Freedom of Speech Should Include the Right to Voice Opinions Which Could Cause Unlawful Action
Debate Rounds (3)
IEnglishman forfeited this round.
I would like to offer a quote by former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or "fighting" words " those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Now, the freedom of speech by its very nature is a tricky thing to quantify. It has no clear cut lines as to what CURRENT laws protect, and often there is debate among individuals and government workers and even across country lines. For example, in the case of the Westboro Baptist Church, several state courts have recognized their rights to picket at funerals, but several countries such as the UK and Canada have barred them from entering the country, recognizing them as hate groups.
What we must agree on however, is that the public expression of opinions that may incite crime is unforgivable by its very nature. Use of what is known as 'hate speech' for example, is unlawful in the United States as is bullying based on a variety of factors including but not limited to: race, color, weight, sexual orientation, gender, etc.
Now, back to the crimes of assault and rape. There is no ethical or moral justification of these two crimes, especially one as heinous as rape. Anita Sarkeesian is a woman who has been particularly infamous in the past few years for her feminist work and much to the dismay of rational thinkers everywhere, she found herself the target of threats from people worldwide for her "Tropes Versus Women in Video Games" videos. These threats voiced 'opinions' that she ought to have been assaulted, murdered, and yes, even raped for her work. As much as one may disagree with her point of view, no one deserves this. In fact, if someone had read these threats and had taken them to their extreme conclusion, not only would the aggressor be guilty of a crime such as assault, rape, or murder, but so would the people simply 'using their freedom of speech' for instigating the crime.
Now, my opponent had not yet made an argument, but I would find it hard to believe that anyone could find a justification for a crime as vile and despicable as the rape of this young woman for any reason whatsoever. On a much smaller scale, it is unlikely that one may find a defense of her assault either. Now let me state my burden of proof once more. If I can find one felony (such as rape) and one misdemeanor (such as assault) which could be incited by the freedom of speech, then I have accomplished in showing that the freedom of speech SHOULD be abridged in instances in which it may cause unlawful action. From a moral point of view, there is absolutely no justification for the crimes that may arise, and from an ethical point of view, the freedom of speech is already limited in certain instances (bullying/hate speech).
I await to see if my opponent will respond during the third round of our debate.
IEnglishman forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
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.