NEG 1.

4
When in conflict, an individuals freedom of speech should be valued
above a communitys moral standards.
"I'm not concerned with your liking or disliking me...All I ask is that you
respect me as a human being." ~ Jackie Robinson
This is why I believe a community's moral standards should be held above an
individual's freedom of speech.
Before I begin to explain and impact these points I would like to say I:
Agree/disagree with defs xys, which, why, impact.
Agree/disagree with parameters of res.
(State if unstated): Burden Scope: The res is false as a general statement.
There are always going to be a few exceptions to the rule, but my job as the
negative is to prove the resolution is false the majority of the time and if I
succeed a negative ballot is warranted at the end of today's debate round.
My value today is Respect which I will define as high regard, honor, or
esteem. (Intrinsic and Extrinsic, Obtainable)
VL1: Respect is attainable. It something we can measure and see the effects
of.
VL2: Respect is intrinsic. Respect is valuable simply just because as human
beings we each deserve respect and that in itself is something worth fighting
for.
VL3: Respect is extrinsic. Respect is a gateway to democracy, knowledge,
peace, prosperity, and many other things.
C1. Freedom of Speech Harms
In the Italian Hall Disaster of Dec 24 1913, often referred to as the 1913
Massacre, seventy-three men, women, and children were crushed to death in
a stampede when someone falsely shouted "fire" at a crowded Christmas
party. Most of these were mine workers and their families. Similar

occurrences had occurred in Harlem in 1884 and in London in 1856.

Aldrich Ames, a CIA agent, was discovered to be a secret Soviet agent in
1994. He specialized in selling the identities of fellow CIA agents to the KGB.
Conservative estimates indicate he exposed over one hundred agents and
was responsible for at least ten deaths.
Insufficiently limited freedom of speech and a lack of respect for the people
and standards of communities is the reason for these tragedies. They are
also the reason for hate speech, inciting riots, libel, slander, bullying and
other forms of verbal abuse.
I think fos is fantastic and I'm not advocating for an absolute abolishment of
our freedom of speech but;
The people within the community should be respected. Because people are
inherently valuable. Freedom of Speech is only valuable when used with
respect, even if the ideas being communicated are valid. But CMS are
valuable alone, because the people holding them are valuable, even if they
are wrong. Even if someone has a different opinion than me, I should still
respect them and their opinion.
C2. Respect is Necessary
"Being brilliant is no great feat if you respect nothing." Johann Wolfgang von
Goethe
You are far more likely to listen to someone if they are respectful, otherwise
you may not listen to them at all. If someone disrespects your values or
moral standards, you may be thinking, well why should I listen to theirs?
Without respect FoS in ineffective.
This is why it is necessary here in debate to be respectful. That's why we
don't cuss in debate rounds.
That idea is solidified in John Locke's Social Contract. The Social Contract is a
basic agreement between a community and an individual that the individual
limits their rights in order to receive the benefits of the community. Right
now I'm limiting my right to Fos by not exercising vulgarity, and limiting my
right to freedom of expression my dressing modestly, in order to receive the
benefits of the home-school forensics community. I implemented these limits
freely, so the benefits reaped must be valuable to me, and in result everyone
benefits.

C3. Community Moral Standards Limits Freedom of Speech

We revere heroes like Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi, who led peaceful
and respectful protests against their community. They valued respect over
their ability to use their freedom of speech for harm and therefore limited
themselves.
Martin Luther King Jr. could have used obscenity and hatred in his iconic
speeches but he chose not to. He could have used his broad influence to
incite riots and encourage violence, but again he chose not to. He respected
his communitys moral standards above his ability to do these things.
Because he valued the people in his community, even those who disagreed
with him.