The Instigator
TheDebater4
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
That1User
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should supression orders be placed on press coverage?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 511 times Debate No: 119658
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

TheDebater4

Pro

Thanks to my opponent, And it would be a pleasure for debating with you today.

The topic is about whether supression orders should be placed on press coverage, When relating to sensitive matters.

I will be talking about why it is necessary, And my opponent will be talking about why this should not be the case
That1User

Con

The entire purpose of the press, At least in intention, Is to report on the truth of what is happening in the world, So people will be informed about the reality they live in. The nature of the world is sensitive since we are sensing creatures, Thus anything can be deemed as sensitive and thus subject to suppression under Pro's proposal. To suppress the press from covering sensitive matters is to deny the press from reporting on the nature of reality, From the truth of the world we live in, Defeating the entire purpose of journalism.

"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people. " -Thomas Jefferson
For people to be educated, They must first have access to all information, And the suppression of sensitive information that Pro is proposing threatens this access to all information, Leading to an uneducated, If not, Less educated, Society. This is dangerous because the success of democracy is predicated upon its voters being educated and well informed decisions. Aside from politics, Education also drives personal development, Which leads to a rise in the overall standard of living. People should not have information deprived of them just because it is deemed as "sensitive", The people have the right to know for knowledge is vital in this age of information

"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. " -1st Amendment of the US Constitution

Pro's proposal is in violation of the 1st Amendment, As suppressing the press violates the freedom of the press. Since Pro's proposal in unconstitutional, It should not be implemented, For it violates the supreme law of the land, The very source of power and authority the United States derives from. Since suppressing the press defeats the purpose of journalism, Leads to a less informed populace, And is unconstitutional, The press should not be suppressed for sensitive matters.
Debate Round No. 1
TheDebater4

Pro

Pro's proposal is in violation of the 1st Amendment, As suppressing the press violates the freedom of the press. Since Pro's proposal in unconstitutional, It should not be implemented, For it violates the supreme law of the land, The very source of power and authority the United States derives from. "

This debate is not intended to be seen from the point of view of a single country's Constitution, But from a general view, And so this point is invalidated. Moreover, Most countries around the world do not follow this, Case in point being Australia. In 2014, A gag order was implemented in a case relating to several international political leaders, So as to prevent any rupture in Australia's international relations. (https://www. Google. Com/amp/s/amp. Theguardian. Com/world/2014/jul/30/wikileaks-australia-super-injunction-bribery-allegations)

"Thus anything can be deemed as sensitive and thus subject to suppression under Pro's proposal. "

Any matter can and is only classified as "sensitive" when their is significant risk of trial being affected, And not for any case.

While I agree with Con's notion of journalism being important to the people, It is important to not forget the issues plaguing journalism itself.

In context of this issue, It is of paramount importance that cases relating to sensitive figures who have a massive sway over public opinion or those with a massive societal standing in general should gag press coverage. Judicial systems will come under immense pressure from external agencies to tip the scales of decision-making in favour of one side. Such external pressure will carry the high risk of the end result of any judgement being produced as highly influenced.

The problem of heavy bias of news articles is particularly concerning. Such outlets will pump out article often laced with inaccuracies in order to support their target. This may rouse the public, And lead to disruptions in the judicial process. The independence of the judiciary and it's power to deliver justice must never be compromised.
That1User

Con

That1User forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheDebater4

Pro

A good example of this is the conviction of Cardinal George Pall, Who is the 3rd most powerful Vatican official. In December last year, A unanimous jury have its judgement.

The gag order was put in place by the judge, Who did so prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice, Which is understandable in the face of the immense power of Pall. This supplements my points in the previous order.

I would like to end my argument here.
That1User

Con

That1User forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.