The Metalinguistic Dilemma of Freedom of Expression: Its Limits
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
1. IntroductionThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights1 lists the most basic linguistic rights of individuals briefly mentioned below:Article 2 - All human beings regardless of their native language are entitled to the rights listed in the Declaration.Article 10 - Every human being has the right to a fair trial, which involves the right to have an interpreter in the case an individual does not understand the language utilized in the criminal court proceedings or accusation. This interpreter should translate the proceedings which include the documents of the court.Article 19 - All human beings have the right to freedom of speech and expression and choose the language in which they express themselves.Article 26-All humans have the right to receive an education in relation to the medium of instruction. The linguistic rights listed in the Declaration of Human Rights have applications in the public well the private arenas. Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights is worth discussing from a metalinguistic point of view.For long, the linguistic right of freedom of expression has been considered a fundamental human right. It has its origin in the ancient Greek history. For the first time in the history of the world the British Parliament passed a Bill of Rights in 1689 declaring freedom of speech for members of the Parliament. It reappeared during the 1789 French Revolution which guaranteed freedom of speech an inalienable right of every human being (Bossenga, 2010).Since that time freedom of speech or expression has progressively been accepted in every democratic country of the world through the national constitution or the civil or penal codes an innate human right. In any case, what people understand by freedom of expression and speech varies from person to person. Freedom of speech is usually utilized as the right to say whatever one wants to say. This is an extremely liberal definition, to put it lightly. It is of extreme importance to be able to have a free press, well an adequate access to information through internet, newspapers, television and other media, printed or electronic. In the democratic countries of the world freedom of expression and press is presumablyan innate every day fact of those cultures. However, this has led in multiple occasions to an abuse of this right and freedom, where a particular religious or ethnic group was mocked and it resulted in terrible circumstances and consequences. It should be understood that this freedom or right should not be taken to a level where it may serve the purposes of disrespecting others.In other words, freedom of expression should be limited by the respect and the rights of the rest of society. Several countries of the world such Australia, USA, Canada and many other western countries, while proposing their bill of rights, have also proposed the statute of limitations. The United Nations has established a statute of limitations for many human and civil rights.2. Limits to Freedom of SpeechIn the case of freedom of expression, the statute of limitations of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rightsstates the permissible limits for freedom of expression:1. Respect for the rights or reputations of others which include:a. Freedom from discrimination, freedom from cruel or degrading treatment, right of children to special protection, freedom from arbitrary interference with home, family, correspondence or reputation privacy, etc. All of these points are included in different articles of the ICCPR (International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights) and CRC (Convention of the Rights of the Child).b. Freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, language, religion, political and other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.c. Freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.d. Right of children to special protection. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».