Speech Should Be Censored (Anti Freedom of Speech)

Thanks for your prompt response. For the sake of the following arguments, I refer you to my introductory contention: "[Speech] should be censored reasonably, morally and by democratic vote." There are three criteria that I contend must be met for censorship to be instituted. Keep this in mind for the following arguments. I argue that due to precedent we have the ability to expand censorship if necessary for the preservation of society. Sometimes we have conflicting civil liberties in which one form is deemed paramount to another (Preserving the life of society members is deemed a paramount civil liberty by the U.S.). I will address my opponent's rebuttals and points and defend my own under the same headings as my opponent. NATURAL RIGHTS "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." I do not agree that governments solely exist in order to protect free speech. My opponent has listed three forms of natural rights: life, liberty and property. Freedom of speech is classified as a liberty, as are many other things. My contention, is that when you have conflicting liberties between two or more parties or concerning government security you obviously have to choose one over the other. (Example" If someone were to tell others where the U.S. nuclear silos were, it'd jeopardize the safety of the country. On one hand you have the person's right to free speech, on the other you have everyone else' right to life. Our society preserves life over speech.) So while I don't deny the existence of natural rights, I do deny the inference that governments exist solely to protect free speech. CONSTITUTION LAW This is a matter of semantics. Interpretation of free speech may be left up to the Supreme Court but in the matter of this debate, it has been defined as, "The right to speak without censorship or restraint by government." All this tells me is that the Supreme Court agrees with my position on free speech. They agree that there are scenarios it has to be sacrificed in order to preserve other liberties and other natural rights. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) So Freedom of Speech is already censored by the U.S. government and while it'd be appealing to authority to say this settles the matter, I contend that my opponent's introduction of this point supports my position, not his. And I agree, the First amendment is not absolute. But before the supreme court added addendums or interpretations of 'freedom of speech,' it initially meant something else. All I am saying is that established by precedent, the supreme court can add new 'interpretations' and 'addendums' to the first amendment if the democratic public deems it necessary. A MORE IMPORTANT REASON My opponent seems to be straw manning my position by comparing it to Hitler or Stalin's regimes. I am not saying that people cannot contend with the government. That would fall under the classification of 'immoral' or 'unreasonable' and it wouldn't be a 'democratic vote' if a dictator enforced the law whimsically. The fruit of a dictatorship may be poisonous, but that doesn't apply to this situation. We are referring to democratic decisions that may preserve life or property over speech. The censorship has a limited scope as supplied in the definition of my contention, we are not giving limitless power to the government. By the same rules of ethical standard, the government and its employees are also limited by censorship. Also, my opponent asserts: The idea of natural rights and the Constitution both dictate free speech, but there is a more important reason: Free speech is essential to democracy. Free speech is necessary for democracy and so is life and so is liberty and so is property and so are many other civil liberties. And when they fall into contention you have to take one side or the other. You have to enforce one at the detriment of another. (Example: In the case of abortions. We say that people have the right to life, but we also say a mother has the right to her freedom of her body. They are conflicting civil liberties and as such, one is enforced and the other is pushed aside.) MAJORITY RULES, MINORITY RIGHTS Yes, I have said that it would be a democratic majority deciding which forms of speech would be censored, but 'unreasonably' waiving the rights of the minority would be 'immoral.' These were two other prerequisites I cited for the ability to enforce censorship. Now if the minority is the KKK and they are spreading hateful rhetoric about killing black people, then yes, I believe there are grounds to muzzle them, but there'd have to be proof of how this speech is impeding others' rights. However, it'd be 'unreasonable' and 'immoral' to whimsically decide that people between the age of 19-20 shouldn't be allowed to speak in public. There is no room for this under the contention I supplied. Not all speech can be censored, in fact, much of it can't be under my contention. However, some of it (has been) should. THE PROBLEM WITH EXPANDING CENSORSHIP First let me point out that it is unnecessary for 'expansion' of censorship for my points to be valid. Perhaps there are no grounds for further expansion of censorship beyond the censorship that already exists. But censorship already does exist (which supports my BOP) and I assert it should. My opponent hasn't countered the pre-existing censorship in the U.S. and as a matter of debate, I find this to be a dropped argument. Bearing that in mind, I will address his following rebuttals. My opponent asks, "who defines what constitutes a violation of national security?" And I'll respond by saying, it has already been decided. There are laws against it. And it has been decided through legislation via the democratic system, both reasonably and on moral grounds for the preservation of lives. Perhaps all comprehensible laws possible against speech to prevent breeches in national security have already been passed and if that is the case, then expansion is unnecessary (My debate doesn't hinge on expansion, it hinges on the suppression of unchecked speech). But if it isn't, then expansion should occur as its precedent did. Through the democratic system. And as for the mosque example: If there were grounds to assume that a mosque being built on ground zero would lead to violence against the Muslims or against the Christians in that area, then I find that it wouldn't be unreasonable, for the sake of protecting lives, to relocate the mosque. And in how this applies to freedom of speech, if someone is spewing hateful rhetoric against Muslims on the steps of a mosque, and the Muslims were known to be violent, it would make sense for the police to quiet the man for his own safety to prevent violence. Precedent exists for this as well. And if there was reason to believe that every single mosque presented an immediate and overt security risk, then it would make sense to not allow them. But they don't, so it shouldn't. And I think this is a bit off track from the subject. EXAMPLES These are only examples that are debatable. Just because the legality of certain situations hasn't been explored, doesn't mean it shouldn't. We already have a tone of legal precedent for censorship. CONCLUSION My opponent has sought to redefine 'freedom of speech' as subject to interpretation. The definition was provided as speech 'without censorship' or 'restraint.' It is an unshakable position and the U.S. government already does censor speech for the sake of other, higher civil liberties and social benefits. Perhaps, within the constraints of my contention, there is no further room for expansion of censorship. Perhaps censorship has already reached its logical capacity and that there is no room to further expand it 'reasonably' 'morally' or 'democratically.' (My opponent seems to concentrate too much on the 'democratic' aspect to my contention and ignores the other two.) But he has not contended the already established precedent for freedom of speech. And as such, I find he drops the argument. This isn't primarily a debate about how much should be censored or in what cases or under what jurisdiction. It is a debate about whether or not, in any forum, 'freedom of speech should be censored.' And I, as well as the U.S. government (though not it's constitution) say yes.