Impromptu Debate

FIRST CONTENTION Just because a subject is difficult to define does not mean action shouldn't be taken against it. The "war on terror", for example, is a prime example of a goal far too vague and subjective to mean anything at all. But while people may differ agreeing on where the edges of racism and sexism lie, these are just the edges. Disagreements will occur there in any topic. I challenge readers, however, to see Source #1, below, and view a collection of critically discussed but nevertheless disturbing racist images. Here, the answer to the question of whether it is racist is clear. SECOND CONTENTION My opponent's examples are a bit misleading. There are many examples to refute so I'll separate them a bit. "Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson[1] In this case the Supreme Court overturned a New York Law that would not allow the commercial showing of films that were considered sacrilegious. .. saying that it violated the First Amendment. " While this is comparable, blasphemy is neither sexist nor racist. "A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts[2] The Attorney General of Massachusetts sought to prevent the continued publishing and distribution of the book "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" due to the fact it contained obscene content, the Supreme Court held that the book could continue to be published and distributed as it was protected by the first amendment Freedom of Speech. " This is less comparable, and still neither sexist nor racist. The ruling simply clarified whether an obscene publication needed to hold social value to be allowed publishing. "Yates v. United States[1]In this case before the Supreme Court it was ruled that the First Amendment protected Radical and Reactionary speech unless it presents a "clear and present danger. " The only example which is relevant, and a good one at that. However, as I will argue below, sexist and racist portrayals cause harm. And, of course, I remind my opponent that the law is not necessarily a guideline for what is right. "Marsh v. Alabama[1] In this case brought to the Supreme Court it ruled that a person could distribute religious material even on privately owned property. " Compeltely irrelevant. According to Wikipedia this declared unconstitutional a law which "imposed permanent injunctions against the publication of newspapers with 'malicious, scandalous, and defamatory' content". The decision on the case was never about the racist content of the newspaper but about the possibly libelous accusations against public officials. The reasoning for the decision, it says, was declared: ". .. the fact that the public officers named in this case, and those associated with the charges of official dereliction, may be deemed to be impeccable cannot affect the conclusion that the statute imposes an unconstitutional restraint upon publication. " I repeat: racism and sexism had nothing to do with this early '30s case. It applied to libel law. "Board of Education v. Pico[1] In this case students of a High School brought suit against their school board when the board tried to remove books it classified as anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-[Semitic], and just plain filthy. The Supreme Court found in favor of the students and ruled that a board could not restrict accesses to ideas simply because they found them distasteful. " The key thing to note here is "suppression of ideas" and what the court rightfully perceived as trying to prescribe an orthodox , in the court's own wording. THIRD CONTENTION First: My opponent has inserted his own words into the resolution, which makes no mention of a ban. There is nothing which prevents companies from removing sexist and racist images of their own accord. Neither does the resolution mention "all" racist and sexist material--my opinion is that racist and sexist images should only be shown critically. This borders on semantics, however, so I won't dwell long on it. However, whether or not it is possible to completely purge our media of sexist and racist images is irrelevant--child pornography, for example, can be found online but is banned firmly. Even the reduction of such images from a daily and constant barrage to something that must be thought out eases the harmful effects. CONCLUSION Racist and sexist images are not "ideas" in the sense meant in Board of Education v. Pico. They are stubbornly held beliefs which, when spread and acted on, attack the very humanity of those they target. They are inherently libelous and slanderous, which is the problem. It is not that they offend, it is not that they are uncomfortable. It is that they are active defamation of entire races and genders. The difference between the examples in the cases presented and systematic racist/sexist portrayals is as vast as the difference between a fist fight and genocide. When one considers the power of cultivated expectations (see sources #2 and #3, below), such images can only be considered a form of oppression. 1) . http://www.ferris.edu... 2) . http://psychology.about.com... 3) . http://scholar.google.com... fulfilling prophecy education