The emphasis in this article is on the freedom to communicate, which differs from both the right to communicate and communication rights. Instead of focussing directly on the freedom to communicate, the path taken instead is an emphasis on (digital) “non-communication.” This is subsequently expanded to a freedom not to communicate. The article begins with a cursory theoretical definition of communicative freedom, based on the notions of communicative action, social justice and reciprocal recognition. It then turns to a range of examples of “non-communication.” These stretch from corporate environments and their attempts to introduce “non-communication” top-down (mostly via time-based restrictions of the use of company-related communication tools) via the experience of a “digital diet” workshop at the university to instances of “digital detox,” which are offered on the life-improvement markets today. Through these examples, the question of the freedom not to communicate will be explored. Most of the examples underline the many current limitations of this freedom to communicate. The tentative alternative suggested is a new version of distant proximity, enacted through temporary dis-connectivity. This, so the claim, is needed to resist the growing framework of constant connectivity that we are constantly confronted within both private and working lives.

这篇文章的重点是交流的自由，它不同于交流的权利和交流的权利。与其直接关注交流的自由，取而代之的是强调（数字）“非交流”。这随后扩展到不交流的自由。本文从基于交往行为、社会正义和相互承认的概念对交往自由的粗略理论定义开始。然后转向一系列“非沟通”的例子。这些从企业环境和他们尝试引入“非沟通”自上而下（主要是通过使用公司相关沟通工具的时间限制）通过在大学的“数字饮食”研讨会的经验延伸到实例“数字排毒，”今天在生活改善市场上提供。通过这些例子，将探讨不交流的自由问题。大多数示例都强调了当前这种交流自由的许多限制。建议的暂定替代方案是一种新版本的远距离接近，通过暂时的断开连接来实施。因此，我们需要这一主张来抵制我们在私人生活和工作生活中不断面临的不断增长的持续连接框架。通过临时断开连接而制定。因此，我们需要这一主张来抵制我们在私人生活和工作生活中不断面临的不断增长的持续连接框架。通过临时断开连接而制定。因此，我们需要这一主张来抵制我们在私人生活和工作生活中不断面临的不断增长的持续连接框架。