Who are your most important voices of freedom and why?
Freedom of expression is a human right, and yet it is anything but a matter of course. Many committed people around the world stand up for it day after day. Here at SWI swissinfo.ch we give them a platform – in our “Voices of Freedom” series – with pit stops around the world.
From the article SWI swissinfo.ch gives a platform to global voices of freedom
And the associated freedom of the press is also a central component of our liberal society – and a prerequisite for our being able to provide you with reports, analyses and impressions from Switzerland and around the world on a daily basis, without anyone dictating or limiting what we are allowed to write about and how.
Together with you, dear SWI swissinfo.ch community, we want to continue to contribute to these freedoms in the future. That’s why we invite you to tell us about who you consider to be the most important voices of freedom – be they journalists, activists or anyone else who comes to mind – and to share why these voices are so important. SWI swissinfo.ch will report on some of these voices.
We are looking forward to your contributions and to the debates they generate.
We are all born free and we only cease to be free when we give up freedom by constituting power. Freedom is not giving power. Fighting for freedom is in fact fighting against power. Democracy means freedom because it limits power through the rule of law: written laws, division of power and appointment and rotation of power by vote. Democracy is not a three-power government. We lose freedom by letting state power grow too large, subverting democracy.
Todos nacemos livres e so deixamos de ser quando abdicamos a liberdade constituindo poder. Liberdade e nao dar poder. Lutar por liberdade e de fato lutar contra o poder. A democracia significa liberdade porque limita poder atraves do estado de direito: leis escritas, divisao de poder e indicacao e rotacao do poder pelo voto. Democracia nao e governo a tres poderes. Perdemos a liberdade ao deixarmos o poder estado crescer demais subvertendo a democracia.
Freedom in general is everyone's capital in life. A life without freedom is a life without meaning. Western countries enjoy freedom of opinion and expression due to their embrace of democracy as a correct political approach, a democracy that guarantees freedom, social justice, rights and dignity of life for their people. While countries such as countries in the Middle East and Africa still live under the yoke of abhorrent dictatorial authorities that rule with the power of fire and iron and do not accept anyone who criticizes their rotten practices towards their people, anyone who asks himself to criticize their authoritarian policies is doomed to imprisonment to silence his voice and make it an example for others.
الحرية بصفة عامّة هي رأسُمال كلّ شخصٍ في الحياة، فالحياة بدون حرية عبارة عن حياة بلا معنىً. فالبلدان الغربيّة تنتعش فيها حرية الرّأي و التعبير، نظراً لاعتناقِها للديمقراطيّة كَنهْجٍ سياسيّ قَويم، تلك الديمقراطيّة التي تضمَن لِشعوبها الحرية و العدالة الاجتماعيّة و الحقوق و كرامة العيش. في الوقت الذي لازالت فيه دول مثل دول الشرق الأوسط و إفريقيا تعيش شعوبها تحت نيْر السلطات الدكتاتوريّة المَقيتة التي تحكُم بقوة النار و الحديد، و لا تقبلُ مَن ينتقد مُمارساتها العفِنة تُجاهَ شعوبها، فكلّ من سوّلت له نفسُه انتقاد سياساتها الإستبداديّة فَمآلُه السجن لإسكات صوتِه و جعلُه عِبرةً للآخرين.
FOR ME POPE FRANCESCO IS THE BEST!
PER ME PAPA FRANCESCO E' IL MIGLIORE!
Sir Richard Dawkins and David Attenburough have contributed more to freedom of expression than any others worldwide, including Switzerland. Richard of course is an out-of-=the-closet athiest, who safeley states that super tactful naturalist David is one of the 7 wonders of the world. Neither of these to have yet been burned at the stake.
Freedom of speech is foundational to any liberal democracy; however, freedom of speech has never been perfect. This freedom, one can argue, was born even before the Age of Enlightenment, as the Guttenberg press allowed a wide swath of ideas to be disseminated to a significant population. Even then, there were the detractors, the Church, and the Monarchs because they feared a loss of control, which was a loss of their power over those they ruled. Freedom of speech is messy; some seek to manipulate people with hyperbole and patently false claims. The onus is to educate our students to think rationally and not emotively. Sometimes, we are troubled or even offended by what we read; this can lead us to challenge our pre-held convictions and possibly arrive at a better solution. I do not want government bureaucrats who have a stake in maintaining their grip on power to decide what speech is appropriate. I have elderly Polish cousins who have told me that living in the USSR without their right to speak freely was demeaning as human beings. Furthermore, the State always lied to them; they knew they were being lied to, but it was unsafe to challenge the government as they controlled speech.
What is freedom?
It is not to be able to do whatever you want, it is to WANT to do what is right.
It seems to me that "freedom of speech" strongly relates to where one resides. Ever since the Russia/Ukraine conflict started, a lot of freedom of opinions have been taken off the air, or not published. On whose orders? As relates to the Western world...'freedom of speech' is being curtailed more and more. "Freedom of speech" is a two-way street...
Afternoon.
I think it's important to pay attention to speculative stuff and hype (like advertising) when we talk about free speech.
Добрый день.
Думаю важно обратить внимание на спекулятивные вещи и нагнетание (как рекламу) когда мы говорим о свободе слова.
I wanted to know the freedom of the United Nations to accept membership in countries that are governed unjustly and unscrupulously. Is it not useful to expel these countries from their membership so that everyone knows that they are not fit in their current situation to participate in sitting close to the rulers of free and democratic countries. The justifications that are being said about this irrational reality are many and each justification convinces a group. Personally, I refuse to respect each group and all its members if Hafez Al-Assad is a partner in their council. Of course, all the likes of Bashar Al-Assad are rulers like him and they are many.
كنت ارغب معرفة حرية الامم المتحدة في قبول عضوية الدول التي يحكمها ظلاما بلا ضمير . اليس من الاجدى طرد تلكم الدول من عضويتها كي يعلم الجميع وانها لا تصلح بواقعها الحالي لتشارك في الجلوس قريبا من حكام الدول الحرة الديموقراطية . فالمبررات التي تقال حيال ذلك الواقع غير المنطقي عديدة وكل مبررا يقنع فئة . شخصيا - ارفض احترام كل تجمع وافراده كلها ان كان حافظ الاسد شريكا في مجلسهم وبالطبع كل امثال بشار الاسد من الحكام امثاله وهم كثرة .
According to the latest surveys, only 6% of the world's population live in "full democracies"; in contrast, the number of people living in "autocracies" has risen from 46% to 72% in the last ten years. This means that if only democratic countries were allowed to be members of the UN, the majority of today's states would be excluded - and thus probably the raison d'être of the UN as a world organization and a place for dialogue between all countries would be called into question. But of course I see your objection. However, I think that the UN would have to be strengthened "from below", i.e. by the citizens - for instance in the form of a World Citizens Initiative, as it has been proposed from various sides. Such an initiative would mean that, for example, five million people from a certain minimum number of member states could submit a draft resolution to the UN General Assembly for debate and a vote. This would strengthen democracy at the global level and counteract anti-democratic forces.
Geschätze(r) Makssiem, gemäss neuesten Erhebungen leben heute nur gerade 6% der Weltbevölkerung in "vollen Demokratien"; hingegen ist die Zahl der Menschen, welche in "Autokratien" leben in den letzten zehn Jahren von 46% auf 72% gestiegen. Das bedeutet: sollten nur demokratische Länder Mitglieder der UNO sein dürfen, würde die Mehrheit der heutigen Staaten ausgeschlossen - und damit wohl die Daseinsberechtigung der UNO als Weltorganisation und Ort des Dialoges aller Länder in Frage gestellt. Aber natürlich sehe ich Ihren Einwand. Ich denke aber, dass die UNO "von unten", also durch die Bürger:innen, gestärkt werden müsste - etwa in Form einer Weltbürger:innen-Initiative, wie sie von verschiedenen Seiten vorgeschlagen worden ist. Eine solche würde darauf hinauslaufen, dass beispielsweise fünf Millionen Menschen aus einer bestimmten Mindest-Zahl von Mitgliedstaaten der UNO-Generalversammlung eine Beschlussvorlage zur Debatte und Abstimmung vorlegen könnte. Das würde die Demokratie auf der globalen Ebene stärken und antidemokratischen Kräften entgegenwirken.
There was a comment about possibly the need for secrecy and some sort of covertly disguising the identies of the major players, to this day i still have a series of the seven dwarfs out and about in public, when political frustration turns to mild depression i often revist these screenshots, within moments the grey clouds are replaced with blue sky and the lament of old is replaced with a hope and new although slightly tarnished expectation for a better tomorrow
David Attenbourough was once quoted that you needed to listen to all sides of the arguement, and give them consideration but at the end of the day do what you perceive to be correct, trust me ive been long enough on the planet to know if your wrong it'll be in the mail on its way to you before you can blink... and we dont need anarchistic freedom of expression, with the gift comes the responsibility to at least try and get it right, and thats really what we ask of our journalists to at least try and give us the facts in a balanced manner, if they can do that then thats half the work done for us
Freedom of expression, a prerequisite for the humanization of modern society, it is necessary to remember that changes in public consciousness are possible only under certain conditions, which include the majority of members of civil society a stable system of universal values, unfortunately, in many countries with universal value is not a priority in the consciousness of a large number of inhabitants.
Die Meinungsfreiheit, eine Voraussetzung für die Humanisierung der modernen Gesellschaft, muss daran erinnert werden, dass Veränderungen im öffentlichen Bewusstsein nur unter bestimmten Bedingungen möglich sind, zu denen die Mehrheit der Mitglieder der Zivilgesellschaft ein stabiles System allgemeiner Werte gehört, leider haben in vielen Ländern mit allgemeinem Wert leider nicht alle Menschen eine Priorität im Bewusstsein einer großen Anzahl von Einwohnern.
Here in Brazil the fight for freedom of expression is great, by the press, various organizations and ordinary people who understand that freedom of expression is part of democracy. We also understand that respect for others is essential, and the limits of freedom are credible information, independent narrative and the right to contradict each other. The persecution of journalists, mainly by the political class, has led to some incidents of violence in the last elections as well as killings of investigative journalists by criminal organizations. Here, freedom of expression is still seen with a lot of partiality, that is, those who have power always want to silence those who think against their interests. Brazil is still in its infancy on this issue and the justice system has a lot of work to do.
Aqui no Brasil a luta por liberdade de expressão é grande, por parte da imprensa, de várias organizações e de pessoas comuns que entendem que a liberdade de expressão faz parte da democracia. Também entendemos que o respeito ao próximo é essencial, e os limites da liberdade são a informação com credibilidade, narrativa independente e o direito ao contraditório. A perseguição a jornalistas, por parte principalmente da classe política, levou a alguns incidentes de violência nas últimas eleições assim como assassinato de jornalistas investigativos por parte de organizações criminosas. Aqui a liberdade de expressão ainda é vista com muita parcialidade ou seja, quem tem poder quer sempre calar quem pensa contra seus interesses. O Brasil ainda engatinha nesse tema e a justiça, por isso, tem muito trabalho
The struggle for freedom of speech, for the opportunity to have an opinion different from the current political conjuncture is a process that encounters resistance. I see the reason for this phenomenon in the unwillingness of political elites to respond flexibly to criticism; on the other hand, the rating of politicians directly depends on their ability to manage processes related to control over the current political situation, the forecasting of which is extremely difficult. Freedom of speech cannot be completely deprived of an expert assessment, since individual ideas can lead to mass protests and human casualties, so the right to express their own opinion in public should have educated people prepared for such an assessment.
Борьба за свободу слова, за возможность иметь мнени отличное от текущей политической конъюктуры процесс который сталкивается с сопротивлением. Я причину данного явления вижу в неготовновности политических элит этит гибко реагировать на критику, с другой стороны рейтинг политических деятелей напрямую зависит от способности управлять процессами, связанными с контролем над текущей политической ситуацией, прогноз которой крайне сложен. Свобода слова не может быть совершенно лишена оценки экспертного совета, так как отдельные идеи могут привести к массовым протестам и человеческим жертвам, поэтому право высказать собствееное мнение публично, должны иметь образованные, подготовленные для такой оценки люди.
Thank you for your opinion on freedom of speech! You suggest that right to express opinion should be limited to "educated" people and this limitation should be defined by experts. This seems to me not only difficult, but also dangerous. But maybe you can try to concretize these thoughts for the attention of this community?
Besten Dank für Ihre Meinung zur Meinungsfreiheit! Sie schlagen vor, dass Recht auf Meinungsäusserung auf "gebildete" Menschen beschränkt und diese Beschränkung durch Experten definiert werden soll. Dies erscheint mir nicht nur schwierig, sondern auch gefährlich. Aber vielleicht können Sie ja zuhanden dieser Community versuchen, diese Gedanken zu konkretisieren?
Thank you for your invitation! I believe that the desire for freedom is a sign of a healthy person, because only healthy people will lead the world to the development of our civilization.
Спасибо за ваше приглашение! Я считаю что стремление к свободе, это признак здоровой личности, ведь только здоровые люди приведут мир к развитию нашей цивилизации.
It would be interesting to understand exactly what you mean by "HEALTHY" people.
I think, there were and still are many also partly very ill people who also contribute their contribution to the development of the world and our civilization. One should also think of them. Every human being can contribute in his own way to the welfare of mankind!?
Interessant wäre, genau zu verstehen, was Sie unter "GESUNDEN" Menschen meinen.
Ich denke, es gab und gibt immer noch viele auch teilweise sehr kranke Menschen, die ebenfalls ihren Beitrag zur Entwicklung der Welt und unserer Zivilisation beigragen. An sie sollte man auch denken. Jeder Mensch kann auf seine Weise zum Wohle der Menschheit beitragen!?
For me the absence of double morality and honest principles of public officials and independent media, the absence of corruption, lustration of communist figures everywhere, including in the EU countries (former countries of Eastern Europe). Liberte.Egalite.Fraternite/ I do not see these postulates in the world, but I see Who benefits Qui prodest!
Для меня отсутствие двойной морали и честные принципы государственных чиновников и независимых СМИ ,отсутствие коррупции,люстрация полная коммунистических деятелей везде в том числе и в странах ЕС(бывшие страны восточной Европы). Liberte.Egalite.Fraternite/ Я не вижу этих постулатов в мире, но вижу Кому выгодно Qui prodest!
There is no one that I can think of who I consider to be the most important voices of freedom. On the other hand, the answer that I get from ChatGPT to my question "What are the responsibilities and limits of this fundamental right of freedom of expression?" The answer beats anyone on any platform that I posed the question.
In brief, ChatGPT's response:
While it is crucial to uphold and promote this right, it is also important to understand that certain responsibilities and limits exist to ensure a balanced and harmonious society.
Responsibilities: Respect for Others; Truthfulness and Accuracy; Public Safety and Security.
Limits: Hate Speech and Incitement; Defamation and Libel; Privacy and Confidentiality.
It concludes with "It is important to note that the responsibilities and limits of freedom of expression can vary across different jurisdictions and legal systems. Finding the right balance between protecting individual rights and maintaining social harmony is an ongoing challenge, and societies may have different interpretations and approaches to these matters."
When ChatGPT has such intelligence and so behaves, it will be the most important voices of freedom, won't it?
Exciting, really exciting, but also a bit arbitrary, because "different interpretations and approaches" can also mean that actually everyone, and also every government, can simply determine where the limits of freedom of expression lie for them. In addition: ChatGPT is not a voice, but an artificial aggregate of different voices.
Spannend, wirklich spannend, aber auch ein bisschen beliebig, denn "unterschiedliche Auslegungen und Ansätze" können auch bedeuten, dass eigentlich jede und jeder, und auch jede Regierung einfach bestimmen kann, wo für sie die Grenzen der Meinungsfreiheit liegen. Dazu: ChatGPT ist ja keine Stimme, sondern ein künstliches Aggregat verschiedenster Stimmen.
Thank you very much for the post, which entertained me - But I think it mostly shows how ChatGPT strings keywords together. Don't you think?
Ich danke Ihnen sehr für den Beitrag, der mich unterhalten hat - Ich finde aber, er zeigt vor allem, wie ChatGPT Schlagwörter aneinanderreiht. Finden Sie nicht?
Patrick Kupper, the Innsbruck/ Zurich professor, who wrote CREATING WILDERNESS: A Transnational History of the Swiss National Park, is the most articulate author I've yet found writing about "America's best idea" i.e. national parks, which as a retired national park ranger I believe is important to prevent the premature extinction of the human race.
So I'd like to read more from Patrick on "Voices of Freedom."
Very exciting and interesting proposal! As a former "waste clearer" of the Swiss National Park, I find the consideration of and role of special protection zones relevant - and transnationally quite relevant. In other words: I will gladly follow up your proposal.
Sehr spannender und interessanter Vorschlag! Als ehemaliger "Abfallaufräumer" des Schweizer Nationalparks finde ich die Überlegung zu und Rolle von besonderen Schutzzonen relevant - und transnational durchaus relevant. Mit anderen Worten: gerne verfolge ich Ihren Vorschlag weiter.
It is difficult to guarantee freedom of expression with the brutal concentration of mass media in the hands of so few. The owners of such media are the ones who end up defining the "information agenda". The citizen loses his category as such, to become a consumer of tangible and intangible products.
The "real power" ends up, in essence, defining ESPECIALLY what SHOULD NOT BE SAID.
This real power expresses itself more by its silences than by what it says.
Es difícil garantizar la libertad de expresión con la brutal concentración de medios de comunicación masiva, en manos de tan pocos. Los dueños de dichos medios, son los que terminan definiendo la "agenda informativa". El ciudadano pierda su categoría de tal, para transformarse en un consumidor de productos tangibles e intangibles.
El "poder real" termina, en esencia, definiendo ESPECIALMENTE lo que NO DEBE SER DICHO.
Este poder real, se expresa más por sus silencios, que por lo que dice.
Freedom of expression means being allowed to comment on all news articles, within the usual rules of not offending anyone according to race, gender, sexual preference, etc. At the same time, if my comments do offend someone, they should not be edited by anyone other than myself - but I should be notified of my error so I can improve what I write. Sometimes my comments get deleted or edited and I have no idea why.
Does your comment relate to comments you leave here at SWI, or more generally to their activities as an active comment writer?
Betrifft Ihr Kommentar Kommentare, die Sie hier bei SWI hinterlegen, oder mehr generell ihre Aktivitäten als aktiver Kommentarschreiber?
I think that you are not wrong at all. I assume that most comment writers are trying to objectively reveal their opinion. All contributions that are "censored or not published at all" should be sent back to the sender. Preferably with a short explanation. A credible editorial team should take the time to do this. That would be a strong sign of fairness.
Ich denke das Sie da gar nicht unrecht haben. Ich gehe davon aus, dass die meisten Kommentar-Schreiber bemüht sind, sachlich ihre Meinung zu offenbaren. Sämtliche Beiträge die "zensuriert oder gar nicht veröffentlichtn werden", sollten dem Absender zurück gesandt werden. Am Besten mit einer kurzen Begründung. Dafür sollte sich eine glaubwürdige Redaktion Zeit nehmen. Das wäre ein starkes Zeichen von Fairness.
Swissinfo, blocks all my comments that I disagree with the point of view of the authors of the texts.
They do not accept the counterpoint of ideas and information
A Swissinfo, bloqueia todos os meus comentários que discordo do ponto de vista dos autores dos textos.
Eles não aceitam o contraponto das ideias e informações
Swissinfo, blocks all my comments that disagree with the point of view of the authors of the texts.
They do not accept the counterpoint of ideas and information.
A Swissinfo, bloqueia todos os meus comentários que discordo do ponto de vista dos autores dos textos.
Eles não aceitam o contraponto das ideias e informações.
Respected @DenisRothenbuhler, there is a clear netiquette for our debates; disagreement with the author:s point of view is NOT one of the reasons for not accepting comments. Et voilà:
§ 1 Netiquette
At SWI swissinfo.ch, we believe it is important to hear from our communities while providing them with a space for constructive conversation, debate and information. To help us achieve these goals, we have established some guidelines that apply to all of our websites and social platforms.
Below you will learn what we allow and encourage, and what will not be tolerated. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please email german@swissinfo.chExterner link.
What we encourage:
Sharing experiences and expertise relevant to the topic at hand.
Inviting others to share their experiences and expertise
Dialogue with our journalists about their work
Questions about the content of our articles if something is unclear
Suggestions about other aspects of a topic we could/should report on
A constructive and respectful discussion with us and other readers
Explicitly not tolerated are:
Content that is unrelated to the topic at hand
Generalizations, insinuations or assertions that cannot be verified
Personal attacks of any kind, insults or targeted provocations
Discrimination of any kind, such as on the basis of religion, nationality, skin color, sexual orientation, political views, age or gender.
Content glorifying violence or pornography
Commercial or political advertising
Illegal content
False information about name and surname
Contributions can be deleted without consulting the author. In case of repeated violation of the netiquette, the user can be blocked.
In principle, there is no right to publication.
Geschätzter @DenisRothenbuhler, für unsere Debatten gibt es eine klare Netiquette; die Nicht-Übereinstimmung mit dem Standpunkt der Autor:innen gehört NICHT zu den Gründen für eine Nicht-Akzeptanz von Kommentaren. Et voilà:
§ 1 Netiquette
Bei SWI swissinfo.ch sind wir der Meinung, dass es wichtig ist, von unseren Communities zu hören und ihnen gleichzeitig einen Raum für konstruktive Gespräche, Debatten und Informationen zu bieten. Damit wir diese Ziele erreichen können, haben wir einige Richtlinien aufgestellt, die für alle unsere Websites und sozialen Plattformen gelten.
Im Folgenden erfahren Sie, was wir erlauben und fördern und was nicht toleriert wird. Wenn Sie Fragen, Kommentare oder Vorschläge haben, senden Sie bitte eine E-Mail an german@swissinfo.chExterner Link.
Was wir fördern:
Austausch von Erfahrungen und Fachwissen, die für das jeweilige Thema relevant sind
Aufforderung an andere, ihre Erfahrungen und ihr Fachwissen zu teilen
Dialog mit unseren Journalistinnen und Journalisten über ihre Arbeit
Fragen zum Inhalt unserer Artikel, falls etwas unklar ist
Vorschläge zu anderen Aspekten eines Themas, über das wir berichten könnten/sollten
Eine konstruktive und respektvolle Diskussion mit uns und anderen Leserinnen und Lesern
Ausdrücklich nicht toleriert sind:
Inhalte, die keinen Bezug zum jeweiligen Thema haben
Verallgemeinerungen, Unterstellungen oder Behauptungen, die sich nicht überprüfen lassen
Persönliche Angriffe jeglicher Art, Beleidigungen oder gezielte Provokationen
Diskriminierung aller Art wie beispielsweise aufgrund von Religion, Nationalität, Hautfarbe, sexueller Orientierung, politischer Gesinnung, Alter oder Geschlecht
Gewaltverherrlichende oder pornografische Inhalte
Kommerzielle oder politische Werbung
Rechtswidrige Inhalte
Falsche Angaben zu Name und Vorname
Beiträge können ohne Rücksprache mit der Verfasserin, dem Verfasser gelöscht werden. Bei wiederholtem Verstoss gegen die Netiquette kann der Nutzer, die Nutzerin gesperrt werden.
Es besteht grundsätzlich kein Anrecht auf Publikation.
SWI and elsewhere. Sometimes my comments on SWI get edited. Often the edited comments either do not make sense or the meaning changes. One UK newspaper (Daily Mirror Online) has an AI bot, I assume, which edits my comments as soon as I submit them. If not allowed, I can edit the comment so it follows the rules. But sometimes that is not enough and I think if my comment goes against the opinion of the newspaper or the reporter, it will never get accepted. All I ask is if my comment is rejected, give me chance to rewrite it (via an edit button) and some info on what rule I broke. If I can't fix it, then there should be a delete button.
Hi Lynx, we do not edit the comments we receive but only accept or reject them according to our guidelines, which you can find here: [url=https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/terms-of-use/44141966#:~:text=All%20rights%20reserved.,prior%20written%20consent%20of%20swissinfo.]https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/terms-of-use/44141966#:~:text=All%20rights%20reserved.,prior%20written%20consent%20of%20swissinfo[/url].
SWI swissinfo.ch provides content in ten languages, so our debate comments are translated using automatic translation tools, but we do not edit comments.
Join the conversation!