Resolved: Legislation to Extend First Amendment Rights to Employees and Students

I will counter my opponent's arguments in the order in which they appear in his argument. ". .. the resolution will in fact make it so private employers will have no right to restrain speech in their workplace. " Not so. Instances of speech containing threats, sexual or ethnic slurs or references, among others are covered in many other Federal, State and local laws and ordinances as referred to in my footnote 6. ". .. when you place restrictions on them [employers], they are losing their freedoms and liberties. " ". .. trading off one right for another. " Only if you consider the ability to suppress, by threat of economic punishment, the right to free speech of another, a "right" or "liberty. " "Another point that must be raised is with the example you have provided. The reason many employers do fire people for these kinds of posts is for libel, defamation, or things just plain inappropriate. For example, people get fired for looking up inappropriate material at work, e. g. social networking, porn, games, etc. " None of these is applicable to Freedom of Speech. to wit: Libel and Defamation have their own laws. Inappropriate behavior is covered under a couple of laws such as "under federal law, Title VII prohibits workplace harassment and discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, pregnancy, sex stereotyping. In California, the state legislature has adopted Title VII and expanded on the protections afforded under anti-harassment/discrimination laws to include protections based on religious creed, color, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, and perceived sexual orientation. " Source: . http://www.articlesbase.com... In fact, while many states already have moved in this direction, it is the disparity among the state laws that promotes the view that one universal federal law is preferable. ". .. if an employee insults or demeans his boss on a social networking site, it would reduce respect and authority for the boss. This would in turn reduce efficiency. " The balance of efficiency vs. free speech weighs heavily in favor of free speech. An analogy: In the early 1800's, when slavery was considered a "right," Plantation owners' profits were high at the expense of the slave labor utilized by the owners. In the latter 1800's, Slavery was outlawed, and many Plantation owners were forced to pay workers for their services, thus making the generation of profits "less efficient. " Thus it was that the "right" to efficient profits was outweighed by the right to freedom for the slaves. In fact, every law passed is "purchased" from those who were deemed to retain those rights prior to the law. In other words, all laws either forbid something that was not forbidden until the law was passed or requires something that was not required prior to it passage. "Now onto the advantages of staying with the status quo: Advantage 1: Increased efficiency Subpoint a. ) As mentioned above, efficiency in the workplace will be increased because the boss will have more respect. Also, the chances of having a very disruptive presence in the workplace will be decreased, because even of what my opponent has mentioned, those methods aren't foolproof. " "Subpoint b. ) This leads to more efficient workplace, which leads to a better economy as people become more productive" "Subpoint c. ) The impacts of a more efficient population are huge. Economy, quality of life, all down the board, it increases. " False logic. Maintaining the status does not change the status quo. Efficiency will not be increased due solely to NOT changing anything. I am surprised that my opponent has chosen not to address the issue of Free Speech rights for students. Thus, I will conclude this Round by Summarizing: The resolution proposed does nothing to impede or curtail the rights of employers or school officials. In fact, it reduces the liability of said parties by shifting a portion of the responsibility for adherence to current anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, and certain other laws as cited in the resolution. It merely extends the Freedoms enjoyed by government employees and students of Public Education facilities to those persons working or enrolled in the private sector, while at the same time making each person more responsible for his or her actions. A vote in my favor will not, as my opponent has implied, "improve liberties," but rather, extend liberty in the form of free speech, press, and right to assembly, to literally millions of people who are not currently enjoying them. Remember, an employee can be fired for even mentioning his employer's name or for corresponding with the employee of a competitor and a student can be punished for even suggesting to a friend that he or she deserved a higher grade than that which was awarded on a test. Thank you.