query: Individual Liberty outweighs any potential harms  Whatever the potential harms that may arise from unrestrained free speech; they pale in comparison to the harm that arises from banning an individual from freely expressing his own mind.  It is a matter of the upmost individual liberty that one’s thoughts and feelings are one’s own, and that individuals are free to express those thoughts and feelings openly. A prohibition on this liberty is a harm of incalculable value – it strikes right to the core of what it means to be in individual person.

positive: speech debate free challenge law human rights philosophy political philosophy house Liberty is an intangible right – restrictions on liberty can be equally intangible and entirely transitory based on the circumstances.  What we know though is that real harm is derived from defaming an individual’s reputation, broadcasting racist abuse and shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre. It is wrong to ignore real, tangible harm in favour of preventing fanciful and intangible harms.

negative: nothing sacred house believes christians should be allowed wear cross Freedom of expression, like any right is fairly meaningless if it’s only respected when it’s convenient.  Recognising rights when there is no inconvenience to anybody involved is verging on the irrelevant. This is, perhaps, especially true, with freedom of expression. If I recognise your right to express yourself freely - so long as I never have to see, hear or be aware of you doing – rather misses the point.  Likewise if the individual is free only so long as there aren’t any rules saying they shouldn’t be, goes somewhat against the grain of defending liberties. Indeed the history of the idea that people can exercise all the freedom they like as long as it’s out of sight, out of mind and doesn’t break any rules is not a noble one; among other absurd forms of “freedom”, it was used to justify both segregation and apartheid.  Although the effect and extent of the prejudice is clearly different here, the logic is the same: you are completely free to do whatever I think you should do.  Having a right to freely express oneself means to do so when it is inconvenient, challenging or offensive to others [i] . The rules being broken here were, as has already been mentioned, fairly petty and the sanctions comparatively minor – although the loss of someone’s livelihood should not be understated. The case is important because of the precedent it sets; what if the two women were risking not just their jobs but their liberty?  The UK considers itself to be a tolerant country. Tolerance means accepting those declarations and statements that are inconvenient. If the law is incapable of defending a statement as benign as wearing a small piece of jewellery, it is worrying to think how it would cope with something more forthright.  [i] UN Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 18, 19 and 23.

negative: What is imperative to understand is that principles are never the end result; they are simply the means to an end. We rely on certain principles like the philosophy of liberty and freedom because in general they have positive outcomes on our lives. The question which rises on this point is what principle, protection freedom, brings more benefits to us.  The freedom of no one knowing your whereabouts and the right to privacy may sound good in theory, but the truth is they don’t have any effect on the individual. No matter if my phone is connected to the NSA headquarters or not, my day remains exactly the same and nothing changes. I face the same obstacles and joys and I feel the same emotions, as I am not aware of this tracking. But if we prioritize protection over freedom we see that there is significant change in someone’s life. As the government will stop and prevent more crimes happening by tracing and intercepting calls and e-mail s, the lives of the citizens will be drastically improved. Any stopped crime means that the potential victim of that crime has a dramatic improvement in their safety and quality of life.  In the end, we clearly see that protection must be prioritized over freedom as it has more practical benefits upon the population.

negative: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic Freedom of speech  Artists ought to be allowed to express themselves, and display the world they see, as they see it.  Freedom of speech is considered integral to the modern democracy, and with good reason! Free speech makes a vital contribution to a plurality of ideas. It is only when a great number of ideas are expressed and challenged, such that people’s beliefs remain fluid, and can be formed and reformed, that we are able to arrive at such a point where we are likely to progress. This ‘marketplace of ideas’ prevents us from stagnating; from continuing harmful practices and modes of thought simply because they are traditional.  The more free speech is limited, the less able we are to access this plurality of ideas, and thus the less able we are to truly challenge harmful habits.

negative: law general philosophy life house believes suicide should be criminal offence The question whether or not human life is "sacred" should not intrude on the issue of suicide legislation because no clear proof is possible one way or the other. We respect human rights because we value the liberty and autonomy of individuals; we want to be able to make our own decisions and we likewise affirm the right of others to make their own decisions. The free, autonomous decision to take one’s own life should be respected as a legitimate exercise of one’s individual liberty. Human liberty is sacrosanct and should only be limited where clear social harm is caused; suicide affects only the individual and so it should be permitted

negative: Smoking is a choice of lifestyle the government should not intervene with  Freedom of choice is what differentiates democracies from dictatorships, autocracies or any other form of government. It goes by the principle, that the individual is free to do, whatever he or she wants, as long as this choice does not limit the freedom of choice, bodily integrity or any other human right of another individual in society.  This also applies to smoking. While the law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally it should not stop those taking risks themselves.  The state allows individuals to make lifestyle choices that endanger their life all the time. Because there is not difference between smoking and the other life endangering activities, banning or severely regulating smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom.

negative: The value placed upon the right to free expression reflects its ability to enable the articulation of new, compelling and beneficial ideas, alongside damaging forms of speech. In liberal democratic societies, the potential inherent in free speech has always preserved it against limitation by legislation and- to a great extent- by social norms. A natural (as opposed to legal) person who makes statements that are openly offensive, or are inaccurate or misleading may also be able to articulate profound and useful ideas and observations. This is also true for certain groups formed by association – such as political parties.  However, corporations as they are popularly understood- as business entities- are constrained by law only to act in a certain way. In the United States, the individuals responsible for deciding on the actions of a corporation do so on the explicit understanding that they owe a particular duty to the individuals who make up that corporation. This legal duty takes the form of an obligation to run the business to maximise the value of the shares [1] in the business that each of its constituent investors holds. This duty has done a lot to promote investment in new businesses and to keep the reputation of established firms intact. It ensures that confidence in corporations is not undermined by speculation that they might be pursuing the wrong goals and it allows incompetent directors to be removed from their positions before they can harm investors' interests. However, this law also makes it necessary to limit the other rights that corporate persons might have access to.  The Unitarian commentator Tom Stites puts the situation bluntly. “Corporations express the collective investment goals of shareholders... Fiduciary responsibility confines all but closely held corporations to this singular goal. By shutting off other values to focus solely on pursuit of profit... corporations are by their nature immoral...” [2] In other words, the boards of directors of large corporations, in most circumstances will only be able to pursue a profit motive.  The type of personhood that money-making corporations utilise under American law is a personhood that comes complete with a very specific personality and set of goals. A corporate person that is formed by a collective of shareholders, each of whom have invested in the assets held by this individual, will be bound to engage profit motivated behaviour when it acts [3] . Executives and employees of the corporation, will find their jobs at risk if they choose to forgo profit-led behaviour in favour of directing a corporation to take actions informed by different social and economic principles.  An individual's right to free speech cannot not be abrogated in a broad fashion by a liberal government, in part because he is, to borrow an archaic phrase, “the captain of his own soul” – an individual with free will, able to be influenced by argument and to develop new ideas and perspectives upon the subject of his speech. A profit making corporation, however, is obliged to follow a single set of behavioural imperatives. If it is not attempting to maximise its profits, it will seek to protect the value of its interests and the efficiency of its operations. Where it is able to speak freely, a corporation will always use its right to expression for predictable ends. It is easy to envision scenarios in which corporate bodies will use the right to free speech to spread false or inaccurate information or to distort open debate if there was profit to be gained or protected.  Human behaviour is diverse and the ideas that we express can be altered by reason and the influence of argument. Through legal measures that were intended to protect shareholders investment in profit-making corporations, corporate behaviour has become limited, closed minded and immune to persuasive debate.  [1] Mills v Mills (1938) CLR 150  [2] “How corporations became ‘persons’”. uuworld.org, 01 May 2003.   [3] Bakan, J. “The Corporation”, Free Press, 2004

negative: Uses of free speech motivated by personal gain should still be protected.  The primary objection of the supporters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to the decision taken in the Citizens United case seems to be that the objective of some corporations is usually the maximisation of the profits that their shareholders’ or owners receive [1] . Other considerations, we are told, take second place in the hierarchy of needs that corporations create for themselves [2] . Opponents of the Act and critics of the supreme court decision on Citizens United have attempt to claim that, because corporations’ behaviour is profit-led, corporate entities will use an unrestricted right to free speech to lie, cheat and manipulate the public [3] with the intention of boosting their returns. In other words, corporations will not use a right to free speech with the responsible aim of advocating for social change, but to enhance their own position as businesses or membership organisations.  In the sections of the amendments to the United States constitution that deal with the free speech rights of groups of individuals, no distinction is made between businesses, political parties, unions, or any other sort of gathering of citizens with similar interests and aims. As far as the core principles of the legal and governmental culture of the US are concerned [4] , all of these organisations are “corporate”.  The first amendment to the US constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment or religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therefore; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to government for redress of grievances.” [5]  The right to peaceably assemble draws no distinction between peaceful assembly for political purposes and peaceful assembly for other reasons. Discrimination of this type would only have served to undermine the wide range of freedoms that the Bill of Rights guaranteed. After all, people obtain power through acting collectively. Any limit on the forms that collective action can take is also a limit on the ability of groups within society to respond to powerful actors by leveraging strength of numbers. “Corporation”- despite its contemporary connotations- remains a very broad and generic term. Even a large corporation is still directed by the approval and consent of its members. Restrictions on corporate speech represent of violation of the individual’s right to free speech  Irrespective of the content of what an individual has to say, of the statements that he makes in both the public and the private spheres, liberal democratic constitutions (not just the US constitution) impose very few restrictions on that individual’s right to speak. An individual that makes baseless statements that harm the social standing and reputation of an individual may be subject to civil proceedings, but is extremely rare for individuals to be censored or criminalised merely for expressing ideas or opinions. Even if the individual is lying, advocating extreme political ideologies or acting in his own interests while claiming to serve those of others, legal responses to his behaviour will be relatively limited and costly to deploy.  Corporations, as noted above, are often driven by acquisitive and self-interested objectives. Individuals are just as capable of being motivated by monetary gain, and are just as capable of concealing this motive as corporations. However objectionable the use of free speech by natural persons has been in the past, states have always encountered significant protest and dissent when they have attempted to control the content of individual expression. As discussed in a previous debatepedia article [6] , the possibility that an individual, natural or legal, might abuse free speech, or might be driven solely by profit, does not cancel out that individual's free speech rights.  [1] “Town by town, Vermont tackles corporate personhood”. The Guardian, 05 March 2012.   [2] “How corporations became ‘persons’”. uuworld.org, 01 May 2003.   [3] “Peculiar people”. The Economist, 24 March 2011.   [4] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [5] The Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.   [6] “Constitutional Rights of the Corporate Person”. Yale Law Journal. (1982) 91 Yale LJ 1641

negative: While individual liberty is an important good, there are cases in which a Government can be justified in behaving in a paternalistic manner, even to prevent individuals harming themselves. Few people debate the law that you must wear a seatbelt in cars, for example.  Moreover, cannabis can harm others and many of the ways in which it does so would not be possible to counter with regulation. In the words of philosopher George Sher, "Drug use harms strangers by involving them in the collisions, shootouts and other catastrophes to which the impaired and overly aggressive drug users are prone. It harms family members by depriving them of the companionship and income of their addicted partners. It harms fetuses by exposing them to a toxic and permanently damaging prenatural environment. It harms children by subjecting them to the abuse of their drug-addled parents"1. 1 Wolff, J. (n.d.). Regulation of Recreational Drugs. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from University College London:

negative: Corporates that attempt to address social issues damage political discourse.  Corporate personhood is a challenging concept for liberal democracies. On the one hand, the legal fiction that underlies personhood enables groups of citizens to quickly and efficiently join forces to make collective grievances heard and to use weight of numbers to match the influence of wealthier individuals. However, corporations, particularly in the business context, can also be large and unaccountable organisations.  This proposition must address two issues. First, whether acts of free expression engaged in by corporations generally should benefit from the same protection as acts of expression engaged in by individuals. Second, whether there should be more scrutiny of the membership and objectives of corporations – or whether corporations should receive rights conditional on their activities.  If we follow the reasoning in the Citizens United case, which radically changed the interpretation of corporate speech rights in American law, it is clear that acts of corporate speech should benefit from a high standard of protection. Corporations can take the form of churches, trades unions or political campaigning groups [1] . The fiction of personhood allows these organisations to operate more freely, ignoring many of the bureaucratic burdens associated with partnership organisations. It also allows citizens to found non-profit making groups, such as PACs, without the risk of being made liable for the debts that those groups generate.  Profit-led corporations may be used to publish examples of free expression, without necessarily wishing to influence or misuse the ideas expressed. The publishers of political science textbooks, of annotated editions of Kapital and of Capitalism and Freedom are still profit-led businesses. In short, free speech in liberal democracies cannot be exercised effectively without the ability to disseminate speech among a large audience, and without the ability to co-operate with others in order to do so. For this reason, where a corporation is permitted to engage in free expression, the contents of its acts of expression should not be subject to restrictions that differ radically from those applied to individual acts of expression.  But what about the second issue? Natural persons are allowed- as a general rule- a broad right to free expression. This right is subject to certain caveats, but there is always a presumption that expression should be free and subject to as few limitations as possible. Should corporations benefit from the same presumption? No. The proposition side suggests that corporations’ access to constitutional free speech rights should depend on their goals, objectives and membership.  Corporations, unlike natural persons, are inflexible in their motives and influences. Free speech is preferable to conflict because it acts as a conduit for compromise, but before compromise can take place it must be possible for the participants and audience in a discussion or an exchange of views to be influenced by their opponents’ arguments. Profit-led corporations owe a very specific duty to their shareholders- the individual who support and constitute the corporation. Under the corporate-laws of almost all liberal democracies, business corporations must act in their interests, and this invariably means generating profit and increasing the value of the equity that each shareholder has in the business [2] . Because this duty is a legal one, and failure to uphold it can be cause to remove corporate decision makers (directors and executives) from their jobs and even to bring them to trial.  This behavioural imperative is absolute. Were a business corporation to announce that it would no longer operate with profit as its core priority, it would collapse [3] . Even if this process might not be inevitable in the real world, it still informs corporate culture to a significant degree. Natural persons are flexible and pragmatic; at the very least they have the potential to be so. Profit-led corporations are not. Free speech rights exercised by a profit-led corporation will always be exercised in the service of the profit motive.  [1] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US  [2] Bakan, J. “The Corporation”, Free Press, 2004  [3] “Kay needs to replace ‘shareholder value’ with ‘corporate value’.” Professor Simon Deakin. Financial times, 20 March 2012.

negative: speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression Offering amnesty will not serve the cause of justice, it is responding to the symptom not the cause. It is unfortunate that individual bloggers suffer at the hands of governments, but seeking to give them amnesty will only serve to anger the regimes, leading to even further oppression and stifling of dissent. This unfortunately means that an individual is saved even as their actions may result in further reductions in the liberties of those who remain. As seen in China, the process of reform is slow and gradual. Upsetting that process could well increase the repression Western peoples feel to be so reprehensible.

negative: The freedom of speech can be curtailed when it represents a serious threat to society  Freedom of speech certainly may be curtailed when real harms can be shown to arise from it. Extremist sites serve as centers of dangerous dissent, whose members threaten all of society. They promote a message that is fundamentally bad speech, because it cannot it cannot be argued with and promotes aims that are so anathema to free society that its dissemination represents a true threat to people’s safety. The threat extremists represent to free society demands that their right to speech online be curtailed. [1] By blocking these sites, ISPs certainly are denying some freedom of speech, but it is a necessarily harmful form of speech that has no value in the global commons. Thus, there is essentially no real loss of valuable speech in censoring extremist websites.  [1] Kaplan, E. “Terrorists and the Internet”. Council on Foreign Relations. 8 January 2009.

negative: People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies  It is important that we have the liberty to do what we want to our own bodies. People are allowed to eat or drink to their detriment. In many countries it is legal to take one's life. Why then, should people not be allowed to harm themselves through cannabis use? (Assuming that cannabis use is harmful. In most cases, this is highly debatable.)  Smoking cannabis may have effects on others, such as through the effects of passive smoking. However, regulation has been brought in to minimize the effects on others for alcohol and cigarettes, such as bans on smoking in public places, and the same thing could be done for cannabis.

negative: Liberty  Liberty is the foundation stone of society. Every individual must be free to do as they choose and one part of freedom is the freedom to walk away from work when you are asked. Forcing sportspeople to represent their nation in international competition is would be a kind of unfree labour very similar to involuntary servitude, or to take a more recent example conscription. They would be forced to work without their consent and for a considerably less good reason than defence of the nation. By requiring sportspeople to represent their nations we are forcing individuals to take part in actions, which, in their view, don't bring them any benefit. This is clearly the case as they rejected participating in them in the first place.  We are also ignoring that those who do not wish to take part may have legitimate reasons for rejecting a call up. This may be a fear of industry or protesting against the policies of their sport’s governing body. For example, Hilditch is one of three senior national team players who refused to participate in the Nations Cup, to protest Rugby Canada’s pay-to-play system for women in non-World Cup years.(1)  The thing that is certain is that there is no one size fits all policy which would be generally embraced by all the sportsmen. We must let them decide which course of action best suits their interest. As we have embraced the individual freedom as a core principle of our society, we must let these people shape their lives however they want.  (1) Toronto Star, ‘Canada players refuse “pay-to-play”’, Scrum Queens, July 2011,

negative: Oppression within religious communities  Blasphemy laws can be used to enforce oppressive and exclusionary practices within religions. The proposition side have gone out of their way to highlight the harm that can be done to religions by actors external to the religious group. However, this analysis does not fit so comfortably with the problems that occur when a member of a religious community wishes to make controversial and divisive statements about their own religion.  Dissenters within a religious group may often face exclusion from their communities and hostility from friends and family. The current law of western liberal democracies ensures that social disapproval does not transform into threats or violent conduct directed at these individuals. In this way, liberal democratic states recognise the right to speak freely without fear of violent or disproportionate repercussions, irrespective of the social and cultural standards enforced by the community that an individual might belong to.  By criminalising blasphemy, proposition run the risk of discouraging religious dissent within religious communities. Heterodox thinkers who want to share their views on their religion with other believers, must now run the dual risks of effective exile from a social environment that they consider to be their home and prosecution by the state. Anti-blasphemy laws would give communities the ability to indirectly harm and intimidate anyone holding controversial opinions, by directing state power- in the form of prosecutors and the police- against them. Further, anti-blasphemy laws might simply discourage free expression of this type, the prospect of prosecution being sufficient to discourage controversial statements and discussions.  Religions- even if based on divine revelation- develop through human debate, thought and discussion. The proposition position would harm the development of religions if it were realised. It would balance the environment of collective discourse within a religion in favour of conservative and reactionary thinkers.  It should also be noted that it is the state which drafts the law and its organs then apply it, deciding which cases will or will not be prosecuted. It might be enforced unevenly by the government, thus favouring certain religions and victimizing others. It could be used to limit the expression of unpopular ideas, which are the ones that need the most protection, as has happened in the past with the work of artists criticizing the social and political mores of the time with previous cases showing their books being banned from libraries or their paintings from art galleries. Take for example the banning of Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses in numerous states around the world. (Bald, M. 2006)

negative: Hate crime enhancements are an attack on free speech  Hate crimes are crimes that are based on an idea that the perpetrator had prior to the crime. The crime itself is no different from any other crime except that it is punished more harshly. Why is this so? Because we are punishing an idea. All forms of violent crime, whether they are murders, rapes, or beatings are an expression of hatred toward another human being.  To add more punishment to a crime because it represents a particular kind of hate (an idea) is to unfairly distinguish between different violent acts and trivialize those violent acts that do not appear to be motivated by prejudice hate. This is unjust because the idea itself does not cause harm, and is in fact legal in most cases (with the exception of direct incitement to violence), as racist or prejudiced statements and ideas are not illegal in most western liberal democracies.  We allow extreme and prejudiced ideas to be legal because we recognise the value of free speech and open discourse in debating and discussing ideas, so as to best allow for progress in human thought. Hate crime enhancements constitute an attack on this as they make an individual liable for harsher punishments for his actions if he holds certain views, and thus the law unfairly discriminates against these particular viewpoints and not against others, and so hate crime enhancements are unjust.

negative: e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy Physical risk is not the only risk that people worry about. Denying someone their liberties such as privacy or freedom of expression does not pose a physical risk to them but that act is still wrong and it is still worth worrying about. Citizens have the right to go about their own business without their government spying on them. They should not have to concern themselves with what information the government does or does not have.

negative: The government’s primary duty is to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens. Censoring speech is a clear attack on the right to free expression. Governments can use the criminal code to ensure people are protected. Acts that physically harm people or directly encourage others to use violence are already illegal and these laws can be enforced without violating an individual’s constitutional rights. [1]  [1] Kaminer, Wendy and Femi Otitoju, “Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech” (Debate) Intelligence2. Retrieved 2011-08-24.

negative: The state permits individuals to risk harming themselves only where such risks can be independently scrutinised and regulated  A distinction should be made between socially legitimatized recreational violence- such as rugby or boxing- and stigmatized recreational violence- such as S&M [i] . Rugby, ice hockey or motor racing must, of necessity, occur in public. Each of these events incorporates large numbers of competitors and is regulated by a referee. It is not possible for a Rugby player to be forced to play a match against his will, nor will he be prevented from leaving the field if he is injured or feels threatened. Indeed, referees can force players to withdraw if they believe they are at risk.  Where violent sports events take place without any form of official sanction or oversight, their size makes them easy to detect, and legal principles such as negligence and ineffective consent make them easy to prosecute.  Society permits violent public events such as rugby, while condemning violent private entertainments such as S&M partly because consent, capacity and safety are much easier to determine in a public context.  In short, individuals are allowed to consent to the risks inherent in participating in a rugby match because the state- and society at large- is satisfied that sufficient safeguards exist to ensure that players’ consent is informed – that the risks they will be exposed to are foreseeable. This level of control and accountability cannot be generally guaranteed within individuals’ private sexual relationships.  Although S&M practices, when properly conducted, do not carry a risk of permanent harm and are not likely to result in non-consensual activity, oversight of participant’s behavior is simply not possible. Sexuality is inherently private and individual sexual acts are closed off from public discussion.  [i] Farrugia, Paul, ‘The Consent Defence in Sport and Sadomasochism’ (1997) Auckland University Law Review, 8 (2), 472

negative: The state should keep alcohol legal in order to maximize citizens’ rights.  Governments are not there to be the mothers of citizens, but should allow people to freely live their lives as long as they do not hurt others.  A government might have the wish to build a society that is obedient, productive and without flaws. This may also mean a society without alcohol, cigarettes, drugs or any other addictive substances. Such a society might have its benefits in a short term, but seen long term it has more unsatisfied individuals.  With drinking alcohol responsibly no one is getting harmed; in many cases not even the individual, as it is actually beneficial for the health. A glass of wine per day is good for decreasing the risk of cancer and heart disease, scientists say. [1]  So if someone in society has decided that it is good for them for whatever reason possible to use a substance that impacts only them, the state should not prevent them from doing so. This is because the society has been made from the different individuals, which lead different lifestyles and therefore have very opposing opinions views on what freedom is. A society that is free and where individuals are happy is a society where individuals engage more and also give more back to the society. So if alcohol will make the people happy and then more productive, we should maintain status quo.  [1] Bauer J., Is wine good for you ?, published 6/4/2008,  , accessed 08/14/2011

negative: marriage society gender family house would ban arranged marriages eu countries When the harm spills over into society, the personal becomes public. Arranged marriages do pose provable harms to the women of diaspora communities in the European Union. In such situations where vulnerable individuals are at risk, the state has a right to step in. This is already the case in other issues linked to inter-marital relations, such as the criminalisation of rape within marriage in Britain. [1]  Although the threats posed by arranged marriages are not always so clear-cut, the fact that within them they contain the potential for women to be abused and ill-treated means that state intervention is required. The harm that could arise as a result is that of continued threats to women in African and Asian ex-patriot communities across the EU.  [1] ‘Guideline on rape: in marriage or by a partner,’ Rape Crisis -  (accessed 23 September 2012)

negative: Collective Bargaining is a Right.  Collective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.  This is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state. [1]  [1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011

negative: To not promote the truth of events is contrary to the duty, and to the right of free speech, of a responsible media  The media has two jobs; first, it has a duty to report on what people care about, and second, it has a duty to report on things that seriously influence society. Muzzling the media’s ability to disseminate information by preventing reporting on violent crimes can only do harm to society. The media has a fundamental duty to report on anything that may influence the lives of the citizens it reaches. This is particularly true of the state-run media, which is meant to be free of political influence and is not as dependent upon ad revenues and thus not as prone to sensationalist reporting. Beyond its duty to inform, the media, like all bodies and individuals in society have a right to freedom of speech. This must extend to the right to report on things that are ugly and that frighten people. It is better that people be informed of the truth by a free media and be terrified than to leave people without knowledge of the real seriousness of criminality. Fundamentally, the right to freedom of speech and of expression must be protected. If the media should give way on the issue of violent crimes it loses all credibility as a genuine font of truth. [1] To protect the basic rights of citizens, the right of the media to report on violent crimes must be upheld.  [1] PUCL Bulletin. “Freedom of the Press”. People’s Union for Civil Liberties. July 1982.

negative: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify A ban will further marginalise young members of impoverished communities  Hip hop is an extremely diverse musical genre. Surprisingly, this diversity has evolved from highly minimal series of musical principles. At its most basic, raping consists of nothing more than rhyming verses that are delivered to a beat. This simplicity reflects the economically marginalised communities that hip hop emerged from. All that anyone requires in order to learn how to rap, or to participate in hip hop culture, is a pen, some paper and possibly a disc of breaks – the looped drum and bass lines that are used to time rap verses. Thanks to its highly social aspect, hip hop continues to function as an accessible form of creative expression for members of some of impoverished communities in both the west and elsewhere in the world.  Point 7 suggests that free speech flourishes when we respect believers but are not forced to respect their beliefs. Free Speech Debate discusses this principle in the light of religious belief and religious expression. However, it is also relevant when we consider how our appraisal of an individual’s background, culture and values affects our willingness to accept or dismiss what she says.  The positive case for banning- or at least condemning- hip hop often rests on its ability to reinforce the negative stereotypes of impoverished and marginalised communities that are propagated by majority communities. Critics of hip hop note that black men have often been stigmatised as violent, uncivilised and predatory. They claim that many hip hop artists cultivate a purposefully brutal and misogynist persona. The popularity of hip hop reflects the acceptance of this stereotype, and further entrenches discrimination against young black men. This line of thinking portrays hip hop artists as betrayers or exploiters of their communities, reinforcing damaging stereotypes and convincing adolescents that a violent rejection of mainstream society is a way to achieve material success.  Arguments of this type fail to recognise the depth of nuance and meaning that words and word-play can convey. They are predicated on an assumption that the consumers of hip hop engage with it in a simplistic and uncritical way. In short, such arguments see hip hop fans as being simple minded and easily influenced. This perspective neglects the “recognition respect”, the recognition of equality and inherent dignity that is owed to all contributors of a debate. Moreover, it also bars us from properly assessing the “appraisal respect” owed to the content of hip hop and other controversial musical genres. When hip hop is seen as being inherently harmful, and as being targeted at an especially impressionable and vulnerable part of society, we both demean members of that group and prevent robust discussion of rap lyrics themselves. Academics such as John McWhorter see only the advocacy of violence and nihilism in lyrics such as  “You grow in the ghetto, living second rate/ and your eyes will sing a song of deep hate”.  But these are words that can also be interpreted as astute observation on the brutality that is bred by social exclusion. In point of fact, there is little in the previous verse, or those that follow it,  “You’ll admire all the numberbook takers/ thugs, pimps and pushers, and the big money makers”,  that could be interpreted as permitting, popularising or endorsing violence. That is, unless the individual reading the verse had already concluded that its intended audience lacked his own critical perspective and understanding of social norms and values.  Even if an observer were ultimately conclude that a particular hip hop track had no redeeming value, a broad interpretation of point 7 suggests that he should, at the very least, credit its artists and listeners with a modicum of intelligence and reflectiveness. When we approach music with a custodial mind-set, determined to protect young listeners from what we see as harm or exploitation, we prevent those individuals from access a form of speech that may be the only affordable method of expression open to them.  Just as we allow individuals the right to be heard in a language of their choosing (see point 1), we should also accept that perspectives from marginalised communities may not appear in a conventional form. Under these circumstances, it would be dangerous for us to curtail and marginalise a form of speech geared toward discussing the problems faced by impoverished young people that has, against the odds, penetrated the mainstream. We are likely to deepen existing prejudices by viewing rappers and their fans as infantile, impressionable and in need of protection.

negative: Sadomasochism need not be rendered completely free of risk. It is sufficient that each participant is aware of the hazards and consents to them. Moreover, no government can legislate for the most reckless of its citizens. If an individual is so disturbed as to place a plastic bag over his head for the purpose of sexual stimulation, the contrary opinion of the law will not be a great deterrent. [i]  Nevertheless, Sadomasochism can be rendered relatively free of physical risk for its participants. ‘Safe words’ can be agreed in advance, and then announced to end an S&M session immediately. Where participants are restrained or prevented from speaking, movement signals or the dropping of a marble held in the hand can be used to indicate withdrawal of consent. This simple device ensures that participants continue to agree to the terms on which their encounters take place.  It is patronizing to assume that participants in S&M scenarios have not considered the possibility that expressions of pain and reluctance will be a regular occurrence during such activity. Deliberately quixotic ‘safe words’ and stop signals are used in order to avoid inadvertent abuses of consent.  [i] Annette Houlihan, ‘When “No” means “Yes” and “Yes” means Harm: Gender, Sexuality and Sadomasochism Criminality’ (2011) 20 Tulane Journal of Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Legal Issues 31

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The right to individual self determination is a fundamental human right, equal to that of life itself  It is a fundamental principle of the human being is that every human is born autonomous. Therefore, we believe that every person has a right to his or her own body and is thus competent to make decisions about it. This is because we recognise that whatever decisions we might make about our bodies, stem from the knowledge that we have about our own preferences. Nobody can tell us how to value different goods and therefore what matters to one person might matter less to another. If we were to undermine this right, nobody would be able to live their life to its fullest as they would be living their life to someone else’s fullest. The extension of this right is that if someone values another person’s life over their own it is their informed decision to sacrifice themselves for that person. It is not for others to decide, and in particular not for the State.

negative: economy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better The capitalist society enhances personal freedom  The Western democratic capitalist system protects individual's rights and liberties through freedom from of interference by other people. Mature adult citizens are believed to have the capacity to choose what kind of life they want to lead and create their own future without paternalistic coercion from the state (Berlin, 1958). The capitalist society's ideals could perhaps be best exemplified with the American dream where everyone has an initial equal opportunity to reach their full potential, each individual being choosing their own path free from external coercion,. James Truslow Adams defines the American Dream as the following in 1931 "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement"1. The current President of United Stated Barack Obama is a typical example of a person who has achieved the American dream. Barack Obama did not start his life with a traditional "fortunate circumstance" previous presidents had enjoyed (e.g. George Bush). Nevertheless he succeeded in transcending his social class, his race etc. and became the president of United States2. Thus capitalism provides everyone with a fair chance to reach great achievements in their life if they seize the opportunities.  1 James Truslow Adams papers, 1918-1949. (n.d.). Columbia University Library. Retrieved June 7, 2011  2 Barack Obama is the American Dream writ large. (2008). Mirror. Retrieved June 7, 2011

negative: The product of an individual's intellectual endeavour is the property of that individual, who deserves to profit from it  Every individual deserves to profit from his creative endeavours, and this is secured through the application of intellectual property rights. When an individual mixes his labour with capital or other resources, part of him inheres in the product that arises from his effort. This is the origin of property rights. Property rights are an unquestioned mainstay of life in all developed countries, and are an essential prerequisite for stable markets to develop and function. [1] Intellectual property rights are protected by law in much the same way as more conventional physical property, as well it should be. Individuals generating ideas and using their effort to produce an intangible good, be it a new invention, piece of replicable art, etc. have a property right on those ideas and the products that arise from them. It is the effort to produce a real good, albeit an intangible one, that marks the difference between an idea in someone's head that he does not act up, and intellectual property. Developing new inventions, songs, and brands are all very intensive endeavours, taking time, energy, and often a considerable amount of financial investment. People and firms deserve as a matter of principle to benefit from the products of the effort of creation. For this reason, stealing intellectual property is the same as stealing an actual physical product. Each is a real thing, even if one can be touched while the other is intangible in a physical sense. Often the product of intellect is the source of income of an individual; the musician who is too old to play any longer, for example, may rely entirely upon revenues generated by their intellectual property rights to survive. As a matter of principle, property rights can be assigned to intangible assets like intellectual property, and in practice they are a necessity to many people's livelihood.  [1] Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company.

negative: arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic We have a duty to protect individuals from the worst reactions to art  Those who see the artwork, or hear of it, must be considered. Often, social disgust stems from the violation of those values that are most central to an individual.  An individual’s right not to have their most central values abused or ridiculed is surely of more importance than the desire of an artist to be entirely unrestricted in their work: the harm caused to individuals by the continuing acceptance by society, (and consequent exposure) of art they find disgusting, can be great, and the reasonable modern society recognises such harms and does not impose them unnecessarily.  For example, the case of the Chapman brothers’ repeated use of Hitler and Nazi imagery: for the Chapmans the horror of WW2 might be distant and historical, and therefore for them the time may have come for Hitler to simply be mocked; however, for others that horror is altogether more current. Other people may feel a greater connection, for example, because of the impact on their close family, which cannot simply be ignored. In a situation like this, clearly the impact is infinitely more negative for that individual whose trauma is, in effect, being highlighted as now acceptable for comic material, than the positive gain is for the Chapmans: if restricted, they are simply caused to move on to other subjects.

negative: media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should Personal autonomy  Like many other debates, this simply boils down to personal autonomy. Individuals should be free to take actions, even ones harmful to them as long as they do not harm others, at least not without good reason. Thus things that are almost entirely harmful such as smoking are allowed.  It is a matter of personal choice – to suggest otherwise non-white women do not have the capacity to make that choice.

negative: The right to privacy counterbalances the state's obligation to ban sadomasochistic sex  y the proposition, those who want to engage in violent sexual activities will do so, irrespective of laws to the contrary. Without undermining core liberal concepts of privacy and freedom of association, the state will be unable to regulate private sexual interaction. This being the case, when is violent activity most likely to be detected and prosecuted under the status quo? When such acts become too visible, too public or too risky. When the bonds of trust and consent that (as the proposition has agreed) are so vital to a sadomasochistic relationship break down.  Liberal principles of privacy and autonomy allow individuals to engage in consensual activities that may fall outside established boundaries of social acceptance. In this way individual liberty is satisfied, while the risk of others being exposed to harmful externalities is limited. In the words of the anthropologist and lawyer Sally Falk-Moore, “the law can only ever be a piecemeal intervention in the life of society” [i] .  The prosecution of a large and organized community of sadomasochistic homosexual men in the English criminal case of R v Brown was in part motivated by the distribution of video footage of their activities [ii] . Doubts were also raised at trial as to whether or not some of the relationships within the group were entirely free of coercion. Their activities had become too public, and the bond of consent between the sadistic and masochistic partners too attenuated for the group to remain concealed.  Individuals break the law, in minor and significant ways, all the time. Due to the legal protection of private life, due to an absence of coercion, due to a consensual relationship between a “perpetrator” and a “victim”, such breaches go entirely undetected. The general right to privacy balances out the obligation placed on the state to ensure that individuals who encounter abuse and exploitation within sadomasochistic relationships can be protected.  The protection afforded by privacy incentivizes individuals engaged in S&M activities to ensure that they follow the highest standards of safety and caution. Arguably, where “victims” have consented to being injured, but have then been forced to seek medical treatment due to their partner’s incompetence or lack of restraint, complaints to the police by doctors and nurses have helped to identify and halt reckless, negligent or dangerous sadomasochistic behavior.  Correctly and safely conducted, a sadomasochistic relationship need never enter the public domain, and need never be at risk of prosecution. However, without the existence of legal sanctions the state will have no power to intervene in high-risk or coercive S&M partnerships.  [i] “Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa”, Werner Menski, Cambridge University Press, 2006  [ii] Annette Houlihan, ‘When “No” means “Yes” and “Yes” means Harm: Gender, Sexuality and Sadomasochism Criminality’ (2011) 20 Tulane Journal of Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Legal Issues 31

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animals have a right not to be harmed  The differences between us and other vertebrates are a matter of degree rather than kind. [1] Not only do they closely resemble us anatomically and physiologically, but so too do they behave in ways which seem to convey meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed the behaviour of a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”. Our reasons for believing that our fellow humans are capable of experiencing feelings like ourselves can surely only be that they resemble us both in appearance and behaviour (we cannot read their minds). Thus any animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us. If we accept as true for sake of argument, that all humans have a right not to be harmed, simply by virtue of existing as a being of moral worth, then we must ask what makes animals so different. If animals can feel what we feel, and suffer as we suffer, then to discriminate merely on the arbitrary difference of belonging to a different species, is analogous to discriminating on the basis of any other morally arbitrary characteristic, such as race or sex. If sexual and racial moral discrimination is wrong, then so too is specieism. [2]  [1] Clark, S., The Nature of the Beast: are animals moral?, (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1982)  [2] Singer, P., “All Animals are Equal”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)

negative: The marketplace of ideas  The truth can only emerge from competition between various ideas in free, transparent discourse. To silence any idea is to remove ideas from the marketplace thus reducing the individual’s ability to use his/her reason and intellect to arrive at a conclusion. [1] Silencing ideas also creates separate marketplaces thereby reducing the legitimacy of both and making it easier for someone espousing hate speech to use censorship as a justification for not engaging their ideas in open debate. When this happens, it becomes more likely that individuals who feel alienated from main stream society will find meaning in the hateful ideas which have also been excluded from the mainstream. This is very similar to the concept of the free market in economics where the freer the market the better off everyone is. [2]  [1] Wikipedia, “Marketplace of Ideas”,  Retrieved 2011-08-23.  [2] Lee, Steven P., ‘Hate Speech in the Marketplace of Ideas’, D. Golash (ed.), Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World, 2010,  p.15