The Gay Rights Campaigns regarding the Olympic games in Sochi, could cause more harm than good

Sure, I'll take up the mantle here and argue that the gay rights campaign occurring concurrently with and around the Olympic games in Sochi will be more beneficial than not. Thank you to MrMagic for making the debate, and this looks like it will be a stirring argument. I think the majority of this argument is obvious, but first, I'd like to get into background on why we're having this conversation in the first place, as Pro hasn't stated why Russia is in this mess. This link gives a bit more background,[1] but I'll quote the important bits: "In June 2013, the Russian duma in Moscow passed a new law banning the 'propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships' to minors. The new federal law is closely related to several regional laws that were already on the books, all of which seek to penalize "propaganda" of homosexuality, generally with the intent of "protecting" minors. The city of Sochi, which is the site of the upcoming Winter Olympics, has one of those regional laws in place. And while the regional laws are not uniform, like the new federal law, they all tend to advance vague definitions of propaganda that lend themselves to the targeting and ongoing persecution of the country"s LGBT community. The language of this new law focuses on 'non-traditional' sexual relationships, to contrast with 'traditional values' or 'traditional family' language that Russia is promoting at the UN to oppose positive statements supporting the human rights of LGBT people." I think this pretty well summarizes what the LGBT community in Russia faces. Now, why should we care? It's because we hold to two basic values: that freedom of speech is important so long as that speech does no egregious harm, and that no individual group should be discriminated against by enacting a law. In the former case, I think it's pretty obvious that when you make it illegal to discuss a certain subject, you're restricting freedom of speech. Let's forget for a moment about what kind of speech they're prohibiting, and instead talk about what kind of speech is normally prohibited and why. In the U.S., you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Why? Because that theater is full of people who are likely to panic. That panic will cause them to trample others as they make their way to the exit, causing injuries and possible deaths. This is a case of speech being used to cause direct, easily perceived harms. Generally, we perceive these kinds of injuries and deaths to be bad. As this word was directly involved in their occurrence, we can safely say that it was reprehensible to utilize speech for that purpose. Where is the harm in this case? Some might argue that the discussion of homosexual relationships somehow tarnishes marriage or mars the minds of young children, but those are subjective moral reasons without a basis in objective harms. Therefore, abridging the freedom of speech in this instance isn't justified. Why should we care? Well, when a country decides that it's perfectly fine to suppress voices that dissent from popular views, this allows them to decide what is and is not legal speech based solely on what the government feels is morally right. No one will be able to speak without fear that their words won't land them with a fine or jail time, especially not if they're of a minority group. The freedom of speech is an integral portion of any free society, and a government that suppresses that right is not a government of the people. In the latter case, the Russian government is essentially stating that it is morally wrong to discuss homosexuality with minors. Heterosexuality is fine, homosexuality is not. As such, it's that homosexual minority group that has its rights trod upon. Children cannot be educated about homosexuality to any extent, and words about it are essentially taboo from everyday conversation, since any child may overhear. As a result, homosexuality disappears from the public consciousness, relegated to back rooms as though it were talk of revolution. Homosexuality shouldn't be regarded as something to be shunned or dismissed. Discrimination should not be enforced by a democratic government that is supposed to be accountable to the people. Now, why do I mention all this? These likely aren't points my opponent will contend are wrong, after all. But that's just the problem here. He's advocating that the LGBT community remain silent in their anguish, essentially ignoring the grievous harms perpetrated on those among them on Russian soil. He's advocating that they bear it silently, taking to those back rooms and acting like everything is fine during these Olympics, and that every foreign nation should be similarly silent. No one should protest. In so doing, he is arguing for these harms to persist. They should not be allowed to do so. The LGBT world community should not sit idly by while an opportunity to put the Russian government on trial slips through their fingers. The Russian LGBT community should not be afraid to grasp the microphone and speak into it so that everyone hears about the transgressions of their despotic leadership. Their oppression should be a thing of the past, yet they've endured it for far too long. No more. This is where it should stop. Not next month or next year, not when the opportunity has passed them by. Now. I'll just place a bit of rebuttal here before I end. Pro talks about the possibility of extreme violence following the end of the Olympic games. I've got a number of responses. 1) This isn't likely to happen. The very social media he thinks is luring them into a false sense of security is a constant watchdog. Pictures and videos of any violence would become common knowledge in a matter of hours, if not minutes, around the world. Putin will know this, and he realizes that any measure of violent behavior from him will result in tremendous backlash from the international community. 2) It's likely to be effective, and therefore this won't happen. Enough soft power pressure on those in the Russian government will change minds, especially if people make it clear just how big of an issue this is. Sochi is the perfect stage, and opportunity to sway hearts and minds. At the very least, it's likely to tell them what kind of swell they are up against and make them think twice before enforcing this unjust law. At most, this will push them towards repealing it. 3) Violence isn't always bad. As I stated before, social media will document and distribute knowledge of any violent acts perpetrated. That's a good thing, even if it happens. It means they're defending their basic ideals, and as the number of people worldwide who are willing to stand with them only grows in numbers, they will have a huge amount of support in their fight for rights and justice. Most of the major rights movements of the past had to endure unjust violence from their governments in order to get the rights they seek. The black community in America had to undergo violent trials and tribulations for their freedoms, otherwise they would have been continually denied to them. They realized that the costs of letting their rights slip away were higher than those they would pay in the short term by resisting. 4) Any violence will receive a powerful response. The LGBT community in Russia will be seen as protesters being injured and killed. They will almost certainly intervene, threatening sanctions and Russia's position in the international community, something the government cannot afford to lose. With that, I kick it back to Pro to further explain his case and respond to my arguments. 1. http://www.globalequality.org...