Ten draft principles for global free speech are laid out, together with explanations and case studies -- all for debate. Prominent figures from diverse cultures, faiths and political tendencies are interviewed and asked to comment through video, audio and text.
Individual users from across the world are strongly encouraged to take part in the online discussion. They can propose new case studies and suggest revised or entirely new principles. The project is programmatically dedicated to taking the free speech debate beyond the west and global north, into the east and south.
The entire editorial content is translated into 13 languages, covering more than 80 percent of the world’s internet users, by native-speakers of those languages. The website is actively moderated by, and the original content generated by, an international team at Oxford University, working under the leadership of historian and journalist Timothy Garton Ash.
Articles published in Eurozine
Self-censorship is even more harmful than censorship by the state, argues British writer and philosopher Roger Scruton, for it shuts down conversation completely. The damage done to public discussion of the most pressing issues of the day can be seen on both sides of the Atlantic. [more]
On US net neutrality
Given its global impact on the free speech rights of citizens versus those of corporations, the regulation of the Internet cannot be left to chance, writes Dana Polatin-Reuben. Hence the importance of recent efforts by the US Federal Communications Commission to effect net neutrality. [more]
Claiming free speech as a "Republican", "French" or "western" value by conjuring a mythical pantheon of canonical Enlightenment figures will not help us build more inclusive societies. So says Arthur Asseraf, in reconsidering France's track record as a beacon of press freedom. [more]
To some, writes Sebastian Huempfer, a republication of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" symbolizes a triumph of liberty over hatred. To others, it demonstrates how much forbearance liberal democracies demand from their most vulnerable citizens and how much space they give to their own enemies. [more]
The devout cannot have it both ways, writes Ian McEwan. Free speech is hard, it's noisy and bruising sometimes, but the only alternative when so many world-views must cohabit is intimidation, violence and bitter conflict between communities. [more]
Despite evidence that western companies sell surveillance software to repressive regimes like Egypt, there have been few attempts to restrict the export of such technologies. After all, the cyber surveillance industry is big business, writes Max Gallien. [more]
Rejecting the classical liberal defences of free speech, Eric Heinze insists that the strongest case for free speech is grounded on specifically democratic principles. And that hate speech bans can never claim a legitimate role in fully fledged democracies. [more]
Free speech in post-revolutionary Tunisia
Disputing the limits of free speech has played a defining role in Tunisia's transition to democracy since the country's first free elections in 2011. But, as Rory McCarthy reveals, there is more to the process than the polarized Islamist-secularist battle it is often presumed to be. [more]
Freedom of speech and association in a digital world
Basic connectivity, defined as the capacity to speak and associate online, should be considered as something approaching a civic entitlement and made an essential element of public infrastructure -- rather than a service available to consumers in the marketplace, argues Robert Reich. [more]
Message from the "heartbeat" city
Ayse Kadioglu reads the protests in Istanbul as a sign that people demand more than representative democracy. Indeed, it is the citizens' search for participatory democracy that, for the first time in years, may mean Turkey really does become a model in its region. [more]
No closer to the Chinese dream?
The first week of 2013 saw a standoff between editors of the Chinese newspaper "Southern Weekly" and state propaganda authorities over a drastically rewritten new year's editorial. Timothy Garton Ash introduces English translations of the original and published versions. [more]
Lloyd Newson tackles issues of free speech, Islam and multiculturalism in his recent verbatim theatre production, which combines text drawn from interviews with movement. This is the point of departure for an interview with Maryam Omidi. [more]
Memory laws are the wrong way for Europeans to remember and debate their difficult pasts, argues Claus Leggewie and Horst Meier. Europe needs a pluralism of memory policies. That is why 23 August is a good candidate for a truly pan-European day of remembrance. [Russian version added] [more]
Why information philanthropy is bad for the South
The impact of open access publishing models on the developing world is uncertain, writes Jorge L. Contreras. Until "information philanthropy" is supplanted by self-sufficient, south-focused open-access journals, the potential of developing world scientists will not be fully realized. [more]
Legislation allowing the Olympic organizers to control the "association" of the games with approved products -- required by the IOC as a condition of a successful bid -- disadvantages the community stakeholders of major sporting events, argues Teresa Scassa. [more]
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, says "climate change sceptics" also enjoy the right to free speech yet advises the media to take more care in identifying the credentials of "experts". [more]
A new EU data regulation directive fails to relax unduly tight restrictions on collecting and distributing data, writes David Erdos. Despite exemptions for use of private data in journalistic, artistic and research contexts, freedom of expression is still downgraded in European legislation. [more]
The use of "superinjunctions" to prevent media from publishing details about the private lives of public figures in the UK has been widely condemned by free speech advocates. Yet not everything that journalists write is protected by the right to free speech, argues Eric Barendt. [more]
To argue for hate speech legislation on the basis that it protects the dignity of individuals is to confuse an interest with a fundamental right, argues Ivan Hare. Not only is legislation ineffective, it helps disseminate the very thing it intends to suppress. [more]
Free speech advocates opposed to the prohibition of hate speech tend to underrate the harm hate speech causes, argues Jeremy Waldron. Where it exists, such legislation upholds a public good by protecting the basic dignitary order of society. [more]