The Instigator
lawyer1995
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Chrysippus
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of expression on social networking sites

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,425 times Debate No: 13550
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

lawyer1995

Con

"Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom" -Benjamin Cardozo

Because I do strongly agree with Supreme Court Judge Benjamin Cardozo, I must negate today's resolution, "RESOLVED: Standards of professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of expression on social networking Web sites." The most important value in today's resolution is freedom, for purposes of today's debate; freedom will be defined as the quality or state of being free, within the text and spirit of the online findlaw.com dictionary. The best criterion for the Negatives value is that of the United States Constitution.

Contention 1- Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression [Ratified 12/15/1791]
Contention 2- Freedoms without Freedom of Expression

If freedom of expression isn't very important, then why did George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and many more write an amendment, in fact they thought it was so important, the first amendment was written about it. The first amendment specifically declares "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances." In other words, Freedom of Expression is very important, and it has been important for over 200 years.

Freedom of expression is the most import Freedom, because without it, we wouldn't have any freedoms. Without freedom of expression in America, people can be a Muslim even though the national religion is Christian, but they can't pray to Allah, in this Case they can't put think Allah I didn't get run over by that car, which is not moral. According to the United States Constitution, we have the freedom to express ourselves in any way as long as we are not harmful to others, thus saying we have the right to freely express ourselves on Social Networking Sites.

In the end, to be truly fair to everyone, Freedom of expression ought to be valued over Professional Behavior on Social networking sites.

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."
~Abraham Lincoln
Chrysippus

Pro

Based on the value of property rights, protected by US Law, I strongly affirm the resolution: "RESOLVED: Standards of professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of expression on social networking Web sites."

Value: Rights of Property

Criterion: US Law

Definition:
Social Networking websites: Privately or corporately owned websites that permit users to post content themselves. [1]

Property: ownership; right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything [2]

--------

Against 1st Con Contention:
The First amendment denies Congress the right to limit free expression. It makes no such limitation on states, local governments, corporations, or private individuals. If I own a newspaper, I am not restricted in choosing whom I allow to write its articles. Were I to deny you "free expression" in my newspaper, you would have no legal recourse.

Against 2nd Con Contention:
The US Constitution only guarantees us that the federal government cannot interfere with our expression; it gives no such protection against private individuals. As the social networking sites are not publicly owned, but instead run by businesses or private individuals, the government must respect their right to censor content. Con's conclusion (free speech on privately owned websites) does not follow from his premise (government can't restrict speech).

--------

1st Aff Contention:
Standards of professional behavior should be valued over unlimited expression, because the Social Networking sites mentioned in the resolution are businesses. Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, DDO, etc. all are businesses that have professional reputations to keep up. Were they to allow unfettered posting of content, the kind of content posted could easily destroy the value of the networks; and as many of them have some sort of censorship of content in place, it is clear that they recognize this. It is clear that the interested parties have already concluded that standards of professional behavior are to be valued over freedom of speech on their websites.

2nd Aff Contention:
Standards of professional behavior should be valued over unlimited expression, because the Social Networking sites mentioned in the resolution are private property. Unlimited expression at the expense of the rights of private property is not legally justifiable. An analogous situation would be if I spray-painted graffiti on a wall, and then claimed "free speech" protected me from the just wrath of the owner. US citizens do not have the right to deface private property not belonging to them; and the owners of these site has made it clear which kinds of content they consider to be defacing. The law must respect their choices in this matter.

One must not give rights to one at another's expense. The privilege of private property must take precedence over the desire of some to deface that property.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
lawyer1995

Con

lawyer1995 forfeited this round.
Chrysippus

Pro

"lawyer1995 forfeited this round."

Concise, pointed, pithy. Hopefully not the best argument my opponent has for her position, though.

I PMed lawyer1995, reminding her of the deadline one day before it expired. She has not replied.

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
lawyer1995

Con

lawyer1995 forfeited this round.
Chrysippus

Pro

Extend my arguments, again.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Sorry, just read back down this. Forgot that my opponent forfeited both rounds. You're fine, Gavin.
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Gavin, could you please give some reason for your vote?
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Con has put a 3000 character limit on the debate, so I won't accept it. It's an LD topic, so I'll outline a Pro case.

Social networks are voluntary associations, so First Amendment arguments are irrelevant. Would you choose a dentist who values free expression above professional standards of behavior? Perhaps he enjoys doing really creative things with the shapes of teeth. The question is what you would prefer to choose, not what is allowed to exist.

The debate topic is about it is better to have a social network site that allows cursing, personal insults, bigotry, spam, and trolling. DDO has rules against all those behaviors, so one question is whether the site would be improved by having no limits on behavior. The relevant thing is the "social" part of "social networking." I think"social" implies some rules of behavior because it broadens participation. Some people get personal fulfillment by drawing attention to themselves through wild behavior. Is it best to put up with that, or to have some rules for social networking? I think it's better to have some rules to keep it "social." Sites with no rules ought to be allowed, but they should not be voluntarily preferred.
Posted by lawyer1995 6 years ago
lawyer1995
Ls4baseball: Haha, thanks!
joshuaXlawyer: there is always an opposing view. Never is it "one sided."
legendaryangel: Especially in America, freedom to express religion is a big thing, thus it is very easy to link it.
ViatorVerum: Please do!
losedotexe: I changed it. I meant to put ought in the first place, I'm not sure what happened. But thank you for pointing that out!
Posted by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
It seems like a bit of an abusive resolution, change the wording from "Should" to "Ought", and it'll be more balanced.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
LD? i dont see a value nor criterion??
Posted by ViatorVerum 6 years ago
ViatorVerum
Ah, LD. I might accept.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
seems interesting but I wanted to be con
Posted by legendaryangel 6 years ago
legendaryangel
Why does everyone always put freedom of expression debates with religion, there are other expressions of the topic besides religion?

You don't always have to put religion as a topic IMO.....
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
seems alittle one sided topic, specially since you have the first amendment,past presidents, and a court case backing you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
lawyer1995ChrysippusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
lawyer1995ChrysippusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07