query: Because religion promotes certainty of belief, divinely inspired hatred is easy to use to justify and promote violent actions and discriminatory practices.  Free speech must come second when there is the potential for that speech to cause harm. The mantra of “With God on our side” has been used, and continues to be used, to justify massacre and barbarity throughout history. Although it is rarely the prelates and preachers who do the killing the certainty they promote gives surety to those who do.  The purpose of the Act [1] used in this particular case was an entirely practical one. It’s main role was to tidy up existing legislation on rioting and public disorder but one section recognised that homophobic and racist language do lead to violence. It is all well and good to talk of freedom of speech but the reality is that homophobic speeches, particularly those of a religious nature, may well lead to violence. For example in New York there were a series of homophobic attacks after anti-gay statements by republican politicians. [2] Preventing hate speech helps prevent that violence from occurring so justifying restrictions on freedom of speech.  [1] Legislation.gov.uk, ‘Public Order Act 1986’, The National Archives, 1986 c.64.  [2] Harris, Paul, ‘US shaken by sudden surge of violence against gay people’, The Observer, 17 October 2010 .

positive: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech Nobody is being forced to perform acts of violence by the words of another; it is their choice to do so. Equally, there are plenty of people who would hold views that could be considered homophobic but would be appalled by acts of violence. It is fundamental to the principles of respect for the individual that I cannot be held liable for the actions of others. There is no dividing line between the incitement Proposition claims exists and my jokingly suggesting to a broke friend that they rob a bank. Ironically, perhaps, the defence of “The Devil made me do it” is not one that is taken seriously by any credible framework of laws.

negative: Blasphemy a free expression  Blasphemy cannot be shielded by the rationale which is used to defend freedom of speech. Blasphemy constitutes an attack on the religion it is targeted at. Beyond its ability to shock and offend, blasphemy exposes religious believers to ridicule, and perpetuates lies and falsehoods about their faith. Moreover, blasphemy also drives conflict and exclusion within particular faiths, deepening schismatic divisions and encouraging believers to become more hostile to those who do not share their religion.  Blasphemy occupies a distinctly different position in public debate and discussion than civil, respectful discourse about religion. The forms of blasphemy law that were maintained in the legal systems of western liberal democracies throughout the twentieth century criminalised only the most extreme and intentionally provocative forms of religious expression – images of religious figures involved in humiliating or sexualised scenarios; statements about a religion that amounted to hate speech; and words that were intended to mislead and deceive the naïve, credulous or doubting. The English blasphemy case of R v Boulter drew on the conclusions of the sixth report of the commissioners on criminal law, which had observed that a criminal charge could only arise when “irreligion” took the form of an “insult to God and man”. The judge in the case remarked that “if the decencies of controversy are observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked with tout the writer being guilty of blasphemy.”  Ruling in the case of Whitehouse v Lemon, heard in 1977, a senior English judge remarked that blasphemous libel, although thought to have fallen into disuse and irrelevance remained useful in safeguarding “the internal tranquillity of the kingdom.” This principle appears to be an antecedent to the public order justification for hate speech legislation – speech that spurs people to commit violent or disruptive acts should be curtailed to protect public safety. That case restated the idea that “It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent in temperate language.”  This is the sense in which the proposition side will discuss the term “blasphemous”. The proposition side does not intend to limit free speech, but has every intention of ensuring that free speech is not undermined or delegitimised by allowing the unobstructed broadcasting of hateful and provocative statements. We protect freedom of speech in our society not as a good in and of itself, but because through debate of even the most improbable propositions, socially valuable ideas may emerge and concerns that might otherwise be hidden can be expressed. By contrast, language aimed solely at offense has no redeeming value and does not contribute to any wider exchange of ideas and concerns. Blasphemy does not appeal to reason, and by being directly exclusionary and offensive, it limits that ability of believers and non-believers to engage in structured debate.

negative: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify Hate speech  The enforcement of the laws proposed in this article will be fraught, complex and difficult. However, the difficulty of administering a law is never a good argument for refusing to enforce it.  The censorship of the written word ended in England with the Lady Chatterley and Oz obscenity trials, but this liberalisation of publication standards has not prevented the state from prosecuting hate speech when it appears in print. It is clear that, although we have more latitude than ever to say or write what we want (no matter how objectionable), standards and taboos continue to exist. We can take it that these taboos are especially important and valuable to the running of a stable society, as they have persisted despite the legal and cultural changes that have taken place over the last fifty years.  Hate speech is prosecuted and censored because of its power to intrude into the lives of individuals who have not consented to receive it. As pointed out in Jeremy Waldron’s response [1] to Timothy Garton Ash’s piece [2] on hate speech, hateful comments are not dangerous because they insight gullible individuals to abandon their inhibitions and engage in race riots. Hate speech is harmful because it recreates- cheaply and in front of a very large audience- an atmosphere in which vulnerable minorities are put in fear of becoming the targets of violence and prejudice. Additionally, hate speech harms by defaming groups, by propagating lies and half-truths about practices and beliefs, with the objective of socially isolating those groups.  Gangsta rap does all of these things, yet legal responses to the publication of songs containing such lyrics as “Rape a pregnant bitch and tell my friends I had a threesome,” have been timid at best. Even if we maintain our liberal approach to taboo breaking forms of expression, we can still link hip hop to many of the harms that hate speech produces.  Gangsta rap gives the impression that African-American and Latin-American neighbourhoods throughout the USA are violent, lawless places. Even if the pronouncements of rappers such as 50 cent and NWA are overblown or fictitious they enforce social division by vividly discouraging people from entering or interacting with poor minority communities. They damage those communities directly by creating a fear of criminality that serves to limit trust and cohesion among individual community members. Finally, violent hip hop is also defamatory. It propagates an image of minority communities that emphasises violence, poverty and nihilism, whilst loudly proclaiming its authenticity. It is completely irrelevant that these images of minority communities are produced by members of those communities.  It is on this basis, however protracted the process of classification must become, that the content of hip hop songs should be assessed and censored. Liberal democracies are prepared to go to great lengths to adjudicate on speech that could potentially promote racial or religious hatred. The same standards should be applied to hip hop music, because it is capable of producing identical harms.  [1] Waldron, J. “The harm of hate speech”. FreeSpeechDebate, 20 March 2012.  [2] Garton-Ash, T. “Living with difference”. FreeSpeechDebate, 22 January 2012.

negative: Holocaust denial sites are an attack on group identities  The internet is the center of discourse and public life in the 21st century. With the advent of social networks, people around the world live more and more online. Unlike any other kind of hateful speech that might flourish on the internet, Holocaust denial stands apart. This is due firstly to the particular mark that the Holocaust has made on the collective consciousness of western civilization as the ultimate act of human evil and depravity. The Holocaust is now a defining part of Jewish identity, denying it attacks all those who suffered and their decedents. Allowing Holocaust denial websites is allowing the rejection of groups’ very identity. Thus its apologists do far more harm than any troll, misogynist, or even apologist of other atrocities. For this reason, the government can justifiably censor sites promoting these absolutely offensive beliefs while not falling down any sort of slippery slope. The second reason Holocaust denial stands apart from other sorts of internet abuse is that these sites are often flashpoints for violence materializing in the real world. More than just talk, neo-Nazis seek dangerous action, and thus the state should be doubly ready to remove this threat from the internet. [1] Accepting that Holocaust deniers have a point that should be articulated across the internet would be helping these neo-nazi groups gain a foothold. The particularly grievous nature of the Holocaust demands the protection of history to the utmost.  [1] BBC. “Germany’s Neo-Nazi Underground”. BBC News. 7 December 2011,

negative: Social cohesion and hate speech  Laws combating discrimination- such as the blasphemy law that the proposition side are advocating- promote social cohesion and stability, both important policy objectives in increasingly mobile and cosmopolitan societies.  The United Nations General Assembly in 2006 argued “defamation of religions is among the causes of social disharmony and leads to violations of human rights.” (United Nations General Assembly, ‘Combating defamation of religions’, 2006). Coexistence between communities with radically different creeds, values and viewpoints needs to be carefully supervised in multi-cultural societies. Too often the uncertainty that accompanies migrant life can serve to inspire to give too much credence to the views of zealots and fundamentalists. To prevent communities deliberately isolating themselves from their neighbours; to prevent communal violence, it is necessary for the state to create an environment in which disputes can be resolved by impartial and properly trained prosecutorial authorities. Discrimination laws are instrumental to building peaceful social realities. They signify a welcoming society, in which it is unacceptable to offend entire segments of the population by debasing what they hold most precious.  Blasphemous statements have a power that reaches far beyond “ordinary” hate speech. Acts covered by this law would include intentionally provocative publications such as the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that featured prominently in a Danish newspaper in 2005. These images led to widespread protests and violence in both western states and majority Muslim countries. The offensive content of the cartoons gave credence and legitimacy to sects and clerics espousing absolutist ideas that have no space for compromise or understanding. Further, the protests also brought individuals who would ordinarily have considered themselves moderates into contact with violent extremists. Neither of these outcomes does anything to promote a culture of free and frank discussion within the societies affected.  The legal measures that side proposition supports do not oblige free thinkers to remain silent in the face of zealotry and bigotry. However, they does require writers, journalists and artists to apply their reason and their sense to content that they want to publish for mass consumption. Much like laws that prevent the negligent operation of businesses, anti-blasphemy laws would set a minimal standard of responsible conduct in order to ensure that publications did not cause a dangerous level of offense to significant numbers ordinary and rational religious believers. Legal definitions and enforcement of standards of responsibility do not preclude individuals from pursuing dangerous or entrepreneurial business ventures or public works. They need not prevent the creation of controversial and challenging forms of free expression either.

negative: censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor While in a tiny minority of cases, such social networking sites can be used malevolently, they can also be a powerful force for good. For example, many social networking pages campaign for the end to issues such as domestic abuse [1] and racism [2] , and Facebook and Twitter were even used to bring citizens together to clean the streets after the riots in the UK in 2011. [3] Furthermore, this motion entails a broader move to blanket-ban areas of the internet without outlining a clear divide between what would be banned and what would not. For example, at what point would a website which discusses minority religious views be considered undesirable? Would it be at the expression of hatred for nationals of that country, in which case it might constitute hate speech, or not until it tended towards promoting action i.e. attacking other groups? Allowing censorship in these areas could feasibly be construed as obstructing the free speech of specified groups, which might in fact only increase militancy against a government or culture who are perceived as oppressing their right to an opinion of belief [4] .  [1] BBC News, ‘Teenagers’ poem to aid domestic abuse Facebook campaign’, 4 February 2011,  on 16/09/11  [2] Unframing Migrants, ‘meeting for CAMPAIGN AGAINST RACISM’, facebook, 19 October 2010,  on 16/09/2011.  [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Twitter and Facebook users plan clean-up.’ 9 August 2011,  on 16/09/11.  [4] Marisol, ‘Nigeria: Boko Haram Jihadists say UN a partner in “oppression of believers”’, JihadWatch, 1 September 2011,  on 09/09/11

negative: The People’s Rights Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States constitution that attempts to address corporations’ increased freedom to engage in political campaigning. Referring to the First Amendment, section 2 of the PRA states “The word people, person or citizen as used in this constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State the United States or any foreign state.” [1]  The US Supreme Court justified striking down the BCRA by stating that “if the first amendment has any force, it prohibits congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” [2] However, the BCRA was never intended to limit US citizens' right to engage in effective and public political speech. The First Amendment to the constitution was not overridden by the BCRA. Newspapers remain effectively exempt from the powers granted to the FEC by the BCRA for this very reason, and, paraphrasing Justice Stevens’ opinion in Citizens United, it remains possible for the Supreme Court to challenge any attempt to legislate against freedom of the press – but such action has not yet been taken [3] .  Although ordinary citizens rely on corporate structures and company law to make the process of gathering and publishing publicly relevant information easier, corporate structures are also used to fulfil goals that are not related to the interests of the general public. Information released “in the public interest” is intended to be engaged with in a critical fashion. Voters receive information- even if it is biased- on the understanding that it represents an earnest commentary on the strengths and weaknesses and candidates' policies. Voters receive information during elections on the understanding that it relates directly to their interests and their welfare – to how they should vote.  The communications targeted by the BCRA, and by the proposition mechanism are those that seek to serve the interests of profit-led businesses by distorting political debate. The large raw materials business Pacific Lumber engaged in an abuse of direct democracy proceedings in Humboldt county, California, when it attempted to use a ballot initiative to remove the county's district attorney from office [4] . The attorney had brought a public suit [5] against Pacific Lumber after incompetent tree felling practices had caused flooding in the area. In plainer language, the corporation tried to use Humboldt County's electoral system to extricate itself from a court case brought by a state official. Such a bold and blatant move should not have been available to Pacific Lumber in the first place.  Balloting against Humboldt County's incumbent sheriff was conducted in a manner intended to mislead the public. The purpose underlying Pacific Lumber's actions was kept concealed from the citizens approached by the business's poll operatives. This runs contrary to the ideological objectives of ordinary political campaigning. Even inflexible ideologues that choose to hit the campaign trail will be acting to try and convince their audience that the normative content of their message has value and relevance for society as a whole. A campaign co-ordinated by a profit-led corporation will be geared only to serve the interests of that corporation.  Electioneering communications sponsored by corporations damage free speech by failing to contain any normative reasoning or content. They do not represent an honestly expressed view of the direction that society should take, of the policies that should be deployed to address flaws in society.  Far from limiting ordinary citizens’ access to the free speech protections that are a feature of liberal democracies, the proposition side are simply attempting to address an aspect of the on-going debate over the how best to protect the quality and vibrancy of free speech. It has always been necessary to ensure that free expression does not become a licence to exploit the credulous, but it is also important for democratic states to allow heterodox and unpopular ideas to be discussed as freely as those that receive widespread social approval. In this instance, legislation that was intended to achieve this objective in the USA has been exploited by corporations to use free expression to forward their own- very narrow- interests, usually under the guise of protecting others' essential freedoms and economic interests.  In cases such as this, where the marketplace of ideas has undergone a market failure, where legislation is being applied to scenarios that fall outside of the range of problems it was originally created to address, it is appropriate to reconsider the limits and purpose of freedom of expression. New legislation- including any proposed replacement for the BCRA- must take a case-specific approach to free speech issues due to the wide range of organisations that choose to define themselves as corporations. As discussed in the proposition side's substantive argument, the law must accord speech rights to corporations based on their stated goals, priorities and the groups whose interests they serve.  [1] “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations…” Joint resolution, United States House of Representatives.   [2] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [3] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [4] “Humboldt DA fights to keep job”. San Francisco Chronicle, 28 February 2004.   [5] “Humboldt County D.A. sues logging firm, alleging fraudulent practices”. Los Angeles Times, 26 February 2003.

negative: Blasphemy laws are unlikely to promote social harmony as readily as the proposition side claims they will. Accusations of blasphemy can enflame tensions between antagonistic groups. Telling people they no longer have recourse to words to voice their disagreements and discontentment might push them to resort to violence instead. Communities with diverging beliefs are unlikely to engage in discussion and negotiation if statements aimed at promoting peace can easily be used to launch expensive libel prosecutions. Exchanges and debates between different communities will not take place if participants fear that they might be arrested if an audience member choses to take offence at their words.  Anti-blasphemy laws would undoubtedly control group violence of the sort that followed the publication of the “Mohammed cartoons”. But they would also spur further social division, and deepen misunderstandings about religion. Anti-blasphemy laws would remove debate on religion from the public sphere and leave both bigots and zealots to propagate their distorted interpretations of religious belief unchallenged in private. To the case more simply, debate and discussion on the nature of religion and the nature of the sacred will always occur. Even if the proposition side successfully extend hate speech laws to encompass blasphemy, they will not be able to prevent private discussion these concepts without abolishing democracy wholesale and advocating the creation of a surveillance state. A blasphemy law would only serve to prevent groups with differing ideas from being brought together to engage in debate and conversation. Contact between groups would cease, because of concerns that allegations of blasphemy might lead, at the very least, to unwelcome and intrusive police and prosecutorial investigations. But discussion of controversial ideas about other faiths would continue. In the absence of dissenting voices, closed and concealed dialog would be vulnerable to manipulation and inaccuracies.  While words can be powerful it is preferable to allow people to speak freely, even if what is said is not always constructive. The alternative is to make the courts and justice system complicit in creating a culture of victimhood and vexatious litigation.  Debate is also likely to suffer under this mechanism. By allowing a group that has been the target of a religious slur to feel victimised and justified in deploying the force of law against their opponents, we disincentivise these same religions from engaging with blasphemers and offering clear and robust justifications for the offence they feel.  The argument that blasphemy laws would bring different parts of society together is nonsense; firstly such laws tend to favour the largest religion in a society which would be to the detriment of minorities but also just because certain discourse is blocked does not mean that individuals will inherently become more educated about other cultures and beliefs. This is the case for example in Pakistan where minorities are rarely protected by blasphemy laws and are often persecuted by it, buts being a member of the Ahmadi sect is synonymous with being blasphemous to Islam and without having to prove intent the law is therefore used to persecute them and other minorities. (Mehmood, ‘Pakistan blasphemy laws retake center stage’, 2011)

negative: censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor The government here may legitimately limit ‘free speech’.  We already set boundaries on what constitutes ‘free speech’ within our society. For example, we often endorse a ‘balancing act’ [1] an individual may express their beliefs or opinions, but only up to the point where it does not impede the ‘protection of other human rights’ [2] – other peoples’ right not to be abused. In this case, if an individual expresses abuse towards another – especially racism - they may be deemed to be outside of the boundaries or free speech and can be punished for it. This motion is simply an extension of this principle; the kinds of sites which would be banned are those which perpetuate hatred or attack other groups in society, an so already fall outside of the protection of free speech. The harms that stem from these kinds of sites outweigh any potential harm from limiting speech in a small number of cases.  [1] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association,  on 09/09/11  [2] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association,  on 09/09/11

negative: Limiting the rights of corporate persons would harm a wide range of organisations and limit the freedom of natural persons.  Public speech and exchanges of ideas lie at the root of political and social decision making in liberal democracies. Without a guarantee that expression will remain free and protected from government interference, the other rights discussed in the first amendment to the United States constitution would become impossible to exercise. The discussion and pursuit of religious ideas would be obstructed. The ability to challenge the actions and decisions of an incumbent government would be put at risk too [1] . Even the reporting of verifiably true information about the affairs of the state and its citizens- freedom of the press- would become hazardous without the toleration for inaccuracies and the concept of public interest that principled freedom of speech gives rise to.  In order for a right to be meaningful, however, it must be possible to exercise that right effectively. A right to free movement would be meaningless if the government that guaranteed it was unable to keep its citizens safe within their communities. Similarly, 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. Isolated oratory and passing on news by word-of-mouth are not effective ways of handling information.  Corporate entities have emerged as the most effective method of pooling individual resources in order to take full advantage of the benefits and freedoms of free speech and dialogue [2] . As the columnist George Will observes, in the USA “newspapers, magazines, broadcasting entities, online journalism operations- and most religious institutions- are corporate entities.” [3] The proposition side advocates depriving these bodies of many of their rights, simply because they benefit from a legal fiction that- itself- is designed to make co-operation and resources sharing among like-minded individuals- natural persons- more effective.  The difficulties presented by corporate campaigning would allow the state to restrain the publication of almost any coherent, publicly distributed form of speech that was critical of politicians or their parties. The legal scholar Eugene Volokh has noted that Jim McGovern's People's Rights Amendment, which most closely resembles the proposition's mechanism, would give legislators fiat to restrict the content of newspapers by defining it as “corporate” speech that did not benefit from the same set of rights as the expressed opinions of natural persons. This is a wider application of the rule that brought Citizens United and the BCRA before the supreme court [4] . As set out in the introductory case study, the BCRA allowed the Federal Election Commission to claim that a movie (produced by a right-wing PAC) critical of democratic presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton represented a misuse of private funds that could potentially give an unfair advantage to Clinton's opponents.  Under the sections of the BCRA that were struck down in 2012, and under the new laws that proposition wish to create, it would be possible for legislative bodies and the judiciary to target any and all forms of political communication produced by corporate entities without having to consider the objectives of those communications. In plainer terms, the state's power to ban and censor free speech would not be limited to statements made to lobby an electorate or to campaign in favour of a particular politician or policy.  Citizens who wished to avoid being caught up in this law would be obliged to share resources via archaic legal structures such as partnerships and co-operative agreements. Assemblies of citizens could be exposed to a great deal of financial risk in such a situation. Each member of a partnership would be forced to bear the debts and legal liabilities of the entire partnership. In addition, agreements concluded by the partnership would require the consent of every partner. This is a minor inconvenience when a partnership consists of two or three people, but it would be an impossible demand to fulfil for an organisation such as the communications giant ComCast, which has a share volume of 10.5 million (as of May 2012).  [1] “Taking a Scythe to the Bill of Rights”. Will, G F. The Washington Post, 05 May 2012.   [2] “Infant and corporate rights”. The Economist, 07 May 2012.   [3] “Taking a Scythe to the Bill of Rights”. Will, G F. The Washington Post, 05 May 2012.   [4] “The ‘People’s Rights Amendment’ and the media”. Volokh, E. The Volokh Conspiracy, 26 April 2012.

negative: Reduced dialogue  While hate speech is a form of expression, it is not one that encourages dialogue. By promoting hatred based on immutable personal characteristics it is by definition anti-dialogue. Hate speech does not contribute anything; it merely provides a justification for violence and discrimination. Extreme messages, be they in words or through symbols, deter moderates from voicing their opinions, either because they do not want to legitimize the message or out of fear of reprisals. This reduces the net dialogue on university campuses and injures the quality of the dialogue that remains.

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: Blasphemy can be a valuable act of expression. It is misleading to try and conflate blasphemous statements with statements that lack intellectual merit, are bigoted or hateful. The proposition side attempt to exclude “decent and temperate” questioning of religious values from the scope of anti-blasphemy laws, but they fail to recognise that language is a broad, imprecise and malleable tool. Words that may be understood as temperate and even-handed by one speaker may deeply shock another. Even a simple and plainly stated denial of God’s existence was interpreted as tantamount to blasphemy by the early liberal philosopher John Locke. Locke saw acceptance of the core truths of the Christian bible as being a vital indicator of and individual’s trustworthiness and willingness to comply with social norms.  It is easy to envision scenarios in which adherents of certain religions may find any attempt to dispute the historical and philosophical foundations of their faith deeply offensive, no matter how calmly and respectfully the dissenting position is communicated. Discussions of natural selection have become one such battleground. Despite the measures taken by philosophers and scientists to highlight the compatibility between religious faith and scientifically informed ontologies, despite the measured and carefully regulated court cases that have been used to decide this issue, many Christians regard discussion and teaching of evolution as part of natural history threatening and offensive.  Even irreverent humour or mockery can sometimes be used to make valid and useful observations about the structure and values of religions. For example, the act of angering someone by ridiculing their deity, or the tenets of their faith, could make the point that a particular religion is closed-minded or too hidebound. Important aspects of our characters are revealed when we are invited to adopt aggressive or defensive attitudes. It is not for a government to decide whether blasphemous statements contribute to social discourse; it is up to the individuals engaged in that exchange. It is not acceptable, in the absence of an intention to expose a particular group of people to a real risk of physical harm, to allow debate and free speech to be curtailed by the use of legal force.  The meaning of words need not be plain and obvious, either. Implication and allusion play an important role in language. Implied meanings and innuendos have done much to complicate the legal processes used to protect individual reputations against slurs and falsehoods. In a criminal, rather than a civil context, similar principles are likely to make blasphemy prosecutions expensive, unwieldy and inconsistent.

negative: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify 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.

negative: access information house would block access social messaging networks Non violent methods of disrupting riots must be tried before using force  When riots are on-going then the police needs to act but the safety of everyone involved should be considered to be paramount. If a riot will not disperse peacefully then the police often find they need to use batons, water cannon, or even in extremis tear gas or rubber bullets. It is the police’s duty to bring back public order by stopping riots through these methods. However this should not be at the expense of a much more preventative approach that shutting down social media networks would allow. If during instances of rioting the police are able to prevent those rioters from encouraging their friends to join them so expanding the riots then this is the right course of action to take. Rioters used social media like activists, to outmanoeuvre the police targeting areas where there was little police presence. Cutting off their means of communication would make this much harder and less effective. [1] This has been used effectively in the past; the San Francisco BART, shut down mobile phones on its network to prevent protests which it feared could lead to clashes with commuters, it may well have been the reason why there were no such protests, but it did spark outrage over violations of freedom of speech. [2]  [1] O’Rourke, Simon, “Empowering protest through social media”, Edith Cowan University Research Online, 2011,  P.51  [2] Cabanatuan, M., “BART admits halting cell service to stop protests”, SFGate,

negative: e internet freedom politics government digital freedoms freedom As in the offline world, free speech isn’t unlimited  Even in free societies, free speech isn’t always free. Free speech can be demeaning and hurtful to certain people or can even incite hatred and violence. [1] The first reason is why, under internet libel law, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are asked to remove defamatory material and blogs take to moderating their comments more, [2] and the second is why Germany and France have outlawed Holocaust denial and Nazism.  As in the previous arguments, accountable governments are attempting to strike a balance between free speech and where this can harm others. [3] A carefully struck balance between rights in the offline world shouldn’t have to be abolished, just because we’re now in the online world. [4]  [1] Waldron, ‘The harm of hate Speech’, 2012  [2] Alibhai-Brown, ‘Freedom of speech can’t be unlimited’, 2009.  [3] Minister: The UK “emphatically” supports free speech online but there are limits, 2012  [4] Schellekens, “What holds off-line, also holds on-line?”, 2006

negative: bate media and good government international africa house believes limited Blind obedience to authority  One of the major factors that exacerbated genocide ideology was the “AKAZU” controlled media which made most of the Hutu population wrongfully obey authority and government propaganda of divisionism[1].  This was achieved by proclaiming that the Tutsi are snakes and cockroaches in newspapers, and directing the Hutu extremists to where killings were to be conducted on radio RTLM. Meanwhile they also refused to broadcast speeches calling out for unity among people helping to lead to the assassination of the then Prime minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana who opposed government restrictions. There was no space to question policies and ideas that were encouraging genocide by manipulating people to believe it was right path for Rwanda.  The genocide should therefore serve as an example that restricting freedoms of speech and press can cause severe damage. This is especially harmful to a healing and reconciling country like Rwanda that needs the freedom to debate the past and analyse how far it has come openly. Rwanda should learn from the past that freedom of speech is necessary to prevent conflict while having only one side potentially exacerbates it.  [1] Chalk, Prof. Frank ‘Radio propaganda and genocide’, Concordia.ca, November 1999

negative: Tennessee is not seeking to protect freedom of speech  While supporters of this bill justify it based upon ‘academic freedom’ this is clearly not a motivating factor for the Tennessee legislature. At almost the same time a bill that prevents teachers discussing homosexuality was passed through the state’s education committee, if freedom of speech has been a concern this would never have even been brought up. [1] Moreover if the bill was about freedom of speech there would be no need to highlight particular controversies or particularly pick out science as an area requiring more discussion and dissent. Students could learn much more about competing interpretations of historical events, competing ideas in geography such as alternative theories about how oil is created, [2] even the English language is not totally settled as new meanings are created and new words added.  [1] Selwyn, Casey, ‘Teaching creationism in US schools’, Free Speech Debate, 2 May 2012,   [2] Glasby, Geoffrey P., ‘Abiogenic Origin of Hydrocarbons: An Historical Overview’, Resource Geology, vol.56, no.1, 2006, pp.85-98,

negative: access information house would block access social messaging networks Police should not block the communications and freedom of expression of law-abiding citizens  The blocking of social networks, of the internet, or of mobile phone networks in times of riot would be an illegitimate curtailment of a private company’s right to do business and serve its customers. Social networks are business and have many users. Even more important is the impact on everyone who is not associated with the rioting. When these actions are taken it harms everyone, perhaps even millions of people at a given time. [1] The action taken by the state to seek to prevent the spreading of the riots is not only ineffective it is also a massive imposition on the rights of the citizens of the polity. Their freedom of speech is curtailed, business is harmed, and the riots continue. Studies of the use of Twitter during the riots in London showed that during rioting it was mostly used to react to the riots to send warnings to avoid trouble rather than incite violence. [2] Blocking access or cutting off communications would therefore mean putting at risk those people who otherwise would have been warned not to go near areas with rioting.  [1] Temperton, J. “Blocking Facebook and Twitter During Riots Threatens Freedom”. Computer Active. 15 August 2011.   [2] Ball, J., and Lewis, P., “Riots database of 2.5m tweets reveals complex picture of interaction”, The Guardian, 24 August 2011.

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: To ban music that encourages violence against women would be done with the intention of protecting women; if it is necessary to paint them as the victims of violence that they are, that is a small price to pay. Furthermore, bans on child pornography would  Many of those who argue that censorship of music depicting violence towards women would be a bad thing do so on libertarian grounds. That is, they believe that to restrict the creation, circulation and consumption of this type of music would result in a restriction of people's freedom of speech/ expression. As some people enjoy and relate to the type of music that depicts these images, to deny people the right to listen to this music is to unfairly restrict their enjoyment and marginalise their tastes.  Some people take this further to say that morbidity is part of the human condition. A consequence of our highly developed brains is that we become very conscious of our mortality, we become fascinated with violence as well because it is so closely linked to death, and we all want to understand death, we all want to know what happens after we die. So people end up seeking different ways of dealing with their fear of death, and one common way is desensitizing ourselves to the idea, perhaps through subjecting ourselves to an environment awash with death, i.e. music that depicts violence. This obviously extends to the creative aspect of humanity as well. We all spend a lot of time thinking about violence, so it is not really surprising that the most creative of us end up making art about it. From paintings, to music, to theatre, we are obsessed with violence in our entertainment, even gratuitous violence. We have famous painters like Francisco Goya who invoke gruesome violence for effect1 and who also receive critical acclaim; Stanley Kubrick won an Oscar nomination for directing A Clockwork Orange, a movie rampant with violence, sexuality and misogyny. Both these examples show violent art which have had both critical and commercial success. Therefore for the proposition argument to successfully defend the banning of music depicting violence towards women it would seem that we would equally have to ban films and paintings that display similar themes. This would result in a huge restriction of expression and society would potentially loose a vast amount of creative output. Furthermore from the examples given above it would seem that a ban would go against popular desire.  1 Francisco Jose de Goya. 'Saturn Devoursing his Son.' Wikipedia.

negative: access information house would block access social messaging networks The state can use blocking Twitter and its ilk as precedent to censor the internet in the “public interest”  The state always likes to expand its powers over speech, particularly when that speech is damaging to the government’s credibility. The freedom of speech is a critical right in all free societies precisely because it is the ultimate check ordinary citizens have to challenge the powers that be, to express dissent, and to organize with like-minded people dissatisfied with the way government is running. The internet has been the most powerful and valuable tool in the expansion of individuals’ power of their governments. [1] The state quakes at the raw people power services like Twitter provides. It is the last frontier largely free of the state’s power, and the state has sought to expand its influence. By blocking Twitter the government would be able to get its first foothold in blocking free speech online. [2] The power of that beachhead would serve to give it further credibility in censoring other services online in the public interest. It is much better that the government be kept entirely out of these services, than let them begin the slow creep of intervention that would be a serious threat to the freedom of individuals on the internet.  [1] Anti-Defamation League. “Combating Extremism in Cyberspace”. 2000.   [2] Temperton, J. “Blocking Facebook and Twitter During Riots Threatens Freedom”. Computer Active. 15 August 2011.

negative: y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism entirely natural theories can adequately explain belief in God and the development of religions, so an existent God is superfluous to the understanding of the phenomenon:  The reason people believe in God and why religions have formed can be explained perfectly well by natural processes and psychology. Religion is an outgrowth of humans’ brain architecture developed through the process of evolution; it developed as a by-product of other useful cognitive processes. [1] For example, survival capability is promoted by an ability to infer the presence of potentially hostile organisms, the ability to establish causal narratives for natural occurrences, and the ability to recognize that other people are independent agents, with their own minds, desires, and intentions. [2] These cognitive mechanisms, while invaluable to human survival and communal development, have the effect of causing humans to imagine supernatural purposefulness behind natural phenomena that could not be explained by other means. No gods are required to explain religious belief, so the existence of such belief is no reason to believe in such beings. Religion was a cradle during mankind’s childhood and adolescence. The time has come to grow up as a species and accept that there are no gods.  [1] Henig, Robin. 2007. “Darwin’s God”. The New York Times. Available:   [2] Pinker, Steven. 2004. “The Evolutionary Psychology of Evolution”. Annual Meeting of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Available:

negative: living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify 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.

negative: computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join It is absolutely regrettable that men use Facebook in order take advantage of certain women, but we must not forget that because of these very situations Facebook and many NGO’s initiated campaigns to prevent these kind of tragedies happening again(1). Such campaigns have informed thousands of women about the dangers of meeting strangers, both the virtual world and in the real one, and how to avoid them. These campaigns both help women avoid the threat in the first place and encourage them to make sure they are protected, for example by carrying pepper spray, so at the end of the day, a significant number of women are now more protected against being rape because of these social networks. Facebook has clearly not increased the incidence of rape as statistics (2) show that the number of rape cases has dropped dramatically since the start of the world wide web.  Cyber bullying is potentially a problem. On this level too, Facebook recognized the possibility of certain teenagers posting harmful or offending information about another party so it took action in order to try and stop this from happening in the future. As Facebook officials are declaring, they will “update the training for the teams that review and evaluate reports of hateful speech or harmful content on Facebook. To ensure that our training is robust, we will work with legal experts. We will increase the accountability of the creators of content that does not qualify as actionable hate speech but is cruel or insensitive by insisting that the authors stand behind the content they create “(2). Facebook has an entire department to try to prevent such cyber bullying. Moreover Facebook is comparatively secure from cyber bullying compared to some sites; it is not anonymous and users can unfriend people and prevent people who they don’t know from accessing their profile.  (1) Facebook   (2) Federal Bureau of Investigation   (3) Facebook

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: Freedom of expression is a means to education  Students need to be able to take chances and express unpopular ideas in order to maximize their personal growth and development. Speech codes, even ones designed to only censor hate speech, have a chilling effect on all speech as students become afraid to say anything that is not politically correct. For example a student at California Polytechnic State University underwent a day long disciplinary hearing for posting a flyer publicising a talk “It’s O.K. to Leave the Plantation”. [1] It would not be surprising if students are less willing to organise such events after such a dressing down. Students also need to learn to respond to ideas they don’t like because even if censorship of hate speech is effectively controlled on campus, it still exists in the outside world. Students will only be able to maximize their ability to ask questions, state opinions, and respond to ideas on a free campus.  [1] Berger, Joseph, “Film Portrays Stifling of Speech, but One College’s Struggle Reflects a Nuanced Reality” New York Times, June 27, 2007. Retrieved 2011-08-24.

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: Governments should not allow forums for hate speech to flourish  Denial of the Holocaust is fundamentally hate speech. It is the duty of the government to deny these offensive beliefs a platform of any kind. [1] By blocking these sites, the government denies a certain freedom of speech, but it is a necessarily harmful form of speech that has no value in the market place of ideas. Many people, often Jews, but also members of other discriminated against minorities like Roma, suffer directly from the speech, feeling not only offended, but physically threatened by such denials. Holocaust denial however goes beyond hate speech because it is not only offensive but factually wrong. The attempt to rewrite history and to sow lies causes a threat to the truth and an ability to co-opt the participation of gullible individuals to their cause that mere insults and demagoguery could not. It represents a threat to education by undermining the value of facts and evidence. For this reason, there is essentially no real loss of valuable speech in censoring the sites denying the Holocaust.  [1] Lipstadt, Deborah. Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. New York: Free Press, 1993.

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: speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression The offer of amnesty allows home governments to discredit bloggers and paint them as foreign agents of disruption  When Western states and democracies offer amnesty to bloggers under threat from their home governments, the blogger’s views and comments immediately become coloured in the eyes of the public. The government is able to point to the Western powers offering this amnesty and can easily claim that their offers are the result of collusion between bloggers and their foreign patrons to spread propaganda, so the blogger is therefore guilty of treason. As unfortunate as it may be in individual cases, the result is that offering amnesty will only weaken the cause of democracy. Being sent to prison for their beliefs will do far more to serve their cause than seeking succour in the arms of another state, one that has demonstrated antagonism toward their homeland. The ability for governments to stoke nationalist fires has been thoroughly demonstrated in recent months by China’s reaction toward territorial disputes with Japan. [1] It is very easy to rile the public against a perceived external aggressor, especially given that these states often control much of the mainstream media outlets, and those who offer amnesty give themselves up on a platter as an adversary to be exploited in the public consciousness. The better plan for democracies in pursuit of their goals is to condemn acts of oppression and to seek diplomatic redress, but direct interference in the course of states’ justice will doing nothing but harm relations with regimes and turn the people against the proponents of reform.  [1] The Economist. “Barren Rocks, Barren Nationalism”. 25 August 2012.

negative: bate media and good government international africa house believes limited Rwanda does not limit freedoms of press and speech as such but discourages the use of sensitive articles or speeches that would provoke insecurity in a country still trying to heal from the wounds of genocide. This cannot be therefore considered abusing people’s rights.  Misunderstandings with the 4 officials were not as a result of restricted freedoms but instead the desire of power[1] and cannot be taken a model for Rwanda’s future.  Past conflict broke out due to divisionism which was given space through hate speeches and publications a behaviour that has no room in the country today – indeed there are anti divisionism laws.  Having a large population supporting a leader doesn’t mean they are controlled, he has done so much to revive lost hope hence winning the favour of the people.  [1] Smith, David, ‘Exiled Rwandan general attacks Paul Kagame as 'dictator', thegurdian.com, 30 July 2012

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