Datasets:

BeIR

/

arguana

like 2

validation-health-aapdpglovr-con01a

Drugs policy must be punitive Governor Romney would not scale back the War on Drugs, as he supports the punitive approach that characterizes drug policy in the status quo. Romney supports punitive strategies toward criminal justice in general, such as “three strikes and you’re out” laws, which impose mandatory sentences for people who have committed three offenses. [1] These policies can be effective in reducing crime, in California after three strikes was implemented the crime rate declined by 43% although the three strikes was only one factor. [2] Romney maintains that those who break current laws should be punished, and therefore has proposed that states should contract with for-profit prison companies to continue expanding prison populations in order to keep up with current rates of incarceration. If larger prisons are necessary in order to keep drug users and dealers off the streets, then they are a necessary cost. [1] ‘Mitt Romney on Crime, Former Republican Governor (MA); presidential nominee-apparent’, On The Issues, 2012. [2] ‘A Primer: Three Strikes – The Impact After More Than a Decade’, Legislative Analyst’s Office, October 2005.

validation-health-aapdpglovr-con02b

Dismissing drug users as a ‘pleasure-seeking generation that never grew up’ almost concedes the point. These people have a right to make the choice for themselves whether to use drugs – the government should make sure the risks are known, and the substance priced accordingly but ultimately there is nothing wrong with seeking pleasure. Romney further muddies the waters by not allowing the sale of syringes as this is an act that would save lives. A study in the lancet estimated that with a needle exchange program in the US between 10000 and 20000 HIV infections could have been prevented between 187 and 2000. [1] [1] Lurie, P. and Drucker, E. ‘An opportunity lost: HIV infections associated with lack of a national needle-exchange programme in the USA’. Lancet. 1997 Vol.349 pp.604-608.

validation-health-dhwiftj-pro02b

Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever. While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.

validation-health-dhwiftj-pro02a

Other taxes try to change behaviour Taxes that try to change people’s behaviour on things that are not liked have been used since the 16th century, and are commonly applied to alcohol, smoking and gambling. In the US, when cigarette prices went up 4%, use dropped by 10% [11]. As this worked with tobacco, which creates similar health problems to obesity, this tried and tested strategy can work. Research has shown that when the price of unhealthy food goes up, people eat less of it [12]. A fat tax would make people healthier.

validation-health-dhwiftj-pro03b

What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more. Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.

validation-health-dhwiftj-pro01a

Being fat causes problems for everyone Obesity causes huge medical costs - in the USA alone, around 150 billion dollars [6]. This is because obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, cancer, heart problems, strokes, asthma and other medical problems. Many of these diseases need lifelong treatment following expensive diagnosis, and often emergency treatment. This not only has human effects, but causes problems for the economy due to being less productive at work and taking lots of medical leave. Due to obesity’s costs (financial and otherwise) to society, it can’t be considered as something that only affects individuals any more [7].

validation-health-dhwiftj-pro01b

The USA is not a good place to take figures from as its health sector is very expensive and inefficient compared to most other countries [9]. If anything, that is getting worse. It’s not possible to say if the rising cost of healthcare is due to obesity related disease, as there are numerous other possibilities such as the risk of doctors being sued, an aging population, and spiraling drug costs. Also, there are other lifestyle choices that can cause problems, for example eating meat can contribute to cancer [10], we should not single out one lifestyle choice that can cause problems over others.

validation-health-dhwiftj-pro03a

Unhealthy food is cheaper A reason why people eat unhealthy foods is that it’s often cheaper and easier than cooking something with fresh ingredients. Studies have shown that not only is junk food cheaper, its costs are less likely to increase due to inflation [14]. This was confirmed by research in Australia that showed that while healthy food became more expensive, junk food got cheaper [15]. Obesity is more common amongst poorer people. Because junk food is so cheap, it is eaten more. The best way to change this consumption pattern is to tax unhealthy food so that the healthy option is also the cheaper option.

validation-health-dhwiftj-con03b

A fat tax could be offset by subsidizing the price of healthier foods so that the overall food budget is unaffected. No one will be forcing the poor to pay this tax as the intention is to have them change their eating habits. The families that would be affected by the tax most are those affected most by obesity related disease. Spending some money now on food would save a lot more later in health care. It will also make them more productive at work, meaning a better economy and hopefully higher wages to help compensate. [21]

validation-health-dhwiftj-con01b

This is a very limited view of government; today everyone agrees that the government should be allowed to tax things that harm us such as alcohol and tobacco. These, like fat, only indirectly harm others. Attitudes towards fat are changing as the problem becomes much greater. It is now accepted that when people do things that harm others indirectly the government must have a role. The rise in healthcare costs creates just such costs by increasing the cost of the healthcare system as a whole which is either paid for by everyone through taxes or passed on through higher insurance premiums.

validation-health-dhwiftj-con02a

Such a tax would not work A fat tax would only produce a slight change in behaviour. Research by the London School of Economics said that “those on the very poorest diets will continue to eat badly. [16]” People like fast fatty food because it is quick and tasty. Eating is something we need to do to live – it solves a specific need quickly, and people are happy to pay for it. [17] Obesity has many causes. It is not something that can be solved with something as simple as a fat tax. Things like healthy food vending machines, more exercise and better education would be more effective in the long run.

validation-health-dhwiftj-con03a

Costs more to those who can’t afford to pay A fat tax will be a tax on poor people. It will hit the poorest, those who can least afford to pay it. It is the poorest who buy the cheapest food because they can’t afford otherwise and who are least likely to have the kitchen equipment necessary to prepare healthy meals. Because it is what they know they will simply end up paying more taxes and having less money to spend on anything else. The result will be attempts to save by eating even worse food, or cutting back on some other necessity such as heating. [19] The impact of rising food prices and concerns that the result would be turning to worse food is what stopped Romania from introducing such a tax in 2010. [20]

validation-health-dhwiftj-con01a

Free choice It is the government’s job to provide schools and courts not to tell people what to eat. The government should stop people harming each other. But it’s not the government’s job to tell people what to do to themselves. Consuming fatty food does not harm other so should not be subject to government control. A fat tax would be like the government trying to prevent us from frivolous spending and getting into debt by being allowed to tax investments it considers to be bad.

validation-health-dhwiftj-con02b

Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.

validation-health-pssahbmakfpu-pro02b

Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] . [1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013

validation-health-pssahbmakfpu-pro02a

Controlling domestic violence By including men in family planning the ideas, and misconceptions, of what happens when women use family planning can be changed. Gender-based violence is a key concern that can be reduced by involving men in family planning decisions. If they buy into having fewer children then they are less likely to object to using contraception and condoms – something that has other potential benefits such as preventing STDs. The United Nations Development Fund for Women has found that one in four women is abused during pregnancy, teaching men about reproductive health and family planning can prevent this from happening.(International Women’s Health Program) Although evidence is limited the MAP (Men As Partners) program in South Africa showcases the positive effect of including men. The intervention is changing men’s attitude and behaviors [1] . [1] See further readings: Peacock and Levack, 2007; Engender Health, 2014.

validation-health-pssahbmakfpu-pro03b

The idea of family planning is wrong; and it reflects the unequal power structures operating in society. Within African cultures families are polygamous, extended, and far from the ‘normal’ neutral family structure. Therefore by enforcing family planning we are failing to understand what the family is across Africa. Family planning is simply seeking to limit choice about the structure of the family. Just including man and wife rather than any more extended family is itself encouraging a certain structure that not all Africans agree with or desire for their family.

validation-health-pssahbmakfpu-pro01a

Gender equality in family planning By including men in family planning programs and the decisions made concerning family structures equality is enabled. The decisions made, and responsibilities, concerning the ‘family’ are no longer solely the burden of the woman. Men are provided with a voice, and therefore responsibility and obligation to act upon caring for the family. By introducing men into family planning a platform is provided enabling negotiations on the family to be discussed between man and woman. Men are key actors in decisions made; therefore their inclusion is fundamental. This also means that the man is also much more likely to take on other responsibilities in terms of caring for the family or doing things the woman would have done in the past like collecting medicine (Wasswa, 2012).

validation-health-pssahbmakfpu-pro01b

Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal? Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.

validation-health-pssahbmakfpu-pro03a

Involving men is the best way to ensure family planning works By including men fast action can be taken to control the size, and growth, of families. The patriarchal power structures mean men have a key voice in household decisions. Therefore the involvement of men in family planning is enabling perceptions of what the family should be to change. The cost of raising a family is realized, and intervening methods are being used to have fewer children. Family planning means planning how one can cope with having a child – mentally, emotionally, financially, and physically, and sensitizing couples as to what kind of life standard they want. With the young generation of Ugandans a new culture of a smaller family can emerge [1] . Men often have limited knowledge about family planning so it is necessary that they are included in learning and the transfer of knowledge (Kaida et al, 2005). When both partners are knowledgeable and involved family planning is far more likely to become a reality. [1] Wasswa, 2012.

validation-health-pssahbmakfpu-con03b

Reducing the cost of family planning; making more contraceptive resources and materials available around the clock; and distributing commodities to hospitals does not ensure access. There is no point increasing funding for programs that will not get used due to a lack of popularity or continued ideas of family planning and management. Improving the ‘alternative essentials’ can only work if those using reproductive resources are supported and in a patriarchal society this means needing the involvement of both men and women.

validation-health-pssahbmakfpu-con01b

By including men in family planning programs a new respect emerges towards sex and what men expect women to do. By being made aware of the reproductive costs and demands men are able to respect the bodies and choices of women. Women no longer become passive, but recognized and respected as having their own sexual desires, preferences, and constrains. Family planning does not suppress sexuality, if anything through encouraging the use of contraception and condoms encourages it.

validation-health-pssahbmakfpu-con02a

The need to include the wider family Decisions on how big, or small, a family should be; and how it should be structured are not solely the decisions of husband and wife, or man and woman. Extended family members play a key role. For example, research carried out in Nigeria by Smith (2004) indicates decisions remain influenced by cultural norms and pressures. The pressure for a high fertility, amongst Igbo-speaking Nigerians, is shown to be a paradoxical factor of patron-clientalism and the culture of ‘people power’. High fertility and subsequent kinship networks enable state legibility, resource access, and the continuation of ‘tradition’. Elder family members aim to maintain traditions. A crucial distinction therefore emerges, as it is not simply a rational choice when it comes to family planning but rather influenced by political-economy factors and wider family demands. Therefore including men in Uganda does not necessarily allow an understanding of what role the wider family plays. Decisions on family planning are not simple, or always open for discussion.

validation-health-pssahbmakfpu-con03a

Alternative essentials We should not be focusing on including men, but rather alternative essentials such as funding, resource distribution, and awareness. For example President’s Museveni’s recent commitment to raise government funding for family planning from 3.3 million to 5 million is vital [1] . Further, by improving the supply and distribution of contraception, into the health service sector, President Museveni has drawn attention to the financial constraints in family planning. [1] Advance Family Planning, 2014.

validation-health-pssahbmakfpu-con01a

Family planning is wrong: controlling sexuality The idea of family planning involves controlling, and suppressing, sexuality. Sex becomes understood as purely a source for reproduction, and women and men in Africa (or Uganda) requiring control. Additionally the ‘normal’ relationship is identified between man and women. Freedom to express sexuality is repressed by understanding sexuality as heterosexual. The idea of the family is maintained as a heterosexual reality

validation-health-pssahbmakfpu-con02b

When it comes to family planning the extended family has little power over intra-household decisions. Extended family members will not be attending clinic meetings, collecting contraception, or engaging in intimate action. The power in family planning returns to man and wife. Additionally, the inclusion of men into family planning will change ideas of reproduction for all. If men are included at all levels ideas will change, and overtime pressures will change. As all men and women learn about family planning they will become much more sympathetic to it within their extended family.

validation-sport-ohwbcvhtmp-pro02b

Most athletes can only compete at the elite level when they hit their peak. And the ‘big’ competitions, like the Olympics, don’t come around very often. So because a coach, in a team they’re not part of, used harsh training methods, they now miss their only chance to compete in the highest competition possible and receive the biggest payout (in terms of wage and sponsorship) opportunity of their career. Now, this may not weigh against the harm suffered by a beaten athlete, but when you multiply that number out and consider how many people you’re taking this opportunity away from, the harms stack up.

validation-sport-ohwbcvhtmp-pro02a

The suffering of those who are treated to harsh training outweighs banning the team This ban is, admittedly, highly punitive and may be called harsh. It will punish hundreds of athletes and coaches who aren’t implicated in cases of abuse. Yet, on a balance of harms, the disappointment those people feel can’t be compared to the suffering of an athlete who is beaten and starved and conditioned into a mode of thinking where they accept this without putting up a fight. According to Melanie Lang of Metropolitan University harsh and over intensive training “removes the element of fun that first attracts so many youngsters to sport. It can inhibit bone growth, cause physical and mental burnout and increase the potential for injury and dropout.” [1] And worse the coercion can lead to injury and even death; American gymnast Christy Henrich became anorexic and as a result died weighing only 3st 5lb while Chinese gymnast Sang Lan was paralysed after being cajoled into attempting a vault. [2] It’s more important to ensure all athletes can train in a safe environment free from physical and mental abuse, than it is to safeguard against the disappointment of professional athletes who want to compete. Given that there are major sporting events annually or bi-annually, usually, it’s not as if those forced to miss out can’t compete again soon. [1] Cassidy, Sarah, ‘Olympic swimming training ‘too hard on young athletes’, The Independent, 4 September 2008, [2] ‘Beijing Olympics: The Games are not child’s play’, The Telegraph, 16 August 2008,

validation-sport-ohwbcvhtmp-pro03b

This simply shows that it is the coaches that are to blame and therefore it is unfair to punish the athletes for what their coaches are persuading them to do. Young manipulatable, athletes do not necessarily know what their coaches responsibilities are and what should be considered abuse. Instead this is the responsibility of the coaching team who therefore are the ones who should be penalised.

validation-sport-ohwbcvhtmp-pro01a

Banning countries with harsh training measures from competing would be a strong deterrent This measure introduces a strong deterrent against those who allow and facilitate abusive training methods. Firstly, it incentivises national athletic and sporting bodies to diligently check the background of coaches before their employment and continue to investigate them throughout the year. It is now in the interest of every single member of national sporting bodies and teams to ensure abuse doesn’t continue. In most it is currently in your interest to keep quiet, lest you risk disturbing the national programme or being ostracised by your federation. As a result coaches are far less likely to think these training methods will help them achieve success. Since it could see their athletes banned from the competition and lose their medals it makes using harsh training methods an immense risk to take. It would also mean they’re unlikely to ever get hired again if caught.

validation-sport-ohwbcvhtmp-pro01b

This isn’t necessarily true. Consider that currently coaches already are already disincentivised by the use of these training methods by the threat of losing their job. For example in South Korea fourteen Ice Skating coaches resigned after allegations of beatings. [1] Yet these practices continue. Deterrents rarely work because people don’t think they’ll be caught, and focus on the short term benefit of what they are doing. For example, even if you explain to someone that smoking kills, they may still take a cigarette because they assume they won’t be the one that gets cancer and so the short term benefit can be taken guilt free. The kind of coaches who already think like this and risk their job are unlikely to change as a result of this proposal. In this case, coaches are unlikely to think they’ll ever get caught, even if people like them are caught and punished, so they’ll think it is pointless to abandon the training methods they think will guarantee them success. [1] MacIntyre, Donald, ‘Breaking the Ice’, Time Magazine, 15 November 2004,

validation-sport-ohwbcvhtmp-pro04b

First this is not all the responsibility of the IAAF to police; the same guidelines state “Athletes must be instructed in health and safety practices and must bear a large degree of responsibility for their own welfare”. [1] The IAAF has already passed laws about what constitutes ‘proper training methods’. [2] The IAAF has therefore done what it needs to do to protect athletes. This duty of responsibility does not extend to a right to impose collective punishment. Most people wouldn’t argue with the fact that we should try to reduce the amount of harsh training methods being used, where we can. The debate is about how appropriate and effective this punishment is. This policy may lead to less whistleblowing, while simultaneously punishing lots of athletes unfairly. So no matter how high the IAAF’s moral burden is, this policy should not be enacted. [1] “Principals and Ethical Guidelines”, IAAF, [2] ‘Principles of Training’, International Association of Athletics Federations,

validation-sport-ohwbcvhtmp-pro03a

Athletes are vulnerable to their coaches Athletes dedicate their lives to their sport and becoming the world’s best at what they do. They are willing to put their body and minds through all sorts of punishment to do this. As such, they’re not in a position to judge what is and isn’t an acceptable training method. If they’re told that starvation makes them more likely to win gold then their intense desire for Olympic glory often clouds their judgment and ability to make rational choices for themselves. Their coaches are authority figures who assumed to have their best interests in mind, and most athletes also assume their coaches know more than them about how to achieve glory. So, if a gymnastics coach tells her athlete that she needs to starve herself to win gold, the athlete will think themselves a bad athlete if they refuse. [1] This is shown by the long history of drug use in the Olympics where both coaches and athletes know it is wrong to use drugs but still do so in the hope it will bring them gold. [2] Because of this, the IAFF has to make this decision for them. It also means that the chance of whistleblowing is low, since athletes cannot rationally consider whether the training methods are acceptable. So it has to set an incredibly punitive deterrent to make sure coaches aren’t tempted to use a training method they probably won’t be caught for. [1] Harris, Paul, ‘Secret world of a gymnast: starvation, sex and fear’, The Observer, 27 April 2008, [2] ‘Historical Timeline History of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports’, ProCon.org, 28 February 2012,

validation-sport-ohwbcvhtmp-pro04a

The IAAF and the Athletics commission have the highest burden to protect their athletes. Just as an employer has a responsibility to provide a safe working environment for their employees, the IAAF has a duty to provide a safe environment for their athletes. The sports medical team is responsible for ‘preventing illness and injury’, [1] clearly something that is caused by harsh training. As do all those who are involved in sports. These athletes only exist in a professional capacity because bodies created the positions for the athletes to exist. If the world wants to pay people to perform and compete for them, then once that offer is made they have a moral duty to ensure that work is safe, since they are culpable in creating that work. Moreover, we give the IAAF power in the promise that by giving up localised power of judgement over sport, they can better protect athletes and creating a fairer sporting environment. Abusive training methods are a huge failure on the part of the IAAF and as such they must use the most powerful disincentive possible to them. [1] “Principals and Ethical Guidelines”, IAAF,

validation-sport-ohwbcvhtmp-con03b

It’s simply untrue to claim that ‘unconnected athletes’ have done nothing wrong. It is the responsibility of every member of the national team to ensure standards are met, because abuses only go tolerated so long as they are allowed by athletes and other coaches to continue. In the case of the victim if they did not whistleblow early then they clearly are responsible for allowing that abusive practice to continue. It is the victim who the harsh regime was supposed to benefit through driving them to glory and if they acquiesced to the treatment then this is likely the reason.

validation-sport-ohwbcvhtmp-con01b

Firstly, this argument assumes consent on the part of the athlete. That’s somewhat unfair as most of these ‘harsh’ training camps are fairly secretive. We know this because even though the Karoyli’s were called out, no punishment could be made due to the difficulty in obtaining conclusive evidence. So it is unlikely athletes really know what they’re getting themselves into. You can’t consent to abuse, not like this, we wouldn’t let you sign a contract to allow someone to starve you. Moreover, just because athletes would do anything to get gold, doesn’t mean we should let them. Some people would happily sell an organ for money, but we stop them doing that and morally are right to do so. Individuals don’t always know what’s best for them, that’s in-part, why the state exists.

validation-sport-ohwbcvhtmp-con02a

The policy is counter productive If your goal is, ultimately, to reduce the amount of coaches using this method, this policy is massively counter-productive. For people to get punished, you need athletes to report abuse, this policy makes that less likely to happen. The athletes being abused won’t want to report their coaches as the abuse is happening, because that means they and their teammates all lose their chance at and competing in the biggest sporting stages which in turn is likely to reduce their chances of ever achieving glory or getting a big payday from sponsorship. It is already the case that sometimes whistleblowers suffer for calling time. In India Dr Sajib Nandi was first removed from his position as a medical officer and then beaten up as a result of whistleblowing about doping. [1] This policy simply makes the stakes and the risks of whistleblowing much higher. At least now after they’ve been abused athletes come out and report abuse. Why would an athlete do this under this policy? It damages their stock as they become the one responsible for shaming sport in their country. Also, they’re likely to personally know and have training with people still on national programmes, so they’re not going to want to ruin their friends chances of earning more and competing for the top prizes. [1] NDTV Correspondent, ‘Dope mess: Whistleblower doctor attacked, Sports Minister assures a meeting’, NDTV Sports, 13 July 2011,

validation-sport-ohwbcvhtmp-con03a

Collective punishment is unjust Under this policy the victim is punished for the crimes of coach. This seems unfair, why should someone have their professional dream denied to them because somebody else did something wrong? Banning an entire nation from a sporting competition expands this, individuals with no or little attachment to cases of abuse will also be punished and suffer, when they have taken no steps that deserve punishment. Punishments should fit the crime and this means punishing those who are responsible not innocents. It is right that the punishment should be harsh as it needs to deter coaches but this deterrent should be through steep penalties for the coach not for others.

validation-sport-ohwbcvhtmp-con01a

Harsh training methods aren’t necessarily abusive. Consider that athletes already subject themselves to the kinds of environments that most people actively avoid, and would probably be considered ‘harsh’ by the average person. These routinely involve long days, week after week, often planned out years in advance, practicing special diets and routines [1] and in some countries this may mean being isolated from home and family for years at a time. Athletes consent to having very harsh training in order to reach the prize, they’re used to putting themselves in extreme discomfort to achieve their goal. To the average person these things may seem abusive but an athlete considers these physical and mental demands differently. Communist teams used these kinds of training methods frequently and achieved lots of Olympic success, [2] why can’t an athlete choose to emulate these methods in the pursuit of their professional and personal dreams? [1] Dusen, Allison Van, ‘How To Train Like An Olympian’, Forbes, 8 July 2008, [2] ‘Olympics: planned economies and the need to succeed’, euronews, 20 July 2012,

validation-sport-ohwbcvhtmp-con02b

The reason athletes don’t report the abuses is because they don’t think the abuse is worse than losing their place on the team. This policy changes that by sending a strong message out. Athletes will attach the gravity of the punishment to the crime and might finally begin to understand that this kind of treatment is utterly unacceptable. It’s also fairly easy to get around the worry of being blamed for the repercussions by having anonymous tip-offs or witness protection. The IAAF can compensate for lack of earnings too, but ultimately actually this potential makes abuse less likely to happen. If everyone knows what a risk using harsh methods is, then that’s a good thing. Athletes will be less likely to take it and allow it to continue, and coaches won’t want to risk using them. Currently it’s worth everyone’s while to shut up and let abuse continue, these changes would mean the risk is too high to let that happen.

validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-pro02b

Unlike hate speech or defamation, when some burns a flag no one is actually hurt. Some people may feel their sensibilities offended by such acts, but making people feel uncomfortable should not be illegal. The act of flag burning is in itself neutral. The direction of the message the act is meant to convey is what must be considered, not the act itself. Prohibiting flag burning is in this sense pointless. Furthermore, it should be within someone's rights to challenge the values of the nation and to destroy the symbol of those values as evidence of their disagreement. If people cannot challenge those values then society is not free at all.

validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-pro02a

The First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and expression, does not extend to particularly inflammatory types of speech and expression, which includes flag burning Freedom of speech and expression is an important right, which is why it is listed first in the Bill of Rights; it is central to a fair and free democracy. However, it has limits. Some forms of speech are contrary to the values of democracy, namely when they infringe upon or violate the ability of others to enact their own rights and freedoms. This is why such things as incitement to hatred, other violence-promoting speech, as well as defamation and perjury are legislated against; they are expressions that infringe the rights of others, by causing fear and increasing risk of harm in case of hate speech, and by harming reputations and the effective administration of justice in terms of defamation and perjury respectively. Rights stop where harm to others begins. In the case of flag burning, as the dissenting opinion of Justice William Rehnquist on the issue says, the act is an extremely visceral one, and is often perceived as a direct attack on the core values of America itself, which many consider to be representative of those values, leading to feelings of anger and violation1. It is an infringement of these offended people's rights when flags are allowed to be burned. 1Goldstein, Robert. 2000. Flag Burning and Free Speech: The Case of Texas v. Johnson. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-pro03b

It is exactly because of the visceral response it causes that flag burning is such an effective tool of protest. It draws media and public attention, thus giving the protestors the chance to speak to a wider audience than they might ever have been able to had they used other methods. While there might be some rhetorical backlash, it is not enough to make it not worthwhile. In the case of violent response, the ability to exercise a right should never be infringed by the potential for a violent response to its exercise. People's rights should be better protected in that case, not restricted.

validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-pro01a

The flag of the United States is its primary symbol of nationhood, with a unique importance in the eyes of most Americans, and thus should be protected When destroying the flag of the United States it is the values of the United States that are under attack. Since the birth of the nation the flag of the United States, the eponymous "Star-Spangled Banner", has been flown proudly in all parts of the country. It has become an endemic fixture in American culture and has come to be seen by people all over the United States, and the world, as a representation of the spirit and identity of nation. It appears on every seal of public office, is flown outside every public building and a flag-shaped pin is worn upon the breast of virtually every public figure. The flag has been imbued with a special significance by the citizens of the United States, and is viewed almost universally with extensive reverence1. It has come to be seen as emblematic of all the values and virtues of American society. In a way it is the physical sublimation of those values; at least that is how it is often treated. For this reason, to destroy the flag is to destroy the values they represent, and thus the flag must be protected in order to protect the values of the nation the flag represents. 1Miller, J. Anthony. 1997. Texas v. Johnson: The Flag Burning Case. Berkeley Heights: Enslow Publishers.

validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-pro01b

The values of the United States are what should be protected, not the flag. One of those values is the upholding of freedom of speech and expression. The right to express ones views and opinions must be held inviolable to an extent. While there is a case for defamation and hate speech laws because they have a very real and direct impact on people, the flag is only important insofar as people ascribe meaning to it. It is foolish to make illegal a view contrary to the mainstream that may not value the flag so highly.

validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-pro04b

Popular support is not reason enough to deny people their constitutionally protected rights. The framers of the Constitution were wary of popular opinion, having a justifiable fear that the majority might try to circumscribe the rights of the minority. This is why there are so many check and balances within the Constitution and is exactly why the Supreme Court has defended citizens' right to expression irrespective of the will of the legislature or of the majority of people to enforce their views upon a minority. Popular opinion should not concern fundamental rights.

validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-pro03a

Flag burning does not serve as an effective method of conveying a message, since it is always met only with outrage and sometimes even violent public unrest It is highly questionable whether burning a flag can be considered a speech or expressive act at all. It seems to offer up no new concepts or true opinions to the "marketplace of ideas". Nothing is genuinely expressed by the act that could not be done through words or other, less fiery means. The act of flag burning does nothing to help the advancement or elucidation of truth, which is why people have the right to freedom of expression in the first place. Rather, it clouds the issue supposedly being furthered by the act. It welcomes the rhetoric of "un-Americanism", whereby critics and commentators question the protestors' general patriotism, not the validity of their underlying cause, which can eventually lead to the same criticism of their cause itself. Anger clouds the discussion, with people viewing the cause in terms of unpatriotic people supporting the cause, and thus calling for patriots to oppose it. Examples of this problem can be seen clearly in the various protests during the Vietnam War in which misguided protestors burned flags to show their opposition to the war and killing of innocents. The response to these protests, however, were accusations of lack of patriotism on the parts of those involved and gave a powerful rhetorical tool to the political groups still supporting the fight1. Furthermore, when anger and rhetoric cloud all discussion of an issue, it can lead to unmeasured, even violent responses from authorities and concerned citizens. Flag burning is thus counterproductive as a tool of protest, since it stops the message being propagated and pollutes the forums of discourse from being able to search for answers reasonably. 1 Amar, Akhil. 1992. "The Case of the Missing Amendments: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul". Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository.

validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-pro04a

The popular will calls for a prohibition of flag burning All national polls conducted in the United States have shown a majority popular support for banning flag burning1. State and federal laws, passed by democratically elected representatives, have for decades passed popularly supported laws aimed at protecting the flag from desecration. The Supreme Court, however, has struck down these laws as being contrary to the rights to free speech, by a narrow 5-4 vote2. Yet popular support for such laws has not diminished. This has led to attempts to pass a Flag Desecration Amendment to the Constitution, which would then necessarily have to be accepted by the Court. In 2006, the House of Representatives passed such an amendment by the requisite supermajority, and it died in the Senate by only a single vote3. Clearly, the vast majority of citizens and legislators actively support legislation to protect the flag. Law should reflect the will of the people and prevent the desecration of the nation's most sacred symbol. Failing to do so gives precedence to the rights of a small minority to perform an act that does not hold any major sway over their lives over the democratic rights of the democratic public. 1 CNN. 2006. "Flag-Burning Amendment Fails by a Vote". CNN. 2Miller, J. Anthony. 1997. Texas v. Johnson: The Flag Burning Case. Berkeley Heights: Enslow Publishers. 3 Hulse, Carl and John Holusha. 2006. "Amendment on Flag Burning Fails by One Vote in Senate". The New York Times.

validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-con03b

Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.

validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-con01b

Burning a flag may grab attention, but it will invariably be attention of a kind unwanted by the ones doing the burning. If individuals desecrate a flag with the intent of gathering attention to their cause they will be disappointed when they see that public opinion is turned against them not because of their cause, but because of their methods. An attack on the flag is often seen, and is often portrayed in the media, as being an attack on America itself. For this reason flag burning is almost universally counterproductive to the furtherance of a cause, whether legal or not.

validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-con02a

The act of flag burning can be done for patriotic reasons, when an individual considers the government to be doing something unworthy of the national ideals represented by the national flag Burning a flag may not be an act of "un-Americanism", in the sense of opposing widely held principles considered emblematic of the United States, at all in many cases. Often the flag can be burned as an act of patriotism. When individuals feel the state is doing something contrary to the ideals of the nation, and thus those that the flag represent, burning of a flag can be symbolic of the state's non-adherence to the values it is meant to defend1. The act of burning thus serves to connect the cause of the protestor to the very ideals of the nation, and shows that it is central to the discourse of what the nation's values are and how they should be maintained, rather than simply being the ancillary opinions of a few people that can simply be discarded. 1Welch, Michael. 2000. Flag Burning: Moral Panic and the Criminalization of Protest. Piscataway: Aldine Transaction.

validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-con04a

The right to free speech and expression must include the expression of ideas through means not shared by the majority, including flag burning For society to be free and democratic it must have provision for the expression of views contrary to the mainstream, and even directly oppositional to it. This must furthermore extend to the means by which to convey such messages. Public disgust is certainly not justification enough to deny the right to expression. The exercise of a right can only be denied to someone when there is a direct harm to others by exercising that right. In terms of free speech, the words or expressions used by someone must result in actual harms to others, harms that outweigh the inherent harms of denying someone their rights, which is itself a kind of violation. No such harm exists in the case of flag burning1. Some people have an irrational attachment to the symbolic significance of the flag, but it should not be expected by law that everyone share that view. The flag, like all symbols of beliefs and groups, is not inviolable, nor is anyone's piece of mind or health so attached to its wellbeing that the desecration or defacing of it could cause any true harm. Furthermore, the patriotism of individuals watching a flag burning is not affected by it. This view is upheld, for example, by Supreme Court opinion in Texas v. Johnson, when the opinion argued that there could be no better response to a flag burning by someone opposed to such an action than waving their own flag or saluting and paying respect to the burning flag2. People can thus show their opposition peacefully without infringing the right of a protestor to burn a flag. Banning flag desecration on account of a sense of moral disgust, or of the threat to public order caused by angry counter-protestors, is the prohibition of an otherwise lawful act for the reason that others will commit crimes in response. Clearly, these are not justification for banning flag burning. 1Welch, Michael. 2000. Flag Burning: Moral Panic and the Criminalization of Protest. Piscataway: Aldine Transaction. 2Eisler, Kim. 1993. A Justice for All: William J. Brennan Jr. and the Decision that Transformed America. New York: Simon and Schuster.

validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-con03a

Banning flag burning effectively bans questioning of what it represents, and thus bans questioning of the widely held values of the United States When an individual's views are particularly opposed and contrary to those the national flag is customarily considered to embody, there can be no more valuable way of showing opposition. Should views be judged outdated or in error, people must have a way of showing it in a visceral way that will gain attention and spark discourse. Conventional patriotic views deserve to be challenged, if only to be reaffirmed by the public in the ensuing debate. The problem with prohibiting the act of flag burning is that it necessarily sends the message of banning discourse on the subject of what the flag represents1. It makes those values inviolable, but a free society should be able to question and change its values. Banning flag burning thus essentially bans dissent from the prevailing view. Yet banning something on the basis of majority opinion and their easily offended sensibilities is little more than a heckler's charter. If views are banned simply because the majority disagrees with them, it is little more than the tyranny of the strong over the weak, and thus clearly unjust2. The very reason there are checks and balances in the United States government is to prevent such tyranny. This is exactly why the Supreme Court has stood against the laws passed by the federal and state legislatures banning desecration of the flag; they protect the rights of citizens with a minority opinion from the majority seeking them away3. Flag burning is a form of free speech that helps people question what the United States should be. Banning it only serves to corrupt society. 1Welch, Michael. 2000. Flag Burning: Moral Panic and the Criminalization of Protest. Piscataway: Aldine Transaction. 2Mill, John Stuart. 1859. On Liberty. London: Penguin Classics (1982). 3Eisler, Kim. 1993. A Justice for All: William J. Brennan Jr. and the Decision that Transformed America. New York: Simon and Schuster.

validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-con01a

The power of the act of flag burning generates considerable attention making it a very effective tool of expression and protest Flag burning is such a powerful and useful method of protest for the very reason that it is a visceral expression to which many people will respond. Jarring statements grab attention, and force discourse on the issue1. A conventional protest can be overlooked, but images of a flag being burned immediately drags in media attention and starts a commentary. While some commentary does center on the issue of flag burning itself, it also necessarily brings it to the cause as well. When protesters are called to explain themselves, they get a chance to explain their views and promote their cause to a much wider audience than they might well not have been able to reach otherwise. Thus flag burning can be very valuable for gaining attention, and if done thoughtfully, to generate support. 1Epstein, Lee and Thomas Walker. 1998. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.

validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-con04b

The prevailing will of the majority can outweigh that of individuals with regard to free speech in some instances, namely when there is harm to people from the acts of individuals. Such is the case with things like hate speech, and certainly does so in the case of flag burning. This is because the American people have such a universal attachment to it that the desecration of the national flag is internalized as a personal attack on themselves. This is certainly a serious and real harm that makes the prohibition of flag burning entirely justified.

validation-free-speech-debate-bphwpbsas-con02b

Regardless of the reasons a protestor chooses to burn the flag, the act of burning is a violation of the nation's ideals and an attack upon the people who uphold them. No intelligent discourse is created regarding the behavior of the state when a flag is burned, but rather is simply counterproductive, as the state is able to declare the opinions of the protestors to be as unpatriotic as the act of burning a flag in protest itself, thus shifting public opinion against them.

validation-free-speech-debate-fchbcuilre-pro02b

It is important not to confuse two issues. The ongoing ‘Battle of the Brands’ between, for example, Coke and Pepsi or McDonalds and Burger King are the focus of the sponsors. It really seems unlikely that the directors of McDonalds lose a lot of sleep over competition from a family butcher in Dorset. The problem has come because the butcher is caught in the crossfire. It’s worth noting that that butcher has received the sort of media coverage that money really can’t buy, so he’s probably not complaining too much. It may have been wise to draft the legislation so that it only applied to companies of a certain size but, in reality, it only affects large-scale efforts to circumvent the rules. [i] [i] London 2012: Organisers clarify rules on branded clothing for spectators. BBC website. 20 July 2012.

validation-free-speech-debate-fchbcuilre-pro02a

Those unable to respond will be worst hit Smaller businesses and other organisations see their freedom of expression worst hit by laws that prevent them from associating themselves in any way with major events, to the detriment of their communities. Free speech is not relative or conditional and certainly should not be determined on the basis of the thickness of someone’s chequebook. In this regard, freedom of information is a very real issue. Those organisations without access to huge legal departments are hardest hit, further disadvantaging them against corporations who can already outspend them on advertising. Free speech means that in the world of words and ideas, at least, there is an even playing field and undermining that runs against a sense of natural justice. Sponsors are simply using this to increase an already fairly unfair advantage; many people supported Britain’s bid for the games on the basis that it would offer great benefits to local businesses, legislation restricting their ability to use their geographical and cultural association with the event make that pledge look extremely hollow. One of the noticeable failings of the Games is just how little positive impact they have had for small business in East London where most of the events are being held added to this, 62% of small businesses think the games will have no impact while 25% believe the impact will be negative [i] and business outside the capital have actually suffered as a result [ii] . The major sponsors already went into this situation with massive advantages over small traders who had the sole advantage of the geographical proximity to the events. The idea that, for example, Coca Cola can prevent street vendors in the Olympic Village from selling Pepsi is absurd. Coke isn’t planning to make their money back on direct sales of their product around venues but on the prestige it brings them as a global brand. [i] FSB News Release, ‘Olympics legacy will be damp squib for small firms’, Federation of Small Businesses, 9 January 2011. [ii] Now Retailers Outside London Suffer From Olympics Effect. Simon Neville. The Guardian. 3 August 2012.

validation-free-speech-debate-fchbcuilre-pro03b

This is clearly not the same as buying a gene as the timescales are quite different. These are not words sold off in perpetuity, neither were they previously in use by someone else as was the case with land grabs by colonizing settlers. This is a description of an event that would not have taken place without the sponsorship for the duration of that event. Both of the other examples are of the permanent acquisition of something that was previously communal property.

validation-free-speech-debate-fchbcuilre-pro01a

Governments and corporations have been complicit in an effective ‘privatization of language’. Recent developments in IP legislation, particularly in the UK, have given corporations a carte blanche with regards to protecting their claim on associations with events they are sponsoring. The Olympics, for example, has required vastly more investment from the taxpayer than from any sponsor [i] [ii] and yet those very taxpayers have been prevented from using associations with the event to their advantage. The build-up to the games saw the international media full of stories of small businesses and others banned from using the logo or name of the games for their own advantage [iii] . Sponsors may have ploughed in millions but the taxpayers has invested billions, many of them will see precious little return on that investment and this is exacerbated by the official sponsors buying those terms. Effectively government has conspired with corporations to own chunks of language which morally, linguistically and financially can be said to belong to the public. Nobody would challenge the right of sponsors to proudly promote their bought association with an event they are sponsoring and to use all of the means at their disposal to declare that association to the world, which they have done. However, there is a world of difference between the positive right to proclaim a particular association and the negative right to prevent anyone else from proclaiming theirs. Of course sponsorship should provide bragging rights and privileged access but that is a world away from buying the silence of others. [i] London 2012 Olympic Sponsors List: Who Are They And What Have They Paid? Simon Rogers. The Guardian. 19 July 2012. [ii] London Olympics Could Cost Taxpayer $17Bn. Fred Drier. Forbes Magazine. 10 March 2012. [iii] Even Sausage Rings Are Put on The Chopping Block. Jere Longman. New York Times. 24 July 2012.

validation-free-speech-debate-fchbcuilre-pro01b

It is a massive overstatement to say that recent events are equivalent to the privatization of language. Were people to be charged every time they used the word “Olympic”, say, that would look like the privatisation of language, this is merely sponsors protecting the association with an event that they paid for in the first place. Additionally, to portray this as a conspiracy raises the question of, “To what end?” Government works with major organisations as partners all the time, precisely because it saves the taxpayer money to do so. Although the taxpayer has footed a significant bill for the games, it would have been that much larger without sponsors and it is the taxpayer, not the sponsors, who receive the infrastructural benefits, which is what they paid for. The sponsors receive promotion for their brands, which is what they paid for. It’s a simple quid pro quo. Other companies trying to muscle in on the act have paid for nothing – and that is just what they should get. [i] . [i] London 2012. Olympic Legacy Website.

validation-free-speech-debate-fchbcuilre-pro03a

This creates a dangerous precedent The idea that corporations can, effectively, buy words and phrases set a pernicious precedent similar to their ability to own genes. There are certain things that, self-evidently, are the property of the people. They are held in common and in trust for future generations. They cannot be sold because they are not owned. Attempts to evade that reality have, generally, been seen as pernicious by history – even where they have not been rectified. European settlers laying claim to land used by indigenous people would be one example. Recent attempts by pharmaceutical companies to purchase genes [i] and now other Corporations to own chunks of the language – or at least rent them from governments and NGOs that also don’t own them in the first place - seems to come in a similar spirit. Who can reasonably be said to own, for example, the phrase “London 2012”? If anybody could make such a claim, Londoners living in the city in 2012 would seem to be the obvious answer. However, there is a far more satisfying answer that nobody does. The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 extends the scope of protection given to the Olympic and Paralympic Games by making it an infringement of the “London Olympic Association Right” (LOAR) to do anything which is “likely to create in the public mind an association” with the London Olympics [ii] . [iii] The fact that this is happening in relation to the Olympics makes the precedent particularly troubling as the idea that the Games are for all mankind is at the heart of the Olympic ideal. It is an aspiration of our common humanity and all that entails. If chunks of that are for sale then it raises very real concerns about what else could go under the hammer. [i] Noonan, Kevin ed., ‘This House would allow the patenting of genes’, Debatabase, 2011. [ii] International Trademark Association. [iii] Davies, Malcolm, ‘Intellectual Property and the London 2012 Olympic Games - What businesses need to know’, Intellectual Property Office, November 2009.

validation-free-speech-debate-fchbcuilre-con03b

All of the other inconveniences mentioned by Opposition have been mitigated as much as possible by the organisers. For example local government and transport bodies have been providing advice and encouragement on arranging different routes and minimizing the need to travel at all for months in advance of the games. In this matter however, the organizers and elected officials have come down firmly on the side of sponsors. The very inconveniences outlined by Opposition are already hurting some traders as people choose to work from home or take the opportunity to leave the city altogether. Denying those traders every opportunity to recoup the lost revenue from their regular clientele is, as a result, doubly unfair.

validation-free-speech-debate-fchbcuilre-con01b

It would be nice to think that, at least at some level, sponsors offer sponsorship out of a desire to give something back to the customers who create vast profits for them but perhaps that is naïve. Ultimately, however, this exercise in ownership has been counter-productive. It would be difficult to imagine an ‘ambush advertising’ action that would come close to inflicting the damage on corporate reputations that the bad press surrounding this issue has generated. From the point of view of sponsors, this was a real example of the best getting in the way of the good. The net result has been that nobody has benefitted as they could have if the sponsors had not been so set on exclusivity of association.

validation-free-speech-debate-fchbcuilre-con02a

There is a clear difference between protecting commercial interests in terms of association with a sponsored event and ‘owning words’. It would be both illegal and impractical for a sponsor to ‘buy’ the word “London”. The rules make it clear that they are not attempting to infringe on, for example, the right of journalists to report the Games nor on people to discuss them. A simple Google search will bring up thousands of articles – like this one – using the Olympic rings, the phrase “London 2012” and many of the others words and phrases that concern Proposition. At no point have the news organisations concerned been asked to pay. There is clearly a world of difference between an existing magazine running a feature about the event – indeed several features – and the creation of a one-off special publication stuffed full of advertising for a direct competitor of the event. An equivalent would be paying for a meal in a restaurant only to see that everyone else was eating for free. That is the infringement of natural justice. Sponsors have paid to have a certain association with the Games and it is both fair and reasonable that they should get that association in a way that does not allow their competitors to get a free lunch. It is ridiculous to suggest that this is tantamount to ‘owning words’ as Proposition has done. To start with the preclusions cited here are temporary, additionally they are only in reference to this event. It would seem to be in everyone’s interest for sponsorship of sport and the arts to continue, for that to happen, they sponsors need to get something in return.

validation-free-speech-debate-fchbcuilre-con03a

Sponsorship is necessary to host major sporting events It is in the interests of communities and countries to attract sponsorship for events on this scale, as with other areas, such as transport, that requires a little sacrifice. Hosting major events, inevitably, requires some degree of inconvenience for those living in the area trying to go about their daily lives. These inconveniences are tolerated because there are wider benefits. In the instance of the Olympics, a core part of the initial bid was the assumption that hosting them would produce long term benefits for the city in the form of tourism [i] and regeneration. [ii] Whether that proves to be the case remains to be seen although, given the number of historic venues used for events [iii] , it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suppose that it may be likely. To ensure these future benefits, there is an understanding that there will be some disruption caused and some inconvenience, allowing sponsors a degree of autonomy is comparable to that inconvenience. LOCOG argues without the sponsors “investment the Games wouldn’t happen.” [iv] Without the Games the future benefits wouldn’t happen – quite the reverse if they simply fell apart after the bid had been won. The smaller traders who feel aggrieved now are exactly the people who will benefit for years to come as people make use of the new facilities or see London as a tourist destination they would not otherwise have considered. It’s a simple quid pro quo. [i] Woodman, Peter, ‘London 2012: Olympic boost to retailers and tourism new figures show’, The Independent, 6 August 2012. [ii] ‘Regeneration and economic growth Olympics legacy’, Communities and Local Government, accessed 9th August 2012 [iii] London Olympics: Some Events Set Amid Historic City Landmarks. LA Times. 27 July 2012. [iv] London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Limited, ‘Rule 40 Guidelines’, July 2011, p.6.

validation-free-speech-debate-fchbcuilre-con01a

Sponsors pay for the privilege Sponsors pay an enormous amount of money to support events such as the Olympics, it is only fair that they can protect themselves against ‘ambush advertising’ by competitors. This is an issue of simple financial reality. Although there have been some unpleasant – and probably unwise – accounts of smaller traders getting caught up in the crossfire, and opposition concedes that should be rectified in future events – the purpose of this kind of legislation and the regulations it spawns is to prevent direct competitors of sponsors finding ways to ambush the event [i] . The issue of concern is not really a lone athletics fan wandering into the final of the Men’s 100m with a can of Pepsi. The intention is clearly to prevent representatives of that company standing outside the venue handing out thousands of free T-shirts. There have been some problems with the implementation of this legislation but the principle remains sound and serves to the benefit of all. The alternative would be both Coke and Pepsi reps handing out T-shirts outside and the organisers of the event not getting a penny from either. It is only fair that those who pay the piper to a certain extent get to call the tune. [i] London 2012: Coe Sparks Olympic Sponsorship Row. Shiv Malik. The Guardian. 20 July 2012.

validation-free-speech-debate-fchbcuilre-con02b

There are examples of Journalists running foul the Olympics and its partners. The most famous being Guy Adams, whose Twitter account was suspended following criticism of NBCUniversal’s coverage of the event. Although NBC are a media partner rather than a sponsor, they paid $1.8bn for the media rights and the principles of belligerent protectionism would still seem to apply [i] . Even if it is just for the duration of the Games, even if it is for one day of them, or one minute of them, this would still be an attack on the freedom of speech of the individuals concerned. By its nature, freedom of speech is indivisible, we either have it or we don’t; the pretence that it is possible to say that ‘people are free to say whatever they like, apart from this’ completely misses that point. [i] Journalists Twitter Account Restored After Suspension. BBC Website. 30 July 2012.

validation-free-speech-debate-radhbrap-pro02b

Let us say, for the sake of argument that the opposition had tabled a motion of impeachment – which would have even less impact in the long run. Would it still be inappropriate to report? What if the allegation were corruption, a partisan approach in Mexico’s interminable and bloody drug wars? Would it still not be correct to report it? Clearly something which is widely discussed in political circles and, if true, would have grave implications for the political direction of the country should be reported. Aristegui did so with all of the tact and professionalism available.

validation-free-speech-debate-radhbrap-pro02a

Aristegui was fairly obviously played by the opposition; she should not have provided the coverage they desired. Opposition parties in every democracy in the world produce stories or actions calling on those in power to do or say something ridiculous or making unfounded allegations just to get some coverage and damage their opponent’s credibility. Viewers and readers expect journalist to use their professional judgement in choosing where to give real stories the oxygen of publicity and when to ignore something as a publicity stunt. Unfurling banners in parliament is clearly the latter. As a result journalists are able to present their audience with something they have good reason to believe is true. Instead Aristegui, effectively, came up with “well, some people said these, it might be true, it might not, someone should find out.” That ‘someone’ should have been her. An equivalent would be the difference between sharing some gossip about someone at work with a colleague and sending a memo about it to that person’s boss [i] . By mentioning this at all on air, the rumour is given credibility that it did not deserve and the President’s reputation was unfairly sullied. [i] William Booth (Washington Post). Mexico buzzes over Calderon’s alleged drinking. Printed in the San Francisco Chronicle. 12 February 2011.

validation-free-speech-debate-radhbrap-pro03b

The three examples prop cites come from a quite different period in history. President Sarkozy’s personal life, in contrast to his predecessors, received massive scrutiny in the domestic and international press. Furthermore, alcoholism is a rather different case to measles if, as has been alleged online, Calderón has been drunk to the point of incapacitation at official functions, that impacts on the image of Mexico in the world. This can be shown by the laughing stock that Boris Yeltsin became around the world. [i] It should also be noted that the President having a relatively minor ailment may have been an issue as his secretary highlighted in response to the allegations "During the four years of his administration, he has never missed any event because of health problems". [ii] [i] BBC News, ‘Boris Yeltsin: Master of surprise’, 31 December 1999 [ii] Booth, William, ‘Respected Mexican journalist fired for addressing Calderon drinking rumor’, Washington Post, 11 February 2011

validation-free-speech-debate-radhbrap-pro01a

The journalist in question failed to produce any evidence that this affected Calderón’s job performance. There is no public interest issue here, otherwise that would have been the main thrust of the story, moreover other news media would have picked up on the story as well. Instead this is a simple case of intrusion into a public figure’s private life, apparently for no reason other than it being a fairly easy story. This is exactly the kind of story that a reasonable distinction between public and private issues is meant to avoid. There is was evidence of alcoholism by President Calderon presented by the banner waving opposition [i] so a good journalist should have either found evidence as if it was affecting Calderon’s ability to govern then there would be evidence that could be found or else she should have dropped the story rather than reporting rumour and insinuation. The fact that by doing so she endangered not only her own reputation with the president’s office but that of the show and the company clearly makes it a disciplinary matter. Intruding on anyone’s private life unnecessarily is unpleasant invading the privacy of a figure with whom one is likely to need to work in the future is professional stupidity. On both of these grounds, this particular intrusion was unnecessary. This has nothing to do with Aristegui’s freedom of speech and everything to do with Calderón’s right to privacy [ii] . [i] Booth, William, ‘Respected Mexican journalist fired for addressing Calderon drinking rumor’, Washington Post, 11 February 2011 [ii] Fox news website. Mexican president denies rumoured drinking problems. 10 February 2011.

validation-free-speech-debate-radhbrap-pro01b

It has to be accepted that a person accepts a certain loss of privacy when they stand for office. Beyond that, the issue at stake here is not whether this is good or bad journalism but whether it is journalism. By any reasonable definition a protest staged by leading members of the national legislature and concerning the character of the president would seem to qualify. As Aristegui herself argues “The health status and degree of equilibrium of a president is a matter of clear public interest.” [i] [i] Booth, William, ‘Respected Mexican journalist fired for addressing Calderon drinking rumor’, Washington Post, 11 February 2011

validation-free-speech-debate-radhbrap-pro03a

Alcoholism is a disease, if the story was that the president had measles, it wouldn’t have got a mention. Let’s take an historical example of the ‘well-being of the head or state’ in ‘democracies around the world’. A majority of US citizens were unaware that FDR was wheel chair bound – even after his death. [i] The fact the Churchill hit the bottle early in the morning was never mentioned to voters in the UK, even at their “darkest hour”, and still remains a matter of debate. [ii] The French have long ignored the streams of mistresses wandering in and out of the Élysée Palace throughout the history of the Fifth Republic. [iii] All of these things were well known by the journalists of their time but there was no need for the story to be revealed. The allegation of the opposition was that Calderón was a drunk, this then became a suggestion that he was an alcoholic – they’re different things. This rather suggests that now research at all was undertaken into the allegation but that a slur was repeated as though it were news. Because of popular confusion between the two, it was repeated, presumably, because it was salacious. Hardly the highest standards of journalism [iv] . [i] Anderson, Stacy, ‘FDR made 'tacit agreement' with public about disability’, The University Record Online [ii] Richards, Michael, ‘Alcohol Abuser’, The Churchill Centre and Museum at the Churchill War Rooms, London, 19 January 2009 [iii] Rocco, Fiammetta, ‘Widows in weeds, mourning mistresses - plus ca change to the French’, The Independent, 14 January 1996 [iv] UK National Union of Journalists (NUJ) Code of Conduct. The NUJ code is widely seen by British journalists as the final word on journalistic ethics. It is also widely ignored in practice.

validation-free-speech-debate-radhbrap-con03b

All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.

validation-free-speech-debate-radhbrap-con01b

It’s not a news story, it’s a stunt. A news story would have required the journalist in question to do some work and either substantiate their claims or disprove them. Either could be done by finding evidence of wrongdoing by the president or skulduggery by the legislators. For example “Opposition resort to baseless claim in political fights” would also be a significant story if it were backed up with evidence. As the story was presented, it was just speculation put in the national media in the full knowledge that mud gets stickier and dirtier the less material it has inside it [i] . The point about the Paxman incident, as was later demonstrated, is that it was true – and the journalist in question knew it and could prove it. [i] Guillermo Gustavo Pérez Lara. El president Felipe Calderón, el alcohol y sus secuelas. Suite 101: Política y Sociedad. 8 February 2011.

validation-free-speech-debate-radhbrap-con02a

The job of the reporter is to report the news not to decide what is news and what isn’t. Any political reporter has a duty, first and foremost, to report on the issues being discussed by political leaders on all sides. The whole point of a democracy is that the people get to chose what and who they believe. The electorate in many countries have proven themselves remarkably willing to turn a blind eye to the peccadilloes of politicians as long as unemployment is low, wages are on the rise and housing is affordable. So for example the electorate ignored Tony Blair’s daliances with the property market and famously Bill Clinton was reelected despite already being plagued by scandals and reached his highest approval ratings after the Lewinski scandal. [i] However, others will make decisions on the basis of the perceived character of the candidate or elected official [ii] . Many politicians are keen for the virtuous aspects of their private lives – families, personal achievements, sportsmanlike activities – to be shared with a usually uninterested public, it seems only reasonable that their inner demons should enjoy the same publicity has the angels on their shoulders. Aristegui was doing her job to the letter – reporting the issues exercising the political class of the day and leaving it to the voters to decide what mattered to them and what did not. [i] ‘Poll: Clinton’s approval rating up in wake of impeachment’, CNN.com, 20 December 1998 [ii] Matthew D’Ancona. Politics in this age of austerity will be a contest of character. The Daily Telegraph. 12 May 2012.

validation-free-speech-debate-radhbrap-con03a

Even accusations affects reputations and therefore ability to do the job Even if this were only gossip, the fact that the perception existed that the president was an alcoholic would affect how other politicians interacted with him – it is, therefore, a matter for public concern. [i] National leaders are left politically weakened by plenty of things that aren’t true. They are further undermined by things that are true but apparently trivial if they are kept secret. If that is actually what members of congress believe then it will affect their interaction with the president. By contrast, if that is not what they truly believe, then it speaks a great deal to their character that they are willing to resort to the politics of the gutter. Either way Mexicans have a reasonable right to know that the argument is going on. Aristegui did just that. It is far more worrying that a news organization would even consider dismissing her for doing her job – presumably because it inconvenienced or embarrassed someone powerful [ii] . [i] Seymour-Ure, Colin, ‘Rumour and politics’, Politics, Vol.17, No.2, 1982, pp.1-9 [ii] Kate Katharine Ferguson. Column: Politicians’ private lives make a difference. We should pay attention. Thejournal.ie. 1 August 2012.

validation-free-speech-debate-radhbrap-con01a

The protest by the opposition was a news story in its own right. A protest by opposition members of parliament alleging behaviour unbecoming of the office of president is clearly a news story. They have the right to say it – and the media should report it as just that; a claim made by the opposition. A protest with a large banner unfurled would make the news in almost any country. The British journalist Jeremy Paxman confronted newly elected Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy over his drinking. Much of the media feigned outrage over the action right the way up until he was dumped by his party – as a result of drinking too much. [i] There is a myth that it’s okay for a privileged few within the professional elites of politics and journalism to know these details about leading politicians but their constituents, the people who ultimately employ them and whose lives they control should be left in the dark that their representative is an addict. Most people wouldn’t hire a plumber who was known to have a drink problem, why should they be expected to hire a parliamentarian or president in the same situation. [i] Campbell, Menzies, ‘How drink destroyed Charles Kennedy, by Menzies Campbell’, 14 February 2008

validation-free-speech-debate-radhbrap-con02b

This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets. In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.

validation-free-speech-debate-nshwcb-pro02b

Blasphemy laws are unlikely to promote social harmony as readily as the proposition side claims they will. Accusations of blasphemy can enflame tensions between antagonistic groups. Telling people they no longer have recourse to words to voice their disagreements and discontentment might push them to resort to violence instead. Communities with diverging beliefs are unlikely to engage in discussion and negotiation if statements aimed at promoting peace can easily be used to launch expensive libel prosecutions. Exchanges and debates between different communities will not take place if participants fear that they might be arrested if an audience member choses to take offence at their words. Anti-blasphemy laws would undoubtedly control group violence of the sort that followed the publication of the “Mohammed cartoons”. But they would also spur further social division, and deepen misunderstandings about religion. Anti-blasphemy laws would remove debate on religion from the public sphere and leave both bigots and zealots to propagate their distorted interpretations of religious belief unchallenged in private. To the case more simply, debate and discussion on the nature of religion and the nature of the sacred will always occur. Even if the proposition side successfully extend hate speech laws to encompass blasphemy, they will not be able to prevent private discussion these concepts without abolishing democracy wholesale and advocating the creation of a surveillance state. A blasphemy law would only serve to prevent groups with differing ideas from being brought together to engage in debate and conversation. Contact between groups would cease, because of concerns that allegations of blasphemy might lead, at the very least, to unwelcome and intrusive police and prosecutorial investigations. But discussion of controversial ideas about other faiths would continue. In the absence of dissenting voices, closed and concealed dialog would be vulnerable to manipulation and inaccuracies. While words can be powerful it is preferable to allow people to speak freely, even if what is said is not always constructive. The alternative is to make the courts and justice system complicit in creating a culture of victimhood and vexatious litigation. Debate is also likely to suffer under this mechanism. By allowing a group that has been the target of a religious slur to feel victimised and justified in deploying the force of law against their opponents, we disincentivise these same religions from engaging with blasphemers and offering clear and robust justifications for the offence they feel. The argument that blasphemy laws would bring different parts of society together is nonsense; firstly such laws tend to favour the largest religion in a society which would be to the detriment of minorities but also just because certain discourse is blocked does not mean that individuals will inherently become more educated about other cultures and beliefs. This is the case for example in Pakistan where minorities are rarely protected by blasphemy laws and are often persecuted by it, buts being a member of the Ahmadi sect is synonymous with being blasphemous to Islam and without having to prove intent the law is therefore used to persecute them and other minorities. (Mehmood, ‘Pakistan blasphemy laws retake center stage’, 2011)

validation-free-speech-debate-nshwcb-pro02a

Social cohesion and hate speech Laws combating discrimination- such as the blasphemy law that the proposition side are advocating- promote social cohesion and stability, both important policy objectives in increasingly mobile and cosmopolitan societies. The United Nations General Assembly in 2006 argued “defamation of religions is among the causes of social disharmony and leads to violations of human rights.” (United Nations General Assembly, ‘Combating defamation of religions’, 2006). Coexistence between communities with radically different creeds, values and viewpoints needs to be carefully supervised in multi-cultural societies. Too often the uncertainty that accompanies migrant life can serve to inspire to give too much credence to the views of zealots and fundamentalists. To prevent communities deliberately isolating themselves from their neighbours; to prevent communal violence, it is necessary for the state to create an environment in which disputes can be resolved by impartial and properly trained prosecutorial authorities. Discrimination laws are instrumental to building peaceful social realities. They signify a welcoming society, in which it is unacceptable to offend entire segments of the population by debasing what they hold most precious. Blasphemous statements have a power that reaches far beyond “ordinary” hate speech. Acts covered by this law would include intentionally provocative publications such as the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that featured prominently in a Danish newspaper in 2005. These images led to widespread protests and violence in both western states and majority Muslim countries. The offensive content of the cartoons gave credence and legitimacy to sects and clerics espousing absolutist ideas that have no space for compromise or understanding. Further, the protests also brought individuals who would ordinarily have considered themselves moderates into contact with violent extremists. Neither of these outcomes does anything to promote a culture of free and frank discussion within the societies affected. The legal measures that side proposition supports do not oblige free thinkers to remain silent in the face of zealotry and bigotry. However, they does require writers, journalists and artists to apply their reason and their sense to content that they want to publish for mass consumption. Much like laws that prevent the negligent operation of businesses, anti-blasphemy laws would set a minimal standard of responsible conduct in order to ensure that publications did not cause a dangerous level of offense to significant numbers ordinary and rational religious believers. Legal definitions and enforcement of standards of responsibility do not preclude individuals from pursuing dangerous or entrepreneurial business ventures or public works. They need not prevent the creation of controversial and challenging forms of free expression either.

validation-free-speech-debate-nshwcb-pro01a

Blasphemy a free expression Blasphemy cannot be shielded by the rationale which is used to defend freedom of speech. Blasphemy constitutes an attack on the religion it is targeted at. Beyond its ability to shock and offend, blasphemy exposes religious believers to ridicule, and perpetuates lies and falsehoods about their faith. Moreover, blasphemy also drives conflict and exclusion within particular faiths, deepening schismatic divisions and encouraging believers to become more hostile to those who do not share their religion. Blasphemy occupies a distinctly different position in public debate and discussion than civil, respectful discourse about religion. The forms of blasphemy law that were maintained in the legal systems of western liberal democracies throughout the twentieth century criminalised only the most extreme and intentionally provocative forms of religious expression – images of religious figures involved in humiliating or sexualised scenarios; statements about a religion that amounted to hate speech; and words that were intended to mislead and deceive the naïve, credulous or doubting. The English blasphemy case of R v Boulter drew on the conclusions of the sixth report of the commissioners on criminal law, which had observed that a criminal charge could only arise when “irreligion” took the form of an “insult to God and man”. The judge in the case remarked that “if the decencies of controversy are observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked with tout the writer being guilty of blasphemy.” Ruling in the case of Whitehouse v Lemon, heard in 1977, a senior English judge remarked that blasphemous libel, although thought to have fallen into disuse and irrelevance remained useful in safeguarding “the internal tranquillity of the kingdom.” This principle appears to be an antecedent to the public order justification for hate speech legislation – speech that spurs people to commit violent or disruptive acts should be curtailed to protect public safety. That case restated the idea that “It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent in temperate language.” This is the sense in which the proposition side will discuss the term “blasphemous”. The proposition side does not intend to limit free speech, but has every intention of ensuring that free speech is not undermined or delegitimised by allowing the unobstructed broadcasting of hateful and provocative statements. We protect freedom of speech in our society not as a good in and of itself, but because through debate of even the most improbable propositions, socially valuable ideas may emerge and concerns that might otherwise be hidden can be expressed. By contrast, language aimed solely at offense has no redeeming value and does not contribute to any wider exchange of ideas and concerns. Blasphemy does not appeal to reason, and by being directly exclusionary and offensive, it limits that ability of believers and non-believers to engage in structured debate.

validation-free-speech-debate-nshwcb-pro01b

Blasphemy can be a valuable act of expression. It is misleading to try and conflate blasphemous statements with statements that lack intellectual merit, are bigoted or hateful. The proposition side attempt to exclude “decent and temperate” questioning of religious values from the scope of anti-blasphemy laws, but they fail to recognise that language is a broad, imprecise and malleable tool. Words that may be understood as temperate and even-handed by one speaker may deeply shock another. Even a simple and plainly stated denial of God’s existence was interpreted as tantamount to blasphemy by the early liberal philosopher John Locke. Locke saw acceptance of the core truths of the Christian bible as being a vital indicator of and individual’s trustworthiness and willingness to comply with social norms. It is easy to envision scenarios in which adherents of certain religions may find any attempt to dispute the historical and philosophical foundations of their faith deeply offensive, no matter how calmly and respectfully the dissenting position is communicated. Discussions of natural selection have become one such battleground. Despite the measures taken by philosophers and scientists to highlight the compatibility between religious faith and scientifically informed ontologies, despite the measured and carefully regulated court cases that have been used to decide this issue, many Christians regard discussion and teaching of evolution as part of natural history threatening and offensive. Even irreverent humour or mockery can sometimes be used to make valid and useful observations about the structure and values of religions. For example, the act of angering someone by ridiculing their deity, or the tenets of their faith, could make the point that a particular religion is closed-minded or too hidebound. Important aspects of our characters are revealed when we are invited to adopt aggressive or defensive attitudes. It is not for a government to decide whether blasphemous statements contribute to social discourse; it is up to the individuals engaged in that exchange. It is not acceptable, in the absence of an intention to expose a particular group of people to a real risk of physical harm, to allow debate and free speech to be curtailed by the use of legal force. The meaning of words need not be plain and obvious, either. Implication and allusion play an important role in language. Implied meanings and innuendos have done much to complicate the legal processes used to protect individual reputations against slurs and falsehoods. In a criminal, rather than a civil context, similar principles are likely to make blasphemy prosecutions expensive, unwieldy and inconsistent.

validation-free-speech-debate-nshwcb-con01b

As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion. Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers. Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.

validation-free-speech-debate-nshwcb-con02a

Oppression within religious communities Blasphemy laws can be used to enforce oppressive and exclusionary practices within religions. The proposition side have gone out of their way to highlight the harm that can be done to religions by actors external to the religious group. However, this analysis does not fit so comfortably with the problems that occur when a member of a religious community wishes to make controversial and divisive statements about their own religion. Dissenters within a religious group may often face exclusion from their communities and hostility from friends and family. The current law of western liberal democracies ensures that social disapproval does not transform into threats or violent conduct directed at these individuals. In this way, liberal democratic states recognise the right to speak freely without fear of violent or disproportionate repercussions, irrespective of the social and cultural standards enforced by the community that an individual might belong to. By criminalising blasphemy, proposition run the risk of discouraging religious dissent within religious communities. Heterodox thinkers who want to share their views on their religion with other believers, must now run the dual risks of effective exile from a social environment that they consider to be their home and prosecution by the state. Anti-blasphemy laws would give communities the ability to indirectly harm and intimidate anyone holding controversial opinions, by directing state power- in the form of prosecutors and the police- against them. Further, anti-blasphemy laws might simply discourage free expression of this type, the prospect of prosecution being sufficient to discourage controversial statements and discussions. Religions- even if based on divine revelation- develop through human debate, thought and discussion. The proposition position would harm the development of religions if it were realised. It would balance the environment of collective discourse within a religion in favour of conservative and reactionary thinkers. It should also be noted that it is the state which drafts the law and its organs then apply it, deciding which cases will or will not be prosecuted. It might be enforced unevenly by the government, thus favouring certain religions and victimizing others. It could be used to limit the expression of unpopular ideas, which are the ones that need the most protection, as has happened in the past with the work of artists criticizing the social and political mores of the time with previous cases showing their books being banned from libraries or their paintings from art galleries. Take for example the banning of Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses in numerous states around the world. (Bald, M. 2006)

validation-free-speech-debate-nshwcb-con01a

Language and subjectivity “Blasphemy” is a very subjective term. The cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed referred to above were regarded by many as blasphemy, but to others they were a form of incisive commentary. (Badkhen A. 2006). Side proposition seems content to trigger a prosecution for blasphemy based on ideas of offence that might be confined to only a very small group of religious believers. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to determine how wide spread a sense of offense must be before a comment moves from being insulting to actively blasphemous. Zororastrian, Bahai and Yezidi religious communities exist in vanishingly small numbers in the UK, but members of each of these faiths have been subject to continual historical persecution. Should their experience of victimisation entitle them to more robust protection than the (relatively) large and wealthy Anglican church? Similarly, should the size of these communities mark them out as vulnerable, and deserving of some sort of legal advantage that allow them to more easily access the protection of anti-blasphemy laws? Religious groups can often become divided over the correct response to attacks and crises. If the guiding principle is what the recipients of a certain type of speech will find offensive, that will vary widely from person to person even within the members of a certain religious group. Legal responses to this conundrum would run the risk of appearing to be arbitrary and failing to properly represent the diversity of views within a religious community. Further opportunities for division and dissatisfaction may also arise during the process of making a complaint and assisting the prosecutors pursuing it. Cases will, necessarily be heard in public and will require participants to repeat the slanderous and controversial statements that caused such offence, possibly spreading them amongst a wider audience. The public nature of court cases may even make them attractive to individuals who wish to draw attention to offensive views linked to particular religions. This is problematic, because it would fail to provide guidance to citizens with respect to what the law requires of them. Blasphemy prosecutions would offer only the most cursory and indirect forms of redress to alleged victims of blasphemy. Moreover, discussions over the handling of blasphemy prosecutions would likely produce division with religious communities. Many believers might be reluctant to see the blasphemous statements that caused an official offensive reaction repeated in court.

validation-free-speech-debate-nshwcb-con02b

While it is true that blasphemy laws could be open to misuse, this is also true of many other laws that are currently overseen by the state. Liberal democratic legal systems operate safeguards to ensure that laws cannot be abused or used for purposes at odds with fundamental democratic freedoms. On the whole the majority of countries around the world are fair and liberal place that maintain strict separation of judicial, legislative and executive competence. Their courts are capable of recognising vexatious claims and ensuring equality-of-arms between the state and defendants through mechanisms such as legal aid. In totalitarian nations such as those described by the opposition if blasphemy laws did not exist, authoritarian states would simply find different ways in which to censor that which it deems unfit. In China where religious freedom is severely curtailed, free speech remains subject to significant limitations. It is misleading, then, to associate the intrinsic failings of a political system with a law that might attract opportunistic litigants. On the whole blasphemy law in liberal nations would be handled in a fair judicial manner.

validation-economy-ephwcnhsrsu-pro02b

The need for increased capacity on travelled lines can be addressed in a number of ways. Firstly, highways still can be expanded. Highways are much more versatile than rail services as they enable people to get from a single destination to another without any transfers. Given then that highways can be improved, it makes very little sense to not do so and improve the rail system later when this extra capacity created begins to fill up. [1] Given that cities have different requirements of transport, it makes more sense to allow transport planning to remain decentralised. For example, California is creating a high speed transport system on its state budget because it has need, assuming that other cities do when their governing structures have not determined that is the case is irresponsible and unneeded. [2] [1] Mobley, Jack. “A Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Merced Sun Star. 11/12/2010 [2] “On the wrong track: Why high-speed trains are not such a green alternative.” The Guardian. 29/04/2010

validation-economy-ephwcnhsrsu-pro02a

Highspeed Rail is Better than Upgrading Old Infrastructure rovements to existing rail networks would ultimately fail to be viable as a replacement for highspeed rail. As British Transport Secretary (now reshuffled) Phillip Hammond states, "Opponents of the project have asked why we cannot simply upgrade our existing infrastructure to deal with this capacity challenge. But no upgrade of existing infrastructure can deliver the huge improvements in journey times and the transformation of our economic geography that a new high speed network would bring. Reliability would also deteriorate as we tried to squeeze ever more capacity out of existing, mixed-use lines. And another major upgrade to the West Coast Main Line would deliver years of disruption and huge economic cost." [1] Upgrading infrastructure may be an answer in some places, but not in all. There may not be the existing infrastructure to upgrade. The United States for example just does not have lines that could take both large numbers of passengers and the large amount of freight they already take. Moreover any upgrade of these existing lines would end up with a rail system which is uncompetitive with road and air transport, exactly why rail passenger transport ended in the 1930-50s in the United States despite having been running faster than Amtrak trains do today. [2] Further, railroad tracks permit a far higher throughput of passengers per hour than a road the same width. A high speed rail needs just a double track railway, with one track for each direction. For the Eurostar the typical capacity is 15 trains per hour and 800 passengers per train (as for the Eurostar sets), which implies a capacity of 12,000 passengers per hour in each direction. By contrast, the Highway Capacity Manual gives a maximum capacity for a single lane of highway of 2,250 passenger cars per hour (excluding trucks or RVs). [3] Assuming an average vehicle occupancy of 1.57 people, [4] a standard twin track railway has a typical capacity 13% greater than a 6-lane highway (3 lanes each way), while requiring only 40% of the land (1.0/3.0 versus 2.5/7.5 hectares per kilometer of direct/indirect land consumption). This means that typical passenger rail carries 2.83 times as many passengers per hour per meter (width) as a road. [5] [1] Hammond, Phillip. “High Speed Rail: the case for.” The Telegraph. 26/11/2010 [2] “Ask Trains from November 2008”, Trains, November 2008, [3] Elefteriadou, Lily, “Chapter 8 Highway Capacity”, Handbook of Transport Engineering, 2004, [4] U.S. Department of Energy, “Vehicle Occupancy by Type of Vehicle”, Fact #257: March 3, 2003, [5] High Speed Rail, Railsystem.net

validation-economy-ephwcnhsrsu-pro03b

Whilst rail systems can be environmentally friendly, the higher the speed of a system the more fuel said system consumes. Whilst high speed rail might be useful as a transport system, owing to its high speed nature it does not reduce carbon emissions to a significant extent. Further, high speed rail is of limited popularity and as such it will not get enough drivers off the road to have any significant contribution to the environment. [1] [1] Staley, Samuel. “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Reason Foundation. 22/06/2009

validation-economy-ephwcnhsrsu-pro01a

High Speed Rail is Better Than Air Travel Currently intercity travel within the U.S. tends to favour air travel. This is often due to the large distances between cities within the U.S. which mean that driving is not a viable strategy should there be time constraints on travel. However, air travel has significant constraints as well such as long boarding times. This causes problems for those people who frequently commute and high speed rail is set to solve these problems. High speed rail provides a large number of significant benefits over air travel in this regard. This is because high speed rail can travel to city centres. Where airports, due to their size and the noise pollution they cause, are limited to the outskirts of a city, trains are not limited in the same way. As such, people can arrive in a much more central area, cutting large amounts of time off their journey. Secondly, high speed rail has no limits on wireless communication or internet in the same way that air travel does. As such, high speed rail is significantly more useful for anyone who wishes to work on the journey. Finally, the weather is incredibly problematic for air travel. This is especially true in the U.S. where a number of areas can be subject to unexpected snow or storms. By comparison, High Speed rail remains comparatively unhindered. [1] [1] “Convenience of High Speed Rail.” US High Speed Rail Association.

validation-economy-ephwcnhsrsu-pro01b

High Speed rail is unlikely to work in the same way as air travel. Whilst some areas are more convenient, it remains a slower method of transport than air travel and with quoted prices for high speed rail it seems evident that the majority of consumers will simply continue to opt for air travel as it is a significantly faster method of travel to their destination. As such high speed rail will not provide significant extra benefits to consumers. [1] Further, if the problem with air travel is the location out airports outside of city centres, then that problem is easily solved through the creation of better transportation methods between airports and city centres. With the time saved, a plane ticket that also encompassed a ride to the city centre would still be faster and would probably end up being significantly cheaper than a ticket on high speed rail. [1] Mobley, Jack. “A Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Merced Sun Star. 11/12/2010

validation-economy-ephwcnhsrsu-pro03a

High Speed Rail is environmentally friendly Trains are the most sustainable and green form of transportation. Electric high speed rail is the most energy efficient of all trains. This is because trains have significantly high capacity but have very low power requirements in order to work by comparison to the number of passengers that they carry. Although this is to some extent dependant on how the power is generated the Eurostar (where power comes from French nuclear plants) emits only 11g GO2 per passenger kilometre from London to Paris compared to 180g for a car containing 1.2 passengers and 150g for a short haul flight. [1] A national high speed rail system would be the centrepiece of a sustainable America, and would significantly reduce congestion and America’s dependence on cars and the oil that fuels them. This would result in large cuts to carbon emissions. Any new system could be powered by renewable energy including wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean/tidal in order to make it even cleaner. High speed rail could be integrated in to a sustainable network including local commuter rail and tramways so providing public transport networks that solve serious mobility, energy, environmental, economic, health, and social problems simultaneously. [2] [1] Pearce, Fred, “Greenwash: Time for rail to raise its game and cut emissions”, Greenwash guardian.co.uk, 22 January 2009, [2] “Sustainability.” US High Speed Rail Association.

validation-economy-ephwcnhsrsu-con03b

The US High Speed Train Association has found a significant number of benefits for high speed rail that mean that it would be beneficial regardless of its success as a business. Firstly, high speed rail would foster transport oriented development: "Transit oriented development (TOD) is the exciting new fast growing trend in creating vibrant, compact, liveable, walkable communities centered around high quality train systems. TODs can be stand-alone communities, or a series of towns strung along a rail line like pearls on a string. TODs are the integration of community design with rail system planning. High speed rail is the backbone of a rail-based transportation system. When combined with regional rail, light rail, metro systems, streetcars and trams, a complete and integrated rail network is achieved enabling easy, fast mobility throughout the system. Coordinating and encouraging compact, mixed-use development around the rail stations completes the system by enabling people to live, work, and play along the system without the need for a car much of the time. Together, these save time, money, energy, and lives." And further, high speed rail would also help businesspeople be more productive: "High speed rail delivers fast, efficient transportation so riders can spend less time traveling and more time doing business. High speed rail delivers people quickly to their destinations in city centers. Fast boarding times, no security delays, and no waiting for baggage (or lost bags) adds up to much less time spent getting to and from meetings. Adding to these savings, there's also little or no down time - people can be far more productive and efficient during a trip on a train, than flying or driving, and return to the office sooner with a shorter turn-around time. High speed rail allows people to continue working the entire trip using laptops and cell phones. Flexible meeting space is available on the train. Because of the reliability of trains and the reduced total trip time, an overnight stay is not always required - saving additional time and money. High speed rail offers great flexibility to plan last minute trips, purchase tickets on short notice, and make changes to schedules without huge penalties." [1] And further to all of this high speed rail also frees up existing rail lines for other purposes, such as freight services as well as for commuter services, helping people in the economy to a significant extent. Given that this is true, it seems prudent to subsidise high speed rail even if it is costly as a business. Further, the motor industry already sees incredible subsidies in the U.S. and does not provide nearly as much social benefit as high speed rail is likely to. [1] “Productivity Gains with High Speed Rail.” US High Speed Rail Association.

validation-economy-ephwcnhsrsu-con01b

This is simply untrue. Yes, if a crash occurs it is likely to be significantly more dangerous than a crash at lower speeds, but this is also the case with cars travelling between cities on highways and even more so with aeroplanes. Exactly because a high speed crash can be so catastrophic high speed rail systems have very high safety standards. The Japanese Shinkansen high speed rail system is famously safe. During 46 years of commercial operations having taken 7 billion passengers there have been no passenger fatalities or injuries due to train accidents such as derailment or collision. [1] It is also not the case that damage to the track will take the rail system out of operation for years. The Tohuko Shinkansen restarted operations only 49 days after the Tōhoku Earthquake. [2] [1] California High-Speed Rail Authority, ‘Financing and Costs’, [2] “How Japan’s Rail Network Survived the Earthquake”, Railwaytechnology.com, 28 June 2011,

validation-economy-ephwcnhsrsu-con02a

High Speed Rail is Not Currently Economically Viable The economic investment required for a high speed rail system to be implemented in the U.S. is substantial. Currently, the American deficit is at a level that is bad enough that S&P has downgraded the rating on American debt. Given that this is true and that the public spending required for high speed rail is substantial and a situation is caused where the American government would have to increase the flow of money out of its coffers. Even the lowest estimates by the California High-Speed Rail Authority are around $45 billion and it is likely to be much higher. [1] As such the deficit level within the U.S. could stand to increase from a system that would not provide benefit for another five years at least, if it provides benefit at all. At this time, investment in such an area is not needed when the result of such investment could be greater repayments on American bonds that reverse any economic benefits that the system stands to give. [2] As such, extra spending within the current economic climate needs to show significant long term benefits as well as show at least some signs of being able to immediately help the economy, otherwise there is too great a risk that comes from extra public spending. [1] California High-Speed Rail Authority, ‘Financing and Costs’, [2] “US loses AAA credit rating after S&P downgrade.” BBC. 06/08/2011

validation-economy-ephwcnhsrsu-con03a

High Speed Rail will not be a successful long term business investment. The issue with high speed rail is that it is a case of a government providing what is essentially a private good. The market that will use high speed rail will be people who wish to commute between cities quickly, generally rich businesspeople. As such, the market for such a product is incredibly niche. Further, the price of high speed rail will still be higher than plane and the journey times between most cities that aren’t very close together already will still be longer. As such, it seems that there is an incredibly small market for such a product. The reason a market for this product does not exist already is that no private company could ever make a profit from the product owing to the low demand among consumers for it. [1] Therefore, the only way to make the product work would be to ensure that the product is significantly cheaper than the competition. Unfortunately the only way to do this would be through large subsidies for train use, meaning that high speed rail would continue to make a net loss for the U.S. government for years to come. Further, any benefit in terms of jobs created for people in local communities will be incredibly low, for example with automatic barriers very few staff are needed at stations. Instead for the same amount of money, the government could easily implement policies which placed solar panels in every home, allowing them to generate and export their own power. Whilst this wouldn’t create jobs, it would increase income for people in the area and would likely help the environment to a significantly greater extent. [2] [1] Staley, Samuel. “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Reason Foundation. 22/06/2009 [2] “High-Speed Rail and the Case Against Private Infrastructure.” The Atlantic. 16/07/2010

validation-economy-ephwcnhsrsu-con01a

High Speed Rail is Dangerous Owing to the extremely high speeds of high speed rail, should there be a problem with the trains the chance of a catastrophic accident is greatly increased. This is because there would be no reaction time for the driver. Further, should there be a derailment the impact of the crash will be significant greater owing to the speed of the train. Should these accidents occur, the damage to the trains will obviously be catastrophic, but also the damage to the lines themselves will be incredibly significant. Should there be an accident and it is likely that if enough time passes there will be, the entire rail system in the area would require years to be able to regenerate. After the Hatfield Crash in the UK large sections of the whole network were shut down for up to a year. [1] [1] Pook, Sally and McIlroy, A.J., “’Danger’ rail lines may be closed’, The Telegraph, 21 October 2000,

validation-economy-ephwcnhsrsu-con02b

Within an economic climate that is in recession, the best way to avoid recession is to increase public spending. This is because the extra jobs created through public spending stimulate the economy. This is because the spending results in the employment of a number of people who otherwise would have remained unemployed and on a lower wage. As such, these people are more able to consume and more able to spend their money on consumer goods. In this way, the economy is pushed out of recession as this initial wave of spending means that the people who sold the products to the consumers now have more money themselves to spend elsewhere. Whilst this is fairly basic Keynesian analysis of the markets, the reason that the spending here is not susceptible to causing inflation and hence negating the effect is that markets take time to adjust to stimuli. The inflation rate will only increase appropriately once the market has reacted to the stimulus. As such, the initial year or two following a stimulus results in a temporary boost to the economy and then results in inflation later. Given that the recession is likely to be over in two years, dealing with inflation in the future is something that the economy can handle in response for a stimulus that might push it out of recession. [1] [1] “Keynesian Economics.”