The Instigator
IEnglishman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheSpoonyRealist
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Freedom of Speech Should Include the Right to Voice Opinions Which Could Cause Unlawful Action

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
TheSpoonyRealist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 571 times Debate No: 67246
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

IEnglishman

Pro

General debate on free speech laws in most countries.
TheSpoonyRealist

Con

I will accept this challenge. I wish my opponent luck.
Debate Round No. 1
IEnglishman

Pro

IEnglishman forfeited this round.
TheSpoonyRealist

Con

As my opponent forfeited the first round, I will start off my argument by expressing that I am arguing the Con side of this proposition; that the freedom of speech should NOT include the right to voice opinions which could cause unlawful action. I would like to state my burden of proof: I must prove there that the freedom of speech should not be protected in either the case of one specific felony and one specific misdemeanor. I say this because if the freedom of speech is not protected in the case of one felony offense, then it should not be protected in ANY felony offense, and likewise with misdemeanors. This is because though the they are both crimes and the severity of said crimes vary on both lists as do the punishments, each group must be dealt with as its own entity. If the incitement of one crime within this entity should not be allowed, then it follows that no crime within that category should be. I will be focusing on assault as the misdemeanor and rape as the felony.

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.

Sources:
http://www.ussc.gov...
http://listoffelonies.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.stopbullying.gov...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
IEnglishman

Pro

IEnglishman forfeited this round.
TheSpoonyRealist

Con

Extend. I would like to note that while my opponent has been online, he has chosen not to post a response. Due to this forfeiture and a lack of opposition to any argument I've made, I urge you all to vote Con. Thank yiuball.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by TheSpoonyRealist 2 years ago
TheSpoonyRealist
Well... my phone decided I wasnt going to spell 'Thank you all' correctly.
Posted by TheSpoonyRealist 2 years ago
TheSpoonyRealist
Except of course in the cases mentioned. There is libel and slander on one side, which are lies, and hate speech/bullying on the other which may indeed be a mix of opinions and statements, but it is the opinion part of it which is highly contested in various countries today.
Posted by IndianaFrank 2 years ago
IndianaFrank
Freedom of speech says that you can say anything as long as its true and not a lie. Then its liable.
Posted by IEnglishman 2 years ago
IEnglishman
Those are the laws I am aiming to show should not be upheld.
Posted by mil 2 years ago
mil
you for the most part can given it does not threaten the president or spark immediate action, there are a few laws though
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
IEnglishmanTheSpoonyRealistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture