FREEDOM

PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 07:56:43 UTC

Contents
Articles
Liberty Political freedom Morphological freedom Scientific freedom Academic freedom Civil liberties Economic freedom 1 6 8 9 10 19 23

References
Article Sources and Contributors Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 30 31

Article Licenses
License 32

Liberty

Liberty
Liberty is the ability of individuals to have agency (control over their own actions). Different conceptions of liberty articulate the relationship of individuals to society in different waysincluding some that relate to life under a social contract or to existence in a state of nature, and some that see the active exercise of freedom and rights as essential to liberty. Understanding liberty involves how we imagine the individual's roles and responsibilities in society in relation to concepts of free will and determinism, which involves the larger domain of metaphysics. Individualist and classical liberal conceptions of liberty typically consist of the freedom of individuals from outside compulsion or coercion, also known as negative liberty. This conception of liberty, which coincides with the Libertarian point-of-view, suggests that people should, must, and ought to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions, while in contrast, Social liberal conceptions of (positive liberty) liberty place an emphasis upon social structure and agency and is therefore directed toward ensuring egalitarianism. In feudal societies, a "liberty" was an area of allodial land where the rights of the ruler or monarch were waived.

Philosophy
Liberty is a historically controversial philosophy. One understanding of liberty asserts that freedom is found in a person's ability to exercise agency, particularly in the sense of one having the freedom to choose what authorities one will submit to agency with in exchange for rights derived from that authority to develop resources to carry out their own will, without being inhibited; Social Contract. According to Thomas Hobbes, for example, "a free man is he that... is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do." However, John Locke rejected that definition of liberty. While not specifically mentioning Hobbes, he attacks Sir Robert Filmer who had the same definition. According to Locke: In the state of nature, liberty consists of being free from any superior power on Earth. People are not under the will or lawmaking authority of others but have only the law of nature for their rule. In political society, liberty consists of being under no other lawmaking power except that established by consent in the commonwealth. People are free from the dominion of any will or legal restraint apart from that enacted by their own constituted lawmaking power according to the trust put in it. Thus, freedom is not as Sir Robert Filmer defines it: A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws. Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society. Freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. Freedom of people under government is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society and made by the lawmaking power established in it. Persons have a right or liberty to (1) follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited and (2) not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others. [1]

Liberty

John Stuart Mill, in his work, On Liberty, was the first to recognize the difference between liberty as the freedom to act and liberty as the absence of coercion.[2] In his book, Two Concepts of Liberty, Isaiah Berlin formally framed the differences between these two perspectives as the distinction between two opposite concepts of liberty: positive liberty and negative liberty. The latter designates a negative condition in which an individual is protected from tyranny and the arbitrary exercise of authority, while the former refers to having the means or opportunity, rather than the lack of restraint, to do things. Mill offered insight into the notions of soft tyranny and mutual liberty with his harm principle.[3] It can be seen as important to understand these concepts when discussing liberty since they all represent little pieces of the greater John Stuart Mill. puzzle known as freedom. In a philosophical sense, it can be said that morality must supersede tyranny in any legitimate form of government. Otherwise, people are left with a societal system rooted in backwardness, disorder, and regression. The concept of negative liberty has several noteworthy aspects. First, negative liberty defines a realm or "zone" of freedom (in the "silence of law"). In Berlin's words, "Liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question 'What is the area within which the subjecta person or group of personsis or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons." Some philosophers disagree on the extent of this realm, while accepting the main point that liberty defines the realm in which one may act unobstructed by others. Second, the restriction (on the freedom to act) implicit in negative liberty is imposed by a person or persons and not due to causes such as nature, lack, or incapacity. Helvetius expresses this point clearly: "The free man is the man who is not in irons, nor imprisoned in a gaol (jail), nor terrorized like a slave by the fear of punishment... it is not lack of freedom not to fly like an eagle or swim like a whale." The dichotomy of positive and negative liberty is considered specious by political philosophers in traditions such as socialism, social democracy, libertarian socialism, and Marxism . Some of them argue that positive and negative liberty are indistinguishable in practice, while others claim that one kind of liberty cannot exist independently of the other. A common argument is that the preservation of negative liberty requires positive action on the part of the government or society to prevent some individuals from taking away the liberty of others.
The Statue of Liberty, donated to the US by France, an artistic personification of the concept.

Liberty

Freedom as a triadic relation

In 1980, Gerald MacCallum argued that proponents of positive and negative liberty converge on a single definition of liberty, but simply have different approaches in establishing it. According to MacCallum, freedom is a triadic relationship: "x is/is not free from y to do/not to do or become/not become z". In this way, rather than defining liberty in terms of two separate paradigms, positive and negative liberty, he defined liberty as a single, complete formula. The question is whether this formula fully captures what positive liberty means. Positive liberty, understood as internal forces that determine how a person must act"[4] is saying more than 'x is free to do z.' One is free when one becomes the ideal of oneself, which includes MacCallum's triadic relation; but the latter alone is insufficient to fully capture what positive liberty means.

Liberty and political thought

Concepts of liberty in history
The first known use of the word freedom in a political context dates back to the 24th century BC, in a text describing the restoration of social and economic liberty in Lagash, a Sumerian city-state. Urukagina, the king of Lagash, established the first known legal code Freedom (ama-gi) written in Sumerian cuneiform to protect citizens from the rich and powerful. Known as a great reformer, Urukagina established laws that forbade compelling the sale of property and required the charges against the accused to be stated before any man accused of a crime could be punished. This is the first known example of any form of due process in the history of humanity. Like Urukagina, most ancient freedoms focused on negative liberty, protecting the less fortunate from harassment or imposition. Other ancient legal codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi, similarly forbade compulsion in economic matters, like the sale of land, and made it clear that when a rich man murders a poor one, it is still murder. Still, these codes depended on a certain virtuousness of kings and ministers, which was far from reliable. The modern concept of liberty has its origins in the Greek concepts of freedom and slavery. To be free, to the Greeks, was to not have a master, to be independent from a master (to live like one likes).[5] That was the original Greek concept of freedom. It is closely linked with the concept of democracy, as Aristotle put it: "This, then, is one note of liberty which all democrats affirm to be the principle of their state. Another is that a man should live as he likes. This, they say, is the privilege of a freeman, since, on the other hand, not to live as a man likes is the mark of a slave. This is the second characteristic of democracy, whence has arisen the claim of men to be ruled by none, if possible, or, if this is impossible, to rule and be ruled in turns; and so it contributes to the freedom based upon equality."[6] So to the Greeks democracy was the system of government of a free society. The populations of the Persian Empire enjoyed some degree of freedom. Citizens of all religions and ethnic groups were given the same rights and had the same freedom of religion, women had the same rights as men, and slavery was abolished(550 BC). All the palaces of the kings of Persia were built by paid workers in an era where slaves typically did such work.[7] In the Buddhist Maurya Empire of ancient India, citizens of all religions and ethnic groups had some rights to freedom, tolerance, and equality. The need for tolerance on an egalitarian basis can be found in the Edicts of Ashoka the Great, which emphasize the importance of tolerance in public policy by the government. The slaughter or capture of prisoners of war was also condemned by Ashoka.[8] Slavery was also non-existent in the Maurya Empire.[9] However, according to Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, "Ashoka's orders seem to have been resisted right from the beginning."[10]

Liberty Roman law also embraced certain limited forms of liberty, even under the rule of the Roman Emperors. However, these liberties were accorded only to Roman citizens. Still, the Roman citizen enjoyed a combination of positive liberty (the right to a trial, a right of appeal, law and contract enforcement) and negative liberty (unhindered right to contract and the right to not be tortured). Many of the liberties enjoyed under Roman law endured through the Middle Ages, but were enjoyed solely by the nobility, never by the common man. The idea of unalienable and universal liberties had to wait until the Age of Enlightenment. In Chinese, freedom is written (ziyou). (zi) is the character for self, and (you) is the character to follow, with an additional connotation of reason. Liberty thus implies a necessary connection between individualism and a rational duty.

Social contract
The social contract theory, invented by Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau, were among the first to provide a political classification of rights, in particular through the notion of sovereignty and of natural rights. The thinkers of the Enlightenment reasoned the assertion that law governed both heavenly and human affairs, and that law gave the king his power, rather than the king's power giving force to law. The divine right of kings was thus opposed to the sovereign's unchecked auctoritas. This conception of law would find its culmination in Montesquieu's thought. The conception of law as a relationship between individuals, rather than families, came to the fore, and with it the increasing focus on individual liberty as a fundamental reality, given by "Nature and Nature's God," which, in the ideal state, would be as expansive as possible. The Enlightenment created then, among other ideas, liberty: that is, of a free individual being most free within the context of a state that provides stability of the laws. Within the context of social liberty, in On Liberty, John Stuart Mill sought to define the "...nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual, and as such, he describes an inherent and continuous antagonism between liberty and authority and thus, the prevailing question becomes "how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control".[11]

Eugne Delacroix La libert guidant le peuple (1830)

Modern perspectives

In French Liberty. British Slavery (1792), James Gillray caricatured French "liberty" as the opportunity to starve, and British "slavery" as bloated complaints about taxation.

The modern conceptions of democracy, whether representative democracies or other types of democracies, are all found on the Rousseauist idea of popular sovereignty. Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense in relation to external authority and coercion. Within this context, there is sense the government has a responsibility to ensure individual liberty while at the same time improving the situation of those with the least advantage. In this sense, we can understand economic liberalism as the right of the individual to contract, trade and operate in a market free of constraint and social liberalism as the belief that liberalism should include social justice. Both are core political issues, and are highly contentious.[12] Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person."

Liberty

United States
In the United States Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice William O. Douglas argued that liberties relating to personal relationships, such as marriage, have a unique primacy of place in the hierarchy of freedoms.[13] Jacob M. Appel has summarized this principle: I am grateful that I have rights in the proverbial public square but, as a practical matter, my most cherished rights are those that I possess in my bedroom and hospital room and death chamber. Most people are far more concerned that they can control their own bodies than they are about petitioning Congress.[14] A school of thought popular among U.S. libertarians holds that there is no tenable distinction between the two sorts of liberty that they are, indeed, one and the same, to be protected (or opposed) together. In the context of U.S. constitutional law, for example, they point out that the constitution twice lists "life, liberty, and property" without making any distinctions within that troika. Anarcho-Individualists, such as Max Stirner, demanded the utmost respect for the liberty of the individual. Some in the U.S. see protecting the ideal of liberty as a conservative policy, because this would conform to the spirit of individual liberty that they consider is at the heart of the American constitution. Some think liberty is almost synonymous with democracy, at least in one sense of that word, while others see conflicts or even opposition between the two concepts, with democracy being nothing more than the tyranny of the majority.

Republican liberty
According to republican theorists of freedom, like the historian Quentin Skinner or the philosopher Philip Pettit, one's liberty should not be viewed as the absence of interference in one's actions, but as non-dependence. According to this view, that originates in the Roman Digest, to be a liber homo, a free man, means being in a state of non-dependence from another's arbitrary will. The second step of the argument of these neo-Roman writers, like Machiavelli, was that you have to be a member of a free self-governing civil association, a republic, if you are to enjoy individual liberty. The predominance of this view of liberty among parliamentarians during the English Civil War resulted to the creation of the liberal concept of freedom as non-interference in Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan.

Historical writings on liberty

John Locke (1689). Two Treatises of Government: In the Former, the False Principles, and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer, and His Followers, Are Detected and Overthrown. the Latter Is an Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government.. London: Awnsham Churchill. Frdric Bastiat (1850). The Law. Paris: Guillaumin & Co. John Stuart Mill (1859). On Liberty. London: John W Parker and Son. James Fitzjames Stephen (1874). Liberty, Equality, Fraternity [15]. London: Smith, Elder, & Co..

Liberty

References
[1] Two Treatises on Government: A Translation into Modern English, ISR/Google Books, 2009, p. 76 [2] Westbrooks, Logan Hart (2008) "Personal Freedom" page 134 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=4gxaa371USUC& pg=PA134) In Owens, William (compiler) (2008) Freedom: Keys to Freedom from Twenty-one National Leaders Main Street Publications, Memphis, Tennessee, pages 133138, ISBN 978-0-9801152-0-8 [3] John Stuart Mill, On Liberty and Utilitarianism, (New York: Bantam Books, 1993), 1216. [4] Miller, David, 'Introduction', in Miller, ed., Liberty, 1991 [5] Mogens Herman Hansen, 2010, Democratic Freedom and the Concept of Freedom in Plato and Aristotle [6] Aristotle, Politics [7] Arthur Henry Robertson, John Graham Merrills (1996). Human Rights in the World: An Introduction to the Study of the International Protection of Human Rights. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-4923-7. [8] Amartya Sen (1997). Human Rights and Asian Values. ISBN 0-87641-151-0. [9] Arrian, Indica:

"This also is remarkable in India, that all Indians are free, and no Indian at all is a slave. In this the Indians agree with the Lacedaemonians. Yet the Lacedaemonians have Helots for slaves, who perform the duties of slaves; but the Indians have no slaves at all, much less is any Indian a slave."
[10] Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund (2004). " A history of India (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=V73N8js5ZgAC& pg=PA66& dq& hl=en#v=onepage& q=& f=false)". Routledge. p.66. ISBN 0-415-32920-5 [11] Mill, J.S. (1869)., "Chapter I: Introductory", On Liberty. {http:/ / www. bartleby. com/ 130/ 1. html} [12] Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press., p. 13 [13] GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT U.S. Supreme Court 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Decided June 7, 1965 [14] A Culture of Liberty (http:/ / www. huffingtonpost. com/ jacob-m-appel/ a-culture-of-liberty_b_242402. html) [15] http:/ / oll. libertyfund. org/ ?option=com_staticxt& staticfile=show. php%3Ftitle=572

Political freedom
Political freedom (also known as political autonomy or political agency) is a central concept in Western history and political thought, and one of the most important (real or ideal) features of democratic societies.[1] It has been described as a relationship free of oppression[2] or coercion;[3] the absence of disabling conditions for an individual and the fulfillment of enabling conditions;[4] or the absence of lived conditions of compulsion, e.g. economic compulsion, in a society.[5] Although political freedom is often interpreted negatively as the freedom from unreasonable external constraints on action,[6] it can also refer to the positive exercise of rights, capacities and possibilities for action, and the exercise of social or group rights.[7] The concept can also include freedom from "internal" constraints on political action or speech (e.g. social conformity, consistency, or "inauthentic" behaviour.)[8] The concept of political freedom is closely connected with the concepts of civil liberties and human rights, which in democratic societies are usually afforded legal protection from the state.

Views
Various groups along the political spectrum naturally differ on what they believe constitutes "true" political freedom. Left wing political philosophy generally couples the notion of freedom with that of positive liberty, or the enabling of a group or individual to determine their own life or realize their own potential. Freedom, in this sense, may include freedom from poverty, starvation, treatable disease, and oppression, as well as freedom from force and coercion, from whomever they may issue. Friedrich Hayek, a well-known classical liberal, criticized this as a misconception of freedom: [T]he use of "liberty" to describe the physical "ability to do what I want", the power to satisfy our wishes, or the extent of the choice of alternatives open to us... has been deliberately fostered as part of the socialist argument... the notion of collective power over circumstances has been substituted for that of individual liberty.[9]

Political freedom Many social anarchists see negative and positive liberty as complementary concepts of freedom. They describe the negative liberty-centric view endorsed by capitalists as "selfish freedom".[10] Some notable philosophers, such as Alasdair MacIntyre, have theorized freedom in terms of our social interdependence with other people.[11] According to political philosopher Nikolas Kompridis, the pursuit of freedom in the modern era can be broadly divided into two motivating ideals: freedom as autonomy, or independence; and freedom as the ability to cooperatively initiate a new beginning.[12] Political freedom has also been theorized in its opposition to (and a condition of) "power relations", or the power of "action upon actions," by Michel Foucault.[13] It has also been closely identified with certain kinds of artistic and cultural practice by Cornelius Castoriadis, Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse, Jacques Ranciere, and Theodor Adorno. Environmentalists often argue that political freedoms should include some constraint on use of ecosystems. They maintain there is no such thing, for instance, as "freedom to pollute" or "freedom to deforest" given that such activities create negative externalities. The popularity of SUVs, golf, and urban sprawl has been used as evidence that some ideas of freedom and ecological conservation can clash. This leads at times to serious confrontations and clashes of values reflected in advertising campaigns, e.g. that of PETA regarding fur. John Dalberg-Acton stated that "The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities."[14]

History
Hannah Arendt traces the origins of the concept of freedom to the practice of politics in ancient Greece. According to her study, the concept of freedom was historically inseparable from political action. Politics could only be practiced by those who had freed themselves from the necessities of life, so that they could attend to the realm of political affairs. According to Arendt, the concept of freedom became associated with the Christian notion of freedom of the will, or inner freedom, around the 5th century C.E. and since then, freedom as a form of political action has been neglected, even though, as she says, freedom is "the raison d'tre of politics."[15] Arendt says that political freedom is historically opposed to sovereignty or will-power, since in ancient Greece and Rome, the concept of freedom was inseparable from performance, and did not arise as a conflict between the "will" and the "self." Similarly, the idea of freedom as freedom from politics is a notion that developed in modern times. This is opposed to the idea of freedom as the capacity to "begin anew," which Arendt sees as a corollary to the innate human condition of natality, or our nature as "new beginnings and hence beginners." In Arendt's view, political action is an interruption of automatic process, either natural or historical. The freedom to begin anew is thus an extension of "the freedom to call something into being which did not exist before, which was not given, not even as an object of cognition or imagination, and which therefore, strictly speaking, could not be known."

Political freedom

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Hannah Arendt, "What is Freedom?", Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought, (New York: Penguin, 1993). Iris Marion Young, "Five Faces of Oppression", Justice and the Politics of Difference" (Princeton University press, 1990), 39-65. Michael Sandel, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010). Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Anchor Books, 2000). Karl Marx, "Alienated Labour" in Early Writings. Isaiah Berlin, Liberty (Oxford 2004). Charles Taylor, "What's Wrong With Negative Liberty?", Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers (Cambridge, 1985), 211-29. [8] Ralph Waldo Emerson, " Self-Reliance (http:/ / www. emersoncentral. com/ selfreliance. htm)"; Nikolas Kompridis, "Struggling Over the Meaning of Recognition: A Matter of Identity, Justice or Freedom?" in European Journal of Political Theory July 2007 vol. 6 no. 3 277-289. [9] Friedrich August von Hayek, Freedom and Coercion in David Miller (ed), Liberty (1991) pp. 80, 85-86}} [10] Anarchism FAQ (http:/ / www. spunk. org/ texts/ intro/ faq/ sp001547/ secF2. html#secf22) [11] Alasdair MacIntyre, "The Virtues of Acknowledged Dependence", Rational Dependent Animals: Why Humans Need the Virtues (Open Court, 2001). [12] Nikolas Kompridis, "The Idea of a New Beginning: A Romantic Source of Normativity and Freedom" in Philosophical Romanticism (New York: Routledge, 2007), 32-59. [13] Michel Foucault, "The Subject and Power" in Paul Rabinow and Nikolas S. Rose, eds., The Essential Foucault. [14] Acton, John D. (1907). The History of Freedom and Other Essays. London: Macmillan. p.4. [15] Hannah Arendt, "What is Freedom?", Between Past and Future: Eight exercises in political thought (New York: Penguin, 1993).

External links
Poverty, Political Freedom, and the Roots of Terrorism (http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~aabadie/povterr.pdf) from Alberto Abadie Harvard University and NBER, October 2004 (pdf) Brief review of trends in political change: freedom and conflict (http://gsociology.icaap.org/report/polsum. html) Global trends

Morphological freedom
Morphological freedom refers to a proposed civil right of a person to either maintain or modify his or her own body, on his or her own terms, through informed, consensual recourse to, or refusal of, available therapeutic or enabling medical technology.[1] The term may have been coined by strategic philosopher Max More in his 1993 article, Technological Self-Transformation: Expanding Personal Extropy,[2] where he defined it as "the ability to alter bodily form at will through technologies such as surgery, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, uploading". The term was later used by science debater Anders Sandberg as "an extension of ones right to ones body, not just self-ownership but also the right to modify oneself according to ones desires."[3]

Politics
According to technocritic Dale Carrico, the politics of morphthiological freedom imply a commitment to the value, standing, and social legibility of the widest possible variety of desired morphologies and lifestyles. More specifically, morphological freedom is an expression of liberal pluralism, secularism, progressive cosmopolitanism, and posthumanist multiculturalisms applied to the ongoing and upcoming transformation of the understanding of medical practice from one of conventional therapy to one of consensual self-determination, via genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive modification.[1]

Morphological freedom

References
[1] Carrico, Dale (2006). The Politics of Morphological Freedom (http:/ / amormundi. blogspot. com/ 2006/ 08/ politics-of-morphological-freedom. html). . Retrieved 2007-01-28. [2] More, Max (1993). Technological Self-Transformation: Expanding Personal Extropy (Extropy #10, vol. 4, no. 2) (http:/ / www. maxmore. com/ selftrns. htm). . Retrieved 2009-01-04. [3] Sandberg, Anders (2001). Morphological Freedom -- Why We not just Want it, but Need it (http:/ / www. nada. kth. se/ ~asa/ Texts/ MorphologicalFreedom. htm). . Retrieved 2007-01-28.

Scientific freedom
Scientific freedom is the idea of freedom (in the sense of Freedom of thought and Freedom of the press) applied to natural science, in particular the practices of scientific research and discourse, mainly by publication. The ideal is promoted by many organizations of scientists, and is the subject of article 15 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. One classic defence of the idea is in Michael Polanyi's book, Personal Knowledge (1958). Polanyi criticized the common view that the scientific method is purely objective and generates objective knowledge. Polanyi cast this view as a misunderstanding of the scientific method and of the nature of scientific inquiry, generally. He argued that scientists do and must follow personal passions in appraising facts and in determining which scientific questions to investigate. He concluded that a structure of liberty is essential for the advancement of science - that the freedom to pursue science for its own sake is a prerequisite for the production of knowledge through peer review and the scientific method.[1] Polanyi subsequently co-founded the Society for Freedom in Science.[2]

References
[1] Michael Polanyi (1958). Personal Knowledge. ISBN0-7734-9150-3. [2] William McGucken (1978). "On Freedom and Planning in Science: The Society for Freedom in Science 19401946". Minerva 16 (1): 4272. doi:10.1007/BF01102181.

Further reading
David B. Resnik (1998). The Ethics of Science. Routledge. pp.5455. ISBN0-415-16698-5. Kenneth F. Schaffner (1982). "Biomedical Knowledge: Progress and Priorities". In William B. Bondeson. New Knowledge in the Biomedical Sciences. Springer. pp.133134. ISBN978-90-277-1319-3. J. T. Edsall (1975). "Scientific Freedom and Responsibility: Report of the AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility". Science 188 (4189): 68793 [689]. doi:10.1126/science.11643270. W. P. Metzger (Spring 1978). "Academic Freedom and Scientific Freedom". Daedalus 107 (2): 93114. Kristin Sharon Shrader-Frechette (1994). Ethics of Scientific Research. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN0-8476-7940-3.

Academic freedom

10

Academic freedom
Academic freedom is the belief that the freedom of inquiry by students and faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy, and that scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities) without being targeted for repression, job loss, or imprisonment. Academic freedom is a contested issue and, therefore, has limitations in practice. In the United States, for example, according to the widely recognized "1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure",[1] teachers should be careful to avoid controversial matter that is unrelated to the subject. When they speak or write in public, they are free to express their opinions without fear from institutional censorship or discipline, but they should show restraint and clearly indicate that they are not speaking for their institution. Academic tenure protects academic freedom by ensuring that teachers can be fired only for causes such as gross professional incompetence or behavior that evokes condemnation from the academic community itself.

Rationale
Proponents of academic freedom believe the freedom of inquiry by students and faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy. They argue that academic communities are repeatedly targeted for repression due to their ability to shape and control the flow of information. When scholars attempt to teach or communicate ideas or facts that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities, they may find themselves targeted for public vilification, job loss, imprisonment, or even death. For example, in North Africa, a professor of public health discovered that his country's infant mortality rate was higher than government figures indicated. He lost his job and was imprisoned.[2][3] The fate of biology in the Soviet Union is also cited as a reason why society has an interest in protecting academic freedom. A Soviet biologist named Trofim Lysenko rejected Western sciencethen focused primarily on making advances in theoretical genetics, based on research with the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) -- and proposed a more socially relevant approach to farming that was based on the collectivist principles of dialectical materialism. (Lysenko called this "Michurinism", but it is more popularly known today as Lysenkoism.) Lysenko's ideas proved appealing to the Soviet leadership, in part because of their value as propaganda, and he was ultimately made director of the Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences; subsequently, Lysenko directed a purge of scientists who professed "harmful ideas," resulting in the expulsion, imprisonment, or death of hundreds of Soviet scientists. Lysenko's ideas were then implemented on collectivised farms in the Soviet Union and China. Famines that resulted partly from Lysenko's influence are believed to have killed 30 million people in China alone.[4] AFAF (Academics For Academic Freedom) of the United Kingdom[5] is a campaign for lecturers, academic staff and researchers who want to make a public statement in favour of free enquiry and free expression. Their statement of Academic Freedom has two main principles: 1. that academics, both inside and outside the classroom, have unrestricted liberty to question and test received wisdom and to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions, whether or not these are deemed offensive, and 2. that academic institutions have no right to curb the exercise of this freedom by members of their staff, or to use it as grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal.' AFAF and those who are part of the campaign believe that it is important for academics to be able to express their opinions - not just full stop, but to put them to scrutiny and to open further debate. They are against the idea of telling the public Platonic 'noble lies' and believe that people should not be protected from radical views.

Academic freedom

11

Academic freedom for professors

The concept of academic freedom as a right of faculty members is an established part of most legal systems. Different from the United States, where academic freedom is derived from the guarantee of free speech under the First Amendment, constitutions of other countries (and particularly of civil law jurisdictions) typically grant a separate right to free learning, teaching, and research.

In France
A professor at a public French university, or a researcher in a public research laboratory, is expected, as are all civil servants, to behave in a neutral manner and to not favor any particular political or religious point of view during the course of his duties. However, the academic freedom of university professors is a fundamental principle recognized by the laws of the Republic, as defined by the Constitutional Council; furthermore, statute law declares about higher education that "teachers-researchers (university professors and assistant professors), researchers and teachers are fully independent and enjoy full freedom of speech in the course of their research and teaching activities, provided they respect, following university traditions and the dispositions of this code, principles of tolerance and objectivity."[6] The nomination and promotion of professors is largely done through a process of peer review rather than through normal administrative procedures.

In Germany
The German Constitution (Grundgesetz) specifically grants academic freedom: "Art and science, research and teaching are free. Freedom of teaching does not absolve from loyalty to the constitution" (Art. 5, para. 3). In a tradition reaching back to the nineteenth century, jurisdiction has understood this right as one to teach (Lehrfreiheit), study (Lernfreiheit), and conduct research (Freiheit der Wissenschaft) freely, although the last concept has sometimes been taken as a cover term for the first two. Lehrfreiheit embraces the right of professors to determine the content of their lectures and to publish the results of their research without prior approval. Since professors through their Habilitation receive the right to teach (venia docendi) in a particular academic field, academic freedom is deemed to cover at least the entirety of this field. Lernfreiheit means a student's right to determine an individual course of study. Finally, Freiheit der Wissenschaft permits academic self-governance and grants the university control of its internal affairs. Through the introduction of disciplinary curricula, Lernfreiheit has become a rather empty concept.

In the Philippines
The 1987 Philippine Constitution states that, "Academic Freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning."[7] Philippine jurisprudence and courts of law, including the Philippine Supreme Court tend to reflexively defer to the institutional autonomy of higher institutions of learning in determining academic decisions with respect to the outcomes of individual cases filed in the courts regarding the abuse of Academic Freedom by professors, despite the individual merits or demerits of any cases[8] A closely watched case was the controversial case of University of the Philippines at Diliman Sociology Professor Sarah Raymundo who was not granted tenure due to an appeal by the minority dissenting vote within the faculty of the Sociology Department. This decision was sustained upon appeal by the dissenting faculty and Professor Raymundo to the University of the Philippines at Diliman Chancellor Sergio S. Cao; and though the case was elevated to University of the Philippines System President Emerlinda R. Roman, Roman denied the appeal which was elevated by Professor Raymundo to the University's Board of Regents for decision and the BOR granted her request for tenure. A major bone of contention among the supporters of Professor Raymundo was not to question the institutional Academic Freedom of the Department in not granting her tenure, but in asking for transparency in how the Academic Freedom of the department was exercised, in keeping with traditions within the University of the Philippines in providing a basis that may be subject to peer review, for Academic decisions made under the mantle of Academic Freedom. The dissenting faculty in Professor

Academic freedom Raymundo's case are expected to appeal the BOR decision[9]

12

In South Africa
Section 16 of the 1996 Constitution of South Africa offers specific protection to academic freedom.[10] However there have been a large number of scandals around the restriction of academic freedom at a number of universities with particular concern being expressed at the situation at the University of KwaZulu-Natal.[11][12]

In the United States

In the United States, academic freedom is generally taken as the notion of academic freedom defined by the "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure," jointly authored by the American Association of University Professors ("AAUP") and the Association of American Colleges (AAC) (now the Association of American Colleges and Universities).[13] These principles state that "Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject."[13] The statement also permits institutions to impose "limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims," so long as they are "clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment."[13] The Principles have only the character of private pronouncements, not that of binding law. The six regional accreditors work with American colleges and universities, including private and religious institutions, to implement this standard. Additionally, the AAUP, which is not an accrediting body, works with this same institutions. The AAUP does not always agree with the regional accrediting bodies on the standards of protection of academic freedom and tenure.[14] The AAUP lists those colleges and universities which it has found to violate these principles.[15] There is some case law in the United States that teachers are limited in their academic freedoms.

Academic freedom for colleges and universities

A prominent feature of the English university concept is the freedom to appoint faculty, set standards and admit students. This ideal may be better described as institutional autonomy and is distinct from whatever freedom is granted to students and faculty by the institution.[16] The Supreme Court of the United States said that academic freedom means a university can "determine for itself on academic grounds: 1. 2. 3. 4. who may teach, what may be taught, how it should be taught, and who may be admitted to study."[17][18][19]

In a 2008 case, a Federal court in Virginia ruled that professors have no academic freedom; all academic freedom resides with the university or college.[19] In that case, Stronach v. Virginia State University, a district court judge held "that no constitutional right to academic freedom exists that would prohibit senior (university) officials from changing a grade given by (a professor) to one of his students."[19] The court relied on mandatory precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Sweezy v. New Hampshire[18] and a case from the fourth circuit court of appeals.[19][20] The Stronach court also relied on persuasive cases from several circuits of the courts of appeals, including the first,[21] third,[22][23] and seventh [24] circuits. That court distinguished the situation when a university attempts to coerce a professor into changing a grade, which is clearly in violation of the First Amendment, from when university officials may, in their discretionary authority, change the grade upon appeal by a student.[19][25] The Stronach case has gotten significant attention in the academic community as an important precedent.[26]

Academic freedom

13

Relationship to freedom of speech

Academic freedom and free speech rights are not coextensive, although this widely accepted view has been recently challenged by an "institutionalist" perspective on the First Amendment.[27] Academic freedom involves more than speech rights; for example, it includes the right to determine what is taught in the classroom. In practice, academic freedom is protected by institutional rules and regulations, letters of appointment, faculty handbooks, collective bargaining agreements, and academic custom.[28] In the U.S., the freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." By extension, the First Amendment applies to all governmental institutions, including public universities. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that academic freedom is a First Amendment right at public institutions.[29] However, The United States' First Amendment has generally been held to not not apply to private institutions, including religious institutions. These private institutions may honor freedom of speech and academic freedom at their discretion.

Controversies
Evolution debate
Academic Freedom is also associated with a movement to introduce Intelligent Design as an alternative explanation to evolution in US public schools. Supporters claim that academic institutions need to fairly represent all possible explanations for the observed biodiversity on Earth, rather than implying no alternatives to evolutionary theory exist. They also seek legal protection from, and repercussions for, discriminatory injustices of faculty members and students who criticize evolution.[30] Critics of the movement claim Intelligent Design is religiously motivated pseudoscience and cannot be allowed into the curriculum of US public schools due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, often citing Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District as legal precedent.[31][32] They also reject the allegations of discrimination against proponents of Academic Freedom and Intelligent Design, of which investigation showed no evidence.[33] A number of "academic freedom bills" have been introduced in state legislatures in the United States between 2004 and 2008. The bills were based largely upon language drafted by the Discovery Institute,[34] the hub of the Intelligent Design movement, and derive from language originally drafted for the Santorum Amendment in the United States Senate. According to the Wall Street Journal, the common goal of these bills is to expose more students to articles and videos that undercut evolution, most of which are produced by advocates of Intelligent Design or Biblical creationism.[35] The American Association of University Professors has reaffirmed its opposition to these academic freedom bills, including any portrayal of creationism as a scientifically credible alternative and any misrepresentation of evolution as scientifically controversial.[36][37] As of June 2008, only the Louisiana bill has been successfully passed into law.

The "Academic bill of rights"

Students for Academic Freedom (SAF) was founded in 2001 by David Horowitz to protect students from a perceived liberal bias in U.S. colleges and universities. The organization collected many statements from college students complaining that some of their professors were disregarding their responsibility to keep unrelated controversial material out of their classes and were instead teaching their subjects from an ideological point of view.[38] In response, the organization drafted model legislation, called the Academic Bill of Rights, which has been introduced in several state legislatures and the U.S. House of Representatives. The Academic Bill of Rights is based on the Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure as published by the American Association of University Professors in 1915, and modified in 1940 and 1970. According to Students for Academic Freedom, academic freedom is "the freedom to teach and to learn." They contend that academic freedom promotes "intellectual diversity" and helps achieve a university's primary goals, i.e., "the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge

Academic freedom through scholarship and research, the study and reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and general development of students to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to a society at large."[39] They feel that, in the past forty years, the principles as defined in the AAUP Declaration have become something of a dead letter, and that an entrenched class of tenured radical leftists is blocking all efforts to restore those principles.[40] In an attempt to override such opposition, the Academic Bill of Rights calls for state and judicial regulation of colleges. Such regulation would ensure that: students and faculty will not be favored or disfavored because of their political views or religious beliefs; the humanities and social sciences, in particular, will expose their students to a variety of sources and viewpoints, and not present one viewpoint as certain and settled truth; campus publications and invited speakers will not be harassed, abused, or otherwise obstructed; academic institutions and professional societies will adopt a neutral attitude in matters of politics, ideology or religion. Opponents claim that such a bill would actually restrict academic freedom, by granting politically motivated legislators and judges the right to shape the nature and focus of scholarly concerns. According to the American Association of University Professors, the Academic Bill of Rights is, despite its title, an attack on the very concept of academic freedom itself: "A fundamental premise of academic freedom is that decisions concerning the quality of scholarship and teaching are to be made by reference to the standards of the academic profession, as interpreted and applied by the community of scholars who are qualified by expertise and training to establish such standards." The Academic Bill of Rights directs universities to implement the principle of neutrality by requiring the appointment of faculty "with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives," an approach they claim is problematic because "It invites diversity to be measured by political standards that diverge from the academic criteria of the scholarly profession." For example,"no department of political theory ought to be obligated to establish 'a plurality of methodologies and perspectives' by appointing a professor of Nazi political philosophy."[41] Concurring, the president of Appalachian Bible College in West Virginia fears that the Academic Bill of Rights "would inhibit his college's efforts to provide a faith-based education and would put pressure on the college to hire professors... who espouse views contrary to those of the institution."[42] It should also be noted that there has been much controversy over the validity of the students statements used by Horowitz to support his organisation's claims. This is due to the revelation that one of the cases he referred to regularly was not factually accurate. Horowitz claims that this student had to write an essay on why George Bush was a war criminal. Instead, the student chose to focus her answer on why Saddam Hussein was a war criminal and consequently received a grade F(Fail). In reality, this question asking students to state whether or not Bush was a war criminal was never set, and the student in question did not receive a grade F for this particular exam. Horowitz acknowledges the flaws in this case but asks the public to believe that there are many other legitimate cases.[43]

14

Specific cases
While some controversies of academic freedom are reflected in proposed laws that would affect large numbers of students through entire regions, many cases involve individual academicians that express unpopular opinions or share politically unfavorable information. These individual cases may receive widespread attention and periodically test the limits of, and support for, academic freedom. The Bassett Affair at Duke University in North Carolina in the early 20th century was an important event in the history of academic freedom.[44] In October 1903, Professor John Bassett publicly praised Booker T. Washington and drew attention to the racism and white supremacist behavior of the Democratic party (the Republican Party was the most liberal and progressive of the two at that time), to the disgust of powerful white Southerners. Many media reports castigated Bassett, and many major newspapers published opinion pieces attacking him and demanding his termination. On December 1, 1903, the entire faculty of the college threatened to resign en masse

Academic freedom if the board gave into political pressures and asked Bassett to resign.[45] President Teddy Roosevelt later praised Bassett for his willingness to express the truth as he saw it. In 1929, Experimental Psychology Professor Max Friedrich Meyer and Sociology Assistant Professor Harmon O. DeGraff were dismissed from their positions at the University of Missouri for advising student Orval Hobart Mowrer regarding distribution of a questionnaire which inquired about attitudes towards divorce, "living together", and sex.[46] The university was subsequently censured by the American Association of University Professors in an early case regarding academic freedom due a tenured professor.[47] William Shockley was concerned about relatively high reproductive rates among people of African descent, because he believed that genetics doomed black people to be intellectually inferior to white people.[48] He was strongly criticized for this stand, which raised some concerns about whether criticism of unpopular views of racial differences suppressed academic freedom.[49] In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, some public statements made by some university faculty were criticized. Most prominent among these were these comments made in January 2005 by University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. He published an essay in which he asserted that the attack on the United States, while unjustified, were provoked by American foreign policy. On news and talk programs, he was criticized for describing the World Trade Center victims as "little Eichmanns", a reference to Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem. The university fired Churchill in 2007. Churchill successfully filed a law suit for unlawful termination of employment. At the beginning of the 21st century, Lawrence Summers, while president of Harvard University, led a discussion that was intended to identify the reasons why fewer women chose to study science and mathematics at advanced levels. He suggested that the possibility of intrinsic gender differences in terms of talent for science and mathematics should be explored. He became the target of considerable public backlash.[50] His critics were, in turn, accused of attempting to suppress academic freedom.[51] The 2006 scandal in which several members of the Duke Lacrosse team were falsely accused of rape raised serious criticisms against exploitation of academic freedom by the university and its faculty to press judgement and deny due process to the three players accused. In 2006 trade union leader and sociologist Fazel Khan was fired from the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, South Africa after taking a leadership role in a strike.[52] In 2008 international concern was also expressed at attempts to discipline two other academics at the same university - Nithiya Chetty and John van der Berg - for expressing concern about academic freedom at the university.[53] J. Michael Bailey wrote a popular science-style book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, which promotes Ray Blanchard's theory that transwomen are motivated by sexuality, and dismisses the "woman trapped in a man's body" concept of transsexuality . Blanchard's theory divides transwomen into two groups (autogynephilics and homosexual transsexuals) according to their sexual orientation. In an effort to discredit his book, some trans activists filed formal complaints with Northwestern University accusing Bailey of conducting regulated human research by talking informally to transwomen without first obtaining written proof of informed consent. They also filed a complaint with Illinois state regulators, requesting that they investigate Bailey for practicing psychology without a license. Bailey, who was not licensed to practice clinical psychology in Illinois, had provided some transwomen with free case evaluation letters, saying that he believed they were good candidates for sex-reassignment surgery. Regulators dismissed the complaint. Andrea James, a Los Angeles-based transgender activist, posted photographs of Bailey's children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, with sexually explicit captions that she provided.[54][55] Thio Li-ann withdrew from an appointment at New York University School of Law after controversy erupted about some anti-gay remarks she had made, prompting a discussion of academic freedom within the law school.[56][57] In 2009 the University of California at Santa Barbara charged William I. Robinson with anti-Semitism after he circulated an email to his class containing more than two dozen photographs of Jewish victims of the Nazis,

15

Academic freedom including those of dead children, juxtaposed with nearly identical images from the Gaza Strip. It also included an article critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and a note from Robinson stating "Gaza is Israel's Warsaw -- a vast concentration camp that confined and blockaded Palestinians," the professor wrote. "We are witness to a slow-motion process of genocide.".,[58][59] The charges were dropped after a world wide campaign against the management of the university.[60] The University of the Philippines at Diliman affair where controversy erupted after Professor Gerardo A. Agulto of the College of Business Administration was sued by MBA graduate student Chanda R. Shahani for a nominal amount in damages for failing him several times in the Strategic Management portion of the Comprehensive Examination. Agulto refused to give a detailed basis for his grades and instead invoked Academic Freedom while Shahani argued in court that Academic Freedom could not be invoked without a rational basis in grading a student.[61] During the interwar years (cir. 1919-1939) Canadian academics were informally expected to be apolitical, lest they bring trouble to their respective universities who, at the time, were very much dependent upon provincial government grants. As well, many Canadian academics of the time considered their position to be remote from the world of politics and felt they had no place getting involved in political issues. However, with the increase of socialist activity in Canada during the Great Depression, due to the rise of social gospel ideology, some left-wing academics began taking active part in contemporary political issues outside of the university. Thus, individuals such as Frank H. Underhill at the University of Toronto and other members or affiliates with the League for Social Reconstruction or the socialist movement in Canada who held academic positions began to find themselves in precarious positions with their university employers. Frank H. Underhill, for example, faced criticism from within and without academia and near expulsion from his university position for his public political comments and his involvement with the League for Social Reconstruction and the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation.[62] According to Michiel Horn this era marked, a relaxation of the unwritten controls under which many Canadian professors had previously worked. The nature of the institutions, natural caution and professional pre-occupation had before the Depression inhibited the professoriate. None of these conditions changed quickly, but even at the provincial universities there were brave souls in the 1930s who claimed, with varying success, the right publicly to discuss controversial subjects and express opinions about them.[63]

16

References
[1] 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (http:/ / www. aaup. org/ AAUP/ pubsres/ policydocs/ contents/ 1940statement. htm). [2] Robert Quinn (2004). " Defending 'Dangerous Minds (http:/ / www. ssrc. org/ workspace/ images/ crm/ new_publication_3/ {5cebcead-2d60-de11-bd80-001cc477ec70}. pdf).'" [3] Ralph E. Fuchs (1969). "Academic FreedomIts Basic Philosophy, Function and History," in Louis Joughin (ed)., Academic Freedom and Tenure: A Handbook of the American Association of University Professors. [4] Jasper Becker (1996). Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine. New York: Free Press. [5] http:/ / www. afaf. org. uk [6] French Education Code, L952-2 (http:/ / www. legifrance. gouv. fr/ WAspad/ UnArticleDeCode?commun=& code=CEDUCATL. rcv& art=L952-2). [7] http:/ / www. chanrobles. com/ article14. htm [8] http:/ / shahani-vs-up-diliman. blogspot. com/ [9] http:/ / diliman-diary. blogspot. com/ 2010/ 05/ up-diliman-sociology-professor-sarah. html [10] Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (http:/ / www. info. gov. za/ documents/ constitution/ 1996/ 96cons2. htm#16) [11] Submission by the Freedom of Expression Institute to the UKZN Council Committee on Governance and Academic Freedom (http:/ / www. fxi. org. za/ content/ view/ 206/ ), February 2009 [12] 'UKZN's commitment to academic freedom slated' by Latoya Newman, The Mercury (http:/ / www. iol. co. za/ index. php?set_id=1& click_id=13& art_id=vn20081110053725459C374169), November 2008 [13] 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, AAUP (http:/ / www. aaup. org/ AAUP/ pubsres/ policydocs/ 1940statement. htm), accessed March 23, 2007 [14] For example, the Northwest Association of Schools and of Colleges and Universities reviewed Brigham Young University's academic freedom statement and found it in compliance with the 1940 statement, while AAUP has found Brigham Young University to be in violation

Academic freedom
[15] Censured Institutions (http:/ / www. aaup. org/ AAUP/ about/ censuredadmins/ ) [16] (Kemp, p. 7) [17] Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 312 (1978). [18] Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 262-263 (1957) (Felix Frankfurter, Justice). [19] Stronach v. Virginia State University, civil action 3:07-CV-646-HEH (E. D. Va. Jan. 15, 2008). [20] See Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401, 414, 415 (4th Cir. 2000). (Noting that "cases that have referred to a First Amendment right of academic freedom have done so generally in terms of the institution, not the individual ...." and "Significantly, the court has never recognized that professors possess a First Amendment right of academic freedom to determine for themselves the content of their courses and scholarship, despite opportunities to do so". [21] Lovelace v. S.E. Mass. University, 793 F.2d 419, 425 (1st Cir. 1986) ("To accept plaintiff's contention that an untenured teacher's grading policy is constitutionally protected . . . would be to constrict the university in defining and performing its educational mission".) [22] Edwards v. California University of Pennsylvania, 156 F.3d 488, 491 (3d Cir. 1998) ("In Edwards v. Cal. Univ. of Pa., The court held that the First Amendment does not allow a university professor to decide what is taught in the classroom but rather protects the university's right to select the curriculum," as cited in Stronach.) [23] Brown v. Amenti, 247 F.3d 69, 75 (3d Cir. 2001). (Holding "a public university professor does not have a First Amendment right to expression via the school's grade assignment procedures".) [24] Wozniak v. Conry, 236 F.3d 888, 891 (7th Cir. 2001). (Holding that "No person has a fundamental right to teach undergraduate engineering classes without following the university's grading rules ...." and that "it is the [u]niversity's name, not [the professor]'s, that appears on the diploma; the [u]niversity, not [the professor], certifies to employers and graduate schools a student's successful completion of a course of study. Universities are entitled to assure themselves that their evaluation systems have been followed; otherwise their credentials are meaningless".) [25] See Parate v. Isibor, 868 F.2d 821, 827-28 (6th Cir. 1989). (Holding that "a university professor may claim that his assignment of an examination grade or a final grade is communication protected by the First Amendment . . . [t]hus, the individual professor may not be compelled, by university officials, to change a grade that the professor previously assigned to her student". [26] White, Lawrence, "CASE IN POINT: STRONACH V. VIRGINIA STATE U. (2008): Does Academic Freedom Give a Professor the Final Say on Grades?", Chronicle of Higher Education, found at Chronicle web site (http:/ / chronicle. com/ weekly/ v54/ i33/ 33a03901. htm) and Chronicle Review commentary and blog (http:/ / chronicle. com/ review/ brainstorm/ fendrich/ the-secretary-to-the-rescue). Accessed May 20, 2008. [27] See, for instance, Paul Horwitz, "Universities as First Amendment Institutions: Some Easy Answers and Hard Questions, 54 UCLA Law Review 1497 (2007) [28] Donna Euben, Political And Religious Belief Discrimination On Campus: Faculty and Student Academic Freedom and The First Amendment. (http:/ / www. aaup. org/ Legal/ info outlines/ 05beliefdis. htm) [29] Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967); Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985). [30] Academic Freedom Act (http:/ / www. academicfreedompetition. com/ freedom. php) [31] Creationists Push Pseudo-Science Text (http:/ / www. rethinkingschools. org/ restrict. asp?path=archive/ 12_02/ panda. shtml) [32] Intelligent Design on Trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover (http:/ / ncse. com/ creationism/ legal/ intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover). National Center for Science Education. October 17th, 2008 [33] Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement (http:/ / www. flsenate. gov/ data/ session/ 2008/ Senate/ bills/ analysis/ pdf/ 2008s2692. ed. pdf), The Professional Staff of the Education Pre-K - 12 Committee, Florida Senate, March 26, 2008 [34] "Academic Freedom" Bill in South Carolina Now (http:/ / scienceblogs. com/ dispatches/ 2008/ 05/ academic_freedom_bill_in_south. php) Ed Brayton, Dispatches From the Culture Wars, May 18, 2008. [35] Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools (http:/ / online. wsj. com/ article/ SB120967537476060561. html), Stephanie Simon, Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2008 [36] Academic Freedom and Teaching Evolution (http:/ / www. aaup. org/ AAUP/ about/ events/ past/ 2008/ am/ resol. htm) Resolutions of the 94th Annual Meeting, American Association of University Professors. 2008 [37] The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom (http:/ / www. sciam. com/ article. cfm?id=the-latest-face-of-creationism) Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott. Scientific American, December 2008. [38] Academic Freedom Abuse Center (http:/ / www. studentsforacademicfreedom. org/ comp/ listComplaint. asp?by=college) [39] The Academic Bill of Rights (http:/ / www. studentsforacademicfreedom. org/ abor. html) [40] Indoctrination U: the Left's war against academic freedom / David Horowitz, 2007 ISBN 1-59403-190-8 [41] Academic Bill of Rights (2003) (http:/ / www. aaup. org/ AAUP/ comm/ rep/ A/ abor. htm) [42] Alyson Klein (2004). "Worried on the Left and Right." Chronicle of Higher Education (July 9, 2004). [43] FrontPage Magazine (http:/ / www. frontpagemag. com/ Articles/ Read. aspx?GUID=2D712236-CB2D-4409-961F-CD9727D18ECD) [44] The Bassett Affair (http:/ / library. duke. edu/ uarchives/ exhibits/ academic-freedom/ jsbaffair. html) [45] http:/ / library. duke. edu/ uarchives/ exhibits/ academic-freedom/ publicreaction. html [46] Nelson, Lawrence J. (2003). Rumors of Indiscretion: The University of Missouri "Sex Questionnaire" Scandal in the Jazz Age. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. ISBN0-8262-1449-5.

17

Academic freedom
[47] A.J. Carlson (February 1930). "Report on the Dismissal of Professor DeGraff and the Suspension of Professor Meyer". Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors XVI (2): 235. [48] William B. Shockley, 79, Creator Of Transistor and Theory on Race (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ learning/ general/ onthisday/ bday/ 0213. html) [49] Kilgore, William J.; Sullivan, Barbara (1975). "Academic Values and the Jensen-Shockley Controversy". Journal of General Education. [50] Summer's Remarks on Women Draw Fire (http:/ / www. boston. com/ news/ local/ articles/ 2005/ 01/ 17/ summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire/ ) [51] Stephan Thernstrom. "In Defense of Academic Freedom at Harvard" (http:/ / hnn. us/ articles/ 10963. html). History News Network, George Mason University. . [52] (http:/ / fazel. shackdwellers. org/ ) Fight for Fazel Khan - An archive of documents on the dismissal of Fazel Khan] [53] Letter from foreign academics to Mac Mia, Chair of Council, and Malegapuru Makgoba, Vice Chancellor (http:/ / www. politicsweb. co. za/ politicsweb/ view/ politicsweb/ en/ page71656?oid=111683& sn=Detail) Letter from David William Cohen and 35 others [54] Carey, Benedict. (21 August 2007) "Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege." (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2007/ 08/ 21/ health/ psychology/ 21gender. html) The New York Times. [55] Dreger AD (June 2008). "The controversy surrounding "The man who would be queen": a case history of the politics of science, identity, and sex in the Internet age" (http:/ / www. bioethics. northwestern. edu/ faculty/ work/ dreger/ controversy_tmwwbq. pdf) (PDF). Arch Sex Behav 37 (3): 366421. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1. PMC3170124. PMID18431641. . [56] Rights for some people (http:/ / www. insidehighered. com/ news/ 2009/ 07/ 08/ nyu). Inside Higher Ed. 8 June 2009. . Retrieved 11 June 2009 [57] Tay Shi'an (22 July 2009). "She's not against gay people, just against gay agenda" (http:/ / www. asiaone. com/ News/ Education/ Story/ A1Story20090720-155956. html). The New Paper. . Retrieved 24 July 2009 [58] Helfand, Duke (30 April 2009). "Professor's comparison of Israelis to Nazis stirs furor" (http:/ / articles. latimes. com/ 2009/ apr/ 30/ local/ me-professor30). Los Angeles Times. . [59] Dana L. Cloud (April 30, 2009). "The McCarthyism That Horowitz Built: The Cases of Margo Ramlal Nankoe, William Robinson, Nagesh Rao and Loretta Capeheart" (http:/ / www. counterpunch. org/ cloud04302009. html). CounterPunch. . [60] SPME Statement on the Disposition of the Case of William Robinson at UCSB, SPME Board of Directors, June 29, 2009 (http:/ / www. spme. net/ cgi-bin/ articles. cgi?ID=5691) [61] http:/ / diliman-diary. blogspot. com/ 2010/ 03/ notice-of-full-disclosure-reposted. html [62] Horn, Michiel, Professors in the Public Eye: Canadian Universities, Academic Freedom, and the League for Social Reconstruction. History of Education Quarterly. 20.4, Winter 1980. pp. 425-447 [63] Horn, Michiel, Professors in the Public Eye: Canadian Universities, Academic Freedom, and the League for Social Reconstruction. History of Education Quarterly. 20.4, Winter 1980. p. 443

18

Further reading
"Academic freedom" (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhiana.cgi?id=dv1-02). The Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Andreescu, Liviu. " Foundations of Academic Freedom: Making New Sense of Some Aging Arguments (http:// www.springerlink.com/content/t41l12n128jl8713/)". Studies in Philosophy and Education (2009) 28.6, 499-515. Chesterman, Simon. " Academic Freedom in New Haven and Singapore (http://ssrn.com/abstract=2031310)". Straits Times, 30 March 2012, page A23. Cross, Tom. " Academic Freedom and the Hacker Ethic (http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1132469. 1132498)", Communications of the ACM, June 2006. Ekstrand, Lasse and Wallmon, Monika " Dancing with the Devil? Notes on a Free University (http://ijd. cgpublisher.com/product/pub.29/prod.694)". The International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations (2008) 8.3, 171-174. Fish, Stanley (2006-07-23). "Conspiracy Theories 101" (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/opinion/ 23fish.html?ex=1311307200&en=eb67d7b666d8ae71&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss). New York Times Op-Ed. Hofstadter, Richard, Academic Freedom in the Age of the College (http://books.google.com/ books?id=jesexvV2GWYC&printsec=frontcover), Columbia University Press, 1955, 1961. Karran, Terence. " Academic Freedom in Europe: A Preliminary Comparative Analysis (http://www. palgrave-journals.com/hep/journal/v20/n3/full/8300159a.html)". Higher Education Policy (2007) 20,

Academic freedom 289313. Karran, Terence. "Academic Freedom: A Research Bibliography" (2009) has over 1000 entries and is freely downloadable as a pdf from: http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/1763/. Metzger, Walter, Academic Freedom in the Age of the University (http://books.google.com/ books?id=E8DxXGvhBcIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Academic+freedom+in+the+age+of+the+ university&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false), Columbia University Press, 1955. Nelson, Cary, No University Is an Island: Saving Academic Freedom (http://books.google.com/ books?id=Yx3mlHlttTgC&printsec=frontcover). New York University Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-8147-5859-5 Russell, Conrad. "Academic Freedom", Routledge (1993) ISBN 0-415-03715-8 Sandis, Constantine. "Free Speech Within Reason" (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story. asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=410069&c=1). Times Higher Education,21 January 2010.

19

External links
Network for Education and Academic Rights (http://www.nearinternational.org/), International Academic Freedom Watch (http://www.academicfreedom.com.au), Australia American Association of University Professors (http://www.aaup.org/) Council for Academic Freedom and Academic Standards (http://www.cafas.org.uk), United Kingdom

Civil liberties
Civil liberties are civil rights and freedoms that provide an individual specific rights. Though the scope of the term differs amongst various countries, some examples of civil liberties include the freedom from slavery and forced labor, freedom from torture and death, the right to liberty and security, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to due process, the right to a fair trial, the right to own property, the right to defend one's self, the right to bodily integrity, and the right to keep and bear arms. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, there are distinctions between positive liberty/positive rights and negative liberty/negative rights.

Overview
Many contemporary states have a constitution, a bill of rights, or similar constitutional documents that enumerate and seek to guarantee civil liberties. Other states have enacted similar laws through a variety of legal means, including signing and ratifying or otherwise giving effect to key conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The existence of some claimed civil liberties is a matter of dispute, as are the extent of most civil rights. Controversial examples include property rights, reproductive rights, civil marriage, and the right to keep and bear arms. Whether the existence of victimless crimes infringes upon civil liberties is a matter of dispute. Another matter of debate is the suspension or alteration of certain civil liberties in times of war or state of emergency, including whether and to what extent this should occur. The formal concept of civil liberties dates back to the English legal charter the Magna Carta 1215, which in turn was based on pre-existing documents namely the English Charter of Liberties, a landmark document in English legal history.

Civil liberties

20

North America
United States
The United States Constitution, especially its Bill of Rights, protects civil liberties. The passage of the Fourteenth Amendment further protected civil liberties by introducing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. Human rights within the United States are often called civil rights, which are those rights, privileges and immunities held by all people, in distinction to political rights, which are the rights that inhere to those who are entitled to participate in elections, as candidates or voters.[1] Before universal suffrage, this distinction was important, since many people were ineligible to vote but still were considered to have the fundamental freedoms derived from the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This distinction is less important now that Americans enjoy near universal suffrage, and civil liberties are now taken to include the political rights to vote and participate in elections. Because Indian tribal governments retain sovereignty over tribal members, the U.S. Congress in 1968 enacted a law that essentially applies most of the protections of the Bill of Rights to tribal members, to be enforced mainly by tribal courts. [2]

Broken Liberty: Istanbul Archaeology Museum

Canada
The Constitution of Canada includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees many of the same rights as the U.S. constitution, with the notable exceptions of protection against establishment of religion. However, the Charter does protect freedom of religion. The Charter also omits any mention of, or protection for, property.

Europe
European Convention on Human Rights
The European Convention on Human Rights, to which most European countries, including all of the European Union, belong, enumerates a number of civil liberties and is of varying constitutional force in different European states.

United Kingdom
While the United Kingdom has no codified constitution, relying on a number of legal conventions and pieces of legislation, it is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights which covers both human rights and civil liberties. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the great majority of Convention rights directly into UK law. Britain has what is called an unwritten constitution: centuries of legislation and legal precedent dating back to before the Magna Carta guarantee the rights of its subjects. In June 2008 the then Shadow Home Secretary David Davis resigned his parliamentary seat over what he described as the "erosion of civil liberties" by the then Labour government, and successfully won re-election on a civil liberties platform (although he was not opposed by candidates of other major parties). This was in reference to anti-terrorism laws and in particular the extension to pre-trial detention, that is perceived by many to be an infringement of Habeas Corpus established in the Magna Carta

Civil liberties in 1215.

21

France
France's 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen listed many civil liberties and is of constitutional force.

Asia
China
The Constitution of People's Republic of China (which applies only to mainland China, not to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan), especially its Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens, claims to protect many civil liberties, although in practice dissidents may find themselves without the protection of the rule of law. See Civil liberties in the People's Republic of China.

India
The Fundamental Rights embodied in Part III of the constitution guarantee civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace as citizens of India. The six fundamental rights are right to equality, right to freedom, right against exploitation, right to freedom of religion, cultural and educational rights and right to constitutional remedies.[3] These include individual rights common to most liberal democracies, incorporated in the fundamental law of the land and are enforceable in a court of law. Violations of these rights result in punishments as prescribed in the Indian Penal Code, subject to discretion of the judiciary. These rights are neither absolute nor immune from constitutional amendments. They have been aimed at overturning the inequalities of pre-independence social practises. Specifically, they resulted in abolishment of untouchability and prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. They forbid human trafficking and unfree labour. They protect cultural and educational rights of ethnic and religious minorities by allowing them to preserve their languages and administer their own educational institutions. All people, irrespective of race, religion, caste or sex, have the right to approach the High Courts or the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. It is not necessary that the aggrieved party has to be the one to do so. In public interest, anyone can initiate litigation in the court on their behalf. This is known as "Public interest litigation".[4] High Court and Supreme Court judges can also act on their own on the basis of media reports. The Fundamental Rights emphasise equality by guaranteeing to all citizens the access and use of public institutions and protections, irrespective of their background. The rights to life and personal liberty apply for persons of any nationality, while others, such as the freedom of speech and expression are applicable only to the citizens of India (including non-resident Indian citizens).[5] The right to equality in matters of public employment cannot be conferred to overseas citizens of India.[6] Fundamental Rights primarily protect individuals from any arbitrary State actions, but some rights are enforceable against private individuals too.[7] For instance, the constitution abolishes untouchability and prohibits begar. These provisions act as a check both on State action and actions of private individuals. Fundamental Rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions as necessary for the protection of national interest. In the Kesavananda Bharati vs. state of Kerala case, the Supreme Court ruled that all provisions of the constitution, including Fundamental Rights can be amended.[8] However, the Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the constitution like secularism, democracy, federalism, separation of powers. Often called the "Basic structure doctrine", this decision is widely regarded as an important part of Indian history. In the 1978 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court extended the doctrine's importance as superior to any parliamentary legislation.According to the verdict, no act of parliament can be considered a law if it violated the basic structure of the constitution. This

Civil liberties landmark guarantee of Fundamental Rights was regarded as a unique example of judicial independence in preserving the sanctity of Fundamental Rights. The Fundamental Rights can only be altered by a constitutional amendment, hence their inclusion is a check not only on the executive branch, but also on the Parliament and state legislatures.[9] The imposition of a state of emergency may lead to a temporary suspension of the rights conferred by Article 19 (including freedoms of speech, assembly and movement, etc.) to preserve national security and public order. The President can, by order, suspend the right to constitutional remedies as well.

22

Russia
The Constitution of Russian Federation guarantees in theory many of the same rights and civil liberties as the U.S. except to bear arms, i.e.: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and assembly, freedom to choose language, to due process, to a fair trial, privacy, freedom to vote, right for education, etc. However, human rights groups like Amnesty International have warned that Putin has seriously curtailed freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association amidst growing authoritarianism.[10]

References
[1] America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar [2] Robert J. McCarthy, Civil Rights in Tribal Courts; The Indian Bill of Rights at 30 Years, 34 IDAHO LAW REVIEW 465 (1998). [3] Constitution of India-Part III Fundamental Rights.

[4] "Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty; 1995 ICHRL 69" (http:/ / www. worldlii. org/ int/ cases/ ICHRL/ 1995/ 69. html). World Legal Information Institute (http:/ / www. worldlii. org/ ). . Retrieved 2006-05-25. This was the case where Public interest litigation was introduced (date of ruling 15 December 1995). [5] Tayal, B.B. & Jacob, A. (2005), Indian History, World Developments and Civics, pg. A-25 [6] "Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2003" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20060425230738/ http:/ / rajyasabha. nic. in/ legislative/ amendbills/ XXXIX_2003. pdf) (PDF). Rajya Sabha (http:/ / rajyasabha. nic. in/ ). pp.5. Archived from the original (http:/ / rajyasabha. nic. in/ legislative/ amendbills/ XXXIX_2003. pdf) on 2006-04-25. . Retrieved 2006-05-25. [7] "Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty; 1995 ICHRL 69" (http:/ / www. worldlii. org/ int/ cases/ ICHRL/ 1995/ 69. html). World Legal Information Institute (http:/ / www. worldlii. org/ ). . Retrieved 2006-05-25. This was the case where Fundamental Rights were enforced against private individuals (date of ruling 15 December 1995). [8] Kesavananda Bharati vs. state of Kerala; AIR 1973 S.C. 1461, (1973) 4 SCC 225 In what became famously known as the "Fundamental Rights case", the Supreme Court decided that the basic structure of the constitution was unamendable. [9] Tayal, B.B. & Jacob, A. (2005), Indian History, World Developments and Civics, pg. A-24 [10] Putin rolling back civil rights, warns Amnesty | World news | The Guardian (http:/ / www. guardian. co. uk/ world/ 2008/ feb/ 27/ russia. humanrights)

Huge rallies like this one in Kolkata are commonplace in India.

Further reading
Dershowitz, Alan. "Preserving Civil Liberties." (http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i05/05b00901.htm) Reflections on the Fractured Landscape, spec. sec. of Chronicle of Higher Education, Chronicle Review, September 28, 2001. Accessed August 11, 2006. Smith, Jean Edward, and Herbert M. Levine. Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Debated. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988.

Civil liberties

23

External links
Rights, Civil Liberties and Freedoms in Russia (http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm) The Cato Institute: Civil Liberties (http://www.cato.org/current/civil-liberties/index.html) Leading Civil Liberties Organizations in the United States (http://www.startguide.org/orgs/orgs05.html) USDOJ: Privacy and Civil Liberties Office (http://www.usdoj.gov/opcl) Court cases involving Civil Liberties held at the National Archives at Atlanta (http://www.archives.gov/ southeast/finding-aids/civil-liberties.pdf)

Economic freedom
Economic freedom is a term used in economic and policy debates. As with freedom generally, there are various definitions, but no universally accepted concept of economic freedom.[1][2] One major approach to economic freedom comes from classical liberal and Right-libertarian traditions emphasizing free markets and private property, while another extends the welfare economics study of individual choice, with greater economic freedom coming from a "larger" (in some technical sense) set of possible choices.[3] Other conceptions of economic freedom include freedom from want[1][4] and the freedom to engage in collective bargaining.[5] The free market viewpoint defines economic liberty as the freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft. This is embodied in the rule of law, property rights and freedom of contract, and characterized by external and internal openness of the markets, the protection of property rights and freedom of economic initiative.[3][6][7] There are several indices of economic freedom that attempt to measure free market economic freedom. Empirical studies based on these rankings have found higher living standards, economic growth, income equality, less corruption and less political violence to be correlated with higher scores on the country rankings.[8][9][10][11][12]

Free market viewpoint

Institutions of economic freedom
Rule of law Free market advocates argue that the principle of the rule of law both requires, and is required for economic freedom. Friedrich Hayek argued that the certainty of law Magna Carta marks one of the contributed to the prosperity of the West more than any other single factor. Other earliest attempts to limit a important principles of the rule of law are the generality and equality of the law, sovereign's authority and it is seen which require that all legal rules apply equally to everybody. These principles can [13] as a symbol of the rule of law. be seen as safeguards against severe restrictions on liberty, because they require that all laws equally apply to those with political and coercive power as well as those who are governed. Principles of the generality and equality of the law exclude special privileges and arbitrary application of law, that is laws favoring one group at the expense of other citizens.[14] According to Friedrich Hayek, equality before the law is incompatible with any activity of the government aiming to achieve the material equality of different people. He asserts that a state's attempt to place people in the same (or similar) material position leads to an unequal treatment of individuals and to a compulsory redistribution of income.[15]

Economic freedom Private property rights According to the free market view, a secure system of private property rights is an essential part of economic freedom. Such systems include two main rights: the right to control and benefit from property and the right to transfer property by voluntary means. These rights offer people the possibility of autonomy and self-determination according to their personal values and goals.[17] Economist Milton Friedman sees property rights as "the most basic of human rights and an essential foundation for other human rights."[18] With property rights protected, people are free to choose the use of their property, earn on it, and transfer it to In the 1960s Alan Greenspan anyone else, as long as they do it on a voluntary basis and do not resort to force, argued that economic freedom fraud or theft. In such conditions most people can achieve much greater personal requires the gold standard for freedom and development than under a regime of government coercion. A secure protection of savings from [16] system of property rights also reduces uncertainty and encourages investments, confiscation through inflation. creating favorable conditions for an economy to be successful.[19] Empirical evidence suggests that countries with strong property rights systems have economic growth rates almost twice as high as those of countries with weak property rights systems, and that a market system with significant private property rights is an essential condition for democracy.[20] According to Hernando de Soto, much of the poverty in the Third World countries is caused by the lack of Western systems of laws and well-defined and universally recognized property rights. De Soto argues that because of the legal barriers poor people in those countries can not utilize their assets to produce more wealth.[21] Pierre Proudhon, a socialist and anarchist thinker, argued that property is both theft and freedom.[22] Many leftists dispute that private property means "economic freedom" and believe in a system where people can lay claim to things based on personal use.[23] Freedom of contract Freedom of contract is the right to choose one's contracting parties and to trade with them on any terms and conditions one sees fit. Contracts permit individuals to create their own enforceable legal rules, adapted to their unique situations.[24] Parties decide whether contracts are profitable or fair, but once a contract is made they are obliged to fulfill its terms, even if they are going to sustain losses by doing so. Through making binding promises people are free to pursue their own interests. The main economic function of contracts is to provide transferability of property rights. Transferability largely depends on the enforceability of contracts, which is enabled by the judicial system. In Western societies the state does not enforce all types of contracts, and in some cases it intervenes by prohibiting certain arrangements, even if they are made between willing parties. However, not all contracts need to be enforced by the state. For example, in the United States there is a large number of third-party arbitration tribunals which resolve disputes under private commercial law.[25] Negatively understood, freedom of contract is freedom from government interference and from imposed value judgments of fairness. The notion of "freedom of contract" was given one of its most famous legal expressions in 1875 by Sir George Jessel MR:[26]

24

[I]f there is one thing more than another public policy requires it is that men of full age and competent understanding shall have the utmost liberty of contracting, and that their contracts when entered into freely and voluntarily shall be held sacred and shall be enforced by courts of justice. Therefore, you have this paramount public policy to consider that you are not lightly to interfere with this freedom of contract.

The doctrine of freedom of contract received one of its strongest expressions in the US Supreme Court case of Lochner v New York which struck down legal restrictions on the working hours of bakers. [27] Critics of the classical view of freedom of contract argue that this freedom is illusory when the bargaining power of the parties is highly unequal, most notably in the case of contracts between employers and workers. As in the case of restrictions on working hours, workers as a group may benefit from legal protections that prevent individuals

Economic freedom agreeing to contracts that require long working hours. In its West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish decision in 1937, overturning Lochner, the Supreme Court cited an earlier decisions

25

The legislature has also recognized the fact, which the experience of legislators in many States has corroborated, that the proprietors of these establishments and their operatives do not stand upon an equality, and that [p394] their interests are, to a certain extent, conflicting. The former naturally desire to obtain as much labor as possible from their employes, while the latter are often induced by the fear of discharge to conform to regulations which their judgment, fairly exercised, would pronounce to be detrimental to their health or strength. In other words, the proprietors lay down the rules and the laborers are practically constrained to obey them. In such cases, self-interest is often an unsafe [28] guide, and the legislature may properly interpose its authority.

From this point on, the Lochner view of freedom of contract has been rejected by US courts.[29]

Economic and political freedom

Some free market advocates argue that political and civil liberties have simultaneously expanded with market-based economies, and present empirical evidence to support the claim that economic and political freedoms are linked.[30][31] In Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Friedman developed the argument that economic freedom, while itself an extremely important component of total freedom, is also a necessary condition for political freedom. He commented that centralized control of economic activities was always accompanied with political repression. In his view, voluntary character of all transactions in a free market economy and wide diversity that it permits are fundamental threats to repressive political leaders and greatly diminish power to coerce. Through elimination of centralized control of economic activities, economic power is separated from political power, and the one can serve as counterbalance to the other. Friedman feels that competitive capitalism is especially important to minority groups, since impersonal market forces protect people from discrimination in their economic activities for reasons unrelated to their productivity.[32] Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises argued that economic and political freedom were mutually dependent: "The idea that political freedom can be preserved in the absence of economic freedom, and vice versa, is an illusion. Political freedom is the corollary of economic freedom. It is no accident that the age of capitalism became also the age of government by the people."[33] In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek argued that "Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends."[34] Hayek criticized socialist policies as the slippery slope that can lead to totalitarianism.[35] Gordon Tullock has argued that "the Hayek-Friedman argument" predicted totalitarian governments in much of Western Europe in the late 20th century - which did not occur. He uses the example of Sweden, in which the government at that time controlled 63 percent of GNP, as an example to support his argument that the basic problem with The Road to Serfdom is "that it offered predictions which turned out to be false. The steady advance of government in places such as Sweden has not led to any loss of non-economic freedoms." While criticizing Hayek, Tullock still praises the classical liberal notion of economic freedom, saying, "Arguments for political freedom are strong, as are the arguments for economic freedom. We neednt make one set of arguments depend on the other."[36]

Indices of economic freedom

The annual surveys Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) and Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) are two indices which attempt to measure the degree of economic freedom in the world's nations. The EFW index, originally developed by Gwartney, Lawson and Block at the Fraser Institute[37] was likely the most used in empirical studies as of 2000.[38] The other major index, which was developed by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal appears superior for data work, although as it only goes back to 1995, it is less useful for historical comparisons.[38]

Economic freedom According to the creators of the indices, these rankings correlate strongly with higher average income per person, higher income of the poorest 10%, higher life expectancy, higher literacy, lower infant mortality, higher access to water sources and less corruption.[39][40] The people living in the top one-fifth of countries enjoy an average income of $23,450 and a growth rate in the 1990s of 2.56 percent per year; in contrast, the bottom one-fifth in the rankings had an average income of just $2,556 and a -0.85 percent growth rate in the 1990s. The poorest 10 percent of the population have an average income of just $728 in the lowest ranked countries compared with over $7,000 in the highest ranked countries. The life expectancy of people living in the highest ranked nations is 20 years longer than for people in the lowest ranked countries.[41] Higher economic freedom, as measured by both the Heritage and the Fraser indices, correlates strongly with higher self-reported happiness.[42] Erik Gartzke of the Fraser Institute estimates that countries with a high EFW are significantly less likely to be involved in wars, while his measure of democracy had little or no impact.[43] The Economic Freedom of the World score for the entire world has grown considerably in recent decades. The average score has increased from 5.17 in 1985 to 6.4 in 2005. Of the nations in 1985, 95 nations increased their score, seven saw a decline, and six were unchanged.[44] Using the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom methodology world economic freedom has increased 2.6 points since 1995.[45] Members of the World Bank Group also use Index of Economic Freedom as the indicator of investment climate, because it covers more aspects relevant to the private sector in wide number of countries.[46] The nature of economic freedom is often in dispute. Robert Lawson, the co-author of EFW, even acknowledges the potential shortcomings of freedom indices: "The purpose of the EFW index is to measure, no doubt imprecisely, the degree of economic freedom that exists."[47] He likens the recent attempts of economists to measure economic freedom to the initial attempts of economists to measure GDP: "They [macroeconomists] were scientists who sat down to design, as best they could with the tools at hand, a measure of the current economic activity of the nation. Economic activity exists and their job was to measure it. Likewise economic freedom exists. It is a thing. We can define and measure it." Thus, it follows that some economists, socialists and anarchists contend that the existing indicators of economic freedom are too narrowly defined and should take into account a broader conception of economic freedoms. Critics of the indices (e.g. Thom Hartmann) also oppose the inclusion of business-related measures like corporate charters and intellectual property protection.[48] John Miller in Dollars & Sense has stated that the indices are "a poor barometer of either freedom more broadly construed or of prosperity." He argues that the high correlation between living standards and economic freedom as measured by IEF is the result of choices made in the construction of the index that guarantee this result. For example, the treatment of a large informal sector (common in poor countries) as an indicator of restrictive government policy, and the use of the change in the ratio of government spending to national income, rather than the level of this ratio. Hartmann argues that these choices cause the social democratic European countries to rank higher than countries where the government share of the economy is small but growing.[49] Economists Dani Rodrik and Jeffrey Sachs have separately noted that there appears to be little correlation between measured economic freedom and economic growth when the least free countries are disregarded, as indicated by the strong growth of the Chinese economy in recent years.[50][51] Morris Altman found that there is a relatively large correlation between economic freedom and both per capita income and per capita growth. He argues that this is especially true when it comes to sub-indices relating to property rights and sound money, while he calls into question the importance of sub-indices relating to labor regulation and government size once certain threshold values are passed.[52] John Miller further observes that Hong Kong and Singapore, both only "partially free" according to Freedom House, are leading countries on both economic freedom indices and casts doubt on the claim that measured economic freedom is associated with political freedom.[49] However, according to the Freedom House, "there is a high and statistically significant correlation between the level of political freedom as measured by Freedom House

26

Economic freedom and economic freedom as measured by the Wall Street Journal/Heritage Foundation survey."[53]

27

Choice sets and economic freedom

Amartya Sen and other economists have considered economic freedom in terms of the set of economic choices available to individuals.

Positive and negative freedom

The differences between alternative views of economic freedom have been expressed in terms of Isaiah Berlin's distinction between positive freedom and negative freedom. Classical liberals favour a focus on negative freedom as did Berlin himself. By contrast Amartya Sen argues for an understanding of freedom in terms of capabilities to pursue a range of goals.[54] One measure which attempts to assess freedom in the positive sense is Goodin, Rice, Parpo, and Eriksson's measure of discretionary time, which is an estimate of how much time people have at their disposal during which they are free to choose the activities in which they participate, after taking into account the time they need to spend acquiring the necessities of life.[55]

Freedom from want

Franklin D. Roosevelt included freedom from want in his Four freedoms speech. Roosevelt stated that freedom from want "translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world". In terms of US policy, Roosevelt's New Deal included economic freedoms such as freedom of trade union organisation, as well as a wide range of policies of government intervention and redistributive taxation aimed at promoting freedom from want. Internationally, Roosevelt favored the policies associated with the Bretton Woods Agreement which fixed exchange rates and established international economic institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Herbert Hoover saw economic freedom as a fifth freedom, which secures survival of Roosevelt's Four freedoms. He described economic freedom as freedom "for men to choose their own calling, to accumulate property in protection of their children and old age, [and] freedom of enterprise that does not injure others."[56]

Freedom of association and unions

The Philadelphia Declaration (enshrined in the constitution of the International Labour Organization[57]) states that "all human beings, irrespective of race, creed or sex, have the right to pursue both their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity, of economic security and equal opportunity". The ILO further states that "The right of workers and employers to form and join organizations of their own choosing is an integral part of a free and open society."[58]

References
[1] Bronfenbrenner, Martin (1955). "Two Concepts of Economic Freedom". Ethics 65 (3): 157170. doi:10.1086/290998. JSTOR2378928. [2] Sen, Amartya. Rationality and Freedom. p.9. [3] "Economic Freedom and its Measurement". The Encyclopedia of Public Choice. 2. Springer. 2004. pp. 161 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=YUVMraFYwYC& printsec=frontcover#PRA1PA161,M1)171. ISBN978-0-7923-8607-0. [4] "Franklin Roosevelt's Annual Address to Congress - The "Four Freedoms"" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080529235759/ http:/ / www. fdrlibrary. marist. edu/ od4freed. html). January 6, 1941. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. fdrlibrary. marist. edu/ od4freed. html) on May 29, 2008. . Retrieved November 10, 2008. [5] Jacoby, Daniel (1998). Laboring for Freedom: A New Look at the History of Labor in America (eBook). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe. pp.89,148,166167. ISBN978-0-585-19030-3. [6] Surjit S. Bhalla. Freedom and economic growth: a virtuous cycle?. Published in Democracy's Victory and Crisis. (1997). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-57583-4 p. 205 [7] David A. Harper. Foundations of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. (1999). Routledge. ISBN 0-415-15342-5 p.57, 64

Economic freedom
[8] Pei, Minxin (2001). "Political Institutions, Democracy, and Development". Democracy, Market Economics, and Development. World Bank Publications. ISBN978-0-8213-4862-8. [9] Easton, Stephen T.; Walker, Michael A. (May 1997). "Income, growth, and economic freedom". American Economic Review (American Economic Association) 87 (2): 328332. [10] Ayal, Eliezer B.; Karras, Georgios (Spring 1998). "Components of economic freedom and growth: an empirical study". Journal of Developing Areas (Western Illinois University) 32 (3): 327338. [11] Scully, Gerald (2002). "Economic Freedom, Government Policy, and the Trade-Off Between Equity and Economic Growth". Public Choice (Kluwer Academic Publishers) 113 (12): 7796. doi:10.1023/A:1020308831424. [12] Berggren, Niclas (1999). "Economic Freedom and Equality: Friends or Foes?". Public Choice (Kluwer Academic Publishers) 100 (34): 203223. doi:10.1023/A:1018343912743. [13] Ralph V. Turner. Magna Carta. Pearson Education. (2003). ISBN 0-582-43826-8 p.1 [14] David A. Harper. Foundations of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development p.66-71 [15] Daniel Rauhut, Neelambar Hatti, Carl-Axel Olsson. Economists and Poverty. Vedams eBooks (P) Ltd. ISBN 81-7936-016-4, p.204-205 [16] Addision Wiggin, William Bonner. Financial Reckoning Day: Surviving the Soft Depression of the 21st Century. (2004). John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 0-471-48130-0 p.137 [17] David A. Harper. Foundations of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. (1999). Routledge. ISBN 0-415-15342-5 p.74 [18] Rose D. Friedman, Milton Friedman. Two Lucky People: Memoirs. (1998). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-26414-9 p.605 [19] Bernard H. Siegan. Property and Freedom: The Constitution, the Courts, and Land-Use Regulation. Transaction Publishers. (1997). ISBN 1-56000-974-8 p.9, 230 [20] David L. Weimer. The political economy of property rights. Published in The Political Economy of Property Rights. Cambridge University Press. (1997). ISBN 0-521-58101-X p.8-9 [21] Hernando De Soto. The Mystery of Capital. Basic Books. (2003). ISBN 0-465-01615-4 p.210-211 [22] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism. Edited by Daniel Guerin, translated by Paul Sharkey. 2005. AK Press. ISBN 1-904859-25-9 p. 55-56 [23] Anarchist Essays, pp. 22-23 and p. 40 Freedom Press, London, 2000. [24] John V. Orth. Contract and the Common Law. Published in The State and Freedom of Contract. (1998). Stanford University Press ISBN 0-8047-3370-8 p.64 [25] David A. Harper. Foundations of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. (1999). Routledge. ISBN 0-415-15342-5 p.82-88 [26] Hans van Ooseterhout, Jack J. Vromen, Pursey Heugensp. Social Institutions of Capitalism: Evolution and Design of Social Contracts. (2003). Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 1-84376-495-4 p.44 [27] http:/ / www. pbs. org/ wnet/ supremecourt/ capitalism/ landmark_lochner. html [28] "West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish" (http:/ / www. law. cornell. edu/ supct/ html/ historics/ USSC_CR_0300_0379_ZO. html). . [29] "The Supreme Court . Capitalism and Conflict . Landmark Cases . Lochner v. New York (1905) |PBS" (http:/ / www. pbs. org/ wnet/ supremecourt/ capitalism/ landmark_lochner. html). . [30] Freedom in the World. (1999). Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0-7658-0675-4 p.12 [31] Lewis F. Abbott. British Democracy: Its Restoration & Extension, ISR/Google Books, 2006, 2010. Chapter Five: The Legal Protection Of Democracy & Freedom: The Case For A New Written Constitution & Bill Of Rights. (http:/ / books. google. co. uk/ books?id=xwN-MIMtE6sC& dq=ISBN090632131X) [32] Milton Friedman. Capitalism and freedom. (2002). The University of Chicago. ISBN 0-226-26421-1 p.8-21 [33] Ludwig Von Mises. Planning for Freedom. Libertarian Press. 1962. p. 38 [34] Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, University Of Chicago Press; 50th Anniversary edition (1944), ISBN 0-226-32061-8 p.95 [35] Hayek, Friedrich (2007). The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents. University of Chicago Press. pp.5357. ISBN978-0-226-32055-7. [36] Tullock, Gordon (1988). Walker, Michael A.. ed. Freedom, Democracy and Economic Welfare (http:/ / fraser. stg. devlin. ca/ commerce. web/ publication_details. aspx?pubID=2942). Vancouver, B.C., Canada: The Fraser Institute. pp.6064. . [37] Gwartney, L., R. Lawson, and W. Block (1996). Economic Freedom of the World, 1975-1995. Vancouver: Fraser Institute. [38] Heckelman, Jac C.; Stroup, Michael D. (2000). "Which Economic Freedoms Contribute to Growth?". Kyklos 53 (4): 52744. doi:10.1111/1467-6435.00132. [39] Economic Freedom of the World: 2004 Annual Report (http:/ / www. freetheworld. com/ 2004/ efw2004ch1. pdf) (pdf) [40] Index of Economic Freedom - Executive Summary (http:/ / www. heritage. org/ research/ features/ index/ chapters/ pdf/ index2008_execsum. pdf) (pdf) [41] Economic Freedom Needed To Alleviate Poverty (http:/ / www. buckeyeinstitute. org/ article/ 318) [42] In Pursuit of Happiness Research. Is It Reliable? What Does It Imply for Policy? (http:/ / www. cato. org/ pub_display. php?pub_id=8179) The Cato institute. April 11, 2007 [43] Chapter2: Economic Freedom and Peace (http:/ / www. cato. org/ pubs/ efw/ efw2005/ efw2005-2. pdf), Economic Freedom of the World 2005 [44] Economic Freedom of the World: 2005 Annual Report (http:/ / www. freetheworld. com/ release_2005. html) [45] Economic Freedom Holding Steady (http:/ / www. reuters. com/ article/ pressRelease/ idUS49743+ 15-Jan-2008+ PRN20080115) [46] Improving Investment Climates (http:/ / psdblog. worldbank. org/ psdblog/ 2006/ 08/ our_effectivene. html), World Bank Publications, 2006. ISBN 0-8213-6282-8 p.221-224

28

Economic freedom
[47] Lawson, Robert A. 2006."'On Testing the Connection between Economic Freedom and Growth." Econ Journal Watch 3(3): 398-406. (http:/ / econjwatch. org/ issues/ volume-3-number-1-september-2006) [48] http:/ / www. thomhartmann. com/ index. php option=com_content&task=view&id=183 [49] "Free, Free at Last | Dollars & Sense" (http:/ / www. dollarsandsense. org/ archives/ 2005/ 0305miller. html). . [50] Jeffrey Sachs, The End of Poverty; How We Can Make It Happen In Our Lifetime (Penguin Books, 2005), pp. 320-321. [51] "Dani Rodrik's weblog: Is there a growth payoff to economic freedom?" (http:/ / rodrik. typepad. com/ dani_rodriks_weblog/ 2007/ 10/ is-there-a-grow. html). . [52] Morris Altman, "How Much Economic Freedom is Necessary for Economic Growth? Theory and Evidence," Economics Bulletin, Vol. 15 (2008), no. 2, pp. 1-20. [53] Adrian Karatnycky. Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. Transaction Publishers. 2001. ISBN 978-0-7658-0101-2. p. 11 [54] Sen, Amartya K. (1993). "Markets and Freedoms: Achievements and Limitations of the Market Mechanism in Promoting Individual Freedoms". Oxford Economic Papers 45 (4): 519541. [55] Goodin, Robert E.; Rice, James Mahmud; Parpo, Antti; Eriksson, Lina (2008). Discretionary Time: A New Measure of Freedom (http:/ / www. cambridge. org/ catalogue/ catalogue. asp?isbn=9780521709514). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.154. ISBN978-0-521-70951-4. . Chapter 1 and 2 discusses the context and validity of the new measure. [56] Whisenhunt, Donald W. (2007). President Herbert Hoover. Nova Publishers. pp.128. ISBN978-1-60021-476-9. [57] "Constitution of the International Labour Organization" (http:/ / www. ilo. org/ ilolex/ english/ iloconst. htm#annex). . [58] "Freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining - Themes" (http:/ / www. ilo. org/ global/ Themes/ Freedom_of_Association_and_the_Right_to_Collective_Bargaining/ lang--en/ index. htm). .

29

Further reading
Friedrich Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom Ludwig von Mises, Economic Freedom and Interventionism (http://www.mises.org/efandi.asp) Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom Li, Kui-Wai (2012). Economic Freedom: Lessons of Hong Kong (http://www.worldscientific.com/ worldscibooks/10.1142/8286). Hackensack, New Jersey: World Scientific. pp.804. ISBN978-981-4368-85-8.

External links
Economic Freedom (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/EconomicFreedom.html) by Robert A. Lawson of the Fraser Institute at the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics John Miller, " Free, Free at Last (http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0305miller.html)" in Dollars & Sense magazine The Protection Of Economic Rights & Freedoms (http://industry.sharepoint.com/Pages/ NewBritishBillofRights.aspx)

Article Sources and Contributors

30

Article Sources and Contributors

Liberty Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=525431728 Contributors: ++ungood, 72Dino, AbsolutDan, Adam78, Adsfdgfgdfsdasadsfdgfgdfsdsa, Ajayanand7, Al Lemos, Alansohn, Allixpeeke, Amtiss, Anikdote, Ann Stouter, Antonio Lopez, Aquillion, Ashmedai 119, Askewmind, AtheWeatherman, Atheistrabbi, AuburnPilot, Autoerrant, B cubed, B. Fairbairn, BD2412, Banno, Bastet 1952, Bburgersjr, Bertbertbertbert, Bibliobum4vr, Billinghurst, Binarybits, Blanchardb, BullRangifer, Byelf2007, CGWhitsett, CallumIsTheBesterest, Caltas, Cameltrader, CanadianLinuxUser, CanisRufus, Carlosguitar, Carolmooredc, Cgingold, Charles Iliya Krempeaux, Charles Matthews, Charlieage, ChrisO, Christofurio, Chuckiesdad, Ckatz, Coffee, Cometman, Common Man, Cowbud2004, Cpuwarie, Cretog8, CronoDroid, Cst17, Cutie687, DVD R W, Daveh4h, DaviDaviDaviD, Demoscho, Discospinster, Dnichols57, Donama, DoubleD17, Doulos Christos, Dsevans93, Durgadurga, Dustingc, Dysepsion, Earth, Edcolins, Edunoramus, Edward, Egil, Elassint, Electionworld, Entuluve, Epbr123, Eran of Arcadia, Erianna, Eubulides, EvanProdromou, Eyezee, FatHanna, FitzColinGerald, Flewis, Floquenbeam, Foolcontact, FrozenUmbrella, Fyrael, Geebmaster, GeorgeMoney, Gogo Dodo, Gospelnous, Gregbard, Griffin700, Gurch, HJ Mitchell, Hall Monitor, Harvestdancer, Hbent, Henry Berthelsen, Heron, Hghyux, Hgilbert, Hoziron, IRP, Id4abel, Igiffin, Ignotus91987, Ikester8, Impala2009, J.delanoy, JALockhart, JCasto, JForget, Ja 62, Jagged 85, Jamesia, Jandolin, Jarich, JayJasper, Jed keenan, Jeff G., Jeff3000, Jma, John31600, Jojo3141, Jose77, Joseanes, Josephholsten, Junglecat, Jvgama, Kaaveh Ahangar, Kaihsu, Kamadden, Kenyon, KingTT, Kinghajj, Kingpin13, KnowledgeOfSelf, Koavf, Kzollman, L Kensington, Lapaz, Leobg389, Levineps, Lewstherin, Lhademmor, Lingeron, LittleWink, Loonymonkey, Lordjeffsofdelamere, Lotje, Luna Santin, M.thoriyan, Maheshkumaryadav, Malcolmxl5, Mandarax, Manscher, Marek69, Martinp23, Mattisse, Mattmcc, Matturn, Mauler90, Meiskam, Member21, Michael Hardy, Mikael Hggstrm, Misza13, MitchellDuce, Monk127, Morphh, Mrdthree, Neutrality, Nevit, Nick Number, Nikodemos, Nikpapag, Nirvana2013, Noosentaal, Nthralld, Nubiatech, Nuttycoconut, Oleg-ch, Operation Spooner, OriginalTibs, Ospalh, Oxymoron83, Paine Ellsworth, Patrickneil, Paul Bonneau, Pbdragonwang, Pdcook, Piano non troppo, Piglips, Pochsad, Praefectorian, Primalchaos, Pusat, Quadell, R, RL0919, RRKennison, RWR8189, RafaelG, Ram-Man, Rdsmith4, Reddi, Redvers, Rettetast, Riana, Rich Farmbrough, RobDe68, Robocracy, Rrburke, Rrhallmark, Rudimae, Rumpelstiltskin223, SaltyBoatr, Samlundstrom, Sandstein, Santa Sangre, Sardanaphalus, SarekOfVulcan, Savidan, Sealfan, Sftejano, Shomino, Shoreranger, Shuipzv3, Sideguide, SiobhanHansa, SmartGuy Old, Sopoforic, SpuriousQ, Squirepants101, Srich32977, Stephen Shaw, Stephenb, Steven J. Anderson, StuartBrady, Surferhere, Tdadamemd, The Thing That Should Not Be, Theda, Thomas81, Tide rolls, Tkn20, Tmtoulouse, Tobby72, Tom harrison, Tree Biting Conspiracy, TutterMouse, TxTr, Tyharvey313, UberCryxic, Uncle Dick, VernoWhitney, Vincent Lextrait, Vsmith, Walkinxyz, We want FREEDOM, Wetman, Whichmore, WikipedianMarlith, Wikipediarules2221, Wilfried Derksen, Xiahou, Yidisheryid, Yintan, Yourmanstan, Youzwan, Zazaban, Zenwhat, Zerosk8r360, Zodon, Zzyzx11, , , 395 anonymous edits Political freedom Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=515722103 Contributors: Aaliyah Stevens, Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri, Adam78, Airborne84, Ajayanand7, Al B. Free, Alansohn, Ale jrb, Alex S, Alexius08, Altenmann, Amaryllis2, Amatulic, Americanjoe1776, Andy Marchbanks, Apotetios, Arapajoe, Assyria 90, Atif.t2, AzaToth, Bc239, Beano, Bezinque, Bgoldenberg, Binky The WonderSkull, Boip3, Bombshell, Bstein80, Bunnyhop11, Burner0718, Bwendan, Byelf2007, CCHadley49, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, CanadianCaesar, Capricorn42, CardinalDan, Cdogsimmons, Cgingold, Civil Engineer III, Cleared as filed, CommonsDelinker, Conversion script, Counterheg, Cretog8, Cuchullain, DMacks, Da Joe, DancingPenguin, Darth Panda, Delldot, Dewdew2, Dianelos, Djyang, Doctors without suspenders, Doczilla, DoriSmith, Drbreznjev, Dude Aronomy, Dustingc, Dvavasour, Dzzl, ER MD, Earth, Ecth, EdH, EdJohnston, Edunoramus, EntmootsOfTrolls, Erud, Everyguy, Evlekis, Fairandbalanced, Falcon8765, Farosdaughter, Felony1234, Formeruser-81, Freedom24, Freedomwarrior, Freedomwright, Friman, Fuzheado, Gaius Cornelius, Gennarous, Ggb667, Gianfranco, Gigs, Gongshow, Grampion76, Gregbard, Gsociology, Guanaco, H Padleckas, Harry Stoteles, Harryc4848, Heracles31, HexaChord, Homagetocatalonia, Hoplon, Horses In The Sky, Hu12, IRP, Inter16, Iokseng, Itake, JCasto, JForget, JRR Trollkien, JaGa, Jacek Kendysz, Jdemenczuk, Jeff3000, Jeronimo, Jethrobrice, Jittat, John Smith's, John254, Josef Eichhorn, Jpeob, Jrtayloriv, Kaaveh Ahangar, Kabulykos, Kanags, Karl Dickman, Kartano, Katana0182, KathodeRay, King Zeal, Kjkolb, KnowledgeOfSelf, Krassotkin, Krellis, Krukouski, Kurieeto, Kyle sb, LA2, LaMenta3, Landen99, Lee Daniel Crocker, Liftarn, Luc., Macosx, Magioladitis, Makedonia, Malachi117, Mareino, Mark Malcampo, MartinHarper, MarxistRevolutionary, Mato, Maurice Carbonaro, Maxcrc, Megapixie, Melab-1, Metamagician3000, Michael Hardy, Michael Snow, Minsis, Mirv, Mod mmg, Moeron, Mrdthree, Mushroom, Nashhinton, NawlinWiki, Neelix, NeilN, NerdyScienceDude, Nichalp, Nightstallion, Nikodemos, Northmeister, Notinasnaid, Novo (usurped), Nsaa, ONUnicorn, Occlasty, Ohnoitsjamie, OldakQuill, One, Ottens, P30Carl, Paul Bonneau, Pbdragonwang, Pde, Pfhorrest, Polly, Prober123, Quercusrobur, Quintote, R'n'B, RA0808, Raan0001, Radiant hedgehog, Rami radwan, RedWolf, Rekinom, Revotfel, Rezavandi, Rightalwaysis, Rjanag, RobDe68, Rossami, SFC9394, Salvor Hardin, Sam Clark, Scandum, Scarian, Shizhao, Shiznatz21, Shoreranger, SimonP, Some jerk on the Internet, Somedifferentstuff, Spikespeigel42, Spleeman, Steinsky, SteveSims, Stevietheman, SusikMkr, Sydney.city.easts, Taranet, Tbc, Tcsetattr, Tedneeman, Tempodivalse, Teryx, Thumperward, Timmytop16, Toadies1, TopazSun, Tree Biting Conspiracy, Trust Is All You Need, Tzartzam, Ubernetizen, Ulric1313, Viajero, Vision Thing, Vsmith, WHEELER, Walkinxyz, Wikiipikii, Wilfried Derksen, Wire-d-, Wmahan, Xiahou, Yaf, Yourmanstan, Youssefsan, Yworo, Zito ta xania, Zntrip, Zx-man, 398 anonymous edits Morphological freedom Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=522932623 Contributors: ASmartKid, Altdotme, Andrewaskew, Byelf2007, Closedmouth, Edcolins, Equivamp, Eschatoon, Harold Lockworth, Hemlock Martinis, Loremaster, Melaen, MichaelKovich, NielsenGW, Paddles, Suryadas, TheRingess, Tree Biting Conspiracy, True Pagan Warrior, Zhitelew, 30 anonymous edits Scientific freedom Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=516266152 Contributors: 2D, Altenmann, Marasmusine, Occlasty, Omicron18, Pcap, Rjwilmsi, Semmler, Uncle G, 3 anonymous edits Academic freedom Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=518089380 Contributors: 23haveblue, 3rd Force, AEMoreira042281, Abinandanan, AleXd, Alfred 188, Altruistguy, Andrew Gray, Andycjp, Anilovely, Ariklee, BD2412, Banno, Bearian, Blahcubed, Bmclaughlin9, Bongwarrior, Charles Matthews, Chris the speller, Cmdrjameson, ColDickPeters, ComputerGeezer, Correogsk, Cybercobra, Cyclingbobe, D. Webb, Danny lost, David.Monniaux, Defenestrate, Dilimandiary, Dirac66, Dolphin51, Dr Gangrene, Dr.enh, DuncanHill, Eastlaw, Edward Wakelin, FeloniousMonk, Freakmighty, Fyrael, Golf Bravo, GreenReaper, Greg Tyler, Gwen Gale, Hartackerstrasse, HoundofBaskersville, Hrafn, JJL, JTBurman, Jacklee, Jagged 85, JamesAM, JayJasper, Jaydge, Jclebec, Jeremy Butler, Jkerr208, Justjusticia, Karl-Henner, Kintetsubuffalo, Knowledge4all, Ks2007, Kwiki, Landsome, LaszloWalrus, Latrippi, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, Libraryg, MECU, Maurice Carbonaro, Maximus Rex, Mike Schwartz, Mindmatrix, MisterDub, Neutrality, Nsk92, Occlasty, Orlady, Pablo Perugino, Pakaran, Parker007, PatrikG, Penbat, PervyPirate, Pfaff9, Pollinosisss, Ragnoroc1, Rdikeman, Reedy, RichardF, Rj, Rjanag, Rjwilmsi, RookZERO, Saber girl08, Sasuke Sarutobi, Smallasahobbit, Sweetness46, THobern, Tad Lincoln, Thegreatmichael, Themfromspace, Tiddly Tom, Timo Honkasalo, Tortdog, Toytoy, Trusilver, Tsquirt64, Uncle G, Vgy7ujm, Viajero, Wgrassl, WhatamIdoing, Wikiklrsc, Woohookitty, 119 anonymous edits Civil liberties Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=522708749 Contributors: AV3000, AaronSw, Aitias, Alan.A.Mick, Alanmak, Alansohn, Allixpeeke, AlphaEta, Anca, AndrewHowse, Andy Marchbanks, Andycjp, Apollo1758, BF109 pilot, Baronnet, Beland, Betacommand, Big Adamsky, BillyTFried, Boxmoor, Bryndel, Buffoverflow, Byelf2007, C mon, CL, Carolmooredc, Catacomber, Ccasey08, Centril, Cgingold, Chaikney, Chameleon, Chmod007, Chrisbaume, Christopher Parham, Chuck F, Chzz, CieloEstrellado, Cokeabout, Colecoboy84, Colege, Computerjoe, ConradKilroy, Cretog8, Damian Yerrick, Daniel, David.Monniaux, David91, Dejitarob, DocWatson42, Dv82matt, Edunoramus, Elodoth, EnOreg, Epbr123, Epilou, Erik9, Explicit, Fenice, GB fan, Gabbe, Galar71, Gettingtoit, Ghaly, Gilliam, Gioto, Grayshi, Gregbard, Guillermo Ugarte, HJ Mitchell, Hb mo, HiMY, Hoping To Help, JPMcGrath, JamesMLane, Jamesrnorwood, Jazzwick, Jebba, Jersyko, Jevergreen, JonHarder, Kingturtle, Kitaure, Kuru, Lapaz, Larklight, LeaveSleaves, Leszek Jaczuk, Levineps, Lightmouse, LilyKitty, Lomn, Lord Yaar, Loremaster, Lxivgiiioc, MRSC, Mark Dingemanse, Markaci, Meritus, Mindmatrix, Mitchellrc, Montana30, Mrjet3, NYScholar, NameIsRon, NellieBly, Neutrality, Nevit, Newc0253, Nigholith, Nikodemos, Nirvana2013, Nishkid64, Noypi380, Nthralld, Occlasty, Osro, Owen, Pablothegreat85, Palefire, Pass a Method, Pchov, Pearle, Peter Easton, Pfhorrest, Pgecaj, Ph23249, Phantomsteve, Phil1988, Philwelch, Piratelooksat30some2001, Pochsad, Proteus, Proxima Centauri, Quarty, R'n'B, Raggz, Randy Schutt, Redcameron12, Redvers, Remy B, Rich Farmbrough, Robert Thyder, Robohead, Rodneyh318, Rustle49, SQGibbon, Sapere aude22, Sardanaphalus, Scott Burley, Shaddack, Sheep go baa, Shrigley, Silly rabbit, SimonTrew, Skinnyweed, Snowolf, Soliloquial, Soufron, Stardust8212, Stevietheman, Surlyduff50, TG312274, THEN WHO WAS PHONE?, Talrias, TarseeRota, Tellyaddict, The Homosexualist, Theo10011, Thewolfstar, Thingg, TigerShark, Timeshift9, Tinton5, Tjss, Toddsschneider, Tom harrison, TomChatt, Tree Biting Conspiracy, Trounce, Trusilver, Urdutext, Vcelloho, Vernon39, Verum, Wikidea, Wilfried Derksen, Wingman78, Wingspeed, Wknight94, YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels, Zachorious, 318 anonymous edits Economic freedom Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=525743194 Contributors: Abtinb, Academic38, AdjustShift, Anarchangel, Andkore, AngoraFish, BD2412, Battlecry, Bbarkley, Bbarkley2, Bc239, BernardL, Bombastus, BorgQueen, Bowei Huang 2, Bushbee, Bwendan, Ccrummer, Compme, Cretog8, DOR (HK), Darth Panda, Doopdoop, Drconaway, EEMIV, Eatonbick, Edward, Ehsanrm69, Emmisa, Espoo, Financestudent, Gilliam, Glass Sword, Gregbard, Headbomb, Hector.C.Jorge, Hemlock Martinis, HooiYean, ImperfectlyInformed, J.R. Hercules, J.delanoy, Janosabel, JayJasper, John Quiggin, JohnDoe0007, Judgesurreal777, Larklight, Lawrencekhoo, LightSParker, Logset, Longdean, Mic, Mohawkjohn, Nikodemos, Notmyrealname, Nwe, Ohnoitsjamie, PassionoftheDamon, Philip Trueman, Playlist, Plumbago, Polygon4, Protonk, R'n'B, RayBirks, Recost, Redthoreau, Rjwilmsi, SchfiftyThree, Singwaste, Srich32977, Stars4change, StephenMacmanus, Stevertigo, Susfele, Tabletop, Trainthh, Turidoth, TxTr, Ubuntu Maverick Meerkat, Ultramarine, Utku Tanrivere, Valois bourbon, Vilukatti, Vision Thing, Volunteer Marek, Ward3001, Wavelength, Welsh, WereSpielChequers, Yamanam, 99 ,42..anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

31

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

File:John-stuart-mill-sized.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:John-stuart-mill-sized.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: User:Infrogmation Image:Majestic Liberty Large.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Majestic_Liberty_Large.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Contributors: Manscher, Poco a poco Image:Ama-gi.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ama-gi.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: jgaray File:Eugne Delacroix - La libert guidant le peuple.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Eugne_Delacroix_-_La_libert_guidant_le_peuple.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: 1970gemini, Aavindraa, Alvaro qc, Anetode, Arnomane, Berrucomons, Better than Hustler, Bibi Saint-Pol, Cantons-de-l'Est, Dbenbenn, Didactohedron, DutchHoratius, Encephalon, FoeNyx, Husky, J JMesserly, Jarekt, Jean-Frdric, Julia W, Kelson, Makthorpe, Marianika, Martin H., Mattes, Mglanznig, Miniwark, Mmxx, Nguyn L, Olivier2, Paris 16, PaweMM, Plindenbaum, Pline, Pyb, Ranveig, The art master, Thierry Caro, Thuresson, Trycatch, Tsui, Warburg, , , 17 anonymous edits Image:French-Liberty-British-Slavery-Gillray.jpeg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:French-Liberty-British-Slavery-Gillray.jpeg License: Public Domain Contributors: Anne97432, Eubulides, Infrogmation, Mattes, Mindmatrix, Panarria, Teofilo, Wolfmann Image:Li-ber-ty.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Li-ber-ty.jpg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Nevit Dilmen File:Dyfikolkata (54).jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dyfikolkata_(54).jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Contributors: User:Soman File:Magna Carta.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Magna_Carta.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Original authors were the barons and John of EnglandKing John of England. Uploaded by Earthsound. File:Goldeagle.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Goldeagle.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Dorieo, Saperaud, Stauba, Till.niermann, Vision Thing

License

32

License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported //creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/