Talk:Freedom of information

message: --SasiSasi (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for extension 

message: I don't see how freedom of information can possibly be an extension of the right to privacy. Can someone explain this? .froth. (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy? 

message: #United Nations Commission on Transnational Corporations
#Harrington Investments
— Cirt (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinked articles to create   

message: In my view, this article is not about the primary 'Freedom of information' topic, which is currently at Freedom of information legislation. Would be better if this article is renamed Freedom of information (Internet)? Any views on this? --Kleinzach 01:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually looking at this again, maybe the easiest thing to do with be to move the first two sentences (first paragraph0 to the beginning of the internet section)? Then the article can cover the subject in a broad way. --Kleinzach 06:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now followed up on this. I hope the structure of the article is now clearer and more coherent. It may be an idea to split this article in the future. --Kleinzach 01:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary subject 

message: There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at
Talk:Lavabit#RfC: Should information about Lavabit complying with previous search warrants be included?
At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:
:Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user Joey006@lavabit.com for alleged possession of child pornography.
Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC concerning the Lavabit email service 

message: I suggest replacing the title word INFORMATION with COMMUNICATION
People do not actually have a right to information - particularly when it can be private
They do have a right to communication 
HPearce (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Freedom of information. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102084750/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19603 to http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19603
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Rather than Freedom of Information. the title would seem to be more appropriate  if changed to Freedom of Communication which more directly relates to freedom of oral communication (speech) and freedom of printed communication (press) and freedom of communication by expression (or simply freedom of expression)
The new title would make more explicit what I see as the real or underlying concept implied in the first amendment of the U.S. constitution rather than those listed by specific modes of communication that were generally used or available at the time of the writing. 
It would also make clear that Freedom of Internet Communication is included too and any newer modes of communication that technology brings along.
As things stand now, this connection remains blurred although the current title and article come very close.
I have yet to really parse out the entire article for what may be appropriate changes to fit with my suggested title change.
I have no sources as such to cite as the conclusion above is based upon my own conclusions.
HPearce (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic title/name change from  "Information" to "Communication" 

message: Access to education and information is not even mentioned.  Privacy, as mentioned in another topic below, is another legal principle altogether.  There is circular logic in the statement that freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech, which is fine, but then someone adds that freedom of information is generally understood as freedom of speech.  Useless citation.
This article needs attention from a lawyer or legal expert.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.112.230 (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph is a mess 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Freedom of information. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090309234331/http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/faq/index.php to http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/faq/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220052125/http://www.chinaeclaw.com/english/showCategory.asp?Code=022 to http://www.chinaeclaw.com/english/showCategory.asp?Code=022
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326235657/http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2009/03/freedom-of-information-comparative.html to http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2009/03/freedom-of-information-comparative.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129120838/http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2008/02/internet-censorship-comparative-study.html to http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2008/02/internet-censorship-comparative-study.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The freedom of information was the second executive order signed by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in July 23, 2016.
It would make a good section.
Thanks
LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom of information Philippines 

message: The current situation where the Freedom of information article does not contain a single view by UNESCO, and the Access to information article exclusively contains UNESCO's views (including UNESCO's views on previously published sources) is extremely problematic w.r.t. the WP:POV fork guidance and WP:NPOV policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merge