Organizations Can Ethically Inhibit the Free Speech of Their Members
Debate Rounds (4)
Inhibit: Restrict in any noticeable form.
Free speech: Right to voice your opinion
Organization: Any group that is not mandatory to participate in
My first point is that these groups are optional. You are not required by any law or force to join and participate in them. Much like teachers aren't permitted to swear on the job, an organization can set rules and standards for its members to meet. Let's look at a sports team in a school, for example. Athletes agree to a Code of Conduct in which anything they say or post to media can be judged by the ethics committee and possibly result in termination from the group. If a school, or even professional, athlete were to post, say a racist rant for example, they could be terminate or suspended for violation of the ethics of the organization.
Punishment is how any restriction is enforced. If a restriction is placed on someone's speech based on their organization, the punishment would enforce this restriction and inhibit their freedom of speech. Freedom of speech implies that you will face no consequences for voicing your opinion. My opponent confuses this will free will. While a person in a Middle Eastern country can choose to speak out against their nation, they will face severe punishment for it. That is not free speech.
Government is something that everyone has to participate in, and by your definition of organization is not included in this discussion. Those people still have the freedom of speech just not as much as we do. That is not ethically right though. Do you think that its ethically right for the Islamic government to kill anyone who ridicules or doesn't obey the Quran? No. That is not ethically right.
Back to organizations, there is no time an organization to ethically inhibit their freedom of speech. When a person criticizes the company they work for, should they be fired? I don't think so. The company should learn from what that person says, take it into consideration, and then improve their company. They should talk to that person and try to fix the solution, not fire them on the spot. It's not ethical to fire a person because they criticized the company.
A company or organization will never be able to satisfy the entire public, so should they be held accountable when they disband a member who is staining their image to the public? If so, then anyone who defends their honor is in the wrong. Many of these organizations have a code of ethics, and agree that they are aware that breaking these ethics are grounds for termination. So this person willingly joins a group, consenting to the inhibition of their speech, break this rule by speaking negative propaganda against the organization, and they are punished by termination from the group. In what way shape or form is that scenario unethical except for a person failing to live up to their agreement?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jonnykelly 1 year 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:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Even though Pro seemed more experienced and followed etiquette better, Con's argument's followed a superior line of logic. Overall, Pro failed to prove the resolution completely, even if Con didn't fully disprove it.
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.