Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Freedom of speech/Archive 1) (bot |
|||
Line 76:
{{od}} I'm not usually much for modeling any article on any other, but seeing that in practice, it's definitely an improvement over the previous. We still might want to specify that freedom of speech primarily concerns ''government'' sanction, as that's often still its primary purpose. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 18:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
:I feel that removing 'government' entirely is a step too far, especially since most of the article concerns protecting it from the government. At the very least, the lead and the article itself would need to go into more detail on the complexities of trying to forbid 'sanction' in the name of free speech - something that I know is well-covered. Mill himself talked about this, but it is for some reason not touched on; citing ''just'' that part and not the discussion of the tension implied there is misleading. Either way, I think that the ultimate solution is probably to avoid defining the term in the omniscient narrator voice, and rather to describe the different thoughts on it and, in particular, say ''who'' is saying what. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 10:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
::{{Echo|Aquillion}} That freedom of speech concerns mainly ''government'' sanction has been removed entirely from the definition of free speech. I've re-added it, but various non-registered IP addresses keep reverting. Thoughts? [[User:Fluous|Fluous]] ([[User talk:Fluous|talk]]) 06:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
== External links modified ==
| |||