General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976). 23 tháng 3 năm 1976. Bản gốc lưu trữ ngày 5 tháng 7 năm 2008. Truy cập ngày 13 tháng 3 năm 2014. Đã bỏ qua tham số không rõ |df= (trợ giúp)
↑ Bojan Pancevski (26 tháng 10 năm 2018). “Europe Court Upholds Ruling Against Woman Who Insulted Islam”. The Wall Street Journal. Truy cập ngày 27 tháng 10 năm 2018. 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.
1 2 3 4 5 “Freedom of Speech”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 17 tháng 4 năm 2008. Truy cập ngày 29 tháng 5 năm 2011.
↑ “In what looked like a coordinated effort, Facebook, Apple, and YouTube banned Internet conspiracy theorist Alex Jones from their platforms, each citing its hate-speech policy.(The Week)(Brief article)”. National Review, Inc 70: 6. Tháng 9 năm 2018.
↑ Martin, Robert; Adam, G. Stuart (1994). A Sourcebook of Canadian Media Law. McGill-Queen's Press. tr. 232–34. ISBN0886292387.
↑ Deibert, Robert; Palfrey, John G; Rohozinski, Rafal; Zittrain, Jonathan (2008). Access denied: the practice and policy of global Internet filtering. MIT Press. ISBN978-0262541961.
↑ “Our Mission”. Global Internet Freedom Consortium. Bản gốc lưu trữ ngày 27 tháng 9 năm 2017. Đã bỏ qua tham số không rõ |df= (trợ giúp)
↑ “Internet Enemies” (PDF). Paris: Reporters Without Borders. Tháng 3 năm 2011. Bản gốc (PDF) lưu trữ ngày 15 tháng 3 năm 2011.
↑ “The index of expurgations”. "Heresy and Error": The Ecclesiastical Censorship of Books, 1400–1800. Bridwell Library. 17 tháng 12 năm 2000. Bản gốc lưu trữ ngày 8 tháng 9 năm 2012. Truy cập ngày 26 tháng 6 năm 2011. Đã bỏ qua tham số không rõ |df= (trợ giúp)
↑ Rayner, Gordon (7 tháng 10 năm 2011). “Leveson Inquiry: British press freedom is a model for the world, editor tells inquiry”. The Telegraph (Telegraph Media Group Limited). Truy cập ngày 9 tháng 5 năm 2018. 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.
↑ Nelson, Fraser (24 tháng 11 năm 2012). “David Blunkert warns MPs against regulating the Press”. The Spectator. Truy cập ngày 9 tháng 5 năm 2018. 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.
1 2 Boller, Jr., Paul F.; George, John (1989). They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions. New York: Oxford University Press. tr. 124–26. ISBN0-19-505541-1.
↑ Bollinger, Lee C. (1986). The Tolerant Society: Freedom of Speech and Extremist Speech in America. Oxford University Press. ISBN0195040007.
↑ Sandbrook, Dominic (16 tháng 10 năm 2010). “Lady Chatterley trial - 50 years on. The filthy book that set us free and fettered us forever”. The Telegraph. Truy cập ngày 9 tháng 5 năm 2018. 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.
↑ Kaplan, Fred (20 tháng 7 năm 2009). “The Day Obscenity Became Art”. The New York Times. Truy cập ngày 9 tháng 5 năm 2018. 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.
↑ “Photographers' Rights”. aclu.org. American Civil Liberties Union. Truy cập ngày 9 tháng 5 năm 2018. 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.
Mill, John Stuart (1859). “Introductory”. On Liberty (ấn bản 4). London: Longman, Roberts & Green (xuất bản 1869). para. 5. 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...
Mill, John Stuart (1859). “Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion”. On Liberty (ấn bản 4). London: Longman, Roberts & Green (xuất bản 1869). para. 19. 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.
Wragg, Paul (2015). “Free Speech Rights at Work: Resolving the Differences between Practice and Liberal Principle” (PDF). Industrial Law Journal (Oxford University Press) 44 (1): 11. (cần đăng ký mua (trợ giúp)). 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.
