The Metalinguistic Dilemma of Freedom of Expression: Its Limits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".