- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Communities
- 8.3K All Communities
- 255 Technology
- 1.9K Politics
- 679 United States
- 592 Global
- 65 Immigration
- 1.9K Religion
- 230 TV SHOWS
- 60 Movies
- 80 History
- 44 Work Place
- 476 Philosophy
- 412 Science
- 62 Earth Science
- 9 Books
- 101 Economy
- 34 Investments
- 14 Europe
- 10 Tea
- 7 Coffee
- 59 Sports
- 42 Products
- 283 News
- 13 Airplanes
- 33 Cars
- 851 General
- 9 Mafia Games
- 24 Art And Design
- 20 Space
- 50 Military
- 3 Premium Member
DEBATE NEWSKentucky Derby post positions announced for horses in the 2024 field
Officials at Churchill Downs in Louisville held the drawing a week ahead of the 150th running of the 2024 Kentucky...
In this Debate
Does the US have a free speech problem?
Debate Information
Be careful what you say in the US and who you say it too..........
- Florida lawmakers are advancing a pair of bills that would bar school districts from encouraging classroom discussions about sexual orientation or gender identity – what critics are calling "Don't Say Gay" bills.
- Nearly a dozen states have introduced bills that would direct what students can and cannot be taught about the role of slavery in American history and the ongoing effects of racism in the U.S. today.
- A Tennessee school board removed "Maus," a Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust, from its curriculum.
- Spotify faced growing controversy over episodes of Joe Rogan's podcast containing racial slurs and COVID-19 misinformation.
- An incoming Georgetown Law administrator was assailed by a student group for posting a "racist, sexist, and misogynistic" tweet that criticized President Joe Biden's announcement that he would nominate a Black woman for the Supreme Court.
"I would argue that the culture of free speech is under attack in the U.S.," said Jacob Mchangama, the author of "Free Speech," a new book that documents the history of free expression. "And without a robust culture of free speech based on tolerance, the laws and constitutional protection will ultimately erode.
"People both on the left and the right are sort of coming at free speech from different angles with different grievances, that point to a general loss of faith in the First Amendment."
The free-speech erosion is even happening in schools. Since January last year, according to PEN America, Republican lawmakers have introduced more than 150 state laws that would restrict how teachers can discuss race, sexual orientation, and gender identity in the classroom.
Jennifer Given, who teaches high-school history in Hollis, New Hampshire, said of the laws, "It's about making up false narratives to further a political goal of your own.
"It's a really scary time to be a teacher," she told Pogue. "We're self-censoring, We are absolutely avoiding certain things and ideas in an effort to stay within the lines as best we understand them."
In New Hampshire, a new law limits what teachers can say about racism and sexism – and a conservative group is offering a $500 bounty to anyone who turns in a teacher who violates it.
Given said, "The ghost of Senator McCarthy is alive and well in some of our state house hallways."
Pogue asked, "What would happen to you if you did step afoul of this law?"
"That can result in the loss of your license," she replied. "And so, I would not only be unemployable at my school, but I would be unemployable anywhere."
"But what I don't understand is, this is New Hampshire, whose motto is, 'Live Free or Die'!"
"Yeah, yeah," Given laughed. "There's a lot of emphasis on the 'or die' part of late!"
UC Berkeley professor John Powell, an expert on civil liberties and democracy, said of the classroom prohibitions, "That's a very serious freedom of speech issue. To me, that is so far off the rail."
He's especially alarmed at the record number of books that are being banned in schools all over the country. Conservatives object to books about sex, gender issues, and racial injustice (such as Toni Morrison's "Beloved," Alex Gino's "George," and "The 1619 Project"), and liberals object to books containing outdated racial depictions (including John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men," Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," and Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird").
- 10 Most Challenged Books Lists (American Library Association)
- Virginia school board officials suggest burning books banned from schools ("Red & Blue")
"You can't make the Holocaust a nice thing – it wasn't a nice thing!" Powell laughed. "You can't make slavery a nice thing. 'That makes people uncomfortable.' It should make people uncomfortable! The goal of education is not comfort. So, if someone really wants to challenge the Holocaust, let 'em challenge it. But don't ban a discussion on it."
In the mid-1800s, English philosopher John Stuart Mill proposed that governments limit free speech only when it would cause harm to others.
Powell said, "He wrote a book called 'On Liberty,' [about] freedom. And he was very concerned about the government silencing people, that citizens had to have the right to express themselves."
Our laws have generally followed that guideline. In the U.S., public speech can't include obscenity, defamation, death threats, incitement to violence – harms.
But Powell said that the recent restrictions have more to do with culture wars than with preventing harm: "I want to regulate that 'cause I don't like it. To me, that's wrong. That's problematic."
"So, there's a difference between saying something that makes you uncomfortable, and saying something that damages society or incites to riot?" asked Pogue.
"Right, and discomfort is not the same as an injury."
But these days, there are entire new categories of speech that can lead to harm. "Now, there's a concept of disinformation, where you deliberately engage in lies, in fact to cause harm, to cause injury, to exclude some people," said Powell. "But what it really means is our understanding of the First Amendment and our understanding of free speech is evolving. It has to evolve."
It's probably no coincidence that the new censorship culture arose simultaneously with social networks like Facebook and Twitter.
"The First Amendment was conceived as a protection of citizens from restriction of expression by the government, and not by private companies or other entities," said Jillian York, the director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and author of "Silicon Values."
Pogue asked, "So for example, Donald Trump getting kicked off Twitter and Facebook? Is that censorship? Is that bad censorship? Is that good censorship?"
"I think Trump getting kicked off of Facebook and Twitter is kind of complicated," York said. "But the thing that really concerns me the most is that someone like Mark Zuckerberg, whom none of us elected, has the power to remove an elected official. I think that should really worry us, even if we do feel that Trump should be silenced."
York said that the big tech companies censor our speech every day, sometimes by mistake, but always without supervision or transparency. "We saw protest content around Black Lives Matter removed on Facebook's platform, wrongfully," she said. "LGBTQ content has been removed. as well as things like art and satire."
- Faceoff against Facebook: Stopping the flow of misinformation ("Sunday Morning")
- Texas governor signs law prohibiting social media platforms from banning users
- Lawmakers vow stricter regulations on social media platforms to combat misinformation
According to Jacob Mchangama, social networks censor us in another way, too, by making us afraid to speak at all: "There was actually this survey from 2020 by the Cato Institute which showed that 62% of Americans self-censor, who are afraid to sort of express their political views on specific topics.
"It shows this paradox: Americans enjoy the strongest legal constitutional protection of free speech probably in world history. But they still fear the consequences of being fired for speaking out on certain political views. And that's not a healthy sign."
But it's not just America. Since 2019, at least 37 countries have passed laws that increase censorship (of individuals or the media), including in Europe, where Jillian York lives. "There's a lot of debate right now in Germany, for example, over a fairly recent law that restricts hate speech online," York said, "but also creates penalties for things like the country's insult law. So, you know, insulting someone online could be penalized financially."
Overall, it would be easy to get depressed by these attacks on free speech. Especially if you're a teacher, like Jennifer Given.
Pogue asked, "What's the end point for you, if this keeps going this way in New Hampshire?"
"I don't know," she laughed. "There is a point where you start going, 'Maybe I've had it.'"
But if it cheers you up any, Jacob Mchangama points out that we still enjoy more freedom of speech than most countries: "If we were having this discussion in Russia or Turkey, you know, someone would pick me up when I go down on the street, and you might not hear from me for a long time."
He said we should fight to maintain our freedom of civil discussion – and never take it for granted.
"I'm not saying that free speech is just great, and doesn't entail any consequences; it does," he said. "You know, we should think about, how do we mitigate misinformation? How can we ensure that we counter hate speech without compromising free speech?
"And, you know, it's an experiment. But I would argue that it's been a very beneficial experiment. And one which is very much worth continuing."
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
Free speech problem yes. The problem no-one understands free means without cost. Free speech means speaking without a cost, I think you meant to say can we word and write laws that allow people immunity to harm created by speaking just like we have laws to self-defense with a fire-arm? Free speech problem yes no-one understands free means without cost. Free speech means speaking without a cost, I think you meant to say can we word and write laws that allow people immunity to harm created by speaking just like we have laws to self-defense with a fire-arm?
The freedom is speech is a part of a whole truth in the 1st Amendment. Free speech is the breaking of the 1st amendment by the licensed practice of law. You are acting as you own council and breaking United States Constitutional law and trying to interpret it as criminal. The fact is an American United States Constitutional Right has no criminal basis as law it is a condition of perfect right. What you need to say and how it is to be said to be only right as a common goal for all people.
Let’s face it Dee people love being smart enough to tell others they are wrong. People do not like being smart enough to be able to tell people how to be perfectly right. Where is the money it that kind of practice of justice, start with telling someone how to be perfectly right? This is nowhere near as awesome as telling them only all the time they are ever wrong. Criminal law awesome! awsome!
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
"I'm not saying that free speech is just great, and doesn't entail any consequences; it does," he said. "You know, we should think about, how do we mitigate misinformation? How can we ensure that we counter hate speech without compromising free speech?
So what he knows... there is a cost to our speaking, and do we also know we are not abiding by, serving, protecting, and or defending United States Constitution, we would only not be acting as a President or Presadera of the united states of American. As a declaration of Independence of English law stating " All men are created equal by their creator." means a man or women must give grievance for separation of this equality, more encompassing might be saying American has declared independence from all legislation of law which does not share two states of law Criminal civil and United states of Right.
The term you break it you bought it comes to mind. The principle is over the liberty of speech not free speech the latter would be a goal of talking, liberty is a question on what can be said this is the fact. We can say or write anything we want as long as we hold it free, without cost. What that means to me is I can put my face in a pillow and say all of the that have a cost and as long as I let no-one hear them I'm good. It is the Constitutional right for intellectual property and ownership by enforcement of criminal law.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
Education is a publically funded entity. The limit is therefore not about what they say but what they can teach.
Outside of the classroom they can say whatever they want about those topics.
Your post is mostly just a copy and paste so i wont take the time to debunk the idiocy of all the examples but heres one:
Tennessee school board removed book from curriculum...
So what are you saying any book not in curriculum is a limit to free speech.
Hard to take that type of idiocy seriously.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
So what are you saying any book not in curriculum is a limit to free speech.
When we talk about voter fraud, we often see it one way. The nature of a crime fraud can serve many purposes it is often not as limited as described to just the contest between officials who are squared off running against each other. Voting fraud is a possible long term means of escaping the enforcement of law by creating higher numbers of criminals. This is done to intentionally overwhelm the system of justice for the short term or long term. Groups of people can have goals in mind and money at the political table can be shared to meet those goals.When we talk about voter fraud, we often see it one way. The nature of a crime fraud can serve many purposes it is often not as limited as described to just the contest between officials who are squared off running against each other. Voting fraud is a possible long term means of escaping the enforcement of law by creating higher numbers of criminals. This is done to intentionally overwhelm the system of justice for the short term or long term. Groups of people can have goals in mind and money at the political table can be shared to meet those goals.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
ARGUEMENT TOPIC : ELPERS IS UPSET AS HE CANNOT DEFEND HIS NEANDERTHAL VIEWS ON WOMENS RIGHTS
Your post is mostly just a copy and paste so i wont take the time to debunk the idiocy of all the examples but heres one:
Pity you didn't do a bit of copy and pasting regarding your idiotic spite piece on Ireland , you're that st-pid you confuse Nothern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland.
Hard to take that type of idiocy seriously. BTW my copy and pasted piece is from an American source, is that what makes it invalid?
Free speech is limited in the US like anywhere else freedom of speech in the true meaning of such is limited
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
Yes, USA does have free speech.
Where, show me? I understand you to be wrong...Where is free speech held?
You should read my addition to the United States Constitutional Right of the 1st Amendment. I do appreciate comments even more when constructive.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
Free speech is limited in the US like anywhere else freedom of speech in the true meaning of such is limited.
I do not agree here the first Amendment only describes
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
An establishment of religious exercise as free, while at the same time abridge free with the word freedom when used in connection to speech and press are wrong. The first thing this page does is make a criminal law interpretation on a right doing just that abridging the definition of freedom with the definition of the word free. What is the one thing religions exercises without cost. Listening, religion exercises the act of listing and understanding without cost. People often donate to them they do not pay all people to listen to them. Religions do not ever pay to be listened to, correct? Religions do seek and give away donations to be heard, correct?
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra
That's not the question I asked.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra