Talk:freedom of speech

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

I have rewritten the article[edit]

I have rewritten the article, leaving in the original content.

Personally I feel that the article (as it was before and as I have left it) begins to be more suitable for an encylopedia than a dictionary: the definition perhaps should be restricted to the first paragraph which attempts to DEFINE FoS rather than discuss it.

"An expression referring to the right to speak, or otherwise communicate, what one wishes without fear of harm or prosecution."

If others agree, perhaps the article could be curtailed, possibly checking Wikipedia to see if any of the deleted material should be added there.

213.208.107.91 22:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with above comments and have shortened definition to a single line. Added wikipedia link which will provide more details than should be available in a dictionary. Changed it to phrase, rather than expressionexpression. Hope others agree. --Dmol 22:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion debate[edit]

Green check.svg

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Perhaps an "only in" template for this encyclopedic content. DCDuring TALK 06:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Weakish delete, quite sum of parts but a good list of translations would make the article useful. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I think if you were to simply guess what it meant you could reasonably guess wrong; so it's not simply sum of parts. For example is it about the freedom of a religion to do something or the freedom of somebody to hold a religion, clearly the latter, but you wouldn't necessarily know that.Wolfkeeper 13:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, unless we're going to delete freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. --EncycloPetey 03:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    Happy to meet the suggested condition. Adding more freedoms that have no place here. They all seem like WP material. An only-in entry would help reduce the likelihood that we would keep getting entries from well-meaning contributors. I would be happy to see translations on only-ins if that would make translators happy. DCDuring TALK 04:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    I don't see how such translations could work, since there is always the possibility of multiple senses (though perhaps not in the cases currently under discussion). I could see linking these to an Appendix on freedoms where the Translations would be given. --EncycloPetey 04:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    All the cases so far have been to single articles at WP, not dab pages, AFAICT, but, you are correct: that need not always be true. DCDuring TALK 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep as specialist terms, idiomatic, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept all, consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


Possible senses[edit]

  1. Loose talk; unguarded speech.
  2. The right of a member of a legislative body to speak freely in the meetings of that body.
  3. The right of a citizen to speak freely of political matters.
  4. The right of a citizen to speak freely on virtually any subject.

I am not sure whether all are distinct from the point of view of a dictionary (rather than an encyclopedia). DCDuring TALK 01:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on which sources say what and in what sort of context. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)