> Also the declaration specifies exceptions for libel and national security among others As I pointed out, Japan's defamation law is painted in such a way as t

> Also the declaration specifies exceptions for libel and national security among others As I pointed out, Japan's defamation law is painted in such a way as to make it so broad that it affects all speech. Hence, bringing up such an exception is not a refutation of the point but an indictment of the exception itself. As to the "national security" exception, the US's FISA courts are a good example - or should that be bad example? - of why such an exception is easily abused. Have you not heard of Edward Snowden and Wikileaks? > You can argue that you personally hold a different opinion about what "freedom of speech" is, but I would say that for the vast majority of people using the definition in the dictionary is the correct way. 1. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia 2. If we were talking about the meaning of common words in common use I might agree on relying on a dictionary but we are not 3. Wikipedia is also not a source of truth in a discussion on free speech. If you wish to argue your point then try to steel man it instead of looking for ways to avoid dealing with those made by your opponents, please. 4. The Oxford English dictionary defines "free speech" thus: > free speech > noun [mass noun] > the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint: it violated the first-amendment guarantee of free speech. That doesn't support your point. And since you brought it up, my own definition: Speech can be said to be free when one has the ability to share a view: - with whom one chooses - at a time of one's choosing - without interference or punishment (physical or otherwise) by government or society and that view is neither maliciously false nor a credible and imminent threat.