The Instigator
bman7720
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
M4sturDebater
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Organizations Can Ethically Inhibit the Free Speech of Their Members

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
M4sturDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 390 times Debate No: 73787
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

bman7720

Pro

The first round is acceptance and definitions. This is NOT a debate on the legal aspects of this, but rather if it is ethical to do so.

Inhibit: Restrict in any noticeable form.
Free speech: Right to voice your opinion
Organization: Any group that is not mandatory to participate in
M4sturDebater

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
bman7720

Pro

This topic came to my mind when I was playing the game Minecraft with a friend of mine. The server had a rule around the topic of political opinions. My friend got into an argument and began to state his political opinion, in which he got banned for.

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.
M4sturDebater

Con

First of all, that's not inhibiting a members free speech. That's punishing them for their actions. Inhibiting someone's free speech would be like if a person went on twitter and ranted about their job at Walmart and then Walmart reports them and gets that tweet taken down. That person has the right to say whatever they want, and while they might get fired or suspended for it, that's just paying the consequence for what they did and how they went against their contract.
Debate Round No. 2
bman7720

Pro

My opponent claims that causing a consequence is not inhibit free speech. Does that mean if the government made it punishable by death to speak against it that we still have free speech? The fear of punishment is exactly how someone inhibits another person's free speech. My opponent is also unclear when they state their example of inhibiting free speech, then claiming that it is only an example of punishment.

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.
M4sturDebater

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 3
bman7720

Pro

Every agreement or contract has an exchange of terms. When an artist signs to a record label, they agree to keep a certain public image. It is an unspoken agreement that, when you work for a corporation or business, you will convey an image of positivity and appealing quality towards the business. It's more unethical to speak against something that you willingly participate in than it is to protect your organization's public image.

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?
M4sturDebater

Con

I think it is unethical because you are restricting a person's freedom of speech. An employee of a company should be able to criticize the company they work for. Is it ethical to not let your employees to criticize their company? You are saying that it is ethical to punish a member for breaking the rules when they exercise their freedom of speech. Punishing them for exercising their freedom of speech is not inhibiting it because those people are still able to say those things. In order to really inhibit their freedom of speech, an organization would have to monitor what their employees post on social media sites or not even allow them onto those sites and far as I am concerned that is not ethical.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by M4sturDebater 1 year ago
M4sturDebater
I can't vote for myself, can I?
And no, I will not vote for myself if I can.
Posted by M4sturDebater 1 year ago
M4sturDebater
What do you mean use it?
Posted by Jonnykelly 1 year ago
Jonnykelly
This is a pretty interesting topic. Might have to use it some time.
Posted by bman7720 1 year ago
bman7720
Oh oops! Thank you for pointing that out!
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
You mean 'ethically', right? You should change that before someone takes the debate and argues against racism...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jonnykelly 1 year ago
Jonnykelly
bman7720M4sturDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
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.