Absolute Freedom of Speech should not be aspired to by society.
Debate Rounds (3)
It's very simple. Society would benefit from the regulation of citizens' speech. That much is plain to see. Only an idealist would suggest that society could flourish in an environment whereby any person could say whatever they wanted to, regardless of the truth, sensitivity, or confidentiality of what is being said.
I will be arguing that absolute freedom of speech conflicts overwhelmingly with core Liberal values, and in support of this argument I will refer to the work of John Stuart Mill. I will also draw upon modern-day examples of how regulation of speech has been calculated and introduced, so as to aid social development and safety.
I welcome your response.
1. Society is better off if we can't say whatever we want.
2. We should therefore regulate what people say.
3. Society should never aim to allow total freedom of speech.
Please rebuttle these points.
1. you saying i cant talk whatever i want to. Men so what you want a guy to stalk us telling us what to say.
2. regulate what you want to live in dictatorship yo that bonkers.
3. society should and why we cant talk freely . what do you even want us to be controlled robot.
"so what you want a guy to stalk us telling us what to say."
"what so you even want us to be controlled robot[s]"
No, obviously I don't want that. Just because we don't have 'absolute' freedom of speech, it doesn't mean that we have to be told what to say. That would be ridiculous, and it isn't something I said. You've created a fiction. Your attempt to misrepresent what I said actually neatly leads onto an argument that will feature below.
"Regulate what you want to live in a dictatorship yo that bonkers"
Apart from being almost indigestible, this point is clearly not thought through. Just because a society regulates speech, it does not make it a dictatorship. Take America, for example: in America it is illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded place when there is no fire at all. This is known as "Reckless Endangerment, as you are trying to cause deliberate harm to others by scaring them.
To pick up the point of you giving false impressions regarding what I said, I would also like to refer to two other types of law" libel and slander. It is illegal in many (non-dictatorial) countries for you to circulate spurious and malicious lies about another person. If you write it in a newspaper, for example, then it's called 'libel', and if you say it, it's called 'slander'. These rules mean that I can't make untrue things up about you, and the same with you to me. These pieces of regulation are so critical to the functioning of a society. Imagine if you pick up a newspaper and on the front page you've been accused of being a paedophile, yet that simply isn't the case" you're gonna be pretty angry, right, and you're going to want to have your name cleared, aren't you? Well in a society where everyone can say what they want, there aren't going to be any laws to protect you from that. Anyone can say anything about anyone, and there would be no consequences.
We would be much better off adopting John Stuart Mill's 'Harm Principle', which "holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals."
Yes it's Wikipedia, but it's obviously a well-established concept in philosophy, and it was the easiest and fastest definition I could find. http://en.wikipedia.org...
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.