# the power to restrict unwanted speech



## MinaDidi

Trying to translate the subject phrase and running into difficulty choosing between different shades of "power" and, in particular, for the use of "speech" here as a legal term of art.  This expression uses "speech" as a legal concept, not as a literal speech (речь).  It's also not exactly the same as "freedom of speech" (so, "the power to restrict unwanted freedom of speech" is not really the same thing).  I would say the most common usage in American English is in the phrase "protected speech" (as in the specific types of communication protected by the right to freedom of speech).  Any help appreciated!  My guesses are maybe...

способность ограничить нежелательные слова
власть ограничить нежелательную связь


----------



## Vadim K

право ограничивать нежелательные выступления


----------



## MinaDidi

Thank you, Vadim.  выступления is an intriguing suggestion...but I (with my admitted *very* limited Russian) thought it referred more to a literal speech in front of an audience.  Can it be used in this abstract way as well?  In the expression I'm trying to translate, "speech" could be written, etc, so I want to be sure it covers everything.  Thanks!


----------



## Rosett

Could you please provide a larger excerpt of your text?

Otherwise, just use «*свобода слова*», as per the First Amend


----------



## Vadim K

MinaDidi said:


> Thank you, Vadim.  выступления is an intriguing suggestion...but I (with my admitted *very* limited Russian) thought it referred more to a literal speech in front of an audience.  Can it be used in this abstract way as well?  In the expression I'm trying to translate, "speech" could be written, etc, so I want to be sure it covers everything.  Thanks!



Then could you please advise me more information, for example, what exactly "_the power_" includes or who can restrict "_unwanted speech_"?


----------



## MinaDidi

Thanks you two!  Here is more context below.  I'm willing accept that there may not be a true way to translate it in Russian!  In Multitran it simply said "высказывание или действие, защищённое законом о свободе слова (Например, сжигание американского флага в качестве протеста отнесено решением суда к "protected speech" Bratets)," which makes me think there may be no equivalent for this type of use of the word "speech," but thought I would ask anyway!

Маргина́льные гру́ппы, кото́рые име́ли и име́ют ме́ньшую экономи́ческую мощь, скоре́е всего́, потеря́ют возмо́жности публикова́ть свои́ взгля́ды. Отсу́тствие экономи́ческой мо́щи приведёт к отсу́тствию свобо́ды самовыраже́ния. В то же вре́мя экономи́ческая мощь бу́дет означа́ть большу́ю си́лу убежде́ния в обще́ственной сфе́ре и "the power to restrict unwanted speech." Э́тот результа́т противоре́чит фундамента́льным америка́нским при́нципам свобо́ды сло́ва и самовыраже́ния.

Essentially the idea is that those with economic power would be able to use monetary resources to restrict those without monetary resources from publishing any type of communication in the absence of net neutrality (сетево́й нейтралите́т) protections.  Like I said, in American English the use of "speech" here is a legal term of art.  Thanks!!


----------



## Vadim K

*Гру́ппы меньши́нств*, кото́рые име́ли и име́ют ме́ньшую экономи́ческую *силу*, скоре́е всего́, потеря́ют возмо́жност*ь* публикова́ть свои́ взгля́ды. Отсу́тствие экономи́ческой мо́щи приведёт к отсу́тствию свобо́ды самовыраже́ния. В то же вре́мя *бо́льшая* экономи́ческая *сила* бу́дет означа́ть большу́ю си́лу убежде́ния в обще́ственной сфе́ре и *пра́во ограни́чивать нежела́тельные взгля́ды/воззре́ния*. Э́тот результа́т противоре́чит фундамента́льным америка́нским при́нципам свобо́ды сло́ва и самовыраже́ния.

"_Маргинальные группы_" means criminal groups in Russian.


----------



## Rosett

What countries, other than the USA, are involved? What is the target audience for the article?

You can always say, «свобода слова по американским законам/американскому законодательству», whatever it means in the States.


----------



## MinaDidi

Vadim, thanks for the idea and the other corrections (!!!).  I just popped "marginalized groups" into the translator and got what sounded right, so never questioned it!  Anyway, it never occurred to me to use взгляд here as well, but I do think it captures the essence of the idea. 

Thanks, Rosett, to you as well.  Only the US is involved and the target is a US-based audience, so I think Vadim's suggestion works.  A US audience, I think, would find it odd to use свобода слова since it's not really freedom of speech that's being restricted (and which would be illegal), just the opportunities for speech.  

Thanks to you both!


----------



## Rosett

MinaDidi said:


> A US audience, I think, would find it odd to use свобода слова since it's not really freedom of speech that's being restricted (and which would be illegal), just the opportunities for speech.


Actually, as posted in the OP, nothing else in the given excerpt proves “opportunities,” related to the freedom of protected speech.


----------



## Maroseika

Vadim K said:


> право ограничивать нежелательные выступления


Выступления is somehwat ambiguous, as it can also mean 'mass disorders'. Maybe better высказывания instead of выступления?


----------



## Vadim K

Maroseika said:


> Выступления is somehwat ambiguous, as it can also mean 'mass disorders'. Maybe better высказывания instead of выступления?



Yes, you are right. It can be ambiguous. But actually it turned out that the author had meant a little wider definition than just "_высказывания_".


----------



## MinaDidi

Rosett said:


> Actually, as posted in the OP, nothing else in the given excerpt proves “opportunities,” related to the freedom of protected speech.



Thanks, Rosett--just to clarify *I* am the author of the excerpt, so I know that definitely I meant something akin to "opportunities."  

Essentially it's decoupling the "speech" part from "freedom of speech," which seems quite challenging as there doesn't appear to be a direct translation in Russian.  It is an abstract communication concept and essentially includes all types of communication (hence the above discussion about выступления/высказывания not quite being right).  The basic idea is that economic power would provide opportunities to restrict speech/communication of all kinds through denial of access to those without economic resources--which is not the same as a legal violation of freedom of speech protections.  (Although my argument at the end is that it is at odds with the spirit of freedom of speech).  Thanks for your help!


----------



## wordnik007

"Cпособность ограничивать коммуникацию нежелательных взглядов". Тут только "способность", права тут ни при чём. Способность делать это на практике, независимо от того, что в законе написано о желательной ситуации (каждый может выразить свои взгляды любым способом). У слова "коммуникация" — то преимущество, что оно относится и к самим взглядам, и к форме их выражения. Как и "speech" в оригинале.

Я бы заменил "экономическую мощь" на "наличие экономической мощи": сама по себе мощь ничего не означает, потому трудно понять.

В остальном всё в порядке. Маргинальные группы — понятно, что речь идёт о тех, кто без денег, как и в оригинале. Меньшинства тут ни при чём. С "выступлениями" я тоже не вижу проблемы, потому что мысль всё равно понятна.

Знаки ударения довольно сильно мешают читать.

PS: Только сейчас заметил, что по-английски вы тоже использовали "communication". Мне кажется, это подтверждение. Далее, "net neutrality" — это не "сетевой нейтралитет", потому что "net" — это не сеть: другое значение слова. Это что-то вроде нейтралитета, взятого в общем и целом, сразу по всему населению. Как сказать по-русски — здесь не в тему.


----------



## MinaDidi

Hi wordnik007, thanks so much for your input...just keeping it going in case anyone else comes looking.  

1. I agree completely with use of способность in this context and it is in fact what I ended up using (no offense, Vadim!).  "Право" did not quite cover it as it is more the _ability _to restrict to which I was referring, not the right (I just didn't want to derail the discussion further).
2. Regarding выступление, that was why I asked for clarification as to whether it only applied to oral speech rather than including written speech as well...my Russian isn't at a level where I can really tell!  
3. I actually ended up trying "маргинализированные" for the groups to avoid the confusion with "criminal groups" and because, yes, a reference to minorities didn't quite capture it (women for example are sometimes considered a marginalized group and they are not a minority!).    
4. It is quite funny that you find the stress marks distracting because at this point I find it quite challenging to read without them.  This excerpt is from a presentation I will give in Russian, so for me they are not distracting at all!  They are necessary!
5. I don't want to digress into an in depth discussion of "how do you translate 'net neutrality'," but I think you may have gotten the wrong end of the stick there.  There are a few different versions of it that I found on the internet, but the Russian version of Wikipedia uses сетевой нейтралитет, which is why I settled on it.  I think you might be thinking of "net" as in the expression "net result" (окончательный результат/чистый результат) meaning "final" or "conclusive," but that is not this.  Net neutrality is a concept in communications specifically referring to the internet and is short for "network neutrality"...so "net" here must be сетевой--or something just like it!

Thanks for your thoughtful response!


----------



## Rosett

MinaDidi said:


> Thanks, Rosett--just to clarify *I* am the author of the excerpt, so I know that definitely I meant something akin to "opportunities."
> 
> Essentially it's decoupling the "speech" part from "freedom of speech," which seems quite challenging as there doesn't appear to be a direct translation in Russian.  It is an abstract communication concept and essentially includes all types of communication (hence the above discussion about выступления/высказывания not quite being right).  The basic idea is that economic power would provide opportunities to restrict speech/communication of all kinds through denial of access to those without economic resources--which is not the same as a legal violation of freedom of speech protections.  (Although my argument at the end is that it is at odds with the spirit of freedom of speech).  Thanks for your help!


Given your additional explanation, I’d suggest, «подавление экономическими рычагами свободного выражения собственного мнения, формально гарантированного Первой Поправкой и решениями судов», for those in your society who are still not in the picture.


----------



## Particle

MinaDidi said:


> В то же вре́мя экономи́ческая мощь бу́дет означа́ть большу́ю си́лу убежде́ния в обще́ственной сфе́ре и "the power to restrict unwanted *speech*." Э́тот результа́т противоре́чит фундамента́льным америка́нским при́нципам свобо́ды сло́ва и *самовыраже́ния*.



I think the answer is in your quote. Look at the words in bold.

the power to restrict unwanted *speech *= возможность ограничить нежелательные *формы самовыражения*


----------



## MinaDidi

I like your thinking, Particle.  I think the only difference is that speech is a subset of expression.  Maybe it works better in Russian (I can't tell!), but you couldn't really say in English "the power to restrict unwanted forms of self-expression" in this context.  That implies it is more about the means of expression versus the content.  For example, you restrict use of painting to convey via image or singing to express ideas verbally--in English it would mean that the restrictions weren't on the content of the images/verbal communication, but the means of communicating that content.  Does it come across differently in Russian?


----------



## Particle

Формы самовыражения means different ways of self-expression in Russian.


----------

