Speech Should Be Censored (Anti Freedom of Speech)

In his argument, Pro argues that a certain precedent for limiting free speech exists, and therefore we should use the standards from this precedent to expand censorship. In round, I intend to examine the root of the right to free speech, as well as the way this right is granted in the Constitution. I will continue by arguing that limiting free-speech beyond what is allowed by this foundation should not occur. Lastly, I will offer several rebuttals to Pro's arguments. Natural RightsFree speech is part of the natural right to Liberty. John Locke, one of the originators of this idea of natural rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, also argued that governments exist to protect these rights. Therefore, governments exist in order to protect free speech. Constitution LawWhile the first amendment guarantees a right to free speech, the Constitution also leaves the interpretation of what this means up to the Supreme Court. The Court has ruled that the free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment is not absolute, so the precedents mentioned by Pro are not protected by the First Amendment and are not part of the fundamental right to free speech in the United States. A More Important ReasonThe idea of natural rights and the Constitution both dictate free speech, but there is a more important reason: Free speech is essential to democracy. Every dictator in history has limited the rights of the people to express themselves a great deal. Perfect examples of this from the 20th century include Nazi Germany under Hitler and Soviet Russia under Stalin. Both of these dictators argued that limiting free speech was for the good of the country, but we all know that the actions taken by these governments resulted in terrible crimes against humanity. The ability to voice opposition to a government is essential to ensuring the protection of other vital rights. Once the right to speech is gone, dissent is gone. Once dissent is gone, the government does as it wishes. Once the government does as it wishes, many more rights are violated. Majority Rule, Minority RightsAmerica. gov states that of majority rule, minority rights: "These principles of twin pillars are holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government" [1]. This principle is quite simple: The majority rule determines a decision, but the rights of the minority should not be infringed. This principle is important to keep in mind, as Pro has stated that speech should be censored by majority opinion. More on this to come. The Problem with Expanding CensorshipPro has argued that censorship should be upheld through popular vote, and he has provided four categories under which censorship could take place. Upon first glance, these ideas all look pretty good: National security, personal safety, business security, and education and indoctrination. Those are all good things. But, who defines what constitutes a violation of national security? Aye, there's the rub. For in that definition what injustice may occur when we have shuffled off this censorship power to the majority? Okay, enough pseudo Hamlet. And we come back to that majority rule, minority rights. Because what happens if the majority decides to say that allowing mosques to be built is a threat to national security. As far fetched as that sounds, it is not so far fetched. In a 2010 Pew poll, 51% of people objected to the idea of building an Islamic center and mosque near the World Trade Center. Another poll from that same year said that 25% of people said that "Local communities should be able to prohibit the construction of mosques if they do not want them"[2]. "That's only 25%," you may think, but that is a quarter of the population, a significant amount. That number could very well increase to a majority of Americans over time. So the majority decides that mosques are national security threats, therefore, the ability of Muslims to exercise religious freedom is being censored in the name of national security. Note: I realize that the mosque example is not the exact same thing as free speech, but it is easy to see how the free speech of Muslims could be effected by such a decision, or something similar. And this majority ruling would be an infringement on the minority rights of Muslims, because something has been defined as national security. This reminds me of the well known poem by Martin Niemöller:. http://www.ushmm.org...This poem is, of course, describing Nazi Germany and the restriction of rights there. If we allow the majority to decide that it is alright to restrict one group of people's rights, then one day our own rights may be restricted. As I have previously explained, once free speech disappears, most other rights vanish as well. Pro's Three ScenariosWhile the outcomes described in these three scenarios are awful, passing laws restricting freedom of speech, would not solve these problems.1. The solution proposed in this scenario is not a big deal, because the problem fixed by this solution is not a big deal. It is perfectly reasonable to say that lawyers cannot reveal certain information to other inmates, but I cannot really think of a situation in which such information would be revealed. Additionally, guards are not currently free to reveal all information about a prisoner willy nilly to other inmates, so this would not be a big change. This is not even something that needs to be put to a popular vote, all it would require is a change in the prison system policy. On this point, however, I do question the necessity for such a measure. Of course pedophiles have been murdered in prison, but to say that it is likely that this will occur is a baseless claim. If one were to consider the amount of pedophiles currently in prison, and consider the amount of murders committed to them in prison, I'm not sure his conclusion would be the conclusion that would be reached. 2. While hateful speech can cause "civil discord and danger," it is a slippery slope. Who determines what is hateful rhetoric. Just because a person does not like what someone else is saying, does that allow them to label that hateful rhetoric and demand censorship? I agree that people should not deliver hateful speech, but once censorship on a large scale starts, where does it stop?3. See number two. ConclusionFree speech is part of the natural right to Liberty. I have argued that free speech is essential to democracy, given examples of places where free-speech was limited and how a lack of dissent leads to an authoritarian government, and given an example of how a group could have their rights restricted based on who gets to define what gets censored. Pro has argued that the majority should get to decide, but that easily violates the important democratic principle of majority rules, minority rights because the majority can eliminate the rights of the minority. Sources in comments.