U.S. Free Speech vs. EU Free Speech

Thanks to Max for this debate, and to the judges.=============A. IntroThis debate is about shucking oysters, nothing more and nothing less. Of course, these oysters and shucking knives are metaphorical, but they are nonetheless important both to this debate and to how we construct our societies. The oyster shells block the pearls inside, and the knife cuts through to the pearl. Our rights--not just free speech, but ALL of our rights--are necessary tools to take charge of our lives and to create meaning within them. The pearls we seek can only be obtained if we have all the rights needed to cultivate them.The USM, with it's more absolutist approach, is not conducive to collecting these pearls--it's like only having half a knife. The EUM protects more rights, more fully, than the USM. So, if we want to shuck the oysters, the EUM is the knife-shop to buy from.B. OverviewI said last round that "Pro talks about a hierarchy of rights, where free speech is near the top, but my whole case argues that the EUM isn't hierarchical, it is a nexus of rights that recognizes the equal importance of all rights in crafting a healthy society. Pro never contests that all rights matter, and has done nothing to show why the USM protects all rights best or why free speech is superordinate to other rights and goods."In his final round, Pro asks you, the readers and judges, to ask yourselves whether free speech is worth restricting for the reasons I give. In point of fact, it is Pro's job, not the judges', to present arguments in favor of unrestricted free speech. Pro has not once in this debate given a reason why free speech should not be restricted in the face of safety, privacy, or due process concerns. His failure to do this necessarily dooms his case, because it is predicated on the notion, as he put it, that "there is nothing worth silencing speech for." Pro has failed to prove this core claim.C. Hate SpeechC1. OverviewPro drops that his focus on hate speech is not an "on balance" consideration of the topic, thereby rendering it impossible for him to affirm. My structural arguments, which I extended last round, apply system-wide. Moreover, I offered multiple examples (reporting restrictions, RTBF, and data privacy) which impact both privacy and due process rights; Pro offered just one example. Pro drops that his source cherry-picks data.C2. CasesPro drops my analysis of his examples as well as my own examples. Pro also drops that many of the laws or cases he cites may not even be legal themselves under ECvHR doctrine. As I wrote earlier: "While all laws must comply with the ECvHR, as Pro notes, this does not mean that they actually do; Federal laws must comply with the Constitution, but they do not always. Only ECtHR or SCOTUS rulings can clarify whether a law actually passes legal muster. In this sense, just excerpting a law that is on the books...does not tell us whether this law is actually legal."He then brings up the example of Geert Wilders, who was also "acquitted of all charges. A Dutch court said that his speech was legitimate political debate." [1] So, it seems that Geert Wilders will not be stopped from saying the kinds of things he desires to say; certainly, he was permitted to address his views on Islam "bluntly." Moreover, as a parliamentarian, Wilders could always take advantage of parliamentary privilege (immunity from prosecution for things said in parliamentary debate), which the ECtHR has seemed respectful of. [2]As for the "hassle" argument, this is new in the last speech, and should be disregarded. Even if you don't dismiss it for that reason, it isn't weighty. First, there will always be downward pressures on speech, whether legal or social. Second, ambiguity is part of why hassles occur; with each case heard before the ECtHR, it becomes clearer what the system will and will not tolerate, so people will know what can be said, hassle-free. Thirdly, obviously, hassle isn't much of an issue when you have groups like UKIP, Le Front National, PEGIDA, Golden Dawn, Freiheitliche Partei Oesterreich, and Wilder's own Partij Voor de Vrjiheid, voicing their borderline (or not) racist views.Pro's analysis about Islam and the reasons for being unable to criticize it is new in the final round. Please disregard his point here for that reason; but, even if you don't, the reason why such speech is prohibited is to prevent inciting violence. Pro responds to this more directly when he rights: "the right to freedom of speech for the modern world supercedes the needs of those who are unable to avoid killing each other because they are offended."Suppose for a moment that you are a government and told you that you could stop the deaths of 100 of your people in an attack tomorrow. You have two options to stop the attack: (a) engage in massive, fairly indiscriminate surveillance of your own citizens, or (b) prohibit a certain kind of speech that would trigger the event. Pro chooses the first option, I choose the latter. Whether or not you like hate speech laws, Pro never attacked their ability to prevent the incitement of violence. And, either way, a rights violation is going to occur. Pro thinks (a) is better because free speech, for some unspecified reason, is more important than privacy. I think (b) is better because the total world of things you are allowed to say shrinks only a little, without the large-scale and often unnecessary privacy intrusions. This is, of course, all hypothetical, but it illustrates a broader point here: the EUM, because it doesn't prefer free speech in virtually all cases, is better able to protect rights like privacy. When faced with two scenarios, it can go with the one that violates all rights the least, rather than with the course of action that protects free speech the most. Moreover, as I noted last round, by making sure privacy rights are upheld, the EUM actually fosters healthy free speech. Finally, the right to life of the victims should outweigh the right of someone else to speak--something about "fire" and crowded theatres...? Is the principle so different here that Holmes's logic is not applicable?So, Pro tries to make Europe out to be the big bad wolf, when he has been virtually unable to produce a single case in which someone was penalized for hate speech. This is not to say that cases don't exist, but it does a lot to show that Europe does not censor or suppress hate speech as much as Pro would like to make it seem like they do. His impacts are small because Europe does, as the cases I cited last round prove, protect individuals' ability to say things that shock, offend, and disturb.Pro tries to paint Europe as un-free. In fact, we can look at the freedom ratings for Europe and we can see that they are as good or better than the U.S.'s ratings. In fact, Europe has a higher press freedom score than we do. So, if hate speech laws don't really do as much as Pro thinks they do in terms of restricting speech, and if Europe is as free as it is (they have a freer press than the U.S.), what exactly is the negative impact of these hate speech restrictions on freedom writ large? Moreover, my system can better balance all rights; it does not take the approach of "free speech above all else" that Pro supports. This approach both (a) harms other rights, which, as I showed in round one, are important for us as individuals, and (b), paradoxically, undermines free speech itself in the long-run. As I said earlier: "[P]rivacy...promotes liberty of thought and action...Freedoms such as...freedom of expression lose much of their value if people do not first have the chance to learn to think for themselves." And, without privacy, "persons may hesitate to act and to participate in social and public life, which...affects the development of democratic citizens." Thus, I better uphold the full pantheon of rights we as people need to live fulfilling and enjoyable lives.D. My ExamplesPro drops all of my analysis here. For the record, I am not just balancing privacy, but also due process. Pro writes: "rights to privacy aren't enough to cede to irrational restrictions on how much and in what way." Pro never once explains why privacy rights aren't enough, but I did give reasons to the contrary. Look to my "values" section in my case where I said that privacy was key to personal happiness and democratic participation. as well as to last round, where I pointed out that: (a) limits on data collection are crucial checks against state authoritarianism (shown historically), (b) limits on reporting names of accused persons are crucial to ensuring that they have free and fair trials, (c) RTBF is crucial for personal growth, (d) data permanence leads to self-censorship, (e) RTBF solves revenge porn. I gave reasons; Pro gave none. Extend my examples: I protect privacy and due process better than Pro.E. ConclusionLast round, Pro dropped that the EUM forces structurally judges to balance rights in their decision-making and that it had less red tape. This round, Pro drops that focusing on "hate speech" cannot affirm an "on balance" topic, that many of the laws he cites may not be legal per the ECvHR, and my examples which show that I better protect privacy and due process rights. Pro's hate speech impacts are small, as the EUM does clearly protect lots of offensive speech and as hate speech restrictions limit just a small slice of total speech. Pro never explained why free speech should be so heavily preferred to other rights, nor even why it is the most valuable right. Moreover, I actually protect free speech best, since strong privacy is a prerequisite. Thus, I protect all rights better than Pro does--maybe that's why the EU scores higher on personal freedom than the US. In other words, Pro only has half a shucking knife, while my knife is already ready to get at the pearl. Thank you! Please, VOTE CON! F. Sources1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com...