Argument: Censorship is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of free speech.

Censoring particular material essentially blinds the public to a complete world view by asserting the patronising view that ordinary citizens simply cannot read extreme material without recognising the flaws in it. This motion assumes that those who have access to material such as religious opinion sites will be influenced by it, rather than realising that it is morally dubious and denouncing it. The best way to combat prejudice is to expose it as a farce; this cannot be done if it is automatically and unthinkingly censored. Meanwhile, it is paradoxical for a government to assert the general benefits of free speech and then act in a contradictory and hypocritical manner by banning certain areas of the Internet. 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.

Candidate 1: "The Internet may be a global resource, but if information on it is have a detrimental effect upon a particular country, it certainly is that government’s responsibility and right to tackle it. If it affects their society and the citizens within it, it affects the government and the means by which they can govern, particularly in relation to social policy. Moreover these websites, and specifically religious opinion websites, often seek to ‘recruit’ others to their school of thought or even to action; their purpose is often to gather support and followers [1] . Therefore there certainly is a risk that these people, who are often very intelligent and persuasive [2] , might lure others to them without protection by the government. It is a very real danger, and needs real protection.

[1] Kiley, Sam, ‘Terrorists ‘May Recruit On Social Networks’’, SkyNews, 12 July 2011, http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16028962 on 09/09/11.

[2] Ali, Iftakhar, ‘Terrorism – The Global Menace’, Universal Journal The Association of Young Journalists and Writers, http://www.ayjw.org/articles.php?id=944449 on 09/09/11."
Candidate 2: "We already frown upon certain forms of speech [1] as we recognise that it is important to protect groups form prejudice and hatred. Allowing the expression of hatred does not automatically mean that ordinary people will denounce it as evil; rather, it normalises hatred and is more likely to be acceptable in the public domain. It also appears to show implicit acceptance or even support from the government when we take no steps to prevent this kind of damaging expression; as such, the government fails in its duty to ordinary citizens to protect them and represent their best interests.

[1] Tatchell, Peter, ‘Hate speech v free speech’, guardian.co.uk, 10 October 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/10/hatespeechvfreespeech on 09/09/11."
Candidate 3: "Governments are often obliged to do things that the population doesn’t like – raising taxes is an obvious example. However, it is also recognised that sometimes the government has to do these things in order to represent the long-term, best interest of its people – whether or not it is a popular measure at the time."

We already frown upon certain forms of speech [1] as we recognise that it is important to protect groups form prejudice and hatred. Allowing the expression of hatred does not automatically mean that ordinary people will denounce it as evil; rather, it normalises hatred and is more likely to be acceptable in the public domain. It also appears to show implicit acceptance or even support from the government when we take no steps to prevent this kind of damaging expression; as such, the government fails in its duty to ordinary citizens to protect them and represent their best interests.

[1] Tatchell, Peter, ‘Hate speech v free speech’, guardian.co.uk, 10 October 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/10/hatespeechvfreespeech on 09/09/11.
