When in conflict, an individual's FoS ought to be valued above a community's moral standards.

Agreed, with that, I will present my case. "I know no class of my fellowmen, however just, enlightened, and humane, which can be wisely and safely trusted absolutely with the liberties of any other class."1 Thus reads a famous quotation by Frederick Douglas, who fervently understood that even a democratic government is dangerous if it is unlimited. Our liberty is too important to entrust to an all-powerful state, which is why I stand strongly resolved that when in conflict, freedom of speech ought to be valued above a community's moral standards. Before we jump into some arguments, lets first clarify some definitions. Freedom of Speech: The right of people to express their opinions about what they believe to be true without governmental interference. [Oxford American Dictionary] Community: "The people of a district or country considered collectively." [Merriam-Webster"s Online Dictionary] Moral Standards: Standards relating to principles of right and wrong in human behavior. [Oxford American Dictionary] My value today is liberty, defined as "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views." As Thomas Jefferson aptly noted, "the freedom and happiness of man . . . are the sole objects of all legitimate government." Because liberty is the very purpose of government, liberty ought to be paramount for this debate. However, unfortunately for us, we can"t wave a magic wand and arrive at endless liberty for all men. Liberty requires a deliberate effort if it is to be protected, and that is limited government. For that reason my criterion will be limited government, defined as "a political system in which legalized force is restricted through delegated and enumerated powers."3 When we have a community that has a limited government, we will see that liberty is consistently and effectively upheld, which leads me into contention one. Contention One: Freedom of Speech Facilitates Limited Government Thomas Jefferson wisely noted that, "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny, when the government fears the people, there is liberty." The fact is, we must have our right to question authority in order to prevent tyrannical government. Benjamin Franklin actually discussed this idea in his book On Freedom of Speech and the Press, "Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins." The right to question authority is instrumental in maintaining a free and prosperous society, and when this right is taken away, government expands, growing larger, until it is the very definition of tyranny. Samuel Adams summarized this whole idea quite effectively in an article he wrote in the Boston Gazette, "There is nothing so fretting and vexatious, nothing so justly terrible to tyrants, and their tools and abettors, as a free press." Contention Two: Limited Government protects liberty. A government must recognize the bounds of its power in order to protect all our freedoms. Several political philosophers agree that the most prosperous society is one that has a small and limited governing body. John Locke aptly summarizes this belief, "The end of government is the good of mankind." Let"s take a look at some historical applications. Application 1: Finland Finland has a very limited government that protects the rights of its citizens, and nothing more. It recognizes and respects that there are certain limits on government that should not be infringed upon. As a result, their liberty is incredibly abundant, so much so that Finland is #1 on the Press Freedom Index 2015. Other countries that share a similar limited government with Finland include: Denmark Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg, and Sweden. Interestingly enough, these countries are all in the top 10 on the Press Freedom Index. Here, we clearly see a correlation between small limited government and liberty. Application 2: China On the flip side of the same coin, countries like China, Iran, Syria, and North Korea which all have large and controlling governments, rank close to last on the Press Freedom Index, indicating that the larger the governing body, the less liberty can thrive. Contention Three: Valuing Freedom of Speech protects Liberty So far we have seen that small government protects liberty and that freedom of speech facilitates small government. We can logically deduct then, that freedom of speech protects liberty. Justice Benjamin Cardozo said, "Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom." The problem occurs when we place moral standards above free speech. When this happens, our right to express ourselves is limited by the arbitrary standards of the particular community. While such limitations start out small, in very little time, we find the restrictions have become so invasive that we might as well have no freedom of speech at all. Economist Friedrich August Von Hayek stated that, "Freedom granted only when it is known beforehand that its effects will be beneficial is not freedom." We cannot allow our precious freedom to be restricted by the arbitrary whims of communities, for I wholeheartedly agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." In the end, it is confirmed, free speech is essential in securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. If there"s only one thing you remember after this speech, let it be William Maugham, an English Novelist, and his wise warning, "If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom."