Mock Debate
I. Social networking sites have become grounds for the abuse of the right of freedom of expression
II. Social networking sites decrease violence and abuse of the right of expression
III. There is no right to be free from "speech harm". How do you define the "harm" caused by other people's words anyway? Government’s side hasn’t sighted exactly how the right to freedom of speech is abused or the standards of this abuse. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right and should not be curbed or threatened on the assumption that some people may say abusive or hurtful things. Free speech is the essential right that stands between us and tyranny. This includes the right to be negative and express yourself freely and to be judged accordingly. Free speech should not be limited; even if it is an expression of negativity, it should be publicly debated and logically criticised, rather than hidden altogether, which is what these social networking sites provide. With these as alternatives for people, they are able to vent about their feelings and opinions with less chances of third-party harm. This is because people only share what they think to a certain group of people who likely have the same opinion as you.
Something posted online that‘s considered offensive to one person might not necessarily be so to another. The same thing applies in the real world where you hear people say all sorts of offensive things. So we don’t see what the problem is because there are also people who ‘abuse’ the right of speech in real life, so we say that this harm is not mutually exclusive to social networking sites. And being criticised/abused by other people's words is part of life, something that will always be there anyway.
IV. “Blocking”, for example, is nowadays frequently used to prevent specific content from reaching a final user. However, the indications are that this method is not efficient in preventing, for example, human rights violations on the Internet. Furthermore,
II. Social networking sites decrease violence and abuse of the right of expression
III. There is no right to be free from "speech harm". How do you define the "harm" caused by other people's words anyway? Government’s side hasn’t sighted exactly how the right to freedom of speech is abused or the standards of this abuse. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right and should not be curbed or threatened on the assumption that some people may say abusive or hurtful things. Free speech is the essential right that stands between us and tyranny. This includes the right to be negative and express yourself freely and to be judged accordingly. Free speech should not be limited; even if it is an expression of negativity, it should be publicly debated and logically criticised, rather than hidden altogether, which is what these social networking sites provide. With these as alternatives for people, they are able to vent about their feelings and opinions with less chances of third-party harm. This is because people only share what they think to a certain group of people who likely have the same opinion as you.
Something posted online that‘s considered offensive to one person might not necessarily be so to another. The same thing applies in the real world where you hear people say all sorts of offensive things. So we don’t see what the problem is because there are also people who ‘abuse’ the right of speech in real life, so we say that this harm is not mutually exclusive to social networking sites. And being criticised/abused by other people's words is part of life, something that will always be there anyway.
IV. “Blocking”, for example, is nowadays frequently used to prevent specific content from reaching a final user. However, the indications are that this method is not efficient in preventing, for example, human rights violations on the Internet. Furthermore,