Unique Topics Tournament Round 1 User v.s. Fire: Hate speech should be permitted

The central issue of the debate is whether hate speech should or should not be permitted. As Con it is my job to negate the resolution, thus it is my BoP to prove that Hate speech should not be permitted. My primary case is that Hate speech violates international law and violates international human rights, particularly the articles laid out in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. My intention is twofold: To build up Con's case while destroying Pro's case. The articles in question are Article 2, Article 3, and Article 7 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. - Article 2: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." Hate speech: " "a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence it is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women" Hate speech directly violates Article 2 by inciting hatred and violence to a group of people. When people are hated by others, they are treated as inferior, and when people are treated as inferior their human rights are eroded. Prime examples of this is the Jim Crow south where African Americans were declared as "Separate But Equal" to Whites in Plessy vs. Ferguson by the Supreme Court. From 1896-1964 Black Americans were not treated equally but treated as inferior to White Americans. Blacks received poorer education, poorer neighborhoods, were denied various locations in towns, denied opportunity for advancement, etc. Another example of this was Apartheid South Africa. Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Life: "an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction." (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Liberty:The condition of being able to act or function without hindrance or restraint; faculty or power to do as one likes. Security: the quality or state of being secure:: freedom from danger : safety : freedom from fear or anxiety : freedom from the prospect of being laid off (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Hate speech threatens a person's right to life, liberty, and security. P1) Hate speech incites violence P2) Violence threatens the life of a person P3) When someone's life is threatened, they are no longer secure. P4) When someone is not secure, one is not free P5) When one is not free, their liberty is gone. C1) Thus Hate speech threatens a person's right to life, liberty, and security. Article 7 "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." Hate speech is speech that encourages and incites discrimination against an individual or a group, when a person is discriminated against they lose their human rights, including their liberty, as demonstrated with the Jim Crow South, Apartheid South Africa, and my Article 3 argument. My opponent makes the claim that US law must be followed, and to counter I claim that international law must be followed, and since international law effects more people than national law, international law is superior to national law. The main premise of Pro's argument is "Slavery is bad. Slavery the opposite of freedom, hate speech is a form of freedom, thus hate speech should be permitted." I agree with pro that slavery is morally wrong, thus I urge that Hate speech should not be permitted for hate speech was used to justify slavery, primarily the hate speech that stated slaves were inferior to whites and subhuman, thus slavery was morally justified under this hate speech. "Some slaveholders believed that African Americans were biologically inferior to their masters. During the 1800s, this argument was taken quite seriously, even in scientific circles." (http://www.ushistory.org...) Another horrible atrocity that hate speech gives moral justification to is genocide. According to Gregory H. Stanton, the first three stages of genocide are classification, symbolization, and dehumanization. "DEHUMANIZATION: One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. In combating this dehumanization, incitement to genocide should not be confused with protected speech." (http://www.genocidewatch.org...) The very act of hate speech is dehumanization, because when someone incites hatred on a person or a group, others see them as less than human. The most dangerous form of hate speech is when the government of a nation partakes in hate speech. The prime example of this is Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer of Nazi Germany using hate speech to demonize and dehumanize the Jews and other people he deemed as untermensch. " . .. the discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world. The battle in which we are engaged today is of the same sort as the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus! ... We shall regain our health only be eliminating the Jew." -Hitler What Hitler stated is blatant hate speech for it carried no meaning other than the expression of hatred for the Jews, and this hate speech dehumanized, and encouraged violence and mass extermination of the Jewish people. With Hitler's promise to restore Germany to greatness and his hate speech against the Jews, the German people believed his words and elected him Chancellor in 1933 and in 1934 Hitler made himself Fuhrer of Germany, where his hate speech became law, thus Hitler implemented the Holocaust which resulted in the genocide of 11 million people, including 6 million Jews. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) Pro claims that hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution in the form of freedom of speech. Pro's claim is only true if hate speech does not incite/cause violence. If the hate speech does incite/cause violence, it is illegal, and thus not classified as freedom of speech. "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." - Majority opinion of the Supreme Court, Brandenburg v. Ohio. The SCOTUS is the final word of what is Constitutional. Conclusion I've listed many reasons on why hate speech should not be permitted. 1) Hate speech violates human rights by: A) Threatening a person's right to life, liberty, and security. B) Discriminating people, making them de facto unequal under the law C) Dehumanizing people, justifying slavery and genocide. Sources: https://docs.google.com...