Argument: If the information is accessible in another format, it is wrong to claim that this is an issue of free speech.

To argue that this is a matter of the infringement of the right to free speech is not only wrong but offensive to those who have had that right genuinely curtailed. A stifling of free speech is about cutting off people’s access to ideas, denying them the right to take those ideas and present them to others. The slow, natural death of Braille does not do that. Fewer than one in ten blind children now learn Braille [i] . Those who wish to continue to use Braille can do so just as those who prefer to write a letter rather than send an email can do so. Both groups however, accept that it is likely to become more expensive and exclude them from the rest of society as others adapt and new technologies become the norm.

The information and ideas are there, they are available in a format that is available, even if it is not the format of absolute preference. The technology is available, many prefer it, those who don’t are free not to use it.

[i] “The Death of Braille” – Appropriate or Ominous? Neatorama.com. 26 February 2010.

Candidate 1: "All of that may well be true, however it does not make the two approaches mutually exclusive. Demonstrating that digital is good does not make analogue bad. Attacks on libraries have been driven more by austerity cuts, that are forcing 20% of the staff at Library and Archives Canada to go, [i] and the situation is similar in other countries such as the UK, [ii] than by the diminishing popularity of the book in particular or libraries in general. Indeed, the book has never been more popular as the ranks of those who like digital formats have been swelled by the digital natives of the Internet age.

[i] CBC News, ‘Federal libraries, archives shutting down’, CBC, 2 May 2012, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/05/02/ottawa-libraries-archives-closing-budget-cuts.html

[ii] Hall, James, ‘Scale of library cut-backs revealed’, The Telegraph, 16 March 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9146818/Scale-of-library-cut-backs-revealed.html"
Candidate 2: "This is a little reminiscent of Anatole France’s comment that “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” [i] Those who feel uncomfortable with a method of delivery are less likely to use it and are therefore excluded, in part at least, from information delivered in that format. To further exclude a group who are already denied some graphical representations of information another form of delivery does exclude them and limit their ability to speak freely as they are denied the information that is its root.

Additionally, oppositions argument only works were there is real action to take up new technologies rather than letting Braille die off without investing in replacement technologies, which has been seen in several jurisdictions including India [ii] .

[i] McBride, Nicholas J., ‘The Importance of Law’, in Letters to a Law Student, 2010, http://wps.pearsoned.co.uk/ema_uk_he_mcbride_letters_2/142/36409/9320853.cw/content/index.html

[ii] Government turns blind eye to Braille Press. Rohit, P.S. The Times of India. 4 May 2012."
Candidate 3: "The suggestion that seven million dollars is an excessive expenditure on a resource for 836,000 is extortionate is simply nonsense. That’s a little over eight dollars a head, hardly likely to break the bank. To say that a government is not discouraging the use of something by making it harder to access is simply untrue. Of course if a resource is harder or more expensive to access, people will be discouraged from using it."

This is a little reminiscent of Anatole France’s comment that “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” [i] Those who feel uncomfortable with a method of delivery are less likely to use it and are therefore excluded, in part at least, from information delivered in that format. To further exclude a group who are already denied some graphical representations of information another form of delivery does exclude them and limit their ability to speak freely as they are denied the information that is its root.

Additionally, oppositions argument only works were there is real action to take up new technologies rather than letting Braille die off without investing in replacement technologies, which has been seen in several jurisdictions including India [ii] .

[i] McBride, Nicholas J., ‘The Importance of Law’, in Letters to a Law Student, 2010, http://wps.pearsoned.co.uk/ema_uk_he_mcbride_letters_2/142/36409/9320853.cw/content/index.html

[ii] Government turns blind eye to Braille Press. Rohit, P.S. The Times of India. 4 May 2012.
