When in conflict, an Individual's free speech ought to be valued above a community's moral standards

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn"t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children"s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." It is the incessant potency of freedom that inspired president Ronald Reagan to pronounce these very words exactly 50 years ago. It is because I am, too, effected by the incentive that drove Reagan to write this brilliant rhetoric that I stand RESOLVED: When in conflict, an individual"s freedom of speech ought to be valued above a community"s moral standards. For clarification purposes, let"s begin with definitions Definitions: 1.Conflict: "An incompatibility between two or more opinions, principles, or interests." [Oxford American Dictionary] 2.Freedom of Speech: "The right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc." [Dictionary.com] 3.Value: "The importance, worth, or usefulness of something." [Merriam-Webster"s Online Dictionary] 4.Community: "A group of people who have the same interests, religion, race, etc." [Merriam-Webster"s Online Dictionary] 5.Moral Standards: "A rule or principle adhering to conventionally accepted standards of conduct" [Dictionary.com] Resolution Analysis: There is one evident yet significant fact concerning the analysis of the resolution. The resolution calls for us to discuss all circumstances in which the freedom of speech of an individual and the moral standards of a community come into conflict. Thus, today"s round should be exclusively focused on the circumstances in which they do conflict, and any examples which prove to be otherwise are now irrelevant to this resolution. Value The value I will be upholding throughout today"s round is Common Law. This concept founded in Britain is implemented in almost all communities and societies today. The definition of Common Law, in the words of political theorist, Richard Jay Maybury, is as follows. "The body of definitions and precedents growing from the two fundamental laws that make civilization possible. "Do all you have agreed to do and do not encroach on other persons or their property."" There are two principle reasons why Common Law should be paramount throughout today"s round. 1.Common Law is necessary. In the words of Maybury, Common Law is necessary for a civilization to even exist. Following these two fundamental concepts that Common Law provides, communities possess the tools to operate, and often thrive as well. 2.Common Law is fundamental. While examining major communities, it is obvious that every injustice or law violation can be traced back to one of the two clauses of Common Law. For instance, it is universally illegal in most countries to drive through a red light. The people that do, are now significantly increasing the risk of an accident. If an accident occurs, the person"s property has been encroached upon, if not their own well-being too. Contention 1: Free Speech achieves Common Law We have analyzed the momentous benefits of Common Law, and the importance of its position in communities, but how does free speech fit into the situation? To arrive at a conclusion lets bring up several applications. Application 1: William Wilberforce In the 18th and 19th centuries, the British Slave Trade was a roaring issue, and at the time free speech in that area was generally frowned upon. However, when William Wilberforce, a prominent politician, stepped outside the current ethical boundaries and exercised freedom of speech, he alone caused the abolition of the slave trade, which was a direct infringement of Common Law. Application 2: Mahatma Gandhi A more recent example is the Indian Independence movement in 1937, led by Mahatma Gandhi. The British possession of India through the East India Trade Company was a direct violation of the second clause of common law, and once again it was the freedom of speech that Mahatma Gandhi exercised that resulted in the protection of Common Law. We see now that after the restoration of common law in India, the country and population thrived much more than before the movement, as was the case with Britain and the slave trade. Application 3: Martin Luther Although a slightly different type of community, the core concept is still similar. This time relating to a religious movement, Martin Luther exercised his free speech through the 95 theses, which as a result abruptly halted the Roman Catholic Church and their violations of both clauses of common law. In all three of the above circumstances, we see that free speech results in the preservation of Common Law, however does valuing the moral standards of a community have any effect on the famous legal system? Contention 2: Negative hinders Common Law In the vast majority of circumstances, when a community chooses to value their moral standards over the free speech of their individuals, Common Law suffers. Application 1: Hindu Sati In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Hindu culture had a tradition of murdering any woman who was recently widowed. Because this was a part of their religious practices, they were not willing to abolish the tradition, and although certain individuals exercised their free speech and tried to stop the injustice, the Hindu community simply clung on to their moral standards and refused to let even a part of them change. As a result, Common Law continued to suffer until finally a British official put an end to the crime. Application 2: Civil Rights Movement During the 20th century, the African-American community was unfairly treated, the accusers violating the second, and often the first clauses of common law. Although many tried to stop the injustice through freedom of speech or through force, many were unsuccessful, and the racist community stuck to their moral standards. Although the work of Martin Luther King Jr. and others finally stopped the crime, it is sufficient proof that when a community refuses to change their moral standards, Common Law often suffers. Conclusion: In conclusion, we have examined the importance of Common Law, and how it is both necessary and fundamental in every community. We then saw how Free Speech achieves Common Law, while valuing Moral Standards over Free Speech hinders it, thus offering sufficient reason to vote for Affirmative. Now in the next 7 minutes my opponent is likely going to express their views about how important the moral standards of a community are, and how freedom of speech is not nearly as important as those standards, but at the end of the day, it"s a simple reminder of the blessings of liberty and the prosperity of common law that should convince us otherwise. Jean-Jacques Rousseau put it brilliantly, "We may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is lost."