The Instigator
Solid.Snake
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
blackhawk1331
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

We should censor some forms of speech

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 11/29/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,923 times Debate No: 13827
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Solid.Snake

Pro

I believe that freedom of speech only goes so far in some cases.

Definitions:

Freedom of speech: the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.

Censor: an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

Both definitions provided by www.dictionary.com

Ok so I will provide an example where there should be some censorship. Suppose that an individual has set up a website that promotes hate speech against a certain group of people. He posts these people's addresses on said website and encourages members to attack, defame, humiliate, etc. those people.

Now, what is more important: the right to feel safe and secure, to practice your own beliefs freely or the right to oppress another person's rights? Clearly the right of the people to practice their own beliefs freely and their right to feel safe and secure.

I believe that while our government should keep free speech in general, it is when the freedom of speech interferes with another set of rights that the government should step in and take action. Better yet, we could set up an official government agency to deal with these issues (pardon my ignorance if something of the kind already exists).
blackhawk1331

Con

First, I want to thank my opponent for allowing me to partake in this debate.

My opponent's first definition, for freedom of speech, already dismantles his argument. It states that the government cannot interfere in free speech, and freedom of speech is the 1st Amendment. Therefore, censoring freedom of speech is unconstitutional.
My opponent's next definition doesn't benefit him either. I'd like to point out the key word in that definition is suppressing. Do we, as a people, really want to have officials violating our right and suppressing our freedom. This right, by the way, was given to us by the same group that is now suppressing the very same right.
Now, I'd lie to point out that it is illegal to threaten people's lives or property, so the scenario set up by my opponent is completely irrelevant.
Next, it is obviously more important to feel safe, but limiting freedom of speech will NOT stop the type of speech my opponent wants stopped. Those people will find a way to get their opinions out anyway, or just carry out the work alone. It's like trying to reduce crimes by outlawing handguns. The only people who will lose their handguns are those who obey the law. Those committing the crimes will get the guns anyway.
My opponents definition of freedom of speech already stated that free speech is void when it violates another right. This last argument is irrelevant. And that government agency my opponent is referring to would probably be the police.

Now, here is an argument of my own.
I think that freedom of speech should not be censored because it violates our 1st amendment rights. If these rights are violated, our entire system will break apart, and, in the words of Sheldon Cooper, we will descend in anarchy. We will have no government, no rights, and crime will sky rocket. Plus, war will break out as the land is fought over. The limiting of rights is the first step to eliminating, and when they are eliminated, we will either be ruled by a dictator (best case) or we will descend into anarchy (worst case).

Once again, thank you for allowing me to partake in this debate, and I await a response.
Debate Round No. 1
Solid.Snake

Pro

OK so there's no way around it; I just got destroyed by my opponent. It is my first debate; I now know that I should research before I debate. Good thing to keep in mind for next time.

I have no idea how to forfeit but I guess we will just post rounds until the end. Forgive me if there is some way around this.
blackhawk1331

Con

Well, since my opponent has admitted defeat, I extend all of my arguments.

Also, welcome to DDO(debate.org).

Finally, to forfeit a round just let the response time run out.
Debate Round No. 2
Solid.Snake

Pro

Solid.Snake forfeited this round.
blackhawk1331

Con

Well, my opponent has forfeited so I'll just restate my original points in my closing statements.
I have shown how my opponents definitions do not support him. I've shown how censoring free speech is a violation of the 1st amendment. I've shown how my opponent's scenario was completely void. I've shown how censoring free speech will NOT make people safer. Finally, I've shown how censoring free speech will set us on the road to anarchy.

Thank you for reading this debate.
Now, here's a point break down in my opinion.

agree before - your choice
agree after - your choice
conduct - me because my opponent forfeited a round
spelling and grammar - Solid.Snake because when I copied and pasted each argument into word to spell check, I have 3 errors in my entire argument. Solid.Snake has no errors
convincing arguments - me, my opponent gave up, so he must think that my arguments were convincing
reliable sources - tied because no one offered any sources

I thank the audience for reading this, and Solid.Snake for the opportunity to let me participate in this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
Still waiting for a response. :(
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
The constitution only extends to expression, but if someone encourages some to harm, or kill , or to deface property is already considered a crime. Why are you debating something that's already pretty much a law, like tell some to commit suicide is wrong so s telling them to harm some or anything that's encouraging them to break laws is punishable by law. However cursing them or expressing their dislike or hate for a religion or etc as long as it isn't infringing on their rights is ok. Its the old sticks and stones can break my bones but words can be ignored, but then on the other hand if its a consistent and to a particular person like day in and day out and they know you, you can file harassment. Its widely based on libertarianism.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MikeNovotny 6 years ago
MikeNovotny
Solid.Snakeblackhawk1331Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
Solid.Snakeblackhawk1331Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by Hound 6 years ago
Hound
Solid.Snakeblackhawk1331Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05