DEBATE IN FAVOR OF TOPIC
Mr president,
honorable judges and dear audience,
all of you must have
heard a famous saying by Oliver Wendell Holmes "The right to
swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.
that means each
and every person should have some limitations in his actions, in his speech, in
his expressions etc etc.this is what we are debating here which is absolutely
true that freedom of expression can not be absolute. and i m here
to support the resolution.
sir as it is said that
man is a social animal who lives with others. so sir you can not live
peacefully without taking care of each other. we r not living in remote past
where people used to fight with each other for survival without thinking of
others . we r living in modern ages where we want to live happily and
peacefully with others.this can only be achieved when we take care of
others and sir taking care means we have
to think and care for others rights in addition to our own. if i have the right
to express my piece of mind i also have to think that it doesn't hurt any body
else.otherwise i would be selfish and provocative. so freedom of exp is not
absolute right but it has to be balanced with other rights.
sir ,a person can not order killing others by
using his right of freedom of speech, in this case he will be guilty in the
court.
The opponents of the
resolution have forgotten in their rash thinking that we are not talking about
an absolute ban on all kinds of expression
my friends! the resolution today only means that there should be
limitations and rules for the sake of others rights. we should express ourselves
in a manner that is permissible in our religion, in our society and in today’s
world.
no society can live a
peaceful life if it doesn't enlist certain rules and disciplines on its members.
It is quite right that there should be a perpetual struggle to push the
boundaries of what can be said in a civilized society. What and when are the
two key variables. As are questions of how children, reputation, national
security, social cohesion, truth and privacy be protected. Acts can be “evil”
if they are dangerous to a traditional way of life, because they are immoral,
or because they hinder the perfectibility of the human race & moral
character of citizens.
Advanced societies that
used to think giving freedom of expression to their citizens are now moving
towards some restraints for example.
it was a popular
justification to claim, "I'll say what I like. It's a free country".
This has rather fallen out of fashion, to be replaced, in UK, with "I'm
entitled to state my opinion", and in US, with "I'm only exercising
my (Constitutional) right to free speech". An interesting word, here is 'right'.
Legal restraints
operate in conjunction with social norms that change with the times. They cool
an absolute freedom, which could otherwise become toxic. Testing the limits
while preserving security and respect is a useful enterprise. The decision here
seems to depend on the likelihood of personal injury; the more certain injury
becomes, the more legitimate the intervention.we should respect all persons and
their beliefs without vilification or discrimination. To protect our right to
belief without fear,
Finding appropriate
boundaries to frame freedom of expression is one of the constant struggles.
Judgment is essential. There are issues of security and personal safety, the
value of truth and honesty, the need to treat others with respect. It is not
true that only sticks and stones can hurt; ignorant, dishonest, malicious,
corrupt words can also do enormous damage.
Dear audience,
look at my friends
across the floor who are touching insanity in contradicting the resolution.
they say that freedom of expression is essential for democracy I want to remind
them of hate speeches by politicians maligning each other Most of these are
useless offensive, and some causes harm because these are deceitful, and aimed
at discrediting specific groups. They also undermine democratic citizenship and
the result in chaos that often engulf the whole society. Even if such speech does
not cause harm or offense, it has to be limited because it is incompatible with
democracy itself. The argument from democracy contends that political speech is
essential not only for the legitimacy of the regime, but for providing an
environment where people can develop and exercise their goals, talents, and
abilities. If hate speech curtails the development of such capacities in
certain sections of the community, we have a reason, based on the the
justification for prohibition.
Here I also want to
mention typical speeches or material about religions where according to george
kateb, professor of politics ,a lot of religious speeches and other material is
hateful, useless, dishonest, and ferments war, bigotry and fundamentalism. The
discomfort that is caused to those who are the object of such attacks cannot
easily be shrugged off. It also creates bad self-image and feelings of guilt
that can haunt persons throughout their lives. The most recent examples are
blasphemic cartoons and the notorious movie that stirred the whole Muslim world.
Is this freedom of expression that my
friends want?
Again sir, I would
dare to remind you of frequent incidents of misuse of social and print media
that results in spoiling innocent lives of young girls and boys.Obscene
material is destroying our youths morality and effecting the threads of our
family and social life. Nobody should
have the right to publish any defaming material about someone else. Or to
create hatred among different social groups through so called freedom of
expression. Nobody should have the right to cause a mass panic by crying
''fire'' in a packed rushy street .Govt has to keep an eye on these activities
to maintain law and order and to achieve calm and peace in the society.
Now sir, I wish to
draw your attention to some more examples to prove my point. Have a look in any
military organization that is considered most disciplined and successful
institution. The basic reason of its discipline is the limitations that each
and every person obeys & doesn’t dare to cross his boundaries of set
patterns. Again look at other places like educational institutions both faculty
and students have a set pattern of behavior beyond which we cannot go if we
want to maintain an educational environment. On campus, there will be different
levels of appropriate speech what a professor can say during a lecture. it
would be completely inappropriate to discuss your favorite actor or politician
when you are supposed to be giving a lecture on vectors and scales or organic
chemistry. Almost all places in which we interact are governed by underlying values and will have
to fit in with these principles: “regulation of expressions is a defining
feature of everyday. A campus is not simply a workplace where people have
contractual obligations, assigned duties, administrative responsibilities of
life.
Honorable judges,Islam
is the religion of peace. It demands us to respect each other. and sacrifice
for others. We are given golden principles on how to interact with others. It
teaches us to love everybody and to hate nobody.
Sir just think for a moment about our own homes.
How parents take care of our way of talking, our dress, rather all our activities
to help us grow into good citizens. They through check & balance teach us
what is good or bad, acceptable or not in our social groups. Then our teachers
at schools put their utmost efforts to make us shining stars through incentives
and punishments. So my dear friends if you disagree these noble acts of
bringing up the human beings then please plan to leave your children in some
jungle but hold on even animals in a jungle have some boundaries set by them
naturally and they obey the nature. And sir, THAT Nature has taught us too to
be careful in all matters of our lives and not to discriminate others by calling
them with bad names or making fun of them. These are the basic teachings of
humanity. And sir humanity demands us that FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION CAN NOT BE
ABSOLUTE. Thank you sir.