That we should restrict free speech to combat the rise of right wing populism

It is problematic for side opposition to deny the racist vitriol that is not only endemic when we look at actual examples of right wing populists on the ground " the Front National in France, Trump in the US, Duterte in the Philippines, the list goes on"but is the cause of hate crime. But second of all, when I gave you three mechanisms as to why this kind of racist vitriol is not only endemic and the result of the fact that they have a very wide but very shallow coalition, but is almost inevitably transferred to minorities, they still denied it caused physical harm. That"s not good enough from side opposition. In this round, I"m going to bring you an argument as to how right-wing populism constitutes a fundamental affront to democracy and the right of every else in a democracy who do not vote for these people. But before that, two pieces of rebuttal. They told you that free speech is an inherent part of democracy and without it we simply cannot function as a society, and the only evidence they give you for this is an article that says so. I have two responses to this: 1.Do you therefore support hate speech? 2.Freedom of speech is an American constitutional right, but it is not a right in all democracies. Australia for example has no clauses that protect free speech in their constitution. Considering this would be a global policy their argument that free speech is inherent is incorrect. The second thing they bring us is idea of echo chambers and that these are voicing concerns that would otherwise be avoided. Three responses here: 1.They concede - in their very generic characterisation of freedom of speech - that there are circumstances under which we are happy to tell people that they cannot vote for an individual. That is if I can prove to you that there harms to the wider society " either democratic norms of that society or specific minority groups are undermined, I win this debate. Because that is why side opposition does not believe that people should be able to vote for the neo-Nazi party and in doing so they can see that democracy must operate within a range. 2.They give us no analysis as to why addressing the concerns of these people is unique to right-wing populists, and rather just right-wing movements. 3.This falls because they fundamentally must prove to you that the benefits afforded to these people are actually achieved. I gave you structured analysis in my first argument that has not been responded to, which is how the shallowness of the coalition of right wing parties means you do not help the people that fundamentally give you their democratic mandate. Okay now onto my argument that right-wing populism affronts democracy. I think right-wing populism undermines the integrity of democracy and is therefore a threat to the democratic rights of all because it poisons real democratic debate. There is some context we need to understand for this argument to make sense. First, right-wing populists abuse the truth and shift their stances. That is of their broad but shallow coalitions, brought together by conflicting vague promises (i.e. they promise simultaneously to slash Obamacare but also to provide welfare to those in need). We put the example of Duterte as someone who literally has a team of 20 people hired to act as internet trolls and spread misinformation on the Internet. Second of all, they dress up their opponents as conspiratorial elites and fundamentally use that as a tool to not engage with them. They demonize their opponents and consequently when you try and challenge someone like Duterte or Trump, the response you get is "see, see! This is exactly what the liberal media is doing time and time again". They play the victim of legitimate sources of news. Third thing is that they rely on propagating fear and prejudice, again because they cannot unite tech coalition through legitimate policy, because the people they draw together are drawn on vague and conflicting terms. The take away from this argument is that the key tenant the key appeal of lots of these individuals is inherently irrational. They rely on the propagation of a fear that probably should not exist. All of these fundamentally undermine the debate necessary to productive competitive electoral politics. Why? First, because when you twist and muddy the truth of a debate you challenge the reality in response to which that debate existed in the first place. When fake news and alternative facts are placed on the same pedestal as actual factual realities you can't have a functional discussion about certain issues. You cannot have a functional discussion about undocumented workers in the United States when it is a fact that Mexicans are rapists in the same way that is a fact that Nieto is the President of Mexico. Second of all, likewise you also cannot have a debate between two reasonable sites that engage with each other and provide for the voter fundamentally - that is which of these two options is probably better for your interests - when one of those sites systematically fails to engage with the other. This is because they use literally who those other people are as a way of attacking these individuals rather than attacking policies and secondly, they have terrorized the people that support them and struck fear into their hearts to the extent that they will not hear logical reason. The second strand of this argument is that these individuals attack the very framework of democracy. Part of their anti-establishment narrative on which they rely is to attack institutions like courts, like electoral processes. That is why we see individuals like Donald Trump not only threatening to punish the courts if they get into power but refusing to accept election results. Democracy relies on the balance of power. That is supported both by the fact you give a massive mandate to the individual that you give you a vote to, but also by the fact that there are some checks and balances by an independent body to stop that person abusing that power. Democracy is fundamentally perverted when justices and the courts are fundamentally too afraid to do their job. The takeaway of this whole argument is twofold " first, if you weigh this debate based on democratic integrity and the rights of individuals, the very presence of right-wing populists makes it harder for people on the ground to come to terms with who they are voting for, why they are supporting that person, and ultimately what they should draw out of that. I would draw the analogy to perjury insofar as I"m happy to limit free speech in the short term if it ensures the integrity of a process that is vital to our society in the long run. So proud to propose.