U.S. Free Speech vs. EU Free Speech

Intro/RightsMy opponent and I don't disagree here. We also don't disagree that there are necessary limits. The whole crux of this debate though, is determining those limits, and based on what values those should be established. We certainly agree that the absolutist language used by the US first amendment is what distinguishes the US from Europe, and the only thing differentiating our opinions, is that I believe that the US language is far superior. "The winner of this debate, therefore, will be the one who can show that their rights-model best situates and balances free speech among a pantheon of other rights and social goods. "This breaks it down perfectly. In the US, we limit speech (fire in a crowded theater) that might cause very real harm through the use of speech. I already concede this in my opening and reasonable people recognize that there are always limits. In Europe, speech that is limited is X. What we need to get to in this debate is what is "X". I will do my best in this round to be specific, and show that not only is Europe not better off, not only aren't reasonable values being supported, but it's just outright absurd. Legal StructuresMy opponent and I don't disagree on this, with the exception of:"Simply put, free speech in EUM is placed on a scale of values, which allows this model to better protect rights in general. "Again, as said above, we'll have to get to the particulars on this, which we'll get to soon. Legal MethodologyMy opponent and I again, don't disagree much on this. The only divergence of our opinions is where I believe it's better that the US legal system has to bend over backwards to conform with the first amendment, in contrast to the European legal system, which simply has to strike down certain speech for whatever motivation is pressing at the time. We'll get into this further soon. Levels of FreedomThis is a bit too abstract for me to reply to directly here, so I hope to touch on this broadly later. ValuesAgain, my opponent and I agree on all of this. ConclusionThis is naturally where my opponent and I disagree. "Pursuing any right to the exclusion of all others is like. .. "I don't believe that this has been shown to be true in any way. The readers of this debate need to ask themselves, what right is being lost by having unlimited speech? What rights are being gained by limiting speech? .. .. My opponent has very articulately made a case for something in his above round, but, perhaps because it is grounded in far too much abstraction, I honestly don't know what that case is aside from the value of weighing various rights. To be clear, I don't mean that as a slight to Bsh in any way, this is a complex debate and the legal formulations of these things themselves require a full textbook to really establish. So with that in mind, I want to break this down in layman's terms as much as possible, and to provide real world examples of this contrast so that readers can make the evaluations themselves. Certainly these wont be all encompassing, but we are talking about the benefits of these two approaches, and the outcome is best shown in the way in which it actually effects the lives of the people in each system. Hate SpeechMost of this is taken from the following article:. https://www.indexoncensorship.org...Hate speech is broadly left up to each member state of the EU's national laws, though all must comply with articles 14-17 of the ECHR. For example, the Polish Criminal Code criminalise individuals who intentionally offend religious feelings. "Article 13 prohibits any programmes or activities that promote racial or national hatred. .. .Television is restricted by the Broadcasting Act, which states that programmes or other broadcasts must “respect the religious beliefs of the public and respect especially the Christian system of values”As you read the above example, and the ones to follow, keep your thoughts within the context of what is being debated here, and the way my opponent has framed this. We are indeed weighing the various values and assigning a hierarchy to them. So, in the above instance, not offending Christianity is placed above the ability to speak freely. Again, as we weigh these values, we can accept that these may be well meaning, but we should also consider its broader ramifications. Other specific examples:1) In 2010, two singers, Doda and Adam Darski, where charged in Poland with violating the criminal code for their public criticism of Christianity.2) Singer Bob Dylan faces the possibility of prosecution for hate speech in France. The prosecutor’s office in Paris confirmed that Dylan has been placed under formal investigation by Paris’s Main Court for “public injury” and “incitement to hatred” after he compared the relationship between Croats and Serbs to that of Nazis and Jews.3) The European Court of Human Rights ruled in a landmark judgment, Vejdeland v. Sweden, upholding the decision reached by the Swedish Supreme Court to convict four individuals for homophobic speech.4) Germany pushed for the criminalisation of Holocaust denial, culminating in its inclusion from the 2008 EU Framework Decision. .. Full implementation of the Framework Decision was blocked by Britain, Sweden and Denmark, who were rightly concerned that the criminalisation of Holocaust denial would impede historical inquiry, artistic expression and public debate. The article concludes:"Hate speech legislation, particularly at European Union level, and the way this legislation is interpreted, must take into account freedom of expression in order to avoid disproportionate criminalisation of unpopular or offensive viewpoints or impede the study and debate of matters of historical importance. "With all of the above, I think that we can only ask ourselves in the context of how my opponent and I have laid out the crux of this debate, what values are being weighed by restricting any of the above? On the one hand, you have speech possibly intended to offend, to deny historical claims, or to equivocate historical events, and on the other hand, you have value in contrast, that are intended to do what? Put another way, we have the values of freedom of expression on one side, weighed against the values of being free not to be offended. Which value should be placed higher? I think this is ultimately where my opponent and I disagree. What harm comes from any of the above aside from offending people? I think very little, and even offending people has minimal consequences - with one exception, the elephant in the room regarding European speech issues at the moment, and I hope to touch on that at some point in this debate. What value can come without restrictions on being able to say what one wants without the fear of legal consequences? Well, a lot, and modern social progress proves this to be true. The following article articulates this even better: . http://www.legal-project.org... "Given the nebulous standards on which much of Europe's hate speech laws are based—indeed, there is not even a universally agreed upon definition for what constitutes hate speech—it is little wonder that such legislation has ensnared speech it was likely never meant to punish. ""Delineating the line between speech that is considered rude and that which is considered insulting for the purposes of criminal prosecution is an utterly subjective undertaking. .. ""while European authorities have at times appeared reluctant to go after Islamist firebrands spouting hatred, those engaging in legitimate debate about Islamism are frequently targeted for prosecution. "The article provides several examples that very well drive the point home, but more importantly, it refutes my opponents contention that the US absolutist language regarding free speech is problematic since we can see from world events like these that the oft applied arbitrary alternative is far worse. So yes, my opponent is correct that it is a challenge for the legal system to reconclie the borderline and rare exceptions to freedom of speech, but in these cases, which are at best, only nibbling at the edges of US freedom of speech problems, it is by far a greater system since it actually allows for freedom of speech in contrast to the alternative system that vaguly has a permissiveness of speech determined by political and social convenience. ConclusionReal world examples show that while the US first amendment is a challenge to deal with legally, it does in fact allow for citizens of the US to speak freely without fear of legal consequences. Conversly, the European system criminalizes certain speech due simply to the possibility that it may offend someone. My opponent has correctly stated that this debate comes down to weighing values and establishing how we apply those values to our legal systems. In the US we consider free speech to be such a value that it supercedes other values in chronology, especially this idea that one can be free of offense through speech, that appears to be the value being weighed above speech rights that my opponent is advocating for. If I am misunderstanding my opponent, I hope that he clarifies, but at this point in this debate, I am left with only two options on the hierarcy of values 1) Speech that may offend and 2) A society in which speech may be resricted because it may offend someone. It sould be clear that my position is that the choice of those two options is obvious, and that society is far greater by accepting freedom of speech with all the positives and negatives it may imply. Indeed, the negatives of possibly offending someone is rarely even worth society taking seriously - especially if it means infringing on far more important rights.