LD Affirmative Case.docx



“Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin.” -Dwight D. EisenhowerRESOLVED: On balance, government restrictions on threatening speech are desirable.Observation I: DefinitionsBalance- a state in which different things occur in equal or proper amounts or have an equal or proper amount of importanceGovernment- the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc.Restrictions- the act of limiting or controlling somethingThreatening- to say that you will harm someone or do something unpleasant or unwanted especially in order to make someone do what you wantSpeech- a spoken expression of ideas, opinions, etc., that is made by someone who is speaking in front of a group of peopleDesirable- having good or pleasing qualities : worth having or gettingAll of these definitions are provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary.Observation II: Value and CriterionThe value of this debate is that of domestic tranquility. Speech is an important part of our nation’s foundations, but threatening speech falls under a different category, both legally and morally. Through the years, the United States has achieved freedom for its citizens, but such protections do not apply to the category of threatening speech. For these reasons, speech should be treated justly, and threatening speech limited. The criterion for this value is governmental protection of its citizens against threatening speech.Contention I: Threatening speech receives no Constitutional protection.Threatening speech is unavoidable in a country built on the liberties granted to its citizens through the Bill of Rights, the foundation of the modern United States government and legal corpus. Firstly, threatening speech can be mentally harmful towards people such speech is directed toward. Secondly, threatening speech runs in the same vein as hate speech or obscene speech, both of which receive no legal protection. Thirdly, threatening speech can be harmful if the threat is actually carried out. While several Supreme Court cases have been resolved that favor true freedom of speech, there have been several court rulings in the past one hundred years that have stated plainly that “true threats receive no First Amendment protection” (Watts v. U.S.). On top of the fateful ruling of Watts v. U.S. (1963), the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled against obscenity as well in multiple rulings, most notably in Miller v California (1973). Thus, these multiple court rulings have built on top of the Bill of Rights, and established rulings that have not limited true free speech, but limited threatening speech and obscenities. Contention II: Government restrictions are desirable towards threatening speech.Threatening speech is a threat to domestic tranquility. Speech, whether educated and constructed or slandering and degrading, has a profound effect on the essence of a peaceful homeland; and it is thus that threatening speech can unspin the fabrics of peace. Without certain restrictions, citizens will be free to threaten others, and institutions, with inciteful speech. Riots, revolts, and wars have been started by the power of shouting threatening speech. It is with that recognition of this domestic threat that powers of government designated to protect the land have legally decreed the illegality of threatening speech protection under the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States is the cornerstone of modern America, and if the Constitution won’t protect threatening speech, then no one should. It it thus that we are able to conclude that the government should be allowed to, or even desired to, restrict threatening speech in the urge for a peaceful homeland.Sources: ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download