The Instigator
tuulihelind
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
shatteredseren
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Limitatons on one's freedom of speech are acceptable, when offensive towards some groups of society

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 704 times Debate No: 87491
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)

 

tuulihelind

Con

Please take an in favour or against position towards this: Limitatons on one's freedom of speech are acceptable, when offensive towards some groups of society

Taking into account the reports of people using hate speech against minorities, genders, religions - different groups of society, the question of whether or not hate speech should be legal has to be raised.

This time specifically looking into the case of Julien Blanc, and many others like him, who have had their visas cancelled to constitutionally democratic and secular countries for remarks on women, and for giving men tips on how to enforce themselves on women. It inevitably raises the question of whether or not statements that are derogatory towards women should be legal in a democratic society.

I expect you to present at least 3 arguments in support of your position on the topic of THE LIMITATIONS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and whether or not it should be legal to limit the freedom of speech in the case of it being derogatory towards certain society groups. You are also expected to answer at least 2 of your classmates' position, if you are the first or the second poster you may post your reactions on others' comments later.

Although I have presented the case of Julien Blanc, you are more than welcome to give other examples of hate speech.

More information about Julien Blanc can be found from the post in the TOK Facebook group.
shatteredseren

Pro

I accept your challenge, and I look forward to an interesting debate!
Debate Round No. 1
tuulihelind

Con

tuulihelind forfeited this round.
shatteredseren

Pro

shatteredseren forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
tuulihelind

Con

tuulihelind forfeited this round.
shatteredseren

Pro

shatteredseren forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
tuulihelind

Con

tuulihelind forfeited this round.
shatteredseren

Pro

shatteredseren forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
tuulihelind

Con

tuulihelind forfeited this round.
shatteredseren

Pro

shatteredseren forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AhmedSmith 1 year ago
AhmedSmith
To answer Edvard: Hate speech only takes a toll of people when they let it to. One does not have to tolerate hate speech and mean comments, he can just ignore them and not be bothered. One can also step against the "haters" by facing them and showing his strength. One must be strong and confident, not to let someone weaken them by mean words.
Answer to Eva: I like your point about government and borders. It is true that a lot of people use "it was just a joke" line and no one really knows if there are any borders. That is why it is not reasonable to try to set limits to something that doesn't really have limits.
Posted by AhmedSmith 1 year ago
AhmedSmith
And it is not only the case of Julien Blanc. Anyone who thinks it is a good idea to start complaining about something that someone has said, should first consider all the things that he/she could alternatively do with the free time. I mean, there are so many cool things to do in the World that we should not try to find negative things in every single thing. Like, lets be friends, love each other. There is no need for such negativism, hating someone is not the ultimate goal of life. Lets be reasonable and care for each other. Everyone should live their own life and not be bothered by other people's sayings. Lets have self confidence and intelligence. Make love!
Posted by MaximilianNazarati 1 year ago
MaximilianNazarati
In my opinion the limitation of freedom of speech should be applied in instances like this one. The ideas that Julien Blanc is willing to share with people might tempt them to commit violent acts towards women, that's of course unacceptable and the best way to make sure it doesn't happen is to prevent Julien Blanc from spreading his ideas.
I believe that the limitation of freedom of speech of an individual is accpetable if it is proposed and implemented in a democratic way. That doesn't necesarely suggest voting every time a notorious individual is about to enter a country, people have other ways of expressing their opinions, like through demonstrations or protests and the existance of the internet can only amplify that "voice" of the public. So if the people of a country don't want to let Julien Blanc enter their country and they communicate that clearly with the rest of the world then it is perfectly acceptable for the leaders of that country to restrict the actions of Julien Blanc on their land.
Posted by AhmedSmith 1 year ago
AhmedSmith
I disagree with the statement, no one should put any limits on freedom of speech. After all, freedom of speech is the basic characteristics of democracy. The moment anyone starts limiting it, our democratic rights are being violated. Therefore, it is not democracy anymore. And everything else, that is not democracy, we tend not to favor. So we should hold on strongly to our basic right and freedom.
The freedom of speech has always been a discussion topic. Although, most of the discussions arise when something negative happens, some problem. The discussions are almost never positive. It's always that someone feels offended or hurt by something that some other bloke said or wrote. And yeah, that can very well be. In fact, I have also been insulted and made fun over. And it wasn't a nice feeling. But here's something I don't understand-why do we have to complain about it to wider public (in the Internet, on the streets etc.)? Alright, you might have been hurt a bit but I can tell you something-no one really cares. You have probably said things to others too that aren't the nicest and could have been unmentioned. So, you really have no reason to complain to others.
When we come to the specific case of Julien Blanc, I think that the World has gone nuts. I mean, based on what I read, I love this guy. He does the thing he likes and he is good at it. Of course, all the women say it is offensive and sexist and immoral and all the other boohoo. Honestly, I don't get it. If all the women say that they are smarter than men, more independent than men, more mature than men, then they should be also self-confident and strong. But all the things they say about Blanc make them look more like weak and insecure. In my opinion, Julien Blanc has the right to say the things he wants and all the women have the right not to listen and not to be offended by the things he says.
Posted by JaanVahl 1 year ago
JaanVahl
They may consider not doing it, but will they stop thinking about doing it?
Posted by edvard 1 year ago
edvard
In response to Jaan's argument that there are steps people have to go through to commit violent acts. The further you remove the amount of steps people have to go through to finally reach the need to commit violent acts, the easier it will be for them to commit them. By controling people by law in the beginning so called "steps" that they need to do, we will avoid the violence at all. If people will get punished they will stop doing it.
Posted by edvard 1 year ago
edvard
In the case of Julien Blanc, we can say that it was rightly done, because of his expression of opinions he promoted intolerance and discrimination. I think that it is a great example of human rights act and also the law that controls the freedom of speech.
Posted by edvard 1 year ago
edvard
People who disagree and think that there should be no limitations on freedom of speech and everybody needs to express their opinion, listen here, opinions are just like a**holes, everyone has one. To avoid that opinion flow, we need strict rules.
Posted by TaaviIB 1 year ago
TaaviIB
In my opinion, it should be legal to limit freedom of speech, if the line is crossed into hate speech. If the sole purpose of a speech is to incite violence or otherwise offend someone, it has no constructive value. However, this kind of a loose definition is open to abuse and could be misused. This is why the decider should be a neutral party, rather than anyone involved or potentially offended. However, it is impossible to implement in practice, as no one can be truly neutral, and giving any party such power could be devastasting.

Free speech in itself is a natural and necessary part of life in the modern world and a fundamental pillar of democracy. Thus criticism should remain allowed and even be encouraged - as long as it remains rational and constructive. However, outright banning would still remain out of the question.

In the case of Julien Blanc, the case is not so much for or against free speech, but rather the threat, encouragement or actual act of borderline rape, and should be prosecuted accordingly. Sovereign nations reserve the right to allow or deny entry on an individual basis, and in the case of someone so controversial, it is of no surprise that this would be the case.

In response to EvaLinda's comment, cyberbulling can often be accompanied with real life bullying that takes place in person. In this case cyberbullying is simply the extension, and ignoring it can be far from the solution as other people can find the negative comments about the victim online and reference them in real life.

As for Edvard's argument, don't you think that being able to classify anything potentially offensive as hate speech could be abused? Someone's opponents might simply claim the other party's argument to be hate speech and thus take advantage of the system rather easily.
Posted by edvard 1 year ago
edvard
Hate speech also has serious effects on its targets. Enduring hatred over many years or a lifetime will take a toll on most people. It can limit their opportunities, push them into poverty, isolate them socially, lead to depression or dysfunction, increase the risk of conflict with authority or police, and endanger their physical health or safety. Hate speech is destructive to the community at large because it is divisive and promotes intolerance and discrimination.
No votes have been placed for this debate.