Famous' Unofficial Tournament: R1

Introduction This debate revolves around the conflict that arises when freedom of speech and new ideas clash with the societal norms, the status quo, or the moral standards of the community as a whole. Community moral standards reflect the general opinion of the community as a whole, and represent things that they think should be enforced. Common moral standards include, “Murder is wrong,” or ,”Stealing is illegal. ” These are examples of what the community believes should be enforced. The reason communities have these moral standards is to make the society fair for all and keep the members who inhabit it safe. However, more often than not, community moral standards do not accommodate all of the members in a community. Legislators in the government years ago, and arguably now, had racist opinions and discriminatory opinions, and it showed in the legislation they sponsored and authored. These legislators etched community moral standards at the time in stone through the passing of law. Laws and moral standards of the past permitted African Americans to be bought and sold into slavery, treated as non-human beings, and allowed for systemic and societal discrimination. History shows us that when moral standards fail, human rights can be ignored. These standards are controlled by the majority of the society, which always results in a minority opinion being left out. This minority voice, outnumbered and outgunned by the majority both in society and in government, needs to have a way to express their plight and gather people behind their cause. The way they do this is through freedom of speech. Argument 1: Violence When people are ignored using free speech to protest against non-conforming moral standards, it is not uncommon for them to resort to violence because they feel they have no other outlet to express themselves. The Black Panther Group (1) is a good example of when peaceful protest against community moral standards, utilizing freedom of speech, had been ignored, forcing those in the group to resort to violence as a means of getting their message heard. As my claim stated in the beginning of the argument, if freedom of speech is ignored as a means of protest, it is a very real possibility that peaceful protest could descend into violence. See the later Uighur example as well. If freedom of speech fails to bring about peaceful change, people will resort to violence. In fact, countries with high rates of press freedom (2) tend to have less political violence (3). This statistic supports the contention that freedom of speech reduces the need for violence. (1) . http://www.britannica.com... (2) . https://en.wikipedia.org... (3) . https://maplecroft.com... Argument 2: The widely used theory, "The Marketplace of Ideas," is of great relevance in regard to this topic. Professor Robert G. Larson states that, "[T]he marketplace of ideas theory holds that unencumbered free speech is a public good because it enables members of society to evaluate and compare their ideas, beliefs and assumptions. In doing so, they are able to exchange incorrect or unsound notions for better ones. .. [G]overnment prohibition of the dissemination of or access to information. .. 'undermine[s] the effectiveness of a 'more speech' solution. ' Without sufficient access to and the ability to share relevant information [or opinions], some speakers will be unable to participate in the marketplace. " (4) Based upon this theory, using freedom of speech to allow the flow of ideas opens the door to create new moral standards and improve on the existing ones. For instance, the recently abolished anti-gay marriage law was a bad moral standard that the community (our country) had chosen to approve and uphold. Free speech brought about awareness to the issue and helped change this flawed standard. While there are many moral standards that are perfectly fine, freedom of speech is necessary to challenge old and flawed ideas and make way for change. Steven Pinker summarizes this point nicely when he writes: "Perhaps the greatest discovery in human history. .. is that our traditional sources of belief are in fact generators of error and should be dismissed as grounds for knowledge. These include faith, revelation, dogma, authority, charisma, augury, prophesy, intuition, clairvoyance, conventional wisdom, and subjective certainty. How, then, can we know? We come up with ideas about the nature of reality, and test them against that reality, allowing the world to falsify the mistaken ones. .. We offer these conjectures without any prior assurance they are correct. It is only by bruiting ideas and seeing which ones withstand attempts to refute them that we acquire knowledge. " (5) (4) Robert G. Larson, Professor of Journalism, U. Minnesota, 2013, "Forgetting the First Amendment: How Obscurity-Based Privacy and a Right to be Forgotten are Incompatible with Free Speech," Communication Law and Policy, 18 (1), 91-120 (5) . https://www.bostonglobe.com... Argument 3: Minorities groups also need to utilize freedom of speech because they are more vulnerable to majority oppression. Groups such as the LGBT community in the United States and the independence advocates China are widely oppressed by majorities. In China's western Xinjiang region, in the city of Urumqi, there have been several demonstrations by the Uighurs suppressed by the Chinese Police (6). The reason the Uighurs have resorted to rioting is because they do not have an outlet for their struggle. If minority groups cannot express themselves through free speech, they will resort to violence to make their voice heard. Governments always have obligations to all people under their jurisdiction, and also allowing moral standards to take away rights from a certain minority group is no different than taking away Universal Human Rights. Article 1 of the UDHR states that, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. " (7) (6) . http://www.nytimes.com... (7) . http://www.un.org... Argument 4: Freedom of speech is necessary for people to fulfill themselves and express their opinions and emotions. Professor Robert G. Larson (4) states that, "In order to maximize the benefit of the relationship for the both society and the individual, the individual requires a right to access knowledge, so as to form ideas and opinions. .. Apart from the value of free speech to society, the self-fulfillment theory also views freedom of expression as a purely individual right. Because human beings have an innate capacity for abstract thought, reasoning and imagination, the sharing of those internal thoughts and emotions with others--who are able to understand them--is an intrinsic and necessary part of humanity. .. 'For expression is an integral part of the development of ideas, of mental exploration and of the affirmation of self. The power to realize his potentiality as a human being begins at this point and must extend at least this far if the whole nature of man is not to be thwarted. '. .. '[A]ny time a person engages in chosen, meaningful conduct, whether public or private, the conduct usually expresses and further defines the actor's identity and contributes to his or her self-realization. .. 'To engage voluntarily in a speech act is to engage in self-definition or expression'. " (4) Without being able to fully utilize freedom of speech, individuals can be psychologically burdened and have a feeling that they have not fulfilled themselves. Free speech is good because, in their minds, it gives people a sense of self-fulfillment. Conclusion: As you see above, freedom of speech is useful in many circumstances. Not only can it shed light on immoral standards, but it can also create new standards, help minority groups escape majority oppression, eliminate slavery and racial discrimination to a lesser extent, and help people express their ideas. Moral standards have many flaws. Because they have flaws, people need a way to change, discuss, and ultimately reform them. That way is free speech.