America does not have hate speech laws and never should.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 29,999
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
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. U.S. Constitution - First Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
I must demonstrate that the USA has no limits to freedom of speech and justify its continuation.
- Pure Speech.
- Symbolic Speech
- Political Contributions
- Commercial Speech
- Artistic Expression
- Internet Speech.
- Yelling fire in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire, or risk of fire, causing panic and problems, even if the results was not intended.
- Putting up a billboard saying "I wish all neocons from Imagistan would die. Who is with me?"
- An internet post saying "My 12yo neighbours daughter is really hot, who wants some hidden photos of her?"
- A robocall campaign saying "Press 1 if you like Biden, 2 if you like Trump". they press 2, and then the robocall says "We know who you are and you are going to pay."
- An angry parent at a school committee, and the parent says, "If you pass this bylaw, I will fuck you and your family up. I am watching you"
- A sign on your store front door saying "You need shoes, a shirt, but can't be a Chick with a Dick.... For Service!!"
Let's kick things off with the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the Supreme Court drew a line in the sand about what's considered dangerous speech. They established the "Brandenburg test," which says speech can be restricted if it's "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is likely to do so. This is the infamous case where the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre, could be criminal and is not protected".
Next up, we've got the 2003 case Virginia v. Black. The Supreme Court held that burning crosses with the intent to intimidate isn't protected by the First Amendment.It's like the Court is saying, "Hey, if your speech involves a lighter and a heaping dose of terror, it wont fly.
In the 2006 case United States v. Williams, the Supreme Court focused on "pandering" child pornography. They ruled that offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are NOT protected by the First Amendment, even if the material in question doesn't actually exist, or is considered "artistic" in the eyes of either party.
It has long been established that incitement is excluded from freedom of speech and is characterized as an action, not a form of speech, although speech can still be used as evidence to prove incitement.
cross burning is an entirely unrelated case. Moreover, Con has not proven that the Supreme Court recognizes cross burning as an act of speech and that it is restricted.
such burnings have also remained potent symbols of shared group identity and ideology, serving as a central feature of Klan gatherings."
While all the statements admit or express intent to commit a crime
- Political Protests can be regulated.
- Philosophical Protests can be regulated.
- Use of noise
- Use of lights
- Use of images
- Legal and Commercial Activities (confidentiality and non-disclosure)
- Education
- Employment
- Financial
- Medical
(emphasis added). It appears as if Pro is trying to say that because something that comes out of your mouth is incitement, it technically is not a form of speech. I cannot reconcile this argument at all. I will ties this into rebutting Pro's second rebuttal. that being said
Pro is patently incorrect. In the majority (7-2) decision of Virginia v Black, found its way to the Supreme Court, because a law in Virginia about banning cross-burning, was found unconstitutional by the Virginia Supreme Court. The entire foundation of the law, and the SCOTUS appeal was around the rights to restrict symbolic expressions of speech, which include the burning of a cross. The court recognized that a burning cross is symbolic speech and should in part be protected, because such burnings have also remained potent symbols of shared group identity and ideology, serving as a central feature of Klan gatherings."
Pro attempts to argue that the words, need to be separated from the intent, and it is not the words that are illegal, but the intent. This is absurd. The foundational principals of free speech from an action perspective is "exercise". That is the word in the first amendment. An overt act. That act has an intent, either positive, or negative, legal or illegal. The expression of an idea, is the exercise of the idea, which are connected. One cannot live without the other.
So therein, if there is an expression of an idea that demonstrates an intent to commit a crime, that may be subject to limits. If I hit someone in the head with a baseball bat, the first thing we look at is the intent, or the mens rea. Was it an accident, or did I intend it. Pro admits that my thought experiment cases show a prima facia illegal intent. They are also all expressions of an idea. They are also all illegal.
It is like pro's argument is "You can say whatever you want to say, provided it is not illegal" The laws surrounding what you can say are limits.
REGULATION IS A FORM OF LAWWe can all agree that when the government puts a regulation down, it is a form of law. So any regulation that impacts the expression of an idea, would be a first amendment limitation. I will provide source examples for all of these if required. I would expect they are self evident.
- Political Protests can be regulated.
- Philosophical Protests can be regulated.
- Use of noise
- Use of lights
- Use of images
- Legal and Commercial Activities (confidentiality and non-disclosure)
- Education
- Employment
- Financial
- Medical
I need not continue. Those are all areas where there are regulations limit what someone can say, and in many circumstances they are deemed acceptable limits. Those are laws that limit free speech.Despite what Pro says, this above proves free speech is limited under law, in the United States.
speech could only be restricted if it crossed over to incitement.
one cannot be arrested or convicted simply for saying something.
I stated that admitting or intending to commit a crime through words alone is not illegal, as the context of those words cannot lead to imprisonment.
Expression of intent to commit a crime is not illegal.
However, if I have only been reported for stating my intention to hit someone with a bat and no further evidence is provided to confirm that it actually happened, then I cannot be arrested for an assault that did not occur, regardless of my verbally expressed intent.
Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an apparent present ability to do so, and any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reason to fear or expect immediate bodily harm.”
I must demonstrate that the USA has no limits to freedom of speech and justify its continuation.
Sorry about the gaps where I don't speak but I was planning to both edit and copy and paste a pdf in here, but decided against including a PDF and stuck with not editing due to me being a busy person, I may edit and reupload later, if I do a link to the new video will be in the comments and future videos will be better planned out. https://youtu.be/eumnD1-x3ek
Con is good here. It seems rather obvious by the end that not all forms of speech (or expression, which is classified as speech) are protected. Honestly arguing that there are many forms of speech by legal precedent was quite clever and Pro probably should have done more to counter that. Pro argues that it is the action being punished, not the speech and essentially says that if something is restricted, it's not speech. But I think these examples clearly help Con's case. If not all speech is free, then there are limits on freedom of speech. Pro says in the beginning "the USA has no limits to freedom of speech," but then redefines freedom of speech to mean "whatever is legal under the 1st amendment." This seems absurd, since the law is precisely what is being debated. Threats are just words, as Con points out, yet they're still illegal even if no physical offense has been committed. And regardless of whether speech is sometimes connected to an action, it's clear that the statement "the USA has NO LIMITS to freedom of speech," (emphasis mine) is false. The principle of free speech is simply too broad for that statement to be defended, so Con admittedly has an advantage here. Pro would have done better by defining "hate speech" or "free speech" right at the start. Changing the resolution to something more broad didn't help them.
bump
thanks all for voting and hearing both sides of the argument
Thanks All!
don't judge this one guys it has an extremely clear winner and my vote will be here as soon as my video finishes uploading. This other debate is more urgent if you have time and the winner is less clear. https://www.debateart.com/debates/4329-standardized-testing-should-not-be-abolished-in-the-united-states?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=37
RFD:
Forgot to explain source points. Con uses more sources to cite specific examples that help their argument. Pro links only to the text of the first amendment and doesn't use sources to support their argument.
Okay waiting for video to publish and will place vote
I literally got it bros. doing it now
I’ll see what I can do. Best to ping at 48 hours or earlier if you can.
I will try to vote today if time allows.
yeah I have today off and I posted that comment to remind myself to do so
Anyone interested in a vote? One day left. thanks
Two
thanks for agreeing to the debate it was a lot of fun and I look forward to hearing your closing argument.
sorry ill post now, did not get notified until now.
Are you going to post?