Topic #4: Should there be limits on Freedom of Speech?
Yes, there should be limits.
Side Score: 19
Winning Side! |
 |
No, there should not be limits
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Giving people free speech allows them to make any comment without giving thought about other people. This could cause people to get hurt as seen in the Italian hall disaster. Someone shouted fire and 73 people were killed in a stampede on the way out. Side: Yes, there should be limits.
Unnecessary comments like these even though they weren't meant to be hurtful for others could cause terrible things for other. In the moment at the situation the individual might not have thought about the consequences. Thats why we need limits on freedom of speech to make sure unthoughtful mistakes like these don't happen. Side: Yes, there should be limits.
1
point
that's right because the free speech is possible can change to hate speech if you don't have limits on it. Side: Yes, there should be limits.
Freedom of expression contributes to holding the government accountable. A free press can expose political corruption, follow up on campaign promises, and report on policy performance. Without free speech, politicians will become corrupt, newspapers would never print accurate events and this, in turn, will result in people getting cheated and mislead. source. http://www.insidesources.com/ Side: No, there should not be limits
unthoughtful comment like these even if they weren't meant to be hurtful could hurt someone emotionally. If there are limits on free speech people would be more aware about what is ok and what isn't ok to say. They would become more thoughtful of others while still being able to have normal conversations without worrying about hurting others in any way Side: Yes, there should be limits.
2
points
sometimes the expression of that right can give rise to conflict, and offense. For example: There have been fierce protests in Muslim countries against a YouTube video insulting Islam. The reaction to the video has led to the deaths of more than 50 people, including US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. Side: Yes, there should be limits.
Fully free speech would allow for racist and ethnic comments that could be able to hurt big groups of people. If there are limits on freedom of speech people wouldn't be allowed for such comments. This would allow people not to get excluded leading to more equality and equal rights for everyone Side: Yes, there should be limits.
Most Muslim countries(no offense intended) have very strict limitations of speech... take Dubai for example, people over here have been jailed for trying to convey their disapproval about how the government is very biased towards its citizens. Side: No, there should not be limits
Closing statement: Limiting freedom of speech reduces hurtful comments. Other racist and ethnic comments would also be avoided. This would create more equality and people would be more comfortable working together no matter who they are or where they are from. Getting the world connected in a positive way like this would help us improve and have a bright future. Side: Yes, there should be limits.
|
Opening statement: Freedom of speech is a right acknowledged by almost all the countries in the world... speech serves as a medium to share information and grow; both materialistically and mentally. people are more likely to start protests and riots when denied the right to free speech. in my opinion, free speech should not be limited as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. Side: No, there should not be limits
1
point
there should definitely be limits because It can be misused by people to promote odious ideas, and if there was no limits everyone will be able to promote terrorism, racism, sexism, and fascism ideas. Side: Yes, there should be limits.
1
point
Peaceful political change is much more likely within countries that allow free speech. Freedom of expression contributes to holding the government accountable. A free press can expose political corruption, follow up on campaign promises, and report on policy performance THIS ESSENTIALLY MEANS A COUNTRY THAT PROHIBITS FREE SPEECH IS MORE LIKELY TO BE REVOLTED AGAINST AS OPPOSED TO A COUNTRY THAT SUPPORTS FREE SPEECH Side: No, there should not be limits
1
point
But full freedom of speech allows for free defamation, free association in false and highly misleading propaganda, and no limit would mean no protection of state secrets. Side: Yes, there should be limits.
Countries without full freedom of speech like the UAE have a well working government that is not corrupt. Having freedom of speech could also lead to individuals being brought down by others. On top of that a country with full freedom of speech is more likely to have revolts against a government while they could be more peaceful ways to approach a problem Side: Yes, there should be limits.
Freedom of speech allows people to share information and provides us with the means of advancing both culturally and technologically. Galileo Galilei was punished for giving ideas against the Catholic church that the earth was stationary and his imprisonment caused a setback of about 100 years to the technological development source. http://www.ipsnews.net/2016/02/ Side: No, there should not be limits
When there are limits on freedom of speech it should only be for hurtful comments. People would still be able to spread information and advance both culturally and technologically. Getting rid of comments that offend certain groups of people make more equality. People will be more welcome to work together no matter where they are from. This ultimately leads to more advancements in all fields. Side: Yes, there should be limits.
1
point
1
point
there should definitely be limits because It can be misused by people to promote odious ideas, and if there was no limits everyone will be able to promote terrorism, racism, sexism, and fascism ideas. Side: Yes, there should be limits.
The example is from a 100 years ago. You can't compare that to the world now. Laws used to be very strict. If there was to be limits on freedom of speech it would to make sure people don't get hurt in any way. Giving ideas and your opinion unless it is hurtful should never get banned. Side: Yes, there should be limits.
Ancient China was sealed up from the rest of the world for many centuries... It was once renowned for its advanced technology. Its citizens were prohibited from sharing any information with the outside world. Scientific investigation lagged, and by the end of the dynasty China was importing weapons and weapon technologies from Europe, where shipbuilding and navigational skills had become more advanced this in turn equated into the Chinese dynasty collapsing. Side: No, there should not be limits
|
