This doesn't hold up to the definitions I have provided though, as article 19 states "any media regardless of frontiers", and wikipedia states "without fear of...censorship". Neither of these definitions restrict it to legal punishment, as legal punishment and censorship are not one in the same.

@Owen If you look at the context of article 19, "media" means something like "in writing", "orally", "in the form of art", etc, or in a more modern sense "on a webpage". It doesn't mean Twitter or Facebook or the New York Times; it would be pretty ridiculous if eg the NYT were required to publish everyone who wants to write something. And it's the same with eg Twitter. You are free to publish on your own website, but Twitter as a private company doesn't need to publish eg hate speech.

That makes sense then.

@Owen in order to understand these definitions one needs to keep in mind the historical context in which they were established. For example "fear of censorshsip" doesn't refer to "I'm scared my comment will be deleted", it refers to "do I risk being tortured and imprisoned for life if I say this?". As Tim points out, your interpretation would imply that everybody is allowed to have their opinion published 24/7 on every tv, radio, internet and paper media. This is clearly self-contradictory.

@Erwan - If that historical context is the relevant factor, one could also argue that surely a small fine for saying the wrong thing isn't unethical....

Neither Wikipedia nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a law of any country.

@WGroleau - OK, but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at least has ambitions to be so.

The original question was ambiguous, whether referring to the general principle of free speech (second citation given in the question) or its enactment as a law (first citation). You should clarify this answer is referring specifically to its enactment as a law. E.g., Twitter, which the the poster mentions, espouses "freedom of expression" in its ToS, but that doesn't leave it subject to the first amendment.

@Obie2.0: but the questioner seems to think that these two citations should be somehow binding on Google and Twitter when they aren't even binding on governments.

This answer actually expresses a common misconception: that freedom of speech (or expression) is synonymous with legal constraints on government enacted in furtherance of that freedom, say, for example the First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and press in the U.S. The two are entwined―but freedom of speech is the broader concept.

@Hasse1987 and TrevorReid: I'm happy to edit my answer but I don't see clearly what you consider wrong or incomplete in it? I tried to make it quite general, since the question is general and is not really about how freedom of speech is implemented in a legislation, it's more about understanding the concept. So please tell me more precisely how you think it can be improved.

A bit side topic, but remember that expression often used to be a privilege. The Government (ie. the King) and/or various leagues (often with a Royal charter), would determent who could print, bind and publish books, and who could print a newspaper. Today anybody could start a blog, an internet service, a newspaper or get a book printed - no charter or Government permission required to do so.

@tim I think the word media there DOES include Twitter, Fb and so on. But all it means is that the government cannot punish you for posting something ON Twitter. It still doesn’t mean Twitter has to host it.

I hate this backwards approach. Freedom of speech also meant that the government couldn't censor you, but these laws are from the 19th century, where the government was the only power capable of censorship. With private corporations having way more power over speech than the government, the spirit of free speech applies to them too.

Corporations do NOT have the same freedoms as people. @DoctorPenguin , or at least they shouldn't. Which means their freedom is not infringed. Also this whole thing comes from a really archaic standpoint, which is totally unsuited to deal with today's world. Corporations are more powerful than governments in some respects, and therefore should be under the same restrictions as government in those aspects. Also: have you seen what happens when Google kicks you off their platform? its de-facto censorship

@DoctorPenguin There could be a middle ground where companies providing the ability to post user generated content are restricted from removing it for specifically protected reasons, like disagreement with a political stance. Putting aside for a moment the lines that would need to be drawn, there can be a discussion about the more fundamental issue of whether we ought to impose a duty upon these companies to respect some freedom of expression given that their platforms are now the "town square."

@IllusiveBrian for the most part, most of these platforms already seem to follow the spirit of free speech fairly closely, with some exceptions as outlined in their terms of service. I'm not clear on what value is expected to be gained from regulating it; seems like that would put a fairly high burden on the platforms in question.

@IllusiveBrian Why? Political opinion is not universally considered a protected class. And secondly, if I've spent time and effort building up a platform (it could be online, or even something like a community board in a coffee shop), it should be my right to not allow others to use my infrastructure to promote views antithetical to my own.

@AzorAhai Because chartered corporations are given special privileges by the "crown". So yes, public companies do not have the same "rights" as individuals.