Freedom of Speech in America. (good or bad)
Debate Rounds (4)
I, Darth Vitiosus will take up the burden of denouncing "Freedom of Speech in America." I fully intend to minimize this idea to the point where it will be small enough to strangle in a bath tub that is used by the undesirable pungent invalids amongst us.
Theoretically, we all may accept it is an auspicious day for us all say as we wish to speak out against whom we wish. It is great to speak out against whom we dislike, whom we disagree with, and best of all we can speak out what we are for without the fear of retribution. We need not worry about such retribution when the state will allow dissension amongst the disgruntled.
In practice, we understand what "Freedom of Speech" is if we pay attention. I will list several examples, ranging from the media gone wild to the "people" going as the result of "Freedom of Speech." After my examples, we should come to the conclusion that "Freedom of Speech" exists to encourage disorder, disunity, and arise the infinite scorn that burns in our hearts for our enemies. Why embrace the worse emotions we can conjure up when we could all be satisfied?
1. The Media & Freedom of Speech
One of the primary problems with "Freedom of Speech" is the media. The media tends to mislead the public into various disputes some of which are private and others which are public. In many cases, the media has passed a verdict on the case which affects public policies and court decisions the worse. For example, it was too long ago that the George Zimmerman trial happened about his dispute with Trayvon Martin. Many news outlets would have us believe that George Zimmerman was a "white" racist. Yet, there was never proof that race was involved whatsoever. Then let us not forget the fact that Zimmerman was not even "white." Many members of the public had their mind set that Zimmerman was guilty yet there were few details that were ever released about the case.
Another example of the media misleading the public would be the Casey Anthony trial. Casey Anthony was assumed to be a baby-killer by many members of the news outlets with little to no details given about the case. Many members of the public and the media were demanding for her head based on little evidence. Did they know more than the jury? Did they have more facts? No, they didn't have more facts. Their mind was made up when it first appeared on the news.
One of the most destructive grand standing that the media offered was during the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War in 1967. The Viet Cong had launched a massive offensive and lost this campaign. Yet if we are to assess the American news media at the time, we would of believed the South Vietnamese and the United States was losing during the Tet Offensive. The media's actions during this campaign arguably aided the North Vietnamese because they intentionally portrayed the North Vietnamese as winning the war. Why? More people watch the news as more disaster takes place. Conflict and tragedy brings higher ratings than peace and stability.
Politicians are liable to the voters and their supporters. Corporations are liable to their stockholders and consumers. Who does the media answer to? No one. The media are an unchecked power who can mislead the public and offer little information which leads to disaster. As the journalist H.L. Mencken said back in his day: "A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier." The media's abuse of "Freedom of Speech" has distorted public policies and trials on many of occasions. I could add plenty more to this list but these are prominent examples.
2. The Mob & Freedom of Speech
Recently, many TV screens saw the Ferguson riot and unrest. The unrest in Ferguson came about once again when the American media wanted to whip the population into a frenzy about police brutality and race. It had nothing to do with the actual death of the suspect, Mike Brown. If the protest had to do with Brown's death, there would be protest every time someone is killed in Detroit or other violent cities. The protest had to do with race and police brutality. Yet, once again, there was no proof that race was relevant to the situation again. But hundreds of protesters from around the country besieged Ferguson with protests and threats. Than one night, a minority of protesters took it upon themselves to destroy businesses in Ferguson in alleged "retaliation" for Brown's death. The media encouraged this mob to come into existence and take "justice" into their own hands. If "Freedom of Speech" was banned, these riots would of never taken place.
Ferguson is not an exception of a mob running amok. In fact, it is a long celebrated tradition among low brow Americans going back to the 18th century. The late 19th century, was the high point with mobs of Scots-Irishmen in the South lynching former slaves or their descendants in extra-legal trials. If "Freedom of Speech" was banned mobs would not be allowed to have a platform for protest and to incite unrest. I will not focus on the known extra-legal trials against former slaves. I will offer a more unique extra-legal trial, the lynching of Leo Frank, a Jew. Leo Frank was was tried for the death of Mary Phagan in Georgia. The jury delivered the verdict of guilty and Leo Frank was given a sentence to hang. The Governor of Georgia, Governor Slaton commuted Frank's sentence to life imprisonment. Many people didn't like what the governor did and sent many threats his way. Some of these people organized themselves into a mob which was called the "Knights of Phagan." They proceeded to find Frank and lynch him. If there wasn't any "Freedom of Speech" was illegal, these people would never have been allowed to spout their own "justice," nevertheless act on it.
3. Order & Freedom of Speech
Sind wirklich anders? Are we truly different? We are lead to believe the most divisive moment in recent political history was a government shutdown over budget negotiations. Where were the fists fights in the Congress? Where were the militias arming themselves up for civil war? None of this happened because some politicians and the spin-doctors of the press were misleading the public and trying to incite mass hysteria. The academics and media claim it is "polarized." Where is the violent evidence of polarization that Americans saw at the period of the American Revolution, the War of 1812, or the Civil War? We have been lead in error due to the "Freedom of Speech."
The problems with "Freedom of Speech" should not seem minor. Is it acceptable for the media, politicians, and other misleading characters to whip the population into an emotional orgy? Especially when these emotional orgies can result in an unrestrained anger and confusion? We should also take into account when "Freedom of Speech" gets completely out of the hand to the point when violence erupts as a result whether it be a fight, a brawl, a murder, or a riot. "Freedom of Speech" encourages disagreement and chaos which can not be reversed once initiated. The 20th century is the peak of this bloodletting with more unrest and chaos ever incited than ever imagined in monarchies that repressed dissenting speech.
America is becoming more open minded, we are no longer in the dark ages. Today people can say their beliefs and not be judge or be judged, at least they can speak! Speak what they believe and want to. Homosexual can come out and not be jailed for loving someone and families no longer have to be ashamed or in hiding. Can you believe what we can achieve now!! so why should we take that away.
"Women are jailed for speaking out of turn to their husbands and men shot down for speaking their beliefs"
How is violence surprising? In many countries when car accidents take place, it is common for people to get out in brawl. There is no rule of law. Unlike in the United States of America when a car accident happens, people politely ask to see license, car information, and wait till the emergency services to arrive. The United States and most Western countries are anomalies when it comes to violence. Majority of countries in the world are far more grim and more bitter places to live.
In the United States, elected officials argue peaceably within the halls of Congress. Go to Taiwan or many other countries(India, Nigeria, Romania, etc.) where elected officials bring weapons into their legislatures to beat their opponents senseless. It even becomes more entertaining when they bear armor in a place where they are supposed to discourse and talk peacefully.
Americans aren't becoming more open minded. Americans have become wealthy and absentminded. Wealthy people can afford to ignore problems in the world. There was a time when Americans used to engage violence a lot more often. In today's time, most Americans and I need not worry about politics because I can simply turn to MTV or go to Youtube to ignore what is taking place throughout my neighborhood and country.
I am not a Christian so I will judge whomever I wish as I wish. I will not retreat from the world. People are "judged" for their beliefs and always will be. My opponent must "judge" otherwise they would be incapable of initiating this debate. It is called cognitive dissonance and all human beings will behave accordingly. Modern Americans are so wealthy they can afford to ignore other people. Imagine if there was no television and Internet. People actually would have to pay attention to what actually happens in the world. Television and Internet allows a person to go home and forget everything that took place that day. Take away television and the Internet, people would naturally engage in retrospection which would leave them far less happy about what happened. Then Americans would behave drastically different.
My opponent has only offered conjecture. There has been no evidence provided thus far to show "Freedom of Speech" is "good." "Freedom of Speech" is good in theory and bad in practice in the United States of America. I have shown this multiple times in my arguments thus far. The resolution remains negated.
1. America is not wealthy
We have families on the street and 10% unemployment rate. How does this make us wealthy!? Yes we do have wealthy families, but does this close our eyes? No, they make them more open. We can speak and help thoughs families out. We can help the ill and the homeless. You forget to point out that the most wealth of families have also seen the horrible tragedy in the world and help. St.Jude children hospital was open by a famous actor for gods sake. Freedom of speech does not take away opportunities to help other, they give more options and make them more world know.
2. Communication increases our freedom
Communication through internet and tv helps spread our opinions. Without any of these how would we know about Isis or north Korea. Sure in hell the government would not be knocking on each and every door telling us the world news.
Freedom of speech gives you the right to debate me on this topic and for myself to fight for what I believe in.
There is supposed to be an unemployment rate above 5% if my opponent didn't know. There is no economist who would ever suggest something as misleading as total employment. The unemployment isn't 10% either. The unemployment rate is 5.9%.
Americans are wealthy beyond understanding. How many Americans actually have to worry about going hungry? The most impoverished states in America are the most obese states in America.
2. Communication does not increase our freedom
"Communication through internet and tv helps spread our opinions. Without any of these how would we know about Isis or north Korea. Sure in hell the government would not be knocking on each and every door telling us the world news."
This is certainly not true. The Israelites knew about the Philistines and the Egyptians knew about the Hittites longer before television or the Internet was even thought of. The Holy Roman Empire knew about the Mongols long before television or the Internet as well. There are countless other examples I could list.
I would also state this point is irrelevant. How do we benefit from this information? Is my opponent or I taking up arms against ISIL or North Korea? I doubt it, why would we need such information?
"Freedom of speech gives you the right to debate me on this topic and for myself to fight for what I believe in."
This is misleading. Debates have long existed before the thought of "Freedom of Speech." For example, the Greeks would often debate at the stoas.
Domochi forfeited this round.
Extend all arguments. I will repeat my three primary points which my opponent did not address nor refute. All three points stand as is and have been affirmed by me in previous rounds.
1. The Media & Freedom of Speech
The primary problem with "Freedom of Speech" is the media.
2. The Mob & Freedom of Speech
"Freedom of Speech" encourages mob behavior.
3. Order & Freedom of Speech
"Freedom of Speech" encourages demagogues and other entities to decrease public order for their personal gain.
Vote Pro please.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: FF and had non-refuted arguments
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.