BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Funds could be better spent on helping development

Access to the internet is not the most pressing concern that foreign aid should be used to solve. Instead aid should help the 1.4billion who live on less than a dollar a day,[1] the 216 million people infected with malaria every year,[2] or the 42 million people who have been uprooted by conflict and natural disaster.[3] Internet access while it has expanded immensely is still something that only the relatively rich have access to, not the kind of people that aid money should be spent on. Finally if money is to be spent on the internet it should not be on the issue of evading censorship but focusing on the potential economic benefits of increasing internet penetration to the poorest. [1] World Bank Updates Poverty Estimates for the Developing world’, World Bank, 26 August 2008. [2] Malaria, World Health Organisation, Fact Sheet no. 94, April 2012. [3] ‘UNHCR annual report shows 42 million people uprooted worldwide’, UNHCR, 16 June 2009.
Evading censorship is already possible and censorship does not prevent the use of the internet.

Proposition itself concedes that authoritarian states in the vast majority of cases are unlikely to cut off access to the internet for their population entirely. For many people the internet is not about free speech but about economic benefits. Most don’t want to protest but rather carry on inane social discussions, play computer games and listen to music. Things that even authoritarian governments are happy to occur. This money is therefore not aimed at addressing the concerns of the vast majority of netizens. Those few who are concerned are already able to find ways around censorship for example proxies can be used to access external sites. China’s censorship system may be vast but it is only 40,000 attempting to watch hundreds of millions. Even China’s censors sometimes work at cross purposes as for example where weibo censored the official Xinhua news bulletin that Bo Xilai, former party chief in Chongqing, had been stripped of his party posts.[1] During this same event for the first time the weight of discussion has shown that the censors can fail to keep up and where the mass of the public really is interested in discussing something they can.[2] [1] MacKinnon, Rebecca, ‘The Not-So-Great Firewall of China’, ForeignPolicy, 17 April 2012. [2] Pei, Minxin, ‘The Paranoid Style in Chinese Politics’, Project Syndicate, 17 April 2012.
This will needlessly antagonise non-democratic countries

The relationships which democratic countries have with non-democratic countries are much too important to jeopradise with such interference. Democracies and non-democracies need to be able to live peacefully with each other and engage in economic contact. Having democracies supporting segments in a non-democracy’s population that is seen to be undermining the state not only sours relations but provides a direct point of contention that could potentially lead to conflict. Democracies already show that they are aware of the conflict they create through their promotion of human rights by toning down their rhetoric in relation to the most powerful non-democratic countries. The British Council has for example invited Liu Binjie, China’s censor in chief, to lead a delegation to the London Book Fair which is celebrating Chinese Literature.[1] It is double standards to be lauding autocrats in public and yet seeking to undermine their countries through helping dissidents. [1] Jian, Ma, ‘Britain’s Cultural Kowtow’, Project Syndicate, 12 April 2012.
We all have an obligation to help maintain freedom of speech.

That there is a right to freedom of speech does not mean that we have an obligation to make sure that everyone around the world has freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and expression is indeed a human right in the universal declaration of human rights however this is something that it is obligated for governments to uphold for their own people rather than for other countries to enforce. If governments are infringing on the freedoms of their people the correct way to counter this is through international diplomacy rather than seeking to undermine that state. The responsibility to protect, itself controversial, was only ever meant to apply to the very worst human rights violations - such as the genocide in Rwanda. If there are massacres of civilians and all other options have failed then there may be a need to intervene to prevent more killing. However violations of freedom of speech are not something that is time dependent. Diplomacy may often take a long time but can eventually work, as is being shown in Burma's opening up
Funding technologies to evade censorship could have immense benefits for very little cost

Funding such technologies is unlikely to result in large benefits or will result in escalating costs. China has billions invested in its online censorship activities. Any attempt to fund ways to counter this censorship would likely become involved in an online arms race if it wanted to do more than temporary good. This could end up being a costly on-going operation with very few benefits. The money would be better spent helping the truly needy from hunger than allowing the global middle classes to exercise their freedom of speech.
Violation of Sovereignty

Far from being a violation of sovereignty it should be considered that the internet is a global commons that needs to be defended against the encroachment of sovereignty. As Hillary Clinton has argued “The internet has become the public space of the 21st century – the world’s town square, classroom, marketplace, coffeehouse, and nightclub. We all shape and are shaped by what happens there, all 2 billion of us and counting.”[1] This means that national sovereignty cannot be considered to apply to the internet. If one part of the internet becomes fenced off then it affects the rest of the internet as well. [1] Clinton, Hillary, ‘Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Speech on Internet Freedom *updated*’, Secretaryclinton, 15 February 2011.
Defending hip hop artists’ right to free speech

The intervention of the state is necessary in order to ensure that aggressive forms of hip hop remain accessible only to adults, especially in neighbourhoods and home environments that are not part of a cohesive, caring community. Some degree of public control over the content of hip hop will also help to preserve the diversity, accessibility of the genre in the face of commercial dominance by violent forms of rap. Mainstream success in hip hop has become synonymous with gangsta rap, and with artists who have backgrounds that lend veracity to their lurid verses. However, many of these supposedly “authentic” experiences consist of little more than exaggeration and invented personas. When being interviewed about the controversial content of her son’s single “Fuck tha’ police”, the mother of rapper Ice Cube commented that “I don’t see [him] saying those curse words. I see him like an actor.” The existence of pornography attests to the market for forms of media that fulfil base and simplistic human fantasies. Much the same can be said for the violent and cynical content of rap singles. Unlike the relationship between cinema and pornography, however, many commentators appear to regard gangsta rap as being synonymous with hip hop – a position as deceptive as a film critic claiming that all movies are inevitably tied to pornography. The significant public profile and poor regulation of hip hop have meant that gangsta rap fans have become the genre’s dominant class of consumer. The amount of money that fans are willing to spend on singles, albums, concert tickets and associated branded goods means that labels that cultivate relationships with gangsta rappers have become the gatekeepers of the hip hop genre in general. “Conscious” rappers, who do not glorify violence, along with musicians working in other hip hop genres must work with labels that promote acts containing violent lyrics in order to publish their own music. Either consciously, or by design, the terrain of contemporary hip hop is hostile to musicians who are not prepared to discuss “guns, bitches and bling” in their work. This constitutes a significant barrier to rappers ability to communicate novel messages and listeners’ ability to receive them. It could be called a market failure – the pervasive public presence of gangsta rap has effectively denied an audience to other rappers. Classification has the potential to maximise the freedom and effectiveness of musical expression by hip hop artists who choose not to trade in brutality and misogyny. The alternative is to allow hip hop to continue to be dominated by businesses such as Death Row Records, Low Life Records and Machete Music.  This will lead to hip hop as a medium becoming inextricably linked with violent lyrics and the dubious businesses practices of gangsta labels’ bosses. Popular disengagement is much more likely under these circumstances, and will actively deny a voice, and opportunities, to musicians with a different perspective on hip hop.
Violent imagery can serve different purposes.

Calls for a ban on music that references or glorifies violence are frequently based on an overly simplistic understanding of contemporary and popular musical genres. It is instructive that the loudest voices of protest raised against violent content in hip hop and rock music are, overwhelmingly, white, middle class, middle-aged newspaper columnists. Any ban created under these circumstances would reduce the diversity and depth of popular musical genres, by preventing musicians from commenting- in any way- on violent events. Banning particular musical tracks due only to the fact that they discuss violent acts would be damaging to the creative industries and would not reflect methods currently used to classify and restrict content appearing in other media. Criminal acts are punished when an act results in a damaging outcome and because that act is performed with a particular dishonest or malicious intention. Generally, someone cannot be found guilty of murder if they did not intend to kill their victim. Similarly, it is unusual for films or videogames to be censored or banned because they happen to depict violent acts. The intention that underlies the use of graphic images or words must also be examined. As BBC director general Mark Thompson noted when discussing the controversial religious content of Jerry Springer: The Opera with freespeechdebate.com “… Jerry Springer I saw without feeling that it was offensive to me because the intention of the piece was so clearly a satire about an American talk show host and his world rather than the religious figures as such.” Classification boards will look at the context in which an offensive act is shown. The violence of war is portrayed vividly in Saving Private Ryan, but the film has not been banned on this basis. Private Ryan portrays violence and suffering in order to remind us of the inhumanity that pervaded the Second World War. It uses violence to make a didactic point, to move its audience to sympathy and disgust. If a film were to use images of extreme violence or suffering as a form of entertainment, inviting the audience to take pleasure in brutality, a classification board would try to restrict or censor its content. Comparably, “violent” music can use brutal language and themes to make moving and engaging observations about the world. Violent music does not automatically glorify violence, nor does it cause its audience to see violence as something that is glamorous. Listened to out of context, without any attempt to critically analyse the imagery of the song and the intentions of the artists, it is easy to condemn many acclaimed examples of popular music as containing violent lyrics. By giving into the populist pressure that is represented and generated by newspaper columnists and talk show hosts, we risk creating a chilling effect, not only on mainstream hip hop culture, but on any other musical form that dares to discuss themes that fall outside narrowly and arbitrarily defined limits of social acceptability.
Classification, not censorship

Crime and deviance existed in marginalised communities long before the creation of pop music or hip hop. Side proposition is attempting to claim that a particular genre of hip hop is harming efforts to improve living standards and social cohesion within these communities. Many of the problems associated with poor socialisation and a lack of social mobility in inner city areas can be linked to the closed, isolated nature of these communities – as the proposition comments correctly observe. However, these problems can be traced to a lack of positive engagement between these young people and wider society[1]. Violence may be discussed or depicted in popular culture for a number of reasons, but it is still comparatively rare- especially in mainstream music- to celebrate violence for violence’s sake. Violence is discussed in hip hop in a number of contexts. Frequently, as in British rapper Plan B’s single Ill Manors, or Cypress Hill’s How I Could Just Kill A Man, descriptions of violent behaviour or scenarios serve to illustrate negative or criminal attitudes and behaviours. These forms of conduct are not portrayed in a way that is intended to glorify them, but to invite comment on the social conditions that produced them. As the opposition side will discuss in greater detail below, the increased openness of the mainstream media also means that impoverished young people can directly address mainstream audiences. Proposition side contends that the impression of the world communicated to potentially marginalised adolescents by pop culture is dominated by the language and imagery of gangsta rap. Proposition side’s argument is that, in the absence of aggressive and negative messages, a more engaged and communitarian perspective on the world will flourish in schools and youth groups from Brixton and Tottenham to the Bronx and the banlieues. By controlling access to certain hip hop genres, young people made vulnerable and gullible by the desperation of poverty will supposedly start to see themselves as part of the social mainstream. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why? Because efforts at including and improving the social mobility of these young people are underwhelming and inadequate. Social services, youth leaders and educators are not competing to be heard above the din of hip hop – they are not being given the resources or support necessary to communicate effectively with young people. The nurturing environment that proposition side fantasises about creating will not spring into being fully formed if hip hop is silenced and constrained. The existence of an apparently confrontational musical genre should not be used to excuse policy failures such as the disproportionate use of the Metropolitan Police’s stop and search powers to arbitrarily detain and question young black men. [1] “Keeping up the old traditions.” The Economist, 24 August 2003.
Defending hip hop artists’ right to free speech

Banning one type of hip hop is not an effective way to intervene in a market that is in danger of dismantling itself. Governments are not record companies. They are not in a position to make nuanced judgements about the content, meaning and themes of singles and albums. In short, the state cannot be relied on to understand when a musician has produced a work of violent fantasy, or a piece of social commentary with broad appeal. The state can perform a positive correction for inequalities and failures in the hip hop market by subsidising niche or experimental performers, in the same way that is provides financial support to opera, theatre and the fine arts. The policy that proposition side seem to be advocating, however, would only do further harm the reputation of hip hop. Once officially censured by the state- which is still seen as a significant moral authority- it is likely that the public profile and popularity of hip hop will be further damaged. The ambivalent position of hip hop in popular culture, as both a commercially successful medium and the subject of wide scale condemnation, is a significant opportunity for the medium, rather than a spectre of its imminent demise. However, larger record companies will be more likely to disengage from hip hop culture if they believe that their businesses affairs might be compromised by intrusive government legislation.
Violent imagery can serve different purposes.

Hip hop is a diverse genre. The quote that opened this discussion is taken from a song by the English surrealist rapper Scroobius Pip. His albums cover themes entirely different from those found in “gangsta” rap. Similarly, artists such as MIA, Optimus Rhyme and the Wilcania Mob have used hip hop to discuss the conflict in Sri Lanka, computer games and life as a member of the aboriginal community in Australia. Each of these artists share a single common link. They all cater to a relatively niche market and have encountered little in the way of mainstream success. Rappers who write lyrics about cynicism and aggression- from Slim Shady to JayZ- have recorded numerous number one tracks and attracted a wide range of industry accolades. In 2006 the founder of Death Row records, a major gangsta rap label, was found to have assets valued at $7 million. It is clear that rap discussing crime and violence is the dominant genre within hip hop. It is clear that there is a significant popular and public appetite for rap of this type. As the comment opposite notes, there will always be a need for classification boards, as gratuitous or pornographic content will always form a significant part of the media landscape. Moreover, despite efforts to control access to such content, pornography and wilfully violent movies continue to make money. Hip hop appeals to a similar market – individuals seeking to indulge violent fantasies via the safe, sanitised environment of their iPod’s headphones, as discussed above. There are no nuances of context and meaning to discuss in gangsta rap, only potentially damaging content that, at best, should be regulated and monitored.
A ban will be ineffective

Modern policy making does not rely on the force of law to bring about social change. This is an archaic approach to addressing the harms and deficiencies that might appear in communities. We can reasonably assume that any ban on violent lyrics will be linked to wider reaching education and information campaigns that attempt to address misogynist attitudes and violent crime. Concerns expressed above that other hip hop genres, and musical innovation in general, might suffer could be adequately countered by offering subsidies and support to non-confrontational forms of hip hop. In this way legal regulation and policy interventions could help the music industry to address the more pernicious aspects of hip hop, while promoting its more innovative side. This reflects the state’s role in promoting and safeguarding free speech, by giving those who do not have access to public forums the means to have their voice heard, while ensuring that the principle of free speech is not abused or used to limit the liberal freedoms of others. These contentions adequately address the problems that the opposition side links to the distribution of illegal and unregulated content via the internet. The implication that a ban on music containing violent lyric might increase piracy is irrelevant – states will still act to address all forms of piracy, and measures taken against the violation of copyright online will be just as effective against prohibited content.
There needs to be action to deter more cyber attacks

At the moment the response to cyber-attacks has essentially been nothing. It is however clear that some response is needed as without a reaction there is no deterrence; the attacks will keep coming until something is done. The number of cyber-attacks and the sensitivity of the information stolen have been increasing over recent years and as more and more work is done online and more and more systems are connected to the Internet so cyber-attacks become more attractive. There needs to be a deterrent and the best deterrent is to make sure that such attacks are costly. As these attacks are usually cross border (and in this debate we are only concerned with cross border attacks) then the only way to create a cost is through sanctions. These sanctions can either hit the assailant directly or else hit his government so encouraging them to crack down on hacking emanating from their country. It should be remembered that China argues that it does not launch cyber-attacks[1] meaning that any such attacks from China must duly be private. If this is the case then sanctions are the best way of prompting internal law enforcement. Sanctions therefore encourage all nations where there are cyber criminals to make sure they take such cyber-crime seriously. If they do not get their own cyber criminals under control then they may be affected by sanctions. [1] China Daily, ‘China denies launching cyberattacks on US’, China.org.cn, 20 February 2013, http://www.china.org.cn/world/2013-02/20/content_28003282.htm
Sanctions will prevent escalation in cyber conflict

Cyber conflict favours the offence; when the defender is successful they gain nothing and impose no harm on the attacker who is free to try again elsewhere. The attackers are free to attack until they get past the defences somewhere.[1] That the attacks don’t risk lives helps to encourage an offensive mindset as makes it seem like there is no downside to attempting to dominate your opponent.[2] This means the only cyber response is to attack the attacker so that the same advantages apply. The result is that cyber-attacks have a very real danger of long term tension or escalation. If one side is losing a conflict where both sides are attempting to steal the other's intellectual property (or the other has little to steal) the response may be something like the stuxnet attack that involves physical damage, this then would probably be considered an illegal use of force creating a thin line between a cyber-war and a real war.[3] When the cyber war involves physical damage as the US has warned there then may be a military response. Sanctions are a way to apply pressure without this risk of escalation into a military conflict. [1] Lin, Herbert, ‘Escalation Dynamics and Conflict Termination in Cyberspace’, Strategic Studies Quarterly, Fall 2012, http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2012/fall/lin.pdf p.51 [2] Rothkopf, David, ‘The Cool War’, Foreign Policy, 20 February 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/20/the_cool_war_china_cyberwar [3] Zetter, Kim, ‘Legal Experts: Stuxnet Attack on Iran Was Illegal ‘Act of Force’, Wired, 25 March 2013, http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/stuxnet-act-of-force/
Sanctions require international agreement to be effective

When is it legitimate to use sanctions in response to an action? Any individual state (or group of states) can use sanctions against any other state. However for these sanctions to be effective they need to have broad based support. Sanctions by an individual country are unlikely to change the behaviour of an aggressor as they will be able to get around the sanctions. Moreover for any country that is a member of the WTO imposing sanctions may be considered illegal allowing the other country to counter them with similar measures. The problem then is that there is no international response to hacking and it is unlikely there will be agreement on such a response. When countries like China deny that hacking comes from them are they likely to support the use of sanctions against such actions? Sanctions for much worse actions are often bogged down when they are attempted at the international level such as China and Russia vetoing sanctions against Syria in response to the violence there.[1] [1] United Nations Security Council, ‘Security Council fails to adopt draft resolution on Syria that would have threatened sanctions, due to negative votes of China, Russian Federation’, un.org, SC/10714, 19 July 2012, https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/sc10714.doc.htm