Should censorship be illegal?
Debate Rounds (3)
Censorship: the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.
illegal:contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.
My debate is that World Goverments should not censor any information that is not harmful to a person or his livelyhood, people are always crying for the truth! Lets get it i'm looking at you:
and all you other juicy goverment secrets!!!
Moving swiftly on, I would gladly take up this debate and would look forward to it. I shall be arguing that the government should censor information that is not harmful to a person or their livelihood.
I will first be talking about how no one can define harmless and how our greed of knowledge may render us to the worst.
Then within the third round I would like to state that the government does hold the power to do so and that will link in with my conclusion.
Alright first off arguement!
First off, what is harmless...
not able or likely to cause harm or
My arguement is that goverment intervention as mentioned before in censorship should be illegal and here are my three points
1) 1rst Admendment- now I know your thinking 'oh posh' goverment censorship is not breaking the first admendment.
OHHH YESS IT IS!!!
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. 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 a redress of grievances.
Now I don't know about you but censorship sounds pretty close to prohibiting of speech... in fact that would be the exact definition...
1B) as part of my first arguement I would like to debate that the Founding Fathers would agree to my statement
2) When the goverment censor's something that has to do with something that will affect the country as a whole I find that not only offensive but harmful also!
One more point to add the people say NOPE
First of all, you have stated that what can be classified as harmless is; "Harmless: not able or likely to cause harm or inoffensive."
You can't exactly say that something is harmless, who are we to judge? Your statement clearly ties in with my first point. There is no 'all smart one', no one that can define what is harmless or not, we just guess, we just assume. What we may think as harmless, can suddenly just twist and cause the worst to happen! Think about during 2012, everyone was so worked up, panicking about the end of the world. But did that even happen? Won't you say it's best for the government to keep things under wrapped until they are correctly proved?
When I typed up "1st amendment definition" I was met with;
"First Amendment definition. An amendment to the United States Constitution guaranteeing the rights of free expression and action that are fundamental to democratic government. These rights include freedom of ... freedom of speech. "
Freedom of speech, basically means, only if the person/people that holds the information wishes to release it, then they can. And to be frank, the government is holding the information, so if they wished to release it, they can. We can't force them to tell us! It's as if forcing someone to tell us their own secrets, would you like it if I forced you to tell me your biggest and worst secret, just to spread it around the world?
Starting with my first point:
As you may or may not know, there is a famous saying that is known as "curiosity kills the cat". And in a sense, it's simply true. What the government has kept out of our line of vision may actually be essential. There is no person that can deem what is safe, what is not. Everything is just a hazy line, so how is something or someone going to deem what is truly harmful and what isn't?
People were panicking over the end of the world in 2012, and to be honest, I have no idea where they got that information from, but that didn't happen. If a leak of information from the government was gathered and spread around, then some people will truly overreact, and this will be my third time saying it, but basically what happened in 2012 with those petty overreacting myths will happen again.
When people want knowledge out of greed, when they claim that they are "crying for the truth!" It may not always be for the best. When the tiniest slip of knowledge comes out, people - especially the media - may highlight it and twist it. Some times, the government keeps away the secrets that they do to protect us.
Sometimes secrets are just best kept, but there will always be a time for us to find out what that secret is. Currently, it does not seem to be the time.
essentailly your first arguement is the people arn't smart enough to judge right from wrong themselves and the goverment should essentially keep information away from the people to protect them--- am I right so far? good...
First of all you have set up a "Red Hearing" debate in the sense that information will be as harmful as the idea of the world ending in 2012! I'f anybody would have actually done any research prior to 2012 or we knew exactly what the myan calander ment, we wouldn't have been freaking out; the myan calander was not explaining the end of the world ( no that was completely made up obviously )it was explaining the beggining of a new time when they would have to write the calander all over again in fact the next one would be "The “creation date” for the current cycle we are in today, is 4 Ahaw, 8 Kumku. According to the most common conversion, this date is equivalent to August 11, 3114 BC in the Gregorian calendaror September 6 in the Julian calendar " (The Mayan Calendar - predicting the end of the world?). No, I would argue a lack of information is usally more harmful than not.
Your secound arguement was the goverment has the right to a freedom of speech; No it doesn't, everything the goverment does is payed with tax dollers, the goverment is a representation of the people and is meant to be run by the people, and your arguement is that I want to know all of the goverment secrets when in my first round I defined censorship as Censorship: the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts. Meaning if someone finds out the truth and tries to publish it the goverment would find some way to stop them... I don't think that people are greedy when they try to publish information, but I find it rude when the goverment prevents them from exersizing that freedom.
Definition of Government: "the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office."
It clearly states that it is run by a group of people, and the rights are made for people. So in all honestly, are you denying these people their rights because of their jobs?
Moving on with my point, I would like to say that, you have seen the definition of government. They are the people with the authority to govern a country, they are the ones that take care of the country. In a sense, they are the ones leading the country towards the future world.
Without a leader, everyone would be lost, uncertain on what to do. The government plays a vital role, they are the ones that sort out the trades and also they are the ones that speak for us to other countries. They are people, are humans as well, they don't necessary have any super powers, they still have to try their best every day in their life.
You talk as though they can't be counted as humans.
But it is true, they govern the country, they are the ones that make the law. It's just like in any other place where there is the chain of power. Even a school is an example. There's the head master that makes all the choices, whether or not the school likes it nor, then there is the deputy head that would be the one that would help the head master as well as the other teachers, after the deputy head, there is the teachers that teach the students and makes sure that they don't get into trouble, and then there is the students.
That is a chain of power, and they're every where. But as you can see, the students gain the most from it all, just as the civilians of the country get the most. They get protection, and less work than the government at times. The government will constantly be working, knowing that there will always be people that disagree with them, hate them.
But they continue on.
They already allow information to go out, they have NASA reporting information to the world as well. Information does come out, people are updated, so why do they greed for more?
Within my conclusion, I would like to say that, it would be best if we can be grateful for what we have right now. I doubt you can force them to release every secret that they have. If they do, then remember what the impact on the country- on the world would be like. For all my reasons, I urge you to support that the government should censor information that is not harmful to a person or their livelihood.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.