A Jewish perspective Malcom Cohen Trainee rabbi
Judaism has never been about unlimited freedom; freedom always comes with responsibility. When a Jewish boy or girl reaches the age of 13 they are considered an adult religiously. This does not mean they are free to do whatever they want; rather, it means they are now responsible for their actions and should know the difference between right and wrong. The same applies for civil liberties (including freedom of speech). If what we do harms others, our freedom should be restricted. The Jewish faith encourages questioning and challenging - we are not meant to live in a world where everybody conforms, but one where the full diversity of God’s creation should be lauded. However, restrictions might be justified if there was a sustained campaign by the press that resulted in a real risk to life. Pikuach nefesh, saving a life, is more important than freedom. Finally, there is no clear concept of free speech in Judaism, but one of true speech. We should avoid lying because, as the book of Proverbs (18.21) says, "Death and life are under the power of the tongue." Of course, this principle applies under the condition that we do not assume only one person or group is the holder of all truth.

A Buddhist perspective Lama Yeshe Losal Rinpoche
If members of the press are responsible people who only write the truth in a positive and beneficial way, they should not be restricted. It is in the interests of humanity and mankind in general that responsible members of the press should have the fullest freedom. But if the press uses its freedom to create disharmony and intolerance, promote racial tension, or victimize or harm any particular section of society, they should be given moral guidance. Even if we have a completely free press, it should always be held responsible for its actions. Freedom comes with responsibility, so it comes down to whether individual members of the press are able to be responsible enough. The media is powerful and can have an enormous effect on how people think. So, accordingly, it must be more careful about what it says. The press has to be held accountable and must be given legal guidelines to encourage its members to present information in ways that are of benefit to all. The press should be reminded that the purpose of its freedom is to enhance and enrich society. Those in the media have a wonderful tool if they can use their freedom to resolve tensions and difficult situations.

A Hindu perspective Sejal Mandalia
To have freedom of speech, to be able to say what we think, is an undeniable human right. Thousands have been killed as a result of practicing and defending it. It is also a right that governments, even in ‘democracies’ such as ours (Britain), put limits on, whether for reasons of social harmony or to suppress political opposition. Hinduism believes in the freedom of the individual to think and to express itself in whichever way it sees fit. Yet there’s one strict rule: a Hindu can only do this as long as they don’t physically harm another person. This is the principle of ahimsa (non-violence) that Mahatma Gandhi espoused: that life is sacrosanct, and by injuring or killing others we are actually destroying our own soul. The Mail on Sunday recently launched a campaign to pay students to pose as Muslims, spy on Islamic society meetings and report anything ‘inflammatory’ they heard. This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, one person’s idea of an inflammatory remark is different to someone else’s. Secondly, no one should be persecuted for their beliefs or thoughts (as long as these do not involve threats of violence). Examples like this demonstrate that while the press should be free to report as it sees fit, incitement to violence should be curbed. So yes, in certain situations, restrictions on the freedom of the press are justified.

A Humanist perspective Peter Cave, Chairman, Humanist Philosophers’ Group
Human beings are not robots. They only flourish when the choices they make and the views they hold are truly their own. To learn all the options, we need a free press and liberty to communicate what we believe, feel and desire. Restrictions are necessary, but require one essential condition: that without them, others would be significantly harmed. Newspapers that damn homosexuals, prostitutes and atheists, while utterly silly, should be permitted to publish unless they incite crazed mobs to burn down the homes of such people. Mere offence is no sufficient reason for offenders to be stopped. Religious believers who write in their papers of eternal torment for non-believers may offend, but that fails to outweigh the value of their free writings. Likewise, cartoons, arguments and irreligious tales that offend believers should not thereby be banned. A free press is important, even when it prints what is crazy or false. It challenges our thinking, making us alert. Censorship should be considered only as the last, desperate measure of a desperate society. Lest we forget, our press is not that free - think of the few individuals who control much of the media.

A Muslim perspective Muhammad Amin Evans
If we lived in a world where other people only wrote about each other what we would like to read about ourselves, there would be no need for any sort of restriction on the press. Unfortunately, we are people who love to gossip and exaggerate stories. Of course we can always blame wicked reporters or heartless and biased editors, but it’s us, the readers, that they write for - and they give us what we pay for. When politics or religion are involved we become even worse, only believing the good bits about our own beliefs and what is bad about everyone else’s. While I believe there is a need for some sort of control exercised by society over the freedom granted to the press, it must be limited to defending society from false and malicious articles. In international human rights documents, the right to freedom of speech is a restricted right within which journalists must be given a wide margin of error and yet be held accountable for the consequences of misusing the freedom that we allow them.

A Quaker perspective Marie McCusker, Quaker
The question could also be phrased as: "Am I open to new insights, wherever they may come from?" This question concerns itself with issues of restriction versus freedom, and is relevant, for example, when the press wants to print something that is harmful to a member of, or group in, society. But is the daily diet of sex, violence and polarized worldviews that constitutes much of our national press not already harmful to us as a people? Do I seek out that which is life-affirming when making choices about what to read? To me these questions are real and immediate. In terms of the bigger question, I am in favour of press freedom. Quakerism is an engaged spirituality and we are encouraged to remember our responsibilities as citizens for the conduct of local, national and international affairs. Freedom of the press allows me to make informed decisions. How my spiritual tradition supports me is to encourage me to seek deep within myself, and with others, for an understanding of the truth and of the right response in any situation, to accept that all ‘truths’ are only partial and to think that I might be mistaken.