¶ … Proposition Statement: Even if the media might be racist or sexist in its content, there should not be censorship of the media because of the first amendment. Freedom of speech means freedom to disagree

Attention getting statement:

Fire!

Everyone knows that shouting fire in a crowded theater is not only morally wrong, it's also against the law. It's the classic argument against full freedom of speech. According to Chief Justice Holmes, as discussed in the history of the Supreme Court, The Brethren, the justice said that freedom of speech cannot be absolute, because for instance you can't shout fire in a crowded theater and call that free speech. But although most people might agree with him about that, still that doesn't mean that you can make that analogy with every restriction of free speech.

Preview

The problem:

Why restrict freedom of speech at all? The problem today, some might say, is that increasingly, we are seeing exploitative media that contains violence, vulgar images and language against women and members of minority groups.

The cause:

The cause of this is complex. Many people wish to simply blame modern, popular culture. But the sources of this problem trace back as far as the causes of sexism and slavery themselves, far back before the Internet and television.

Preview / Personal appeal:

Of course everyone is hurt who sees images that are negative of themselves in the media.

Preview opposing views/rebuttals:

And many people say that, for instance, negative images of women affect young girl's self-esteem in a permanent and irrevocable fashion. But one cannot isolate these images from the culture that produced them. People...

Speak out, don't smother the opposition!
II. DISCUSSION

Problem of Exploitation in the media

Supporting details regarding problem:

The problem one might say is everywhere. Look on the pages (show pictures) of magazines, from Vogue to Playboy. Listen to everything from the homophobia in Emenem to the anti-woman violence expressed in the lyrics of 2 Live Crew.

2. Supporting Details:

So increasingly and perhaps understandably people have advocated banning such expression to protect minors and impressionable youths.

Further Supporting Details:

But ultimately, such a ban is more of a problem than a cure. After all, who will be in control of banning free speech but those who generated the culture that produced these images themselves?

Causes of Exploitative Media Images:

Who perpetuates this problem?

Ultimately, we in this room perpetuate the problem by consuming such images as well as the media moguls and politicians. The media produces these images because we consume them and use our dollars to perpetuate the cycle.

What businesses/organizations/legislators cause the problem? Block legislation?

Of course, many worthy people in the name of helping us try to find half-measures such as putting the lyrics on albums. But who chooses what albums to target? Do you trust Washington D.C. To monitor the artists, even in a limited fashion, how you experience their music?

Names/addresses / phone numbers:

Individuals as diverse as Tipper Gore to Jerry Falwell have advocated various forms of censorship of the American media.

Effects of Censorship

Create cognitive dissonance:

It's always easy to ban something. It's always much harder to challenge yourself to see the world in a different way.

What is at stake? Why is it important that we think/act/feel?

Instead, don't buy magazines that contain exploitative images. Speak out when someone turns on music you feel offensive.

Use personal appeals:

Of course I'm horrified when I see certain images in the media. But I'm even more horrified to hear that people attempting to protect our supposedly impressionable minds banned such classics as The Catcher in the Rye and Huckleberry Finn.

The Opposition

Opposing views/rebuttals:

Some point…