Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Restrictions on freedom of speech
From Debatepedia
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Is it ever right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech? |
Ambiguity: Is "free speech" too ambiguous a concept, requiring government clarification? | |
Yes
|
NoGovernments cannot be trusted as arbiters of free speech; it is a God-given and inalienable right: Many political theorists argue that checks and balances need to be put in place in order to prevent Governmental abuse. The right to freedom of speech is too important to leave in the hands of Government. An independent judiciary, or politically-independent body for assessing such circumstances is the only place that can effectively guarantee. Allowing government censorship threatens to allow a tyranny of the majority: "After all, the practical reason why when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest" - CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, H D Thoreau. Tyranny of the majority is as good a reason as any to prevent Government from being involved in censorship - the majority of the population may be anti-homosexuality, or anti-immigrant, or indeed pro-genetically modified foods. In a healthy democracy it is vital that smaller groups be heard, and there is no way to guarantee these voices if the Government can restrict free speech.
|
Acting on speech: Does "bad" speech lead to "bad" acts? | |
YesSpeech acts lead to physical acts. Thus pornography, hate speech and political polemic are causally linked to rape, hate crimes, and insurrection.
|
NoThe link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one: People who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do. Exposing "bad" views by allowing them to be voiced increases the likelihood that they will be defeated: Exposing pornography, hate speech and political polemic (extreme nationalism etc.) to society increase the likelihood that it will be discredited and defeated, rather than strengthened through persecution.
|
National Security: Is a government justified in suppressing freedom of speech in the interest of national security? | |
YesGovernment must protect its citizens from foreign enemies and internal enemies - thus freedom of speech can be acceptably curtailed during times of war in order to prevent propaganda and spying which might undermine the national interest. Irrespective of its US provenance, we recognise that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." (Schenck v. United States, 3 March, 1919). Thus shouting fire in a crowded cinema when there is no fire, and you know it, is wrong. We accept this limit on free speech, therefore the principle is conceded.
|
NoThe ends justifying the means is a common pit-fall of allowing governments to suppress freedom of speech: United States President Richard Nixon, in the Watergate scandal for example, attempted to justify the violation of multiple laws of privacy and property in the name of national security.
|
Religious speech: Should governments protect certain religious groups from speech that is antithetical to their views? | |
YesSome intellectual views are antithetical to beliefs held by major religions, and should be protected against: In order to protect the religious from these views, we should prevent people from saying these offensive things.
|
No
|
Protecting minors: Should governments protect minors from speech they deem to be potentially harmful or corrupting to these particular groups? | |
Yes
|
No |
References:Motions:
In legislation, policy, and the real world:See also on Debatepedia:External links and resources:
Books:
|