Cuba - Panfilo Conspiracy of silence No olvides a Panfilo

Juan Carlos Gonzalez
La Habana Cuba
Panfilo

No tengo idea alguna a quien pertenece la voz
de mujer que se escucha de fondo. Es una ver-
guenza incitar a Juan Carlos .....Panfilo esta en
candela.....

Freedom of speech and truth

Censorship
Media
Banned books · Banned films
Re-edited film · Internet · Music
Press · Radio · Thought
Speech and expression
Methods
Book burning · Book challenging
Bleeping · Broadcast delay
Chilling effect
Conspiracy of silence
Euphemism · Expurgation
Gag order · Heckling · Memory hole
Prior restraint · Revisionism
Whitewashing · Verbal offence
Hate speech · Media bias
Suppression of dissent
By country
Censorship · Freedom of speech
v • d • e
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and\or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".
The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".[1][2] Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional human rights law.
Freedom of speech and expression are closely related, yet distinct from, the concept of freedom of thought.[citation needed]
Contents
First page of John Milton's 1644 edition of Areopagitica
One of the earliest Western defences of freedom of expression is Areopagitica (1644) by English poet and political writer John Milton. Milton wrote in reaction to an attempt by the English republican parliament to prevent "seditious, unreliable, unreasonable and unlicensed pamphlets". Milton advanced a number of arguments in defence of freedom of speech: a nation's unity is created through blending individual differences rather than imposing homogeneity from above; that the ability to explore the fullest range of ideas on a given issue was essential to any learning process and truth cannot be arrived upon unless all points of view are first considered; and that by considering free thought, censorship acts to the detriment of material progress.
Milton also argued that if the facts are laid bare, truth will defeat falsehood in open competition, but this cannot be left for a single individual to determine. According to Milton, it is up to each individual to uncover their own truth; no one is wise enough to act as a censor for all individuals.[12]
Noam Chomsky states that: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."[13]
English biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall's quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," [14] is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech (often misattributed to Voltaire) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs in Beatrice Hall's biography on him.[15]
[edit]Freedom of speech and tolerance

The Napoleonic Code was based on earlier French laws as well as Roman law, and followed Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis in dividing civil law into:
the law of persons;
the law of property;
acquisition of property.
Napoleon set out to reform the French legal system in accordance with the ideas of the French Revolution because the old feudal and royal laws seemed to be confusing and contradictory to the people. Before the Code, France did not have a single set of laws; laws depended on local customs, and often on exemptions, privileges and special charters granted by the kings or other feudal lords. During the Revolution the vestiges of feudalism were abolished, and the many different legal systems used in different parts of France were to be replaced by a single legal code, whose writing Jean Jacques Régis de Cambacérès had been charged to lead. However, due to the turmoils of war and unrest, the situation did not much advance until Napoleon's era ensured more stability and Cambacérès, then Second Consul under Napoleon, could work in a more serene manner.
Developing out of the various customs of France, notably the Coutume de Paris, this recodification process was inspired by Justinian's codified Roman law. The development of the Code was a fundamental change in the nature of the civil law legal system; it made laws much clearer. The reaction to the Civil Code and other subsequent codes resulted in considerable debate within France's legislative bodies.
In ancien régime France, law courts, known as the Parlements, had often taken up a legislative role by judges protesting royal decisions—to protest excesses of royal power or, in some occasions, to defend the privileges of the social classes to which the judges belonged. The latter was especially true in the final years before the Revolution. As a result, the French Revolution took a negative view of judges making law. This is reflected in the Napoleonic Code prohibiting judges from passing judgments exceeding the matter that is to be judged, because general rules are the domain of the law, a legislative, not judicial, power. In theory, there is thus no case law in France. However, the courts still had to fill the gaps in the laws and regulations; thus a large body of jurisprudence was born; while there is no rule of stare decisis (binding precedent), the decisions by important courts have become more or less equivalent to case law.