Source: Difference between revisions
Import-sysop (talk | contribs) (transformed) |
Import-sysop (talk | contribs) (transformed) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Question|Source|What is the oldest source in any country that mentions this right?}} | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Question]] |
Latest revision as of 14:40, 5 January 2023
What is the oldest source in any country that mentions this right?
Right | Breakout | Contents |
---|---|---|
Freedom of Association | John Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Toleration” (1689) primarily concerns religious associations, but he extends certain arguments to associations in general. The text in the next paragraph is Boyd’s summarization (241), where sections in quotes come directly from “A Letter.” As Boyd notes, though Locke defends policies that allow freer association, he does so because of their practical benefits, not because it is a fundamental right. (Boyd, 241)
"'Suppose this Business of Religion were let alone,' Locke hypothesizes, 'and that there were some other Distinction made between men and men, upon account of their different Complexions, Shapes, and Features.' Under conditions of differential treatment, such persons, 'united together by one common persecution,' would become just as dangerous and disruptive. Conversely, if the state eliminated special privileges, on the one hand, or disproportionate burdens, on the other, then supposedly intractable religious or ethnic affiliations would become matters of complete indifference, no more or less contentious than other private decisions about how to spend one’s money, manage one’s estates, or marry off one’s daughter." (Boyd, 241) Though Enlightenment commentators like Locke argued for and against greater freedom to associate. However, the first to mention it as an absolute right was John Stuart Mill, who argues in On Liberty that “from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived” (1859, 16). References: Boyd, Richard. “THE MADISONIAN PARADOX OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.” Social philosophy & policy 25, no. 2 (2008): 235–262. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Oxford World Classics | |
Freedom of Expression | The ancient Greeks within the Athenian Democracy, using the words “parrhesia” and “isegoria” (dating back to the fifth century BCE) were the first to emphasize the freedom to speak candidly and to "say what one pleased" a subset of freedom of the future declaration of freedom of expression (Bejan 2019, 97). From the ancient Greeks, “Parrhesia” specifically describes the freedom to say whatever one pleased, and a similar idea describing freedom of expression, “isegoria,” describes the right of citizens to publicly address and debate against the democratic assembly (Lu 2017, 4). “Isegoria” is derived from the root word “agora” which translates to marketplace, and thus the meaning of this version of freedom of expression addresses that of public speech. This right to “isegoria” was more heavily based in the ideas of equality of all men to have access to the government than for the principles of freedom (Bejan 2019, 99). On the other hand, “parrhesia” held a broader meaning. This idea is more about the right to speak freely or frankly. This word implies a willingness of the speaker to be open, honest, and courageous in dealing with the consequences of the sometimes controversial truth which he spoke while those who listened had to tolerate any offense taken from the speaker.
During meetings of the dêmos, a term used to describe the populace of Athens, the herald of the assembly would call “who wishes to speak?” (Wallace 2004). In this venue, the populace could voice their opinions and concerns to be heard by the assembly. Parrhesia extended beyond the dêmos; it was present in Athenian humor and was capitalized on by philosophers like Plato and Socrates (Wallace 2004). What the Athenians lacked was “a conception of precisely those inalienable rights which have been the foundation of the modern libertarian doctrine: freedom of speech, of religion and so on.” (Finley 1983). What this meant was that since there was no conception of these laws, such as a constitution, the Athenian government could censor certain persons or ideas as they saw fit. Parrhesia might not have been absolute, or last in Athens after the fall of democracy in Greece, but its memory was preserved by scholars and served as inspiration for future generations. The origins of freedom of expression can be traced as far back as the 16th century. During this time, the Protestant Reformation occurred. Before the Reformation, the Church would put down any attempts at reform, typically in brutal fashion. “The birth of [freedom of expression] is credited to the Protestants – those who, as their name indicates, dared to protest and reclaimed the right to dissidence” (Zoller 2009). The Protestant Reformation showed that it was possible to gain freedom of expression and was one of the key sources of inspiration of the Enlightenment, which was one of the most important sources of inspiration for Americas founding fathers (Bristow 2010). Shortly after the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Colonial Legislature adopted The Declaration of Rights, which included freedom of the press (Lewis 2007). During the period between the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the First Amendment, “nine of the original thirteen states had such provisions in their constitutions or other basic documents.” (Lewis 2007). When the Constitution was drafted in 1787, it was the creators and supporters of these state rights that insisted they be included in the federal Constitution. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights establishes the specifics of the freedom to express, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to petition the government. At the same time, the French Revolution was in progress and the new National Assembly created the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789. Within this declaration, it states “The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.” (Declaration of the Rights of Man 1789). Both France and the United States were establishing new governments in the wake of a revolution from a monarch. The censorship employed by these monarchs was one of the key reasons why both countries explicitly outlined the freedom to citizens to express themselves in their new constitutions. To summarize, when was the oldest source that mentions freedom of expression? While it was not specifically mentioned, it can be seen in the 16th century during the Protestant Reformation. It was specifically mentioned and recognized in England’s 1689 Bill of Rights, but this did not extend to the citizens. Freedom of expression was not given explicitly to the citizens until France and the United States did so in 1789 with the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the U.S. Constitution.
References: “Avalon Project - Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789.” Accessed June 6, 2024. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp Becker, Sascha O., Steven Pfaff, and Jared Rubin. “Causes and Consequences of the Protestant Reformation.” Explorations in Economic History 62 (October 1, 2016): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eeh.2016.07.007 Bristow, William. “Enlightenment,” August 20, 2010. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/?ref=artshelp.com Burch, Kerry. “Parrhesia as a Principle of Democratic Pedagogy.” Philosophical Studies in Education 40 (2009): 71–82. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ864311. Finley, Moses I. Politics in the Ancient World. Cambridge University Press, 1983. National Archives. “Bill of Rights (1791),” May 18, 2021. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/bill-of-rights On Misconceptions Generated By Translating Parrhesia and Isegoria as “Freedom of Speech,” Chin-Yu Ginny Lu, 4, The University of Arizona, 2017 Tucson. Two Concept of Freedom (Of Speech), Teressa M. Bejan, 97-99, Oxford University, 2019 Oxford. Wallace, Robert W. “THE POWER TO SPEAK —AND NOT TO LISTEN— IN ANCIENT ATHENS.” In Free Speech in Classical Antiquity, 221–32. Brill, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047405689_011 What is Freedom of Expression, Freedom Forum Institute Editors, Freedom Forum Institute, 2020 Washington D.C. Zoller, E. “Foreword: Freedom of Expression: ‘Precious Right’ in Europe, ‘Sacred Right’ in the United States?” Indiana Law Journal, 2009. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Foreword%3A-Freedom-of-Expression%3A-%22Precious-Right%22-Zoller/a06d65926e0118f6353c2d09b3638038d266ceed. | |
Freedom of Religion | The Edict of Toleration by Galerius in April of 311 ended Christian persecutions and granted their right to exist (Keresztes, "From the Great Persecution to the Peace of Galerius," 390). This preceded the Edict of Milan by two years, which permanently declared religious toleration and protection for Christians within the Roman Empire (Britannica, "Edict of Milan").
References: Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Edict of Milan." Encyclopedia Britannica, August 8, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Edict-of-Milan. Keresztes, Paul. “From the Great Persecution to the Peace of Galerius.” Vigiliae Christianae 37, no. 4 (1983): 379–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/1583547. | |
Freedom of the Press | {{{contents}}} | |
Privacy Rights | Most sources say that the first mention of this right is "The Right to Privacy" written by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis and published in the Harvard Law Review in 1890. Both were Boston attorneys and Brandeis would go on to serve as a United States Supreme Court Justice for 23 years (Louis Brandeis, n.d.). In this essay, they note that the legal scope of rights broadens over time and posit that the right to life has expanded to “the right to be let alone,” which had become an increasingly difficult feat with new technologies (Warren & Brandeis, 1890, 193, 195).
Warren and Brandeis (1890) acknowledge that, at the time, there was little-to-no legal protection of this right. They look at defamation law and determine while it alludes to privacy law, there are limitations to privacy protection from this area of law as it only considers a damaged reputation, not instances in which an individual wishes something remained secret (Warren & Brandeis, 1890, 197; Bycer, 2014). They also looked at copywriting and publishing law, which only applies to one’s own work (Warren & Brandeis, 1890, 199). They determine that the right to privacy can extend beyond these areas of law as the right should be able to wholly prevent the depiction of private life (Warren & Brandeis, 1890, 218). In the last part of this essay, they set out limitations to the right of privacy – privileged information remains under defamation law (to allow for the operation of courts), privacy ceases with consent to publish, gossip is not in the realm of privacy law, and intention and truth do not prevent a breach of such right. However, Warren and Brandeis cite at least two instances that predate The Right to Privacy which discuss the right to privacy. The earliest is the citing of an 1820 statement from Lord Cottenham, who, in agreement with Lord Eldon, felt that were a king’s illnesses recorded by a doctor and published while that king was still alive, a court would not permit its publishing, as he claimed this circumstance would breach the king’s privacy (Warren & Brandeis, 1890, 205; Bycer, 2014). Additionally, they acknowledge that the right to privacy has already been regulated in France since 1868. Section 11 of the 1868 Loi Relative à la Presse (Press Law) says that all periodic writings about a private fact of life are violations punishable by a fine of 500 francs. Pursuit of the violation may only be undertaken by the affected party (Warren & Brandeis, 1890, 214, footnote 1). Beyond what Warren & Brandeis cited as earlier mentions, there was also the 1801 Haitian Constitution which provided the home was inviolable from government invasion in Article 63 (Theodore, 2000). REFERENCES: Bycer, M. (2014). Understanding the 1890 Warren and Brandeis “The Right to Privacy” Article. National Juris University. Retrieved Sept. 10, 2021, from https://nationalparalegal.edu/UnderstandingWarrenBrandeis.aspx Louis Brandeis. (2020, Nov. 9). Britannica. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2021, from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Louis-Brandeis Theodore, Charmant. (2000). Haitian Constitution of 1801 (English). Louverture Project. http://thelouvertureproject.org/index.php?title=Haitian_Constitution_of_1801_(English) Warren, S. & Brandeis, L. (1890, Dec. 15). "The right to privacy." Harvard Law Review 4(5), 193-220. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-811X%2818901215%294%3A5%3C193%3ATRTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C | |
Voting Rights and Suffrage | Multiple 5th-Century BC sources outline the importance of citizen voting to early Athenian democracy. Thucydides’s The History of the Peloponnesian War includes several allusions to the importance of citizen participation in democracy. The first instance comes in Chthe funeral oration of Pericles:
"Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy…instead of looking on discussion as a stumbling-block in the way of action, we think it an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all." (Thucydides) The description of participatory democracy as “indispensable” evokes an importance that moves beyond simply advocating for the benefits of democracy. Rather, it implies an intrinsic importance that more closely mirrors that of a political right. The early political foundations of democracy appear again during a speech from Athenagoras: "It will be said, perhaps, that democracy is neither wise nor equitable, but that the holders of property are also the best fitted to rule. I say, on the contrary, first, that the word demos, or people, includes the whole state, oligarchy only a part; next, that if the best guardians of property are the rich, and the best counsellors the wise, none can hear and decide so well as the many; and that all these talents, severally and collectively, have their just place in a democracy." (Thucydides) Aristotle also outlines the inner workings of early Athenian democracy after the reforms of Solon and includes several allusions to the intrinsic importance of suffrage in The Constitution of the Athenians, most likely written between 328 and 322 BC. In his discussion of the importance of individuals’ right to appeal grievances in Athenian court, Aristotle states that “when the democracy is master of the voting-power, it is master of the constitution,” and that “the masses have owed their strength” to Athens’s democratic institutions (Avalon Project). While there is no explicit mention of suffrage as a “right” per se, Aristotle’s emphasis on “voting-power” as a fundamental element of Athenian civil society serves as one of the older examples of voting as a “right.” However, it is important to note that voting in Ancient Athens, while highly valued and perceived as a right for some, was not universal, and only free adult men, whose parents were also Athenian, were granted the right to vote. References: Aristotle, Constitution of the Athenians, Avalon Project Thucydides, Peloponnesian War |