"Who needs child prostitutes when we have ESL speakers here as sex slaves."
This debater is expelled from the tournament for this comment.
Now as u can see from the link above, many people started questioning about the freedom of speech, even creating another contention. I am not trying to say that the dismissal of this man from this worlds is ok, maybe public apology would have sufficed. But interestingly, this condition has led me to think on how many people rely on "freedom of speech" as if it's completely justifiable to insult others as within personal opinion or merely for fun.
I would rather agree with Bong, an experienced debater and now coach in Indonesia, and let me quote her here while she was commenting on this issue.
"Free speech is not 'free' in the sense that there aren't any boundaries to it. This is the reason why, despite free speech being championed all over, there still are libel laws.
This is also the reason why doctrines such as 'the fighting words' doctrine have been carved out as exceptions to First Amendment freedoms. Words which incite people to hate, ridicule and/or discriminate people from a particular group, do not deserve First Amendment protection, because by their "very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" (Look at Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire, circa 1942). There is a strong public policy and order rationale behind the doctrine, which is both prudent and wise.
The fact that this LSE debater chose to utter these inflammatory statements falls within the fighting words doctrine. Thus, IMHO, any chance at using the First Amendment (i.e., free speech) is unjustifiable. That he did not intend to cause such is not the test here. The test is the effect it has on the audience OR the particular group. Another test is the 'value' of the comment to the exposition of ideas.
Alluding that ESL speakers are perfect substitutes to sex slaves cannot, at least to the educated mind, possibly forward the discourse on preventing the spread of this serious crime.
As for people who blindly invoke free speech, kindly remember that the reason free speech is such a prized freedom is because it aids society to seek the truth, and to divulge this truth to the greater part of society. It has roots in societies which were repressed and oppressed, where expression was met with death.
If anything, this LSE debater made a mockery of this freedom."
This is also the reason why doctrines such as 'the fighting words' doctrine have been carved out as exceptions to First Amendment freedoms. Words which incite people to hate, ridicule and/or discriminate people from a particular group, do not deserve First Amendment protection, because by their "very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" (Look at Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire, circa 1942). There is a strong public policy and order rationale behind the doctrine, which is both prudent and wise.
The fact that this LSE debater chose to utter these inflammatory statements falls within the fighting words doctrine. Thus, IMHO, any chance at using the First Amendment (i.e., free speech) is unjustifiable. That he did not intend to cause such is not the test here. The test is the effect it has on the audience OR the particular group. Another test is the 'value' of the comment to the exposition of ideas.
Alluding that ESL speakers are perfect substitutes to sex slaves cannot, at least to the educated mind, possibly forward the discourse on preventing the spread of this serious crime.
As for people who blindly invoke free speech, kindly remember that the reason free speech is such a prized freedom is because it aids society to seek the truth, and to divulge this truth to the greater part of society. It has roots in societies which were repressed and oppressed, where expression was met with death.
If anything, this LSE debater made a mockery of this freedom."
Indeed, this is I guess the most ideal answer to this contention. Freedom of speech also has its limitation. Many ESL debaters (mostly Asians and Eastern Europeans) have come far to participate in Worlds, such big International debate competition, and maybe have put double effort simply to participate in this event. They really don't deserve to be mocked even in a public forum such as master debate no matter how humorous it can be which I think a really poor sense of humor.
Think first before you speak.
No comments:
Post a Comment