Philosopher views
Preparing To Debate Free Speech
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Absolutism and individualism
- Racism and hate speech
Preparing To Debate Free SpeechIt is important, in a debate over the value of free speech, to determine precisely what it means. What constitutes free speech? How do you draw the line between conduct and speech? What speech is so valuable as to justify protection at the expense of other societal values? Should it be all speech? The concept of speech is intangible. The definition of speech changes depending on the context. At its most basic level, speech must be a process wherein a speaker communicates to an audience with the intention of conveying a particular meaning. This is not always explicit. For example, symbolic actions like burning a flag is discussed in terms of first amendment free speech. Before beginning to debate the substantive issues related to free speech, debaters need to force their opponent to define exactly what it is they will defend. The cross-examination period can, therefore, be very valuable in a debate over free speech. Pressing the other on issues like “what is speech” and “would you defend the value of free speech in X scenario” in which X could be a court case that demonstrated some other value that has been sacrificed for the sake of free speech, a debater can effectively set up a compelling argument for preferring their own value. Another important thing to keep in mind, when debating against free speech, to avoid having the debate center over what is constitutional or unconstitutional. The rulings of the Supreme Court are not the only way to measure what ought be valued and what ought be silenced. Because the court has a history of preferring free speech in most cases, the opponent of free speech in a Lincoln Douglas debate will be fighting an uphill battle if they allow the free speech proponent to frame the debate that way. By using other criteria to frame the debate, a case in which the court upheld free speech could be turned on its head as an example of how free speech can be used to undermine the common good. Absolutism and individualismOne of the first ways methods of attacking the value of free speech is by addressing the framework within which free speech is discussed. First, free speech is most frequently justified through its absoluteness. It is only through the inviolability of free speech that it is justified as taking precedence over all other values. Second, free speech is based on the assumption that rights should be accorded to individuals at the expense of the community. This emphasis on individualism can be attacked in many ways. The absoluteness of free speech makes it a difficult value to defend in a Lincoln Douglas debate. Free speech is only valuable, according to its advocates, if it protects even the most offensive and destructive speech. Protecting uncontroversial speech is largely irrelevant, because the freedom to speak is only needed, and is only challenged, when it offends or upsets someone. It is in those extreme cases, therefore, that the right to free speech must be the most highly valued and protected. This makes it an easy target to debate against. All that a debater needs to do, in order to beat the value of free speech, is to make her opponent admit that free speech can be limited in some cases, and then to demonstrate that the her own value is one of those cases. Extreme examples can be useful for finding competing values that may trump speech. While it would necessitate its own article to fully expound, the foundation of free speech in the value of individualism or egoism can be another strong method of attacking it at the foundational level. In order to prove that the value of free speech trumps all others, in the context of the resolution, a debater has to prove that an individual’s rights should trump the community’s. While the concept of community speech is provocative (consider, for example, a letter cosigned by a large group of people, a large protest, or the internet), speech is considered to be almost exclusively an activity undertaken by individuals. When community values, security for example, are in danger, it may be more difficult for the free speech advocate to defend. Therefore, the opposing debater should construct it not as the tension between one individual’s right to free speech an another’s right to a different value, but as the clash between individual rights and the community at large. Racism and hate speechIn the case Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), Beauharnais had distributed a racist leaflet in violation of an Illinois statute that declared it unlawful to portray any class of citizens as depraved so as to expose them to contempt which could cause a breach of the peace. In this case, racism constituted group libel. A persons education, dignity, and reputation may are often intrinsically linked to their group affiliation. Therefore, racist speech (or “hate speech”) is considered less valued than other forms of speech. Racist speech works not by persuasion but by undermining social attitudes and beliefs, as in Nazi Germany. It is incompatible with Fourteenth Amendment concerns for human dignity and equality. It is a mechanism of class subordination. Moreover, it is a situation in which counter-speech (often considered an important check on the effects of controversial speech) is often ineffective because the initial instance of hate speech has already destroyed participatory access. Democratic principles recommend rejection of hate speech because it impedes the search for truth, impinges on autonomy necessary for individual development, and subverts the democratic process and access of minority voices. However, many university hate speech codes have been struck down. One reason is that they, according to their opponents, attempt to determine truth and falsity. There are two main ways the debater attempting to refute the value of free speech can use this concept of group libel to undermine her opponent’s case. First, she can argue that racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. speech is a form of fighting words. It may be ineffective to claim that the words incite violence and a clear and present danger, because most frequently the victim of hate speech does not fight back. Rather, most of the time they submit and are subjected to repeated attacks. However, one could argue that some words, by their very nature, inflict injury. If they cause immediate emotional distress, intentionally inflicted, they could be considered violent. Second, a debater could argue that hate speech is dangerous and harmful not because it causes riots or is fighting words, but rather that it perpetuates the subordination of a group. Brown v. Board of Education could be considered to be a speech case because when the government segregates and puts up the signs “Colored” and “White” by the water fountain, the government is actually making a statement that is hate speech. It is government endorsement of the concept that one type of person is intrinsically better than another, based on skin color. That could be argued as a violation of equal protection under the law. The Fourteenth Amendment can therefore be used as a tool with which to refute the value of free speech. It could be highly persuasive to argue that the Fourteenth Amendment principle of equality limits the first amendment freedom of speech. Critical Race Theorists argue for the renaissance of group libel laws for the equality interests of racial minorities. This is in line with the new era of politics in which the conservative position is becoming libertarian and the leftist position is towards restricting free speech. Nazis, sexual harassers, and corporate conglomerates are using the free speech principle. If democracy requires some degree of practical participation and equal participation, and if hate speech undermines the ability of minorities to fully participate in public life, then hate speech restrictions ironically promote free speech by promoting equal participation in democracy. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|