Essential Topic Analysis

UIL Lincoln-Douglas

FALL Debate Topic

SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2006

Resolved: When in conflict, freedom of expression ought to be valued above political correctness.

General Topic Analysis

In order to understand this resolution we will examine its distinct parts. We will first look at how the various words in the resolution affect the central questions in the resolution, then discuss the burdens of both sides, then look at some arguments that pertain to the resolution, and finally look at how you can win under this resolution.  

Definitional Debate

This part of the overview is very important, and should not be overlooked as it is sometimes within a debate.

Lets first look at the word ought. While it seems to be a simple word, the way you define it has several implications. Most debaters however will define ought as morally obligated or duty. While I have no problem with this definition it has several in round implications. First, if that is the way you define it, you have the burden to show why you are morally obligated to value freedom of expression over political correctness or visa versa. This means that in your case you can’t just show why it’s reasonable to value political correctness or freedom of expression, you have to show a strong link back to moral obligations. Secondly, you can use this definition as an offensive argument within your case. For example, you can frame the debate to a deontological framework since the definition of ought indicts moral obligations.

Furthermore there are alterative definitions, such as reasonable or desirable. However these definitions leave some to be desired. How do we determine desirable or reasonable? Thus, if you do use these definitions make sure within your case you give a standard to determine when something is reasonable or desirable.

Now let us look at the phrase freedom of expression. First, make sure you define the phrase together. Don’t define freedom then define expression, because the words defined separately have different meanings then defined together.

Ok, now let’s look at some definitions for freedom of expression.

The best definition is from the Blacks Law dictionary. It defines freedom of expression as the right guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S constitution, includes freedom of religion, speech, and press. What is important about this definition is the fact that freedom of expression is not just limited to free speech. Free expression also includes freedom of religion and press.

However, the next best definition is from the Merriam Webster’s Dictionary. They define free expression as the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations. This definition is good for affirmative debaters for two reasons. First it sets up that the government is limited to restricting free expression. Secondly it uses the phrase reasonable limitations, which sets the parameters for you to argue that political correctness is not a reasonable limitation. Furthermore I think this definition is very logical. As an affirmative debater you really can’t argue that free expression is absolute, but you can argue that political correctness is an unreasonable restriction.

Now to the dreaded phrase political correctness. Almost every dictionary defines political correctness as avoidance of terms that are considered to be discriminatory or offensive to certain groups of people. While most dictionaries may have different wordings, the intent of the definition is along the same lines. Thus with the phrase political correctness you are limited in the way you can define it. However, as an affirmative debater the definition of political correctness opens the door to massive arguments against the negative. First how do we establish what is discriminatory or offensive. Don’t allow your opponent to just assume certain types of speech are offensive, make your opponent provide some type of standard that allows us to determine what is offensive and discriminatory. Second how do we determine political correctness when competing viewpoints arise? For example, I may see certain words as politically incorrect where as you may see them as politically correct. Thus as an affirmative debater you may be limited to definitions, but not limited to arguments against political correctness.

Finally let’s look at the phrase seen at the beginning of the resolution, when in conflict. Right now I want you to get a pen and circle this phrase, because it alone will enable you to win many rounds.

While the definitions of this phrase don’t play an integral role, the phrase itself does. Most debaters will spend all their time talking about political correctness and freedom of expression, and will overlook the intent of the resolution. The first burden that both sides of the debate have is to show where the conflict actually occurs. If your opponent doesn’t show this conflict, then they are not adequately affirming or negating the resolution. So if this does happen make sure you emphasize it. Explain how your opponent doesn’t show the conflict, and then show where the conflict actually occurs.

So overall, don’t overlook definitions. Definitions can win a lot of rounds. Make sure you have adequate definitions, and also make sure you call out the flaws in your opponent’s definitions.

BURDENS:

In this part of the overview we will first discuss the burdens that both the affirmative and negative have, and finally look at some additional burdens that can be placed on your opponent.

Lets first look at the affirmative burdens:

1. Establishing the Conflict- Like I explained before in the definitional analysis the first burden affirmative debaters have is to establish the conflict. Consequently many debaters will overlook this burden, and therefore will not adequately prove the resolution true. You may be asking why we actually have to establish a conflict. Well, first it is a prerequisite to determine whether freedom of expression ought to be valued above political correctness. There is no way to determine which value should be prioritized, if we don’t first see the conflict. Furthermore there is no way to weigh implications in the round if we don’t know the conflict. How de we know so and so is going to happen if we don’t know what the conflict actually is. In simpler terms, if we don’t know the conflict we won’t know the harms created by political correctness or freedom of expression.

2. Establishing Prioritization-

Most affirmative debaters will fail to meet this burden, so pay close attention. Look back at the resolution, Resolved: When in conflict, freedom of expression ought to be valued above political correctness. There will be one fatal flaw with almost all affirmatives. They will get up and read for 6 minutes on why freedom of expression is good, but no where in their case will they show prioritization. The resolution is comparative; it’s not asking why freedom of expression is good it’s asking why freedom of expression ought to be valued above political correctness. Thus to meet the burden of prioritization, you can not only look at why freedom of expression is good. You must give your judge reasons why freedom of expression should be prioritized over political correctness. Therefore in your affirmative case you may have to spend some time explaining why political correctness is bad, and why it shouldn’t be valued above freedom of expression. So be comparative in your affirmative case, explain why freedom of expression should be valued above political correctness.

Furthermore as a negative debater, use this to your advantage. If your opponent doesn’t show prioritization in their affirmative case then point it out. Read your negative case, and then make an overview. In the overview just simply say that the affirmative is not adequately proving the resolution true. Tell the judge that your opponent does a great job of explaining why freedom of expression is good, but never shows why it should be valued above political correctness. 

Now on to the negative burdens.

The good thing about comparative resolutions is that the negative does have burdens.

If you look at past UIL resolutions the negative really had no presumed burdens. Thus this makes it a lot easier to affirm, because you can place burdens on the negative and you don’t have to rely entirely on your affirmative case.

Ok let’s look at the negative burdens. They are pretty much the same as the affirmative burdens, but there are some differences.

1. Establishing the Conflict- This burden is exactly the same as explained above in the affirmative burdens. However as a negative debater, I feel you have more of a burden under this resolution to establish the conflict. This is true because the affirmative has no conflict until political correctness is enacted. Thus as a negative debater if a conflict isn’t established, and shown to be a large conflict, there is no reason to prioritize political correctness over freedom of expression.

2. Establishing Prioritization- Once again the resolution is comparative; it’s not asking why political correctness is good it’s asking why political correctness ought to be valued above political correctness. Thus to meet the burden of prioritization, you can not only look at why political correctness is good. You must give your judge reasons why political correctness ought to be valued above freedom of expression. So as a negative debater make sure your case and line by line analysis is comparative and shows prioritization. Don’t limit yourself to just why freedom of expression is bad or why political correctness is good, do both and you will meet the burden of prioritization.

So now let’s look at some additional burdens you can place on your opponent.

When you’re affirmative here are some additional burdens you can place on the negative.

1. Place the burden on the negative to establish what is discriminatory or offensive. Don’t allow your opponent too just assume certain types of speech are offensive. Make your opponent provide some type of standard that allows us to determine what is offensive and discriminatory. This burden is great for affirmative debaters. If your opponent doesn’t meet this burden then the judge will have to vote for you, because there will be no way to determine when freedom of expression creates a conflict.

2. Place the burden of your opponent to establish how we determine political correctness when competing viewpoints arise. For example, I may see certain words as politically incorrect where as you may see them as politically correct. If your opponent doesn’t establish how we determine this, than you must prioritize freedom of expression because we have no way of determining when political correctness is met or undermined. This is also a great burden for affirmative debaters to put on negative debaters because it’s logical and great offense. We all have different interpretations of what is politically correct, thus it makes it a hard burden for the negative to meet.

Finally let’s look at some burdens the negative can place on the affirmative.

1. Other than the burdens given above in the affirmative burden analysis there really is only one more burden that the negative can place on the affirmative. Make the affirmative prove that freedom of expression ought to be valued above political correctness through implications and impacts. Therefore your opponent can’t just say vote affirmative, because political correctness violates freedom of expression. Make your opponent show why the implications of violating freedom of expression outweigh the implications you give at the point you don’t have political correctness. This must be the way you determine who wins the round, because rights conflicts will always arise, and the only way you can determine how to solve that conflict is by determining which side of the conflict has more severe implications. This is a great burden that the negative can place on affirmative debaters. It is really hard for affirmative debaters to win the impacts under this resolution, so make you opponent win the impacts. Furthermore you can use this burden as a preemptive argument within your case. Wherever you establish the conflict, show the impacts and explain how your impacts outweigh the affirmatives.

ARGUMENTATION

Finally, let’s discuss the two main arguments that affirmative and negative debaters will be making.

Affirmative arguments:

A.  Slippery Slope-get ready negative debaters, almost all affirmatives will be making this argument. In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is an argument for the likelihood of one event or trend given another. Invoking the "slippery slope" means arguing that one action will initiate a chain of events that will lead to a (generally undesirable) event later. Thus the argument is that we should not limit free speech because once we do we will slide our way into tyranny and censorship.

Here are some generic responses for negatives against the slippery slope.

1. Slippery Slope arguments are flawed:

David van Mill explains,

“Before we do this, however, the reader might wish to disagree with the claims made above and warn of the dangers of the “slippery slope.” The slippery slope argument is that we should not limit free speech because once we do we will slide our way into tyranny and censorship. Such arguments assume that we can be on or off the slope. In fact, no such choice exists: we are necessarily on the slope whether we like it or not, and the task is always to decide how far up or down we choose to go, not whether we should step off altogether.”

University of Western Australia
Freedom of Speech, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

Thus the slippery slope argument is a flawed term, because we will always be on a slippery slope. It’s just a matter of how far up or down we are willing to go on that slope.

2. The Slippery slope argument is impractical:

We limit free speech all the time and we haven’t started down the slope. It’s impractical to believe that just because you limit free expression it will result in tyranny and all the other impacts my opponent gives. Some limits on free expression are not going to end the world.

Now let’s look at the second argument that will be seen a lot.

B. Constitutionality- I hate this argument, but be prepared you will hear it so many times it will make you cry. The argument goes like this. Freedom of expression is a constitutional right……so you must prioritize freedom of expression over political correctness since it’s represented in the constitution.

Here are some generic responses for negatives against constitutionality.

1.      Constitutional arguments are flawed:

Just because free expression is represented in the constitution doesn’t mean we should automatically value it above political correctness. The constitution use to allow for slavery and women suffrage, so sometimes the constitution isn’t always right. Thus we should determine what we ought to value first, not what the constitution says to value first.

2. Just because freedom of expression is represented in the constitution doesn’t mean it’s an absolute right:

The Constitution and First Amendment allow the state to censor or limit free expression when there is a legitimate interest. Ask yourself why there are certain laws out there that limit communication and content? Thus the implication of this argument is that just because free expression is represented in the constitution, doesn’t mean that isn’t subject to restrictions.

Negative Arguments:

A. Free expression should be limited- Most negatives will argue that free expression leads to racism, sexism, so on and so on. Thus they will argue that we must limit free expression. However as an affirmative debater don’t disagree with this argument, because very few judges will buy that freedom of expression is absolute. While the argument is persuasive the argument really doesn’t get the negative anywhere. Read the responses and you will see why.

1. I agree freedom of expression should be limited:

I can agree with my opponent, but my opponent fails to show why political correctness should be the means of limiting free expression. My opponent has to show why political correctness should be valued above free expression, not why freedom of expression should be limited. Thus they must prove that political correctness is a good way to limit free expression.

…Then explain and extend the analysis from your case that says why political correctness is bad.

2.      There is no threshold to this argument:

How do we determine when we limit freedom of expression? You may think we need to limit certain types of speech where as I may think we don’t. Thus you must reject this argument unless my opponent can give us a threshold or standard to determine when we limit freedom of expression.

B. Political correctness reduces the harms created by free expression- Most negative case structures will be as follows. Free expression creates harms, like racism, sexism, etc. Thus you must prioritize political correctness to reduce the harms created by political correctness. While this is not a bad case position, most negatives will not construct their case in a manner where this argumentation actually works. Here are some responses to when this argument is made.

1. Political correctness will never reduce the harms created by free expression. If anything political correctness creates more harm, because it allows free expression to occur behind closed doors.

Irene Clark explains,

“Even if political correctness proponents succeeded in their goal of eliminating offensive actions and language, they can never kill the ideas behind them. In private these ideas can grow and fester unchecked. In public, the offenders can be identified. When forced to hide these ideas, the offenders will still express them in secret. When these people are allowed to express their thoughts and opinions in public, the rest of the world is able to watch what they are doing. If they are not aware that they are being offensive, they can be told, also.”

·  Clark, Irene L. Writing about Diversity. Chap. 7: pp. 369-404.

·  Hutaff, Matt. Traditions Shouldn't Need a Return Policy. Daily Trojan: Sep 11, 1997: pp. 4-5.

This next argument can’t be used all the time, but I guarantee you will be able to use it a lot of the times. If they give no evidence to why political correctness reduces the harms, make this argument.

2.      My opponent makes a flat out assertion:

My opponent gives no actual evidence that says political correctness will reduce the harms created by free expression. They only make an assertion that political correctness will reduce the harms. How do we know my opponent is right, thus without some type of evidence this argument is simply an assertion that can’t be accepted.

THREE TIPS TO WINNING ON THIS RESOLUTION:

1. Go affirmative- In the out rounds when you get a choice to go either affirmative or negative GO AFFIRMATIVE. While usually the negative has more advantages in a round, such as time allocations and lack of burdens, this resolution is a lot easier to affirm than negate. The first reason why this is true is just the fact that there is little evidence out there that actually says political correctness is good. Most negatives will have plenty of arguments, but nowhere in there evidence will they actually discuss political correctness. Secondly, there is so much evidence out there that says political correctness is bad. Just look at the evidence in this handbook and you will see what I’m talking about. Thirdly, the negative compared with the affirmative is more limited in what they can argue. There is no reason why as an affirmative you can’t block almost all negative arguments out, because there simply aren’t that many negative arguments. Thus I’m not demanding you to go affirmative when you get a choice, but I strongly advise you to go affirmative.

2. Meet your burdens- This is the most important tip, I can give you on this resolution or any resolution. MEET YOUR BURDENS. If you meet your burdens then there is no way you can loose a round. So refer back to those burdens I gave you in the burden analysis, and make sure you can meet those burdens. If you can show the conflict in your case and show prioritization in your case, there really is no reason why you should lose a round.

3.  Keep it simple- With this topic dancing before you, the temptation may be to run off and find those sweet cards, trendy positions, and tricky philosophies. But take a step back, take a deep breath, and stay SIMPLE. There is no reason to run some weird and unheard of position, because there are enough simple arguments out there that can win rounds. Why be tricky, beat your opponent straight up. Win the burdens, impacts, and definitional debates. Don’t try to trick your opponent, because it will probably trick your judge. Furthermore, all tricky positions say the same thing as simple positions. It is just certain debaters try to be cool and tricky, instead of just being simple.

Essential Questions

1. What is political correctness?

2. What is the inherent worth of political correctness?

3. Is political correctness a majority opinion?

4. Does politically incorrect language cause harm?

5. Is political correctness a western culture idea?

6. Are there any geographical constraints in the resolution?

7. How would Islamic cultures view the resolution?

8. What is freedom of expression?

9. Where is the conflict?

10. Is political correctness a form of freedom of expression?

11. When do we restrict language?

12. What types of speech, if any, cause harm?

13. Who determines what is politically correct?

14. Is freedom of expression absolute?

15. How do we determine political correctness, when competing views arise?

16. Are certain types of speech illegal?

17.  Is free expression only limited to free speech?

18. Will political correctness reach its intended goal?

19. Is political correctness limited to just language, or does it extend to actions?

20. If freedom of expression is subject to restrictions, how de we determine when?

21. Is freedom of expression even a right?

22. In the resolution is the government the agent of action?
Concepts

1. Free Expression

2. Political correctness

3. Hate speech

4. Danish cartoons

5. Feminism

6. John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle

7. Slippery slope - argument is that we should not limit free speech because once we do we will slide our way into tyranny and censorship.

8. Clear and Present danger principle

9.  Joel Feinberg’s Offensive principle

10. Market Place of Ideas

11. Fascism

12. The First Amendment

13. Censorship

14. Personal Autonomy

15. Liberal Democracy

16. Multiculturalism- is an ideology advocating that society should consist of, or at least allow and include, distinct cultural groups, with equal status.

17. Sapir–Whorf hypothesis- theory which states that a language’s grammatical categories shape its speakers ideas and actions.

18. Fighting Words

19. Conservatism/ Liberalism

Possible Value / Criteria

1. Liberty

2. Individualism

3. Individual Rights

4. Free expression

5. Market Place of Ideas

6. Human Dignity

7. Constitutionality

8. Freedom

9. Democracy

10. Transparency

11. Utility/Utilitarianism

12. Societal Welfare

13. Justice

14. Autonomy

15. Legitimate Government

16. Just Government

17. Pragmatism

18. Self-Actualization

19. Communitarianism

20. Harm Principle

21. Offensive Principle

22. Morality

23. Equality/Egalitarianism

24. Civil Society

25. Progress

26. Duty/ Obligations

27. Clear and Present Danger Principle

28. Common Good

29. Progress

30. Deontology/Deontological Ethics

BOOKS TO READ

BOOK] The Myth of Political Correctness -
JK Wilson - 1995 - books.google.com

 

Self-censorship in Public Discourse: A Theory of" political Correctness" and Related Phenomena -
GC Loury - 1993 - bu.edu

Beyond Political Correctness: Social Transformation in the United States

Michael S. Cummings-2001

Political Correctness: A Response from the Cultural Left

Richard Feldstein-1997

The Language War:

Robin Tolmach Lakoff-2001

Language, Society and Power:

Jason Jones, Linda Thomas-1999

Speech, Media and Ethics: The Limits of Free Expression

Raphael Cohen-Almagor -2001

Freedom of Expression in the 21^st Century:

Robert Trager, Doona Lee Dickerson-1999

Mill’s On Liberty:

John Stuart Mill-2001

What is Freedom and Other Essays: A Collection of Essays Challenging the Assumptions of Political Correctness:

Dean Chambers-1999

Free Speech: The People’s Darling Privilege

Michael Kent Curtis-2000

The Right to Free Speech:

Karnen Fontanetta, Claudia Isler-2001

Hate Speech, Sex Speech, Free Speech:

Nicholas Wolfson-1997

Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism

Samuel Peter Nelson-2005

Links to some good and interesting articles:

1. FREEDOM OF SPEECH: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

2. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

3. INTERVIEW WITH STANLEY FISH: http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-February-1998/fish.html

4. WHAT IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS:

http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~katz/pc.html

5. ORIGINS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS:

http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html

6. RIGHT WING POLITICAL CORRECTESS:

http://www.reason.com/links/links050806.shtml

7. CHANGING LANGUAGE TO CHANGE THINKING:

http://personalethics.suite101.com/article.cfm/political_correctness

 

8. RADICAL FEMINISM AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS:

http://www.freecongress.org/PC_Essays/F_chapter_five.pdf#search=%22FEMINISM%20AND%20POLITICAL%20CORRECTNESS%22

9. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS THREATENS FREE SPEECH:

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/020119-5.htm

10. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, LANGUAGE, AND RIGHTS:

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disabilitystudies/archiveuk/Barnes/Correct.pdf#search=%22language%20and%20political%20correctness%22

11. POLITICALLY CORRECT AND PROUD OF IT:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1293144,00.html

12. A SHORT HISTORY OF AN IDEOLOGY:

http://www.freecongress.org/PC_Essays/B_Intro_and_chapter_one.pdf#search=%22political%20correctness%20marxism%22

13. ETHICS, EDUCATION, AND POLTICAL CORRECTNESS:

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/

14. THE NEW TYRANNY:

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/pcism/new_tyranny.htm

15. THE SCOURAGE OF OUR TIMES:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml

Definitions

Ought

Valued above

Freedom of expression

Political correctness

Contextual definitions of political correctness

David Bennett (ddt@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au)
Murphy's Law Newsletter - Volume 4 Issue 1
Feburary 1995

http://www.ucc.asn.au/infobase/newsltrs/vol4iss1/politically.html

First of all, what is politically correctness? Political Correctness is a term coined to cover the concept of the practical exercising of egalitarianism by individuals. It covers such concepts as using non-derogatory language and giving Equal Opportunities to those with equal abilities. This is not actually that hard a thing to do. All it requires is to not use offensive and blatantly derogatory statements. Like the word 'Nigger' used to refer to people of African origin in the United States. Another example is using gender specific languages in places where referring to both sexes of the species. What political correctness is not. It is not defining a double standard. If a African person uses the word 'nigger' they are just as much in the wrong as a European. A women can still be sexist. Just because they happen to be one of the people being marginalised does not mean that they don't uphold and even enforce the attitudes themselves. Political correctness does not stop debate about cultures and the merits and problems with any given culture. It is just a means of not insulting someone with language. Insulting people is after all a more passive form of violence, but it can still hurt.

Why does political correctness exist? Why should I use it?

We think in our language. If our language does not have words for a concept we cannot express the concept or even think about it. The Eskimos have 500 words for snow in order to think about 500 different types of snow. If we change the language we think in, the language we use will effect change in how we think. This will have a beneficial effect on the society as it will be a start towards removing racism and sexism from the society.

Racism, Sexism, homophobia and all the other forms of discrimination are by definition a form of brain washing. People are not born believing them, they are imbued with these values from the society in which they grow up. Political Correctness is involved with developing a way of thinking that will negate some of these. Since language plays an important part in shaping our thoughts, actions and shared values, then if we acknowledging that any given person could be female or one of any other minority, we change peoples thoughts on where people belong in the system. Career jobs still mostly have gender specific titles like postman, policeman, and chairman, by changing these words in our speech and thoughts to be postie, police officer and chair we by default change our image of these people. Colour is also an important point, in our current society black is thought of as bad and white is thought of as pure and angelic. These are all cultral perceptions in China for instance white is the colour of death, all these attributions of colour to certain arbitrary feelings does lead to a change in our behaviour.

An example of institutionalised discrimination thats exists in our language currently is sexist language. This is using the male pronoun to refer too all members of our species. Whilst our language still refers to women as being abnormal and out of the ordinary; discrimination has to exist! This is because people will automatically think of women in a lower position, as abnormal. To make women equal in our society we need to make it such that women will automatically be thought of as being equal.

Why should we even try and use politically correct language?

As more people start using politically correct language it will become more and more accepted as the way of doing things. It will become the correct way to speak. It will mean that sexism and racism will begin to loose their stranglehold position in today's society. There are many ways around using sexist language in speech and text. Simple replacements of man with person work in most cases. Use of gender inspecific pronouns like it and they work in a lot of other cases. Politically correct language does not reduce your vocabulary or in any way inhibit your freedom of speech. Let me expand on that. Freedom of speech is a qualified statement, it should never be thought of that you can say anything you want and get away with it. The current system is you are free to say anything, it's just that people are free to bring liable, defamation or assault charges against you.

Assult charges are in reference to rude and threatening language, it does not refer to physical violence. If physical violence is also included in the attack then the charges are called Assult and battery or assult causing bodily harm. As an example; if you said 'Fuck you' to a police officer they could press charges of assult against you and get an appropriate punishment handed down in a magistrates court. (Reference Sussex Street Law pp ...).

Answers to common arguements against Political correctness

Many people use the argument that he is actually a generic and it means both genders. This can be easily shown to be wrong. If he was a true generic, then why have the word she at all? For if he is a generic and refers to both members, then she is not needed. Therefor he does not refer to both sexes. It must therefor refer to the male members of the species. Political Correctness is not about describing the world so as not to give offence. Political Correctness is about not using words based on a personal bias of them, that has nothing to do with the person you are talking to, but to do with your cultural perception of them. For example it is Politically Correct to say "You didn't do an acceptable job", it is not politically correct to say "You goddamn boong did a shithouse job, but what do you expect from a wommon?"

The concept of Ultimate good is often mentioned and that there exists concepts which they considered to have a higher value than Political Correctness. Usually it is in reference to freedom of speech and democratic values. Political Correctness does create a freer society, one where people are not discriminated against based on gender or race. This allows anyone to get the same chances and opportunities as anyone else. Since democracy is about being ruled by the people, a system where more of the people feel they have a say in the running of the system is more democratic. This means Political Correctness is consistent with the popular idea of Democracy therefore Political Correctness is Democratic.

.

AUSTRALIAN UNION OF STUDENTS, Political Correctness: The New Communism

http://www.students.org.au/political/correctness/

"Political Correctness" is the name given to a set of political policies that have been promoted in Australia, New Zealand, Britain, the United States and Canada since the 1960s. These policies are constantly changing, and what is "politically correct" in 1970 may no longer be "politically correct" in 2000. People become aware of "Political Correctness" when they or someone else fall victim to it.

"Political Correctness" is constantly changing, based on how much the "politically correct" people think they can get away with.

The "Political Correctness" movement has appeared over the years in different forms, like different strains of a disease. The latest manifestation of "Political Correctness" is the campaign against genetically modified crops. In the 1980s and 1990s there was the Environmental Movement, the Animal Liberation Movement, and the Prisoners' Rights Movement. In the 1970s and 1980s there was the Gay Rights Movement and the Human Rights Movement. In the 1960s and 1970s there was the Anti-Vietnam War Movement, the Anti-Apartheid Movement, the Womens Liberation Movement and the Civil Liberties Movement.

"Political Correctness" arose in Britain during the Second World War. It was invented by propaganda experts working for the British Government, to discredit the Germans and Hitler.

"Political Correctness" is an ideology, like Christianity or Marxism. Every human being on the planet has an ideology, even if they don't call it that. It is your ideology that allows you to decide what is right and wrong. Everyday life would be impossible without an ideology.

When the British Government's propaganda experts invented "Political Correctness", they weren't trying to invent an ideology. They were trying to "con" British workers to join the armed forces and die for their country, even though there was no threat from Germany. "Political Correctness" was never intended as a recipe for how a well-ordered society should be run. Since "Political Correctness" was not intended to be used as an ideology other than for the duration of the Second World War, it has reached its used-by date and should be discarded. All "Politically Correct" ideas should be rejected as rubbish.

People tend to be over-awed by "Politically Correct" ideas because important and respectable people support them.

The reason why all these important and respectable people support "Political Correctness" is because during the Second World War, anyone who was against "Political Correctness" was locked up. They didn't have freedom of speech during the Second World War. If they had been allowed freedom of speech, people would have said, "Why don't we grant visas to allow all the Jews to leave Germany and settle in our colony of Palestine, and why don't we let Hitler colonise Russia and get rid of communism for us? It's obvious that all he wants is an empire for the Germans like we have."

"Political Correctness" struck a chord with the Catholics. The Catholic Church had for centuries shown a very tolerant attitude to sin. It was almost as though when you went to confession you had to have some sort of sin to confess. And if you hadn't committed any sins that week, you would have to go out and commit one so as to have something to report. As a Catholic you had the feeling that there was something wrong with you if you weren't an alcoholic, drug addict or sexual deviate.

On our Catholic Church Page, we consider the evidence that the Catholic Church is behind the spread of "Political Correctness". The main evidence is that the activists in the "politically correct" pressure groups went to Catholic schools. We have come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church made a deal with the Russians to spread "Political Correctness" to undermine the military preparedness of the West. The Catholic Church did this so that, if the Russians invaded the West, the Russians would permit the Catholic Church to carry on as normal, rather than suppressing the Catholic Church as they had done to the Orthodox Church in Russia.

Such has been the campaign by the "politically correct" media that words like "English" or "Christian" are almost swear words. They have tried to make out that we are radically different from people in Britain, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. For example, they make out that we have unique customs, like calling each other "mate".

Every night on the evening news we hear about the problems of the world: war, starvation, poverty, violence, hatred, disease. All of these problems could be solved if we got rid of "Political Correctness". "Political Correctness" rules out solutions to these problems. Examples of solutions to the world's problems are China's One Child policy, Apartheid, nuclear energy, genetically modified crops, import restrictions, and oligarchy. These solutions have been ruled out by "Political Correctness". To solve the world's problems, alleviate the misery, and save our own culture, we must get rid of "Political Correctness".

Agustin Blazquez, April 8, 2002

Agustin Blazquez is producer/director of the documentaries "Covering Cuba," Covering Cuba 2: The New Generation," and the upcoming Covering Cuba 3: Elian," and author with Carlos Wotzkow of the book "Covering and Discovering."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml

Does anyone know the origins of Political Correctness? Who originally developed it and what was its purpose?

I looked it up. It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the "Frankfurt School." It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.

The problem? Why wasn't communism spreading?

Their answer? Because Western Civilization was in its way.

What was the problem with Western Civilization? Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.

And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.

One way to do that? Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices.

And call it something that sounds positive: "Political Correctness."

Inspired by the brand new communist technique, Mao, in the 1930s, wrote an article on the "correct" handling of contradictions among the people. "Sensitive training" – sound familiar? – and speech codes were born.

In 1935, after Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt School moved to New York City, where they continued their work by translating Marxism from economic to cultural terms using Sigmund Freud's psychological conditioning mechanisms to get Americans to buy into Political Correctness. In 1941, they moved to California to spread their wings.

But Political Correctness remains just what it was intended to be: a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society.

The self-censorship resulting from Political Correctness easily trampled freedom of speech. Political Correctness has succeeded in Cuba by creating a uniform political discourse that has lasted for 43 years.

Political Correctness has given the state (Castro) complete control of speech. That is the main reason why the U.S. media cannot extract the truth of what Cubans really feel when they interview regular citizens and deceptively present their comments as valid to the American public.

With profound dismay, I have seen how the scourge of Political Correctness has taken hold in the U.S. It is very well entrenched in our educational system, at scientific, religious and community levels, the media, the workplace and even our government.

It is changing the American society from within, and the citizens of this nation are increasingly censoring themselves and losing their freedom of speech out of fear of Political Correctness repression.

It is the nature of Western Civilization to be civilized – respectful of others and concerned with correcting injustices. We don't need Political Correctness to make us think we are not civilized on our own and must have our thoughts and words restricted.

In December 2001, in Kensington, Md., an annual firefighters Santa Claus festivity to light the Christmas tree was objected to by two families. The city council, in the name of Political Correctness, voted to ban Santa from the parade. Fortunately, due to citizen outcry, the decision was reversed in the end and many people protested by dressing up as Santa.

All citizens who cherish liberty must reject the scourge of Political Correctness. Freedom of speech must be preserved in America if we are to continue to be free.

Affirmative

CASE ONE:

I affirm the resolution.

Resolved: When in conflict, freedom of expression ought to be valued above political correctness.

Please allow me to first define a few key terms.

Political Correctness as the avoidance of terms or behavior considered to be discriminatory or offensive to certain groups of people.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/politicalcorrectness?view=uk,Oxford University Press, 2006

Freedom of expression as a right guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; includes freedom of religion, speech and press.

Black’s law dictionary, sixth edition, 1990, Page 664

Ought as moral obligation.

Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, 10^th Edition, 1993, Page 882

The value to be upheld in today’s round is democracy.

Democracy is the supreme value in today’s round.

Robert Wesson explains,

“It seems clear that most of the world would be better governed, and consequently would enjoy greater material well-being as well as more freedom, if government were less authoritarian and more democratic. It is consequently reasonable to regard the progress of democracy as valuable, promising more rational societies, more autonomy and creativity, and better quality of life. Indeed, hardly anything is more important, and it is no great exaggeration to say that the health of democracy is equivalent to the health of humanity.”
Hoover Institution, Democracy, A Worldwide Survey, Page 9

The criterion in today’s round is the market place of ideas.

The market place of ideas is a theory that holds that the truth can only arise out of various ideas in a free and transparent society. Thus it maintains that at the point we limit freedom of expression, we lose the ability to find the truth, because not all ideas will be present within the market place.

Therefore the market place of ideas is fundamental to finding the truth.

Albert Smolla elaborates,

“There is, indeed a curiously inescapable irony to the marketplace image.  We can never empirically test of  proposition that truth will triumph over error, because that would itself require some objective measure of what ideas are true and what ideas are false—a measurement that the marketplace theory itself forbids.  The leap of faith thus required by the marketplace image, however, is not its weakness, but its deepest strength, for it spurs us to accept the noblest challenge of the life of the mind: never to stop searching.  As John Stuart Mill eloquently instructed, even when we are relatively confident in the truth of received opinion, “if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as dead dogma, not a living truth.”  The marketplace metaphor is thus especially relevant in the modern world, which grows suspicious and weary of eternal verities in the wisdom that the ‘truths’ of science, art, or politics are subject to constant revision.”

Albert Smolla, Communications Scholar, Northwestern University, 1992 (Anneberg Washington

Program, communications Policy Studies, Free Speech in an Open Society)

Contention one: Freedom of expression is vital to the market place of ideas.

John Whitman explains,

 “Free speech is vital to the attainment and advancement of knowledge, and the search for the truth. Enlightened judgment is possible if one only considers all facts and ideas, from whatever source, and tests one’s own conclusions against opposing views. Therefore all points of view, even those that are bad, or socially harmful-should be represented in societies. If the American people are to be masters of their own fate and of their elected government, they must be well-informed and have access to all information, ideas and point of views. Mass ignorance is the breeding ground for oppression and tyranny.”

American Civil Liberties Union, “Freedom of Expression”, Briefing Paper Number 10, 1997 John Whittman

Thus the majority opinion is fallible; society should always permit the expression of minority views. There is a chance, after all, that the unconventional opinion will turn out, in the long run, to be correct, in which case the entire society would suffer if it were never allowed to come to light. So devotion to the truth requires open inquiry, not the purposeful silencing of alternative views.

Mark Corray elaborates,

“On a more practical plane, freedom of speech serves many functions. One of its most important functions is that decision-making at all levels is preceded by discussion and consideration of a representative range of views. A decision made after adequate consultation is likely to be a better one which less imperfectly mirrors the opinions, interests and needs of all concerned, than a decision taken with little or no consultation. Thus freedom of speech is important at all levels in society. Yet it is most important for government. A government which does not know what the people feel and think is in a dangerous position. Freedom of speech is also important to governments because when criticisms of a government are freely voiced, the government has the opportunity to respond to answer unfair comments and criticisms about its actions. On the other hand, when freedom of speech is restricted, rumors, unfair criticisms, comments and downright falsehoods are circulated by word of mouth. These have a habit of spreading across the length and breadth of the country through conversation and surreptitiously circulated writings. The government is in no position to answer these views, because they are not publicly stated. It is in a government's interest to have criticisms in the public arena where it can answer its critics and correct its mistakes. “

Freedom of Speech and Expression, Mark Cooray, http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/rights/chap6.htm

Contention two: Political correctness undermines the market place of ideas

Jim Eadon explains,

“The reason that Political Correctness is the enemy of truth is it is not compatible with reality. It ignores awkward questions like the ones alluded to above. Political Correctness is also the enemy of language. We cannot say "disabled", we have to say "differently abled"; a "chairman" or "chairwoman" becomes a "chairperson", etc. Everyone is different. Societies are different from one another morally and culturally. The sexes are different from each other in both their physical and mental capabilities. This is a fact, yet Political Correctness refuses to allow us to accept this, so how are we supposed to appreciate and explore each others' strengths in a Political Correctness world where everyone is presupposed to be equal? Political Correctness is causing an intolerant and unreasonable knee-jerk society in which we are not allowed to openly discuss, or even laugh at, life.”

http://www.eadon.com/comment/pcorrect.php, The politically correct challenged

Thus political correctness undermines the market place of ideas, because it refuses to allow us to explore each others ideas, inevitably destroying the ability to find the truth.

CASE TWO:

I affirm the resolution.

Resolved: When in conflict, freedom of expression ought to be valued above political correctness.

Please allow me to first define a few key terms.

Political Correctness as the avoidance of terms or behavior considered to be discriminatory or offensive to certain groups of people.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/politicalcorrectness?view=uk,Oxford University Press, 2006

Freedom of expression as a right guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; includes freedom of religion, speech and press.

Black’s law dictionary, sixth edition, 1990, Page 664

Ought as to indicate desirability

Dictionary.Com, 2006,http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ought&r=66

The value to be upheld in today’s round is democracy.

Democracy is the supreme value in today’s round.

Robert Wesson explains,

“It seems clear that most of the world would be better governed, and consequently would enjoy greater material well-being as well as more freedom, if government were less authoritarian and more democratic. It is consequently reasonable to regard the progress of democracy as valuable, promising more rational societies, more autonomy and creativity, and better quality of life. Indeed, hardly anything is more important, and it is no great exaggeration to say that the health of democracy is equivalent to the health of humanity.”
Hoover Institution, Democracy, A Worldwide Survey, Page 9

The criterion in today’s round is protection of liberty.

This is the paramount standard in today’s round for two reasons.

First an ideal state is responsible to provide liberty to its citizens.

Alcott Arthur explains,

“Reasonable consideration of the values requires that they be assessed in light of the general social good. First, we may turn to the matter of liberty. We expect an ideal state to provide the widest possible opportunity for an individual to achieve his or her goals and purposes.”

Professor of Philosophy, Coppin State, Journal of Philosophy, Fall 1986, P.g. 16

Second, a lack of liberty results in a totalitarian regime.

Richard Gawronski explains,

“The loss of political freedom is very painful-but much more menacing is the growing constraint on personal freedom, the destructive influence on personal beliefs, the lack of information, and the attempts to eliminate independent thinking. This reduction in freedoms: freedom of opportunity, freedom of expression, freedom of political opinion, and freedom of choice leads to the slavery of contemporary totalitarian regimes.”

Exile Polish Chairman of Regional Solidarity Advisors, Vital Speeches of The Day, February 1984, P.235

Contention one: Freedom of Expression is fundamental to the protection of liberty.

First, freedom of expression is a necessary requirement to ensure all forms of freedom and liberty are fostered.

Thomas Emerson explains,

“Freedom of expression is one of the preeminent human rights and is central to fostering all other forms of freedom. The theory [of free expression] grew out of an age that was awakened and invigorated by the idea of a new society, in which man's mind was free, his fate determined by his own powers of reason, and his prospects of creating a rational and enlightened civilization virtually unlimited.”

Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment, 72 Yale L.J. 877, 886 (1963).]

Furthermore, at the point we restrict freedom of expression we not only threaten liberty, but we also threaten the functions of liberty.

Mark Turaino explains,

“Freedom of speech has a value in the realm of the political economy. The ability to

speak one’s mind concerning matters of common interest is useful in sofar as it helps preserve a more general freedom. A power that is not open to the scrutiny and conscientious objections of those over whom it is exercised is almost certain to be exercised irrationally. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Freedom of speech in this political sense preserves a sphere for the exercise of that vigilance. Freedom of speech is of instrumental value to a jealous love of liberty, without which, freedom of speech is completely impotent. Freedom of speech concerning political matters is worth preserving because it acts as a check against the arbitrary use of power.”

Mark Turiano, 9/96, Freelance Writer, Atlanta GA, printed, “The Virtues of Free Speech”, reprinted in “Civil Liberties, Opposing Viewpoints”

Thus freedom of expression is not only fundamental to liberty, but also fundamental to the functions of liberty. Without liberty in the political realm we have no checks against arbitrary uses of power, and have no way to voice our opinions against illegitimate power.

Contention two: Political correctness threatens liberty

Agustin Blazquez explains,

 “With profound dismay, I have seen how the scourge of Political Correctness has taken hold in the U.S. It is very well entrenched in our educational system, at scientific, religious and community levels, the media, the workplace and even our government. It is changing the American society from within, and the citizens of this nation are increasingly censoring themselves and losing their freedom of speech out of fear of Political Correctness repression. It is the nature of Western Civilization to be civilized – respectful of others and concerned with correcting injustices. We don't need Political Correctness to make us think we are not civilized on our own and must have our thoughts and words restricted.”

Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton
Monday, April 8,2002http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml

Thus liberty is threatened because citizens are censoring themselves out of the fear of political correctness repression.

Under view: There are other alternatives to political correctness, that won’t be as counterproductive.

Mathew Roskosiki explains,

“There are several levels upon which language “arguments" are actually counterproductive.  We will discuss the quiescence effect, deacademization, and publicization.  The quiescence effect is explained by Strossen when she writes “the censorship approach is diversionary.  It makes it easier for communities to avoid coming to grips with less convenient and more expensive, but ultimately more meaningful approaches” (Strossen 561).  Essentially, the argument is that allowing the restriction of language we find offensive substitutes for taking actions to check the real problems that generated the language.”

Roskoski, et al., 1992 (Matthew, Scholar, Florida State University; “A LINGUISTIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL CRITIQUE OF LANGUAGE ‘ARGUMENTS’”

So as a minimum, there are a number of things that we can, and should, do to deal with offensive language that do not involve the restriction of freedom of expression.  Why do we need political correctness, when we can just show how ridiculous and ignorant offensive and discriminatory language is? 

Negative Cases:

Case one:

First allow me to make an Observation: The affirmative has the burden to defend all forms of free expression.

The resolution grammatically places this burden on the affirmative. The resolution doesn’t say, when in conflict the good forms of freedom of expression ought to be valued above political correctness. Thus if the affirmative wants to categorically affirm the resolution, they must also prove that even the bad forms of freedom of expression ought to be valued above political correctness.

The value for today’s debate is a justice.

Justice will be defined as giving each man their due.

Furthermore justice is the paramount value in today’s round.

Michele Maise elaborates why,

“When principles of justice operate ineffectively or not at all, confidence in society's institutions may be undermined. Citizens or group members may feel alienated and withdraw their commitment to those "unjust" institutions. Or, they may rebel or begin a revolution in order to create new institutions. If justice principles are applied effectively, on the other hand, that society will tend to be more stable and its members will feel satisfied and secure.”

Michelle Maiese is a graduate student of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder and is a part of the research staff at the Conflict Research Consortium.

July 2003,  http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/principles_of_justice/

The Beyond Intractability Project

The criterion is adherence to Joel Feinberg’s Offense Principle.

The offense principle claims that individual liberty can justifiably be limited to prevent harmful behavior. So in this round I contend the only we can achieve a society that is truly just is by balancing rights with the harms those rights cause.

Thus the offense principle must be accepted because it gives three criteria that allow us to determine the balance between rights and restrictions.

These three criteria are,

1.        The behavior must be significantly harmful.

2.        The behavior must be harmful to almost everyone.

3.        The harmful behavior should be limited if you have to go out of your way to avoid the behavior.

Therefore at the point freedom of expression doesn’t meet these three criteria, you must prioritize political correctness.

I will offer one contention: Hate speech doesn’t meet the offense principle.

A. Hate speech is significantly harmful

 Professor Delgado explains:

“The psychological harm caused by racial stigmatization are often much more severe than those created by other stereotyping actions. Race-based stigmatization is, therefore, one of the most fruitful causes of human misery. The accumulation of negative images presents them with one massive and destructive choice: either to hate one’s self, or to have no self at all, to be nothing. This ambivalence arises from the stigmatized individual’s awareness that others perceive him or her as falling short of societal standards.

Delgado, Professor of Law at Colorado, 1993, Words that Wound

Thus hate speech is significantly harmful, because in the long run it dehumanizes individuals, due to their awareness that others see them as falling short of societal standards. 

B. Hate speech is harmful to almost everyone.

Professor Lawrence explains,

“Finally racist speech decreases the total amount of speech that reaches the market by coercively silencing members of those groups who are its targets. It is more likely that we, as a community, will be denied the benefit of many of their thoughts and ideas.’

Lawrence, Professor of Law at Stanford, 1993, Charles, 111, Words that Wound, ed, Richard Delgado

Thus hate speech harms everyone, because it silences the group that is targeted, inevitably destroying their ideas from reaching the market. Therefore by dehumanizing some you harm all, because at the point you silence certain groups we will be denied the benefits of their thoughts and ideas.

C. Hate speech ought to be limited because you have to go out of your way to avoid it.

An "adult" bookstore containing pornographic material should not be limited because one does not have to go out of their way to avoid the store. However, hate speech is something you can’t avoid. When someone publicly uses dehumanizing language to attack you, how do you avoid it? It’s not like the pornographic store where you can make an autonomous decision to avoid the store; you have no choice in avoiding hate speech.

D. Political correctness minimizes the harms

Political correctness minimizes the harms by placing limits on freedom of expression. This is essential because it places constraints on language that is intended to degrade or dehumanize a group of people. Thus you must prioritize political correctness over freedom of expression to ensure that there are some limits on dehumanizing language. I can’t say I can solve all the harms, but you still have to prioritize political correctness to ensure there are at least steps to minimizing the harms caused by hate speech.

Case two:

The value for today’s debate is justice.

Justice will be defined as giving each man their due.

Furthermore justice is the paramount value in today’s round.

Michele Maise elaborates why,

“When principles of justice operate ineffectively or not at all, confidence in society's institutions may be undermined. Citizens or group members may feel alienated and withdraw their commitment to those "unjust" institutions. Or, they may rebel or begin a revolution in order to create new institutions. If justice principles are applied effectively, on the other hand, that society will tend to be more stable and its members will feel satisfied and secure.”

Michelle Maiese is a graduate student of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder and is a part of the research staff at the Conflict Research Consortium.

July 2003,  http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/principles_of_justice/

The Beyond Intractability Project

In order to fulfill the value, I offer the criterion of John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle.

Mill argued that the only justifiable reason to infringe on an individual’s rights is when the action of that person causes harm to another individual.  To do otherwise would be unjust.

Mill explains,

“…the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

John Stuart Mill, ON Liberty, PG 8

Thus I contend, at the point freedom of expression harms others infringements upon that right becomes just.

Contention One: Unlimited Free expression harms others.

Unlimited free expression will unavoidably lead to dehumanization of certain groups of people.

Professor Delgado explains,

“According to psychologist Kenneth Clark, Human beings…..whose daily experience tells them that almost nowhere in society are they respected and granted the ordinary dignity and courtesy to others will, as a matter of course, begin to doubt their own self-worth. Minorities may come to believe the frequent accusations that they are lazy, ignorant, dirty, and superstitious. The accumulation of negative images, presents them with one massive and destructive choice, either to hate one’s self, or have no self at all, to be nothing.”

Delgado, Professor of Law at University of Colorado School, 97, Richard, We Must Defend Nazis? Hate Speech, Pornography, and the New First Amendment, page  5

Thus if free expression is allowed to the extent of racism and hate speech, inevitable harms will begin to be inflicted on others.

Furthermore by dehumanizing certain groups, the harms will go beyond just self- doubt and self worth.

Professor Lawrence explains,

“Finally racist speech decreases the total amount of speech that reaches the market by coercively silencing members of those groups who are its targets. Certainly the recipients may be uncommonly brave and foolhardy and ignore the system of violence in which this abusive speech is only a bit player. But it is more likely that we, as a community, will be denied the benefit of many of their thoughts and ideas.’

Lawrence, Professor of Law at Stanford, 1993, Charles, 111, Words that Wound, ed, Richard Delgado

Therefore the harms become two fold once we allow dehumanization to occur. First it harms certain groups, by silencing the groups who are targets of dehumanization. Second, it harms all of society, because it keeps the ideas and expressions of the dehumanized group from reaching the market.

Contention two: Political Correctness reduces the harms caused by unlimited free expression.

First political correctness reduces the harms by minimizing the prejudice that leads to dehumanization. Political correctness does this by placing constraints on language that is intended to degrade or dehumanize a certain group of people. Thus it reduces the harms, because it ensures that freedom of expression is limited, at the point it harms others.

Second, political correctness reduces the harms by simply educating the populace. By making the labeling terminology problematic people will be made to think consciously about how they describe someone. Thus it will reduce the harms, because it will make society question if what they are saying is politically correct.

Evidence

Aff evidence:

1. Freedom of expression is important

2. Political correctness is bad

3. Market place of ideas is good

Freedom of expression is important

"Everyone has the rights to the freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through and media and regardless of frontiers" Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19

Freedom of expression acts as a check against tyranny and arbitrary uses of power

American Civil Liberties Union, “Freedom of Expression”, Briefing Paper Number 10, 1997

Free speech is vital to the attainment and advancement of knowledge, and the search for the truth. Enlightened judgment is possible if one only considers all facts and ideas, from whatever source, and tests one’s own conclusions against opposing views. Therefore all points of view, even those that are bad, or socially harmful-should be represented in societies “market place of ideas”. If the American people are to be masters of their own fate and of their elected government, they must be well-informed and have access to all information, ideas and point of views. Mass ignorance is the breeding ground for oppression and tyranny.

Freedom of speech acts as a check against the arbitrary use of power

Mark Turiano, 9/96, Freelance Writer, Atlanta GA, printed, “The Virtues of Free Speech”, reprinted in “Civil Liberties, Opposing Viewpoints”

Freedom of speech has a value in the realm of the political economy. The ability to

speak one’s mind concerning matters of common interest is useful in sofar as it helps preserve a more general freedom. A power that is not open to the scrutiny and conscientious objections of those over whom it is exercised is almost certain to be exercised irrationally. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Freedom of speech in this political sense preserves a sphere for the exercise of that vigilance. Freedom of speech is of instrumental value to a jealous love of liberty, without which, freedom of speech is completely impotent. Freedom of speech concerning political matters is worth preserving because it acts as a check against the arbitrary use of power.

Freedom of expression should be a priority

Vincent Blasi, Corliss Lamont Professor of Civil Liberties, April 1985, The Columbia Law Review, p.1/n

Judged also by the measure of historical impact, the basic commitment to free expression and inquiry must be considered one of the central features of the American Constitutional regime. One need not blot from vision the intermittent periods of widespread, systematic repression of dissenters to appreciate the importance of free speech in the development of the American republic. Mass movements of enduring significance have emerged and presidents have been driven from office because of expressive activities that are disallowed in many other systems of government. The most serious lapses in toleration of dissent, such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Red Scare, and the McCarthy Era, have inquired an aura of ignominy that says the importance of free speech in the pantheon of national ideals. Because of their important role in the constitutional regime, it should be a matter of priority that these central norms be preserved and strengthened whenever and wherever possible.

Freedom of expression is central to fostering liberty

Thomas Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment, 72 Yale L.J. 877, 886 (1963).]

Freedom of expression is one of the preeminent human rights and is central to fostering all other forms of freedom. The theory [of free expression] grew out of an age that was awakened and invigorated by the idea of a new society, in which man's mind was free, his fate determined by his own powers of reason, and his prospects of creating a rational and enlightened civilization virtually unlimited.

Freedom of expression ensures social stability

Kent Greenwalt, Speech and Crime, Am. B. Found. Res. J. 645, 672-3 (1980)

Freedom of expression also provides an important safety valve for society. Those who are resentful because their interests are not accorded fair weight, and who may be doubly resentful because they have not even had a chance to present those interests, may seek to attain by radical changes in existing institutions what they have failed to get from the institutions themselves. Thus liberty of expression, though often productive of divisiveness, may contribute to social stability.

Freedom of expression is priority

Vincent Blasi, The Checking Valve in First Amendment Theory, 1977 Am. B. Found. Res. J. 521, 526]

Indeed, the framers chose to include freedom of speech in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and wrote its protection in absolute terms: `Congress shall make no law . . . abridging freedom of speech. . . .' The strictness of the language is in contrast with the Fourth Amendment, for example, which prohibits only `unreasonable searches and seizures.

Freedom of expression is vital for a democracy

www.hrni.org/~lhennebe/files/instruments/HRNi_EN_470.rtf

Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression

“The freedom of expression is vital for democracy which is based on public debate, open decision making and the free exchange of ideas, opinions and information. This freedom is essential for the development of knowledge and understanding among people. It promotes tolerance and cooperation. Free excess to information ensures the transparency and accountability of democratic institutions, especially the government. Without freedom of communication, the state is deaf and so are the people.

Freedom of expression is an inherent part of liberal democracies

Freedom of Expression in the 21st Century, Robert Trager and Donna Dickerson, p.g.3 

Freedom of expression is an inherent part of liberal democracies, a form of government based on self-governance, respect for a multiplicity of views, and the right of individuals to develop their mind and fortunes as they please.”

Freedom of expression is a basic right

Freedom of Speech and Employment, Lucy Vickers, P.g. 1 Intro

That freedom of speech is a fundamental human right is well established. The right to free speech or freedom of expression is protected in virtually all international and domestic human rights documents.

Freedom of expression is essential in enabling democracy to work

Human Rights Education Association

http://www.hrea.org/learn/guides/freedom-of-expression.html

Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic rights and freedoms. In its very first session in 1946, before any human rights declarations or treaties had been adopted, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 59(I) stating "Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and ... the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated."

Freedom of expression is essential in enabling democracy to work and public participation in decision-making. Citizens cannot exercise their right to vote effectively or take part in public decision-making if they do not have free access to information and ideas and are not able to express their views freely. Freedom of expression is thus not only important for individual dignity but also to participation, accountability and democracy. Violations of freedom of expression often go hand in hand with other violations, in particular the right to freedom of association and assembly.

Progress has been made in recent years in terms of securing respect for the right to freedom of expression. Efforts have been made to implement this right through specially constructed regional mechanisms. New opportunities are emerging for greater freedom of expression with the internet and worldwide satellite broadcasting. New threats are emerging too, for example with global media monopolies and pressures on independent media outlets.

freedom of expression should be promoted to the maximum extent possible given its critical role in democracy and public participation in political life

Human Rights Education Association

http://www.hrea.org/learn/guides/freedom-of-expression.html

The right to freedom of expression upholds the rights of all to express their views and opinions freely. It is essentially a right which should be promoted to the maximum extent possible given its critical role in democracy and public participation in political life.

Justifications for freedom of speech

Wikipedia 10 August 10, 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Expression

…a number of more specific justifications are commonly proposed for freedom of speech.

For example, Justice McLachlan of the Canadian Supreme Court identified the following in R. v. Keegstra, a 1990 case on hate speech: (1) free speech promotes "The free flow of ideas essential to political democracy and democratic institutions" and limits the ability of the state to subvert other rights and freedoms; (2) it promotes a marketplace of ideas, which includes, but is not limited to, the search for truth; (3) it is intrinsically valuable as part of the self-actualisation of speakers and listeners; and (4) it is justified by the dangers for good government of allowing its suppression.

Such reasons perhaps overlap. Together, they provide a widely accepted rationale for the recognition of freedom of speech as a basic civil liberty.

Each of these justifications can be elaborated in a variety of ways and some may need to be qualified. The first and fourth can be bracketed together as democratic justifications, or a justification relating to self-governance. They relate to aspects of free speech's political role in a democratic society. The second is related to the discovery of truth. The third relates most closely to general libertarian values but stresses the particular importance of language, symbolism and representation for our lives and autonomy.

This analysis suggests a number of conclusions. First, there are powerful overlapping arguments for free speech as a basic political principle in any liberal democracy. Second, however, free speech is not a simple and absolute concept but a liberty that is justified by even deeper values. Third, the values implicit in the various justifications for free speech may not apply equally strongly to all kinds of speech in all circumstances.

freedom of speech essential for Self-governance

Wikipedia 10 August 10, 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Expression

Freedom of speech is crucial in any democracy, because open discussions of candidates are essential for voters to make informed decisions during elections. It is through speech that people can influence their government's choice of policies. Also, public officials are held accountable through criticisms that can pave the way for their replacement. The US Supreme Court has spoken of the ability to criticize government and government officials as "the central meaning of the First Amendment." New York Times v. Sullivan. But "guarantees for speech and press are not the preserve of political expression or comment upon public affairs, essential as those are to healthy government." Time, Inc. v. Hill.

Some suggest that when citizens refrain from voicing their discontent because they fear retribution, the government can no longer be responsive to them, thus it is less accountable for its actions. Defenders of free speech often allege that this is the main reason why governments suppress free speech--to avoid accountability.

However, it may be argued that some restrictions on freedom of speech may be compatible with democracy or even necessary to protect it. For example, such arguments are used to justify restrictions on the support of Nazi ideas in post-war Germany.

freedom of speech essential for truth seeking

Wikipedia 10 August 10, 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Expression

A classic argument for protecting freedom of speech as a fundamental right is that it is essential for the discovery of truth. This argument is particularly associated with the British philosopher John Stuart Mill. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." In Abrams v. United States Justice Holmes also invoked the powerful metaphor of the "marketplace of ideas."

As put by Mill, the argument can also be seen as somewhat elitist, since it may seem that relatively little speech or expression appeals primarily to the intellect. However, there are senses in which this justification can be extended beyond the speech of individuals who are involved in narrowly intellectual inquiry, such as scientists and academic scholars. In one sense, it merges with justifications based on autonomy, if it is interpreted as relating to the psychological need felt by individuals to pursue truth and understanding. In another sense, it may be extended to the protection of literature and art that has a claim to some kind of social value.

freedom of speech essential to autonomy

Wikipedia 10 August 10, 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Expression

Another rationale is that freedom of speech is an essential aspect of personhood and autonomy. It has been said, for example, that political protest is a form of self-definition, self-fulfillment, or self-realization, even if the protestor believes the protest to be futile. This idea also suggests a rationale for the protection of acts of expression that are not obviously political or vital to self-government, such as abstract art, music, or dance.

Protecting speech because it aids the political process or furthers the search for truth emphasizes the instrumental values of expression. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote that "the First Amendment serves not only the needs of the polity but also those of the human spirit — a spirit that demands self-expression." (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 1974). This view is sometimes developed further by referring to the importance for individuals of communicating deeply held beliefs and the value of creativity as expressed in literature, art and many other ways. The issue here is how we should treat other individuals as moral and psychological beings who have a need for self-expression and self-fulfilment.

Critics of this view argue that there is no inherent reason to find speech to be a fundamental right compared with countless other activities that might be regarded as a part of autonomy or that could advance self-fulfillment.

Promoting tolerance

freedom of speech integral to tolerance, should be a basic value in society

Wikipedia 10 August 10, 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Expression

Still another explanation is that freedom of speech is integral to tolerance, which some people feel should be a basic value in society. Professor Lee Bollinger is an advocate of this view and argues that "the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint, the purpose of which is to develop and demonstrate a social capacity to control feelings evoked by a host of social encounters." The free speech principle is left with the concern of nothing less than helping to shape "the intellectual character of the society".

This claim is to say that tolerance is a desirable, if not essential, value, and that protecting unpopular speech is itself an act of tolerance. Such tolerance serves as a model that encourages more tolerance throughout society. Critics argue that society need not be tolerant of the intolerance of others, such as those who advocate great harm, even genocide. Preventing such harms is claimed to be much more important than being tolerant of those who argue for them.

 Freedom of Speech Necessary for Individual Dignity.

Smolla, 1992 (Albert, Communications Policy Studies, Northwestern University; “FREE SPEECH AND OPEN SOCIETY” Anneberg Washington Program; p. 9)

“The marketplace theory justifies free speech as a means to an end.  But free speech is also an end itself, and end intimately intertwined with human autonomy and dignity.  In the world s of Justice Thurgood Marshall, “the First amendment serves not only the needs of the polity but also those of the human spirit—a spirit that demands self-expression.”  Free speech is thus specially valuable for reasons that have nothing to do with the collective search for truth or the processes of self-government, or for any other conceptualization of the common good.  It is a right defiantly, robustly, and irreverently to speak one’s mind just because it is one’s mind.  Even when the speaker has no realistic hope that the audience will be persuaded to his or her viewpoint, even when no plausible case can be made that the search for truth will be advanced, freedom to speak without restrain provides the speaker with an inner satisfaction and realization of self-identity essential to individual fulfillment.”

Free Speech Reduces Tyranny.

Smolla, 1994 (Rodney A., Professor, College of Law; William and Mary; IN FREE SPEECH)

“A fourth self-governance interest served by free speech is the restrain on tyranny, corruption, and ineptitude.   For most of the world’s history the state has presumed to play the role of benevolent but firm censor, on the theory that the wise governance of men proceeds from the wise governance of their opinions,  But the United States was founded on the more cantankerous revolutionary principles of John Locke, who taught that under the social compact ultimate sovereignty always rests with the people, who never surrender their natural right to protest, or even revolt, when the state exceeds the limits of  legitimate authority.  Locke cautioned, however, that rebellion, particularly violent rebellion, should be only a last and desperate resort.  It is through nonviolent speech that the people may ferret out corruption and discourage tyrannical excesses, keeping government within the metes and bounds of the charter through which the people first brought it into existence.”

Free Speech Checks Officials’ Power.

Smolla, 1994 (Rodney A., Professor, College of Law; William and Mary; IN FREE SPEECH)

“But free speech is also an individual right standing on its own foundation, serving the citizen’s interest in participation, truth-seeking, and checking official abuse of power.  There is, in sum, nothing inside the self-governance theory that disqualifies the marketplace or fulfillment theories, and nothing outside those two theories that limits them to self-governance issues.”

 Free Speech is a Safety Valve to Reduce Violence.

Smolla, 1994 (Rodney A., Professor, College of Law; William and Mary; IN FREE SPEECH)

If societies are not to explode from festering tensions, there must be valves through which the citizens may blow off steam.  Openness fosters resiliency; peaceful protest displaces more violence than it triggers; free debate dissipates more hate than it stirs.

Free Speech is Essential for Self-Governance.

Smolla, 1992 (Albert, Communications Policy Studies, Northwestern University; “FREE SPEECH AND OPEN SOCIETY” Anneberg Washington Program; p. 12)

“Free speech is an indispensable tool of self-governance in a democratic society.  The Supreme Court has stated that “Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is

practically universal agreement that a major purpose of the Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.”  Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that “freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think is means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.”

Freedom of speech leads to the search for truth

Gora, 1991 (Joel M., et al., THE RIGHT TO PROTEST, ACLU)

“First, freedom of speech facilitates the search for truth.  This theme was powerfully stated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:

(W)hen men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good  desired is better reached by free trade in ideas – that the best test of truth is the power of the

thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground

upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

Second, and equally important, freedom of speech is indispensable to individual self-fulfillment through self-expression.  Freedom of speech is vital, not just because it may lead to the truth, but because it’s very exercise is essential to the development of individual liberty and personality our Constitution safeguards.  This notion was most clearly expressed by Justice Louis D. Brandeis:  ‘those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties…They valued liberty both as an end and as a means.  They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty.’

FREE SPEECH CAN’T BE UNDERESTIMATED

Freedom of Speech and Expression, Mark Cooray, http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/rights/chap6.htm

“The importance of free speech as a basic and valuable characteristic of western society cannot be underestimated. As well as emphasizing the value of free speech, it is proposed to make an evaluation of some of the traditional restrictions on what may be freely said or published, such as the defamation laws, contempt of court, national security and so on. The approach is one which makes the case for free speech, since the world is now a place where people's unfettered freedoms are by and large in retreat. One of the difficulties inherent in discussing freedom of speech is that it contains what libertarians often describe as the paradox of freedom.

In other words, unless we ensure to the enemies of freedom the liberties which they are keen to abuse, then we deny the essence of what we ultimately stand for and are therefore no better than those to whom we are opposed. Or as Voltaire has been paraphrased,

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

On a more practical plane, freedom of speech serves many functions. One of its most important functions is that decision-making at all levels is preceded by discussion and consideration of a representative range of views. A decision made after adequate consultation is likely to be a better one which less imperfectly mirrors the opinions, interests and needs of all concerned, than a decision taken with little or no consultation. Thus freedom of speech is important at all levels in society. Yet it is most important for government. A government which does not know what the people feel and think is in a dangerous position. The government that muzzles free speech runs a risk of destroying the creative instincts of its people.

Freedom of speech is also important to governments because when criticisms of a government are freely voiced, the government has the opportunity to respond to answer unfair comments and criticisms about its actions. On the other hand, when freedom of speech is restricted, rumours, unfair criticisms, comments and downright falsehoods are circulated by word of mouth. These have a habit of spreading across the length and breadth of the country through conversation and surreptitiously circulated writings. The government is in no position to answer these views, because they are not publicly stated. It is in a government's interest to have criticisms in the public arena where it can answer its critics and correct its mistakes. The government generally has access to electronic and printing communication far in excess of individuals and groups. It is able to present its view only if the opposing views are in the open and known.

Finally, the freedom of speech is the single most important political right of citizens, although private property is required for its operation.. Without free speech no political action is possible and no resistance to injustice and oppression is possible. Without free speech elections would have no meaning at all. Policies of contestants become known to the public and become responsive to public opinion only by virtue of free speech. Between elections the freely expressed opinions of citizens help restrain oppressive rule. Without this freedom it is futile to expect political freedom or consequently economic freedom. The sine qua non of a democratic society is the freedom of speech.”

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT:

Derechos Human Rights, http://www.derechos.org/human-rights/speech/

“Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. It is also one of the most dangerous rights, because freedom of expression means the freedom to express one's discontent with the status quo and the desire to change it. As such, it is one of the most threatened rights, with governments - and even human rights groups - all over the world constantly trying to curtail it.”

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS AT THE HEART OF CLASSIC FREEDOMS:

The right to Democracy, http://www.ykliitto.fi/ourcomhr/2912democ.html

“Freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association are at the heart of classic fundamental freedoms. They are also called political rights, because they form the basis for people's societal influencing and organization. These rights have been ensured in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in many general or group-related Conventions on human rights. In addition, they are mentioned in the constitutions of most countries.”

FREE SPEECH SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED:

Justifying Freedom of Speech, http://mixter.void.ru/jfs.html

“Speech and information freedoms are the most fundamental rights of any individual, even more obvious than freedom of ones own body, property, choice. The erosion of the smallest freedoms often signifies a subtle crumbling down of more freedoms. Unfortunately, restriction of speech and information remains a global problem, to varying extends also manifested in the western world, such as in regulations related to the Internet. Hate speech is one of the worst things that free speech can be used for, however even that must not be censored using pragmatic laws. Why not? Only by protecting even the worst forms of free speech through categorically opposing all forms of censorship, the protection of free speech is ensured in all cases.”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS BAD:

 Restricting Offensive Language is Counterproductive.

Roskoski, et al., 1992 (Matthew, Scholar, Florida State University; “A LINGUISTIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL CRITIQUE OF LANGUAGE ‘ARGUMENTS’”

There are several levels upon which language “arguments" are actually counterproductive.  We will discuss the quiescence effect, deacademization, and publicization.  The quiescence effect is explained by Strossen when she writes “the censorship approach is diversionary.  It makes it easier for communities to avoid coming to grips with less convenient and more expensive, but ultimately more meaningful approaches” (Strossen 561).  Essentially, the argument is that allowing the restriction of language we find offensive substitutes for taking actions to check the real problems that generated the language.

Should Not Resort to Censorship Even With Offensive Speech.

Roskoski, et al., 1992 (Matthew, Scholar, Florida State University; “A LINGUISTIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL CRITIQUE OF LANGUAGE ‘ARGUMENTS’”)

Certainly this principle would prohibit the enforcement of any language “argument.”  If one despised the rhetoric of a given debater enough to vote against that debater, then as Holmes suggests, the principles of the Constitution require one to refrain from censorship.  The Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts articulated the essence of this argument so eloquently that their entire statement deserves repetition here:

            When language wounds, the natural and immediate impulse is to take steps to shut up those who utter the wounding words.  When, as here, that impulse is likely to be felt by those who are normally the first amendment’s staunchest defenders, free expression faces its greatest threat.  At such times, it is important for those committed to principles of free expressions to remind each other of what they have always known regarding the long term costs of short term victories bought through compromising first amendment principles. (Strossen 487).

 Language Arguments Are Counterproductive for Four Reasons.

Roskoski, et al., 1992 (Matthew, Scholar, Florida State University; “A LINGUISTIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL CRITIQUE OF LANGUAGE ‘ARGUMENTS’”)

Now we will also contend that to attempt to solve a problem by editing the language which is symptomatic of that problem will generally trade off with solving the reality which is the source of the problem.  There are several reasons why this is true.  The first and most obvious is that we may often be fooled into thinking that language “arguments” have generated real change.  As Graddol and Swan observe, “when compared with larger social and ideological struggles, linguistic reform may seem quite a trivial concern,” further noting “thee is also the danger that effective change at this level is mistaken for real social change.”  (Graddol & Swan 195)  The second reason is that the language we find objectionable can serve as a signal or an indicator of the corresponding objectionable reality.  The third reason is that restricting language only limits the overt expressions of any objectionable reality, while leaving subtle and hence more dangerous expressions unregulated.  Once we derive the objectionable idea underground it will be more difficult to identify, more difficult to root out, more difficult to counteract, and more likely to have its undesirable effect.  The fourth reason is that objectionable speed can create a “backlash” effect that raises the consciousness of people exposed to the speech.  Stroussen observes that “ugly and abominable as those expressions are, they undoubtedly have had the beneficial result of raising social consciousness about the underlying societal problem…” (560).  [emphasis added]

political correctness is a disease

Political correctness: From bad joke to tragic tale;

March 14, 2005, WorldNetDaily.com, Doug Powers

“Political correctness is nothing new to those places where the PC disease is terminal – the large college campus, and anywhere in the public sector. Quite often, level of stupidity in political correctness is so high that it's comical. This time, it's anything but. When PC strikes the college campus, young minds are poisoned. When PC strikes the public sector, including the courtroom, people can get killed.”

Political correctness is the enemy of the truth:

http://www.eadon.com/comment/pcorrect.php

“The reason that PC is the enemy of truth is it is not compatible with reality. It ignores awkward questions like the ones alluded to above. PC is also the enemy of language. We cannot say "disabled", we have to say "differently abled"; a "chairman" or "chairwoman" becomes a "chairperson", etc. Everyone is different. Societies are different from one another morally and culturally. The sexes are different from each other in both their physical and mental capabilities. This is a fact, yet PC refuses to allow us to accept this, so how are we supposed to appreciate and explore each others' strengths in a PC world where everyone is presupposed to be equal? PC is causing an intolerant and unreasonable knee-jerk society in which we are not allowed to openly discuss, or even laugh at, life. I am "politically correct"-ly challenged, and discriminated against by the " politically correct"-ist people with hidden agendas, and I feel I am a member of a silenced and exasperated majority. It is time for an international awareness campaign opposing "politically correct-ist harassment" which seriously threatens our culture, freedoms of speech and thought, and even our safety. If PC wins, we will meet, Kind Reader, in the Thought Prisons.”

political correctness threatens liberty:

Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton
Monday, April 8,2002http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml

“With profound dismay, I have seen how the scourge of Political Correctness has taken hold in the U.S. It is very well entrenched in our educational system, at scientific, religious and community levels, the media, the workplace and even our government. It is changing the American society from within, and the citizens of this nation are increasingly censoring themselves and losing their freedom of speech out of fear of Political Correctness repression. It is the nature of Western Civilization to be civilized – respectful of others and concerned with correcting injustices. We don't need Political Correctness to make us think we are not civilized on our own and must have our thoughts and words restricted.”

political correctness creates a double standard:

Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton
Monday, April 8,2002http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml

“Our Constitution requires the separation of church and state, which has always discouraged our public education system from teaching religion. However, in December 2001, while Christmas cards, symbols and decorations were being objected to for the first time in American public schools in Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Oregon, in an elementary school in Texas, a girl was allowed to give to her classmates an overview and show a video about her Muslim religion. And in January 2002, a public middle school in San Luis Obispo, Calif., had its students pretend to be warriors fighting for Islam. Another school near Oakland, Calif., also encouraged 125 seventh-grade students to dress up in Muslim robes for a three-week course on Islam. This arbitrary double standard was applied in the name of Political Correctness following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”

Political Correctness is a step towards communism

Theodore Dalrymple: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/06/political-correctness-revenge-of.html

“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

Political Correctness undermines democracy

Wake Up America: The Insidious PC Movement, 2001,

http://www.middletownca.net/BLOG-070102.htm

“As the birthday of our country is upon us, as many of the basic principals we rely on have come into question, I must risk offending someone to express the facts as I know and understand them to be. Today, as never before in my lifetime, it is most important for all Americans to grasp the reality that our country, and who and what we are, is under attack from within as well as from abroad.  You must grasp the insidiousness of the PC (politically correct) movement. Start by asking yourself a very basic, simple question. How do you have freedom of speech and politically correct speech at the same time? The answer is; you don't!  How do you have freedom of expression for all and political correctness at the same time?  You can't! Think about this situation for a minute.  The constitution of this great country has a part called "the bill of rights" which is the first ten amendments to the constitution. The first amendment states: “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It doesn't say I should be conscious of your race, religion, sexual preference or ethnic background before I express myself. It doesn't say I must be conscious of your feelings. It says congress shall pass no law abridging free speech. No where in the constitution does it mention political correctness, so where did it come from and what is its purpose?  Political correctness is nothing more than a tool being used to intimidate the majority into silence. If the majority is manipulated by the minority into being afraid to express themselves then the minority is empowered to advance its agenda.  This; then successfully undermines and over rides our democratic process. Political correctness is un-democratic, un-constitutional and un-American. If you want to be free then you must stand up and defend what god gave you and the constitution guarantees you.  So what if someone calls you a name as long as everyone understands the name caller’s agenda. If you want the America back our founders gave us then forget political correctness.  The price of freedom has been borne by many and now it is your turn.  Don't be intimidated and afraid to express your views.  The pc movement must be relegated to the trashcan where it belongs.”

FREE EXPRESSION EQUALS MARXISM

The Origins of Political Correctness:An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind, 2000 http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html

“We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.  If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS A GROWING THREAT:

The Origins of Political Correctness:An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind, 2000 http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html

“America today is in the throws of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS ALWAYS CHANGING

Political Correctness, 2006, Debbie Ojunjobi, http://www.vanguardngr.com/articles/2002/columns/moment/m2m30072006.html

“WE live in a world where the minorities have begun to redefine themselves and the general perception is undergoing constant review. It is no longer the norm to call a spade a spade; other words have got to be coined to take into consideration the feelings of the spade. The troubling part is that like other forms of change, it is very dynamic, what is politically correct last week may not be correct this week and people have the right to whatever form of address that catches their fancy.”

POLITICAL CORRECTNES IS OUR INTELLECTUAL AIDS

PC's Marxist Root's Unearthed:  William S. Lind is director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism of the Free Congress Foundation, http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/february_1998_3.html

“Political Correctness is intellectual AIDS. Everything it touches it sickens and eventually kills. On America’s college campuses it has diminished freedom of speech, warped curricula, politicized grading and replaced intellectual integrity with vapid sloganeering. In classroom after classroom, professors offer an ideological rant, which students are compelled to regurgitate to get a grade: the vomit returns to the dog. These places—and they are many—are no longer universities, but small, ivy-covered North Koreas. So that is Political Correctness’ dirty little secret: it is Marxism, Marxism translated from economics into culture. We know what economic Marxism did to the old Soviet Union. Are we going to permit Cultural Marxism to do the same thing to the United States?”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WILL EVENTUALLY ENSLAVE US ALL

Why political correctness could enslave us, 2005, A.O Kime, http://www.matrixbookstore.biz/politesse.htm

“Political correctness, a seemingly harmless term, one in which seemingly only sets higher decency standards applicable to political and social situations, has overtones which could further enslave us all. After all, to be politically correct can be applied to almost any situation… and could eventually be enforced. If to bad-mouth the president became politically incorrect, just as easily could it become illegal. Using the same logic which made it illegal to yell ‘fire’ in a crowed theater, in that political criticism might cause a ‘stampede’ (in the opinion of lawmakers), criticizing the president could become unlawful. In Egypt for example, it is against the law to incite hatred against the regime. At any rate, Laws have been passed for even weaker reasons.So it seems frankness, in its pure form, is essentially under house arrest. And, with each passing decade, the house of frankness is shrinking. Over the airways, the level of criticism allowed has been reduced to practically nothing. If the president of the United States was to commit genocide today, the strongest word allowed a critic would be ‘indiscretion’. After all, it would be politically incorrect to call the president a tyrant or to compare him in any way to Hitler. Anytime someone is compared to Hitler today, the howls are heard everywhere. You could, however, still call someone the devil and get away with it. In other words, Hitler is not a politically correct word to associate with anyone.”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS A CANCER THAT WILL EVENTUALLY DESTROY SOCIETY

http://www.celticsurf.net/freeworld/soapbox/polcor.html, The evil of Political Correctness

“State-sponsored 'political correctness' is like a cancer on our society. If it is left untreated and uncured the very least it will eventually do is disfigure the mentality of our society. Fanatical political correctness kommissars in our midst want us all to avoid offending the all-pervading sensitivities of over-sensitive groups determined to be offended. This will surely blur our ability to see reality and could even eventually destroy human society.”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE BAD:

The Tyranny of Political Correctness, 2003, Barry Farber, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/7/154537.shtml

“When we saw AIDS coming we all knew how bad it could get. And when we saw SARS coming we knew how bad it could get and still might. Political Correctness, however, blind-sided us. We had no idea how bad PC could get. In fact, at first we thought it was rather cute, like some sort of parlor game. Who could be the first in the crowd to remember to call blacks "African-Americans" and NOT to call grown women "girls."

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS DESTROYING FREE PRESS AND FREE SOCIETY:

Political Correctness in the Newsroom, 1994, http://www.libertyhaven.com/personalfreedomissues/freespeechorcivilliberties/politicalnewsroom.shtml

“A free press is one of the foundations of a free society. Yet Americans increasingly distrust reporting to advocacy and resent the media. A major reason is that many journalists have crossed the line from. They have, in effect, adopted a new liberal creed- "all the news that's 'politically correct' to print. " How does one define "political correctness" in the newsroom? one need took no further than the new style book of the Los Angeles Times, one of the largest, most influential newspapers in the nation. It forbids reporters to write about a "Dutch treat" because this phrase is allegedly insulting to the Dutch. Nor can one report that a person "welshed on a bet" because that would be insulting to the Welsh, and one certainly cannot write about a segment of our population once known simply as "Indians." They must always be referred to as "Native Americans." jokingly, I asked one of the Los Angeles Times editors, "How do you refer to Indian summer? Is it now Native American summer?" He replied that he would substitute "unseasonably warm weather late in the year." This is what political correctness can do to language; it destroys meaning. it also demeans the ethnic groups it supposedly protects. Do we really think that these groups are so unintelligent as to be unable to distinguish between conventional idioms and genuine prejudice? Is their identity so fragile that it must depend on censorship? People who believe in the real dignity of the individual, no matter what his race, sex, ethnicity, or other condition, shouldn't embrace political correctness because it is bad philosophy - and reporters shouldn't because it is bad journalism.”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS OUR TERRORISM:

Politically Correct Terrorism, 2001, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24704

“America is in danger of losing this war. But not because of any lack of military might or intelligence capability, nor even because of any unwillingness to sustain grievous human and financial losses. No, America is in danger of losing this war because of political correctness. Answer me this: If we can't identify who the enemy is – and, in fact, refuse to do so – haven't we lost already? The news media, the filter through which Americans receive their information, is reluctant to define the enemy. Indeed, within the last week, it has become politically incorrect to describe the Islamic terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center and Pentagon, murdering thousands of innocent Americans, as "Islamic terrorists."

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS CULTURAL FASCISM

pOLITICAL CORRECTNESS: THE VICTIMS REVOLUTION, pENELOPE GRIFFINhttp://www.nqtnews.com/?story=article&id=10,2004

“The ideological fascism of today, Political correctness, in it's zeal to stamp out any words which are denounced as offensive, insensitive, racist, sexist, or homophobic is in danger stamping out the culture of the bigoted alienist.Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980's. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished.
 This white male culture convinced on it's assertion of natural superiority based upon skin colour, gender and ability to consume vast amounts of alcohol is struggling to survive the grasp of the cultural fascism of PC. Finally free of most tenets of western civilisation particularly Christianity the lonely offender is left economically, socially and emotionally abandoned by the very people who call upon his assistance in times of need. When the dogs of war are called their political correctness is the least valued attribute.Using language as a political tool to establish an acceptable etiquette will not change the perception of those inclined to be politically incorrect. The attempt to address social imbalances via forced modes of address only increases the alcohol consumption of the average alienist.The PC faction redress this imbalance with the statement " PC stands for Politically Correct. The idea behind using politically correct terminology is to bring peoples ' unconscious biases into awareness, with the philosophy of tolerance of diverse cultures, race, gender, ideology and alternate lifestyles. Political Correctness is the only morally accepted view. Anyone transgressing this philosophy is bigoted, biased and sexist. If you are a white male, your ancestors created the most injustice in the world including suppression of women, slavery, war, intolerance of alternate lifestyles, homophobia and cruelty to animals." The verbal hygiene of political correctness has replaced the initial ideology with a censorship of personal thought and beliefs of a certain group. The bigoted white male is now the minority whose rights have been ignored in a popular delusion that the human race can be homogenised into one acceptable tolerant package. “

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS A THREAT TO FREE SPEECH:

The Threat to Free Speech, http://hrw.org/wr2k5/religion/8.htm

“Political correctness in the name of protecting religious sensitivities can have a similarly chilling effect on free speech. Instead of protecting individuals in their right to adhere to different conceptions of the Good, [a] society [that caters to political correctness] incurs the risk of depending increasingly on organized groups capable of imposing hypocrisy and the domination of the most conventional ‘thought.”

POLTICAL CORRECTNESS THREATENS THE INTELLECTUAL INQUIRY:

Some Factual Correctness about Political Correctness, 1991, Katharine Bartlett 

http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0114.htm

“Criticizing campus "radicals" for browbeating the majority into some "politically correct" ideological conformity has become more fashionable than the practice it condemns.

But the PC rap is a bum one. PC critics mischaracterize the enemy, exaggerate its presence, and fail to debate or even acknowledge the important substantive issues underlying the controversy. In doing so, they not only obscure, but also help to prove, the insights they themselves do not appear to understand. The pejorative label "political correctness" represents an effort by PC critics to seize the moral high ground of the First Amendment. They claim that those protesting the continuation of racism and sexism on college campuses are moral ideologues, intolerant censors, Vietnam-protesters- turned-fascists. They also claim that these ideologues have taken over the universities, and that from this place of power they are threatening the quality of academic standards and the integrity of free intellectual inquiry.”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS BIASED:

Political Correctness a Matter of Good Manners, Alexander Chancellor, 2004http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/05/26/2003157026

“It is, however, difficult to draw the line between what is biased and what is perfectly reasonable, albeit displeasing to some people. And the problem gets worse when you discourage the use of all words that could have negative connotations in people's minds. Last week the British lord chief justice, Lord Woolf, issued guidelines to judges about how to avoid gender-based, racist or homophobic stereotyping in their use of language. One of his recommendations was that judges should be careful about using the phrase "asylum seeker", because it had become associated with people who did not have a legitimate claim to asylum. This is surely an example of excessive squeamishness. I don't see how press hysteria about "bogus" asylum seekers can be allowed to discredit the phrase asylum seeker any more than indolence and scrounging among "job seekers" should discredit that expression. We might as well stop referring to "the young," because some of them are binge drinkers and steal mobile phones, or to "the old," because some of them are decrepit and self-pitying and burdens on their families.”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS EQUALS PERMANENT DECLINE:

Frank Ellis, Political Correctness in Britain: A Blueprint For Decline, 1994http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/ellis-pc-brit

“The American experience of PC provides a grim warning for Britain. PC's brand of censorship and social engineering is highly dysfunctional: intellectual excellence--so vital to a country's prosperity--is despised and persecuted; incompetence goes unpunished, and is even rewarded; universities are corrupted; social stability is grievously undermined. These are not the birth-pains of a new, more equitable society. Taken together, they herald regression into violent mediocrity, and even, possibly, into permanent decline.”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS THREATENS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY

Glenn Jackson, 2002, The Terrorist Profile: Political Correctness is Deadlyhttp://www.opinionet.com/article.php?id=1019

“Let’s just say that profiling is patterning, finding characteristics that create a pattern that leads to a certain predictive power and a higher probability of finding the truth you seek. Finding predictive patterns for a long time had been part of the standard intelligence tests administered to children of school age. Identifying recurring patterns is also part of the scientific method; you see scientific truth does not spring full born into the mind of the scientist. The truth is that profiling is a central part of the liberal agenda. Using “focus” groups to determine what women think, or what senior citizens think are all about creating a profile. Even Senator Kennedy’s newest “hate” crime legislation is a direct form of profiling. Certain individuals when victimized by a violent crime have a claim on society for a more severe prosecution against the perpetrators than do the rest of us subjected to the same violent crime. What constitutes this special victim’s group? Well, Senator Kennedy has a profile of such groups; he is legislating with them in mind. The terrorists have also been operating with a profile in mind. High on their profile list is national origin – American. Depending on what persuasion of terrorist we are talking about, ethnicity may be either number one or number two on their profile – Jewish. In any case the terrorist are profiling us, and I have yet to hear that Senator Kennedy is put out enough by it to invoke any terrorist “hate” crime legislation. In fact the Senator and his liberal kin are more interested in protecting those terrorists who have been apprehended from any "injustice." This manner of concern, of course, is also a characteristic that is part of the liberal pattern or profile. The stupidity of Political Correctness has never been funny, but it is now deadly serious. While liberals and the Politically Correct use the government to profile for their constituencies, they are resisting with a lunatic’s zeal the use of common sense societal survival skills such as profiling for the nation’s defense and safety. With Political Correctness an unmanageable situation will never be anything but unmanaged, i.e., airport security. With most of the stupidity that PC concerns itself with, there may be a danger to our sanity and our freedoms, but with national security, PC effects national survival and our lives.”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS FAILING IN GERMANY:

Political Correctness in Germany, Claus Nordbruch, http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n4p36_Nordbruck.html

“Political Correctness, derived from an essentially well-intentioned "Code of Conduct," has become an instrument of moralistic terror in Germany. The self-appointed "politically correct" think of themselves as the sole possessors of the truth, and refuse anyone else the right to differ. As [German writer] Martin Walser has pointed out, this applies particularly to the best-known German taboos: Germany's National Socialist history, women and foreigners. When one attempts to deal with any of these themes, even in the most open-minded way, one is beaten down unmercifully with the "fascism club," a term coined by political scientist Helmut Knütter. Whenever, by means of this deadly method of argument, someone is successfully labeled a racist, fascist or sexist, he is degraded to the status of a leper, with no further opportunity to present his view.The unfortunate thing about Political Correctness is that, as a result, disputations or discussions often either do not take place at all, or only in the form of a campaign of defamation or a show trial. This prescribed thought control has led to a stunting of intellectual freedom in the former "land of thinkers." Political Correctness reveals itself as the instrument of intellectual coordination, and, in modern cultural history, sets an extraordinary precedent for censorial manipulation of the process of building public political consensus.”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS LEAVES TOO MANY QUESTIONS UNANSWERED:

Myth: Political Correctness makes Liberals inconsistent on free speech, http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-pc.html

“PC codes were established with this principle in mind. Using offensive epithets against minorities fosters an atmosphere of hatred and contempt towards them, and contributes to their discrimination and harm. And preventing the damage is better than reacting to it. If we could indeed prove that these epithets cause harm to minorities, then this might be a case for PC codes. After all, your right to free speech is not greater than my right not to be harmed by you. However, the issue isn't so clear-cut. What terms are "epithets," and what terms are PC? Who gets to decide? Are the terms technically accurate? What about minorities who use epithets to describe themselves? And how are we going to prevent PC terms from degenerating into epithets over time, if the underlying hatred and discrimination are not addressed? Finally, what is the evidence that epithets cause harm?”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WILL EVENTUALLY OPPRESS ALL

Political Correctness and the Next Fascist State, http://www.geocities.com/bypassall/aboutme/consp/pc.htm

“By now, everybody should not only be aware of what 'Political Correctness' is, they will also probably have been in a situation where they felt uncomfortable making a point because of some false belief that they would cause offence. Naturally, saying 'All black guys are muggers and rapists' is incorrect and genuinely would cause offence to anyone who wasn't a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan. Political correctness however, goes further than trying to prevent the dissemination of racial hatred. The movement has continually evolved, from it's original aim of addressing race, through disabilities and personal observations of people, to criminals and more recently, religious groups. As it progresses it will take up the 'causes' of more and more groups. If you wait long enough, you'll be a member of an oppressed or minority group as well!”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS THREATENS THE NEWSROOM:

Political Correctness in the Newsroom, 1994, http://www.libertyhaven.com/personalfreedomissues/freespeechorcivilliberties/politicalnewsroom.shtml

“How does one define "political correctness" in the newsroom? One need took no further than the new style book of the Los Angeles Times, one of the largest, most influential newspapers in the nation. It forbids reporters to write about a "Dutch treat" because this phrase is allegedly insulting to the Dutch. Nor can one report that a person "welshed on a bet" because that would be insulting to the Welsh, and one certainly cannot write about a segment of our population once known simply as "Indians." They must always be referred to as "Native Americans." jokingly, I asked one of the Los Angeles Times editors, "How do you refer to Indian summer? Is it now Native American summer?" He replied that he would substitute "unseasonably warm weather late in the year." This is what political correctness can do to language; it destroys meaning. it also demeans the ethnic groups it supposedly protects. Do we really think that these groups are so unintelligent as to be unable to distinguish between conventional idioms and genuine prejudice? Is their identity so fragile that it must depend on censorship? People who believe in the real dignity of the individual, no matter what his race, sex, ethnicity, or other condition, shouldn't embrace political correctness because it is bad philosophy - and reporters shouldn't because it is bad journalism.”

MARKET PLACE OF IDEAS IS GOOD:

 Faith in the marketplace of ideas needed to solve all world problems

Albert Smolla, Communications Scholar, Northwestern University, 1992 (Anneberg Washington

Program, communications Policy Studies, Free Speech in an Open Society)

“Even a nation as committed to the freedom of speech as the United States will often be sorely tempted to let paranoia triumph over liberty, treating speech from other nations as contraband, like drugs or smuggled goods.  But in the end, the towering hopes of the world for a new century of pluralistic tolerance and peace must be wagered on the faith that the free flow of information across international borders avoids more wars than it causes, averts more terrorism than if feed, uncovers more violations of human rights than it incites.  The international marketplace of ideas is not a myth; it is inevitable.  The global electronic village is not a dream, it is here.  There is no better way to conquer hunger and disease, no better check on tyranny and exploitation, no better nourishment for the art, music, and poetry that stir the human spirit, than a world committed to open cultures and freedom of speech.”

 We must have faith in the marketplace of ideas to find truth

Albert Smolla, Communications Scholar, Northwestern University, 1992 (Anneberg Washington

Program, communications Policy Studies, Free Speech in an Open Society)

“There is, indeed a curiously inescapable irony to the marketplace image.  We can never empirically test of  proposition that truth will triumph over error, because that would itself require some objective measure of what ideas are true and what ideas are false—a measurement that the marketplace theory itself forbids.  The leap of faith thus required by the marketplace image, however, is not its weakness, but its deepest strength, for it spurs us to accept the noblest challenge of the life of the mind: never to stop searching.  As John Stuart Mill eloquently instructed, even when we are relatively confident in the truth of received opinion, “if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as dead dogma, not a living truth.”  The marketplace metaphor is thus especially relevant in the modern world, which grows suspicious and weary of eternal verities in the wisdom that the ‘truths’ of science, art, or politics are subject to constant revision.”

Marketplace of ideas will inevitably find truth

Albert Smolla, Communications Scholar, Northwestern University, 1992 (Anneberg Washington

Program, communications Policy Studies, Free Speech in an Open Society)

“Despite these infirmities and uncertainties, the marketplace rationale has much to commend it.  It is possible to be both a realist and an optimist.  That combination, indeed, may be the most important legacy of the framers of the First Amendment.  The marketplace metaphor thus appeals to our optimism that good will finally conquer evil.  As long as this optimism is not blind naiveté but is rather a motive force that encourages us to keep the faith in the long view of history, it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Just as we often have nothing to fear but fear, hope is often our best hope.  Humanity maybe fallible and truth illusive, but the hope of humanity lies in its faith in progress.  The marketplace metaphor reminds us to take the long view.  Truth has a stubborn persistence.  Persecution may eliminate all visible traces of a truth, like the scorched earth after a napalm bombing.  Yet truth somehow comes back, because its roots are in the soil or its seed in the air.  Cut down again and again, truth will still not be stamped out; it gets rediscovered and rejuvenated, until it finally flourished.

NEG EVIDENCE

1. Freedom of expression not important

2. Hate speech

3. Market place of ideas is bad

4. Political Correctness is good

Freedom of expression not important

FREEDON OF EXPRESSION NOT AN IMPORTANT VALUE

David van Mill, University of Western Australia
Freedom of Speech, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002

The topic of free speech is one of the most contentious issues in a liberal society. If liberty of expression is not valued, as has often been the case in human history, there is no problem; freedom of expression is simply curtailed in favor of other competing values.

Free speech only becomes a volatile issue when it is highly valued because only then do the limitations placed upon it become controversial. And the first thing to note in any sensible discussion of freedom of speech is that it will be limited because it always takes place within a context of competing values. This is what Stanley Fish means when he says that there is no such thing as free speech. Free speech is just a term to focus our attention on a particular form of human interaction; it does not mean that speech should never be interfered with: "free speech in short, is not an independent value but a political prize" (1994,102). No society has yet existed where speech has not been interfered with to some extent. As John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty, a struggle always takes place between the competing demands of liberty and authority, and we cannot have the latter without the former:

All that makes existence valuable to anyone depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must be imposed -- by law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law. (1978, 5)

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION NOT AN IMPORTANT VALUE

David van Mill, University of Western Australia
Freedom of Speech, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

The task, therefore, is not to argue for a "pure" unadulterated free speech; such a concept cannot be defended. Instead, we need to decide how much value we place on speech in relation to the worth we place on other important ideals: "speech, in short, is never a value in and of itself but is always produced within the precincts of some assumed conception of the good" (Fish, 1994, 104).

Slippery slope argument flawed

David van Mill, University of Western Australia
Freedom of Speech, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

Before we do this, however, the reader might wish to disagree with the claims made above and warn of the dangers of the “slippery slope.” The slippery slope argument is that we should not limit free speech because once we do we will slide our way into tyranny and censorship. Such arguments assume that we can be on or off the slope. In fact, no such choice exists: we are necessarily on the slope whether we like it or not, and the task is always to decide how far up or down we choose to go, not whether we should step off altogether. It is worth noting that the slippery slope argument can be used to make the opposite point; one could argue with equal force that we should never allow any removal of government involvement with the action of individuals because once we do we are on the slippery slope to anarchy, the state of nature, and a life that Hobbes described in Leviathan as “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” (1968, 186).

freedom of speech not absolute, is subject to restrictions and exceptions

Wikipedia 10 August 10, 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Expression

Ever since the first consideration of the idea of 'Free Speech' it has been recognised that the right to free speech is subject to restrictions and exceptions. The best-known is typified by the statement that free speech does not allow shouting fire in a crowded theatre, a paraphrase of a statement in the case Schenck v. United States in 1919. Other limiting doctrines, including those of libel and obscenity, can also restrict freedom of speech. The case Brandenburg v. Ohio found that the US government could restrict free speech only if it was "likely to incite imminent lawless action".

OVER EXTENSION OF FREE SPEECH DESTROYS IT:

Matsuda, Professor of Law At UCLA, 1993, Words that Wound

“The alternative to recognizing racist speech as qualitatively different because of its content is to continue to stretch existing first amendment exceptions, such as the “fighting words doctrine and the “content/conduct” distinction. This stretching ultimately weakens the first amendment fabric, creating neutral holes that remove protection for many forms of speech. Setting aside the worst forms of racist speech for special treatment is a non-neutral, value-laden approach that will better preserve free speech.”

FREE SPEECH MUST HAVE LIMITS:

Jan Weijers is Executive Director of IFLRY. http://www.weijers.net/articles/freespeech.html

“In my opinion, there are limits to freedom of speech just as there are limits to any other basic human right. The first and main one is that of individual responsibility. Individual responsibility, by the way, is also one of the basic principles of Liberalism. Freedom of speech is a right. It is a right given to all citizens of the world, although unfortunately not all of them actually enjoy it, with the purpose of enabling them to speak freely in a free society. But with this right comes a duty: the duty not to use this right against its very purpose. Freedom of speech may not be used to threaten, insult or limit the freedom, dignity and privacy of others. In the ideal situation, everyone would have enough sense of responsibility not to abuse freedom of speech. In practice, this is obviously not the case. Therefore, in my opinion, an ideological and legal framework has to be found to limit freedom of speech.”

Hate Speech

Hate speech justifies limiting free expressions

Human Rights Education Association

http://www.hrea.org/learn/guides/freedom-of-expression.html

There may be certain extreme forms of expression which need to be curtailed for the protection of other human rights. Limiting freedom of expression in such situations is always a fine balancing act. One particular form of expression which is banned in some countries is “hate speech”.

There may be some views which incite intolerance or hatred between groups. This raises the debate about whether such hate speech, as it is known, should be restricted. An extreme example of this is the use of the mass media to promote genocide or racially-motivated attacks, such as the role played by Radio-Télévision Libre des Milles Collines in the Rwandan genocide in 1994. In some countries hate speech laws have been introduced to outlaw such expression. There is a fine balance between upholding the right to freedom of expression and protecting other human rights. The success of such laws has often been questionable and one of the consequences has been to drive hate speech underground. While it may be necessary to ban certain extreme forms of hate speech and certainly to make its use by the state prohibited, parallel measures involving the promotion of a pluralistic media are essential to give voice to counter viewpoints.

hate speech harms society by harming the market place:

“Hate Speech from the Street to Cyber-space: Cases and Policies in Specific Contexts”31 March – April 1, 2006; Central European University, Budapest, Hungary

http://www.cmcs.ceu.hu:8080/cmcs/HSabstract_Dalal.doc

“Hate speech deconstructs the basic assumption that legitimizes freedom of expression, which is the creation of a marketplace of ideas, and furnishing a possibility to reach the truth. Hate speech individualizes freedom of expression, by highlighting the importance of the personal autonomy of the hate speaker and less the validity of his or her ideas and their contribution to diverse discourses in the public sphere.”

HATE SPEECH LEADS TO DEHUMANIZATION:

Delgado, Professor of Law at University of Colorado School, 97, Richard, We Must Defend Nazis? Hate Speech, Pornography, and the New First Amendment, page  5

“According to psychologist Kenneth Clark, Human beings…..whose daily experience tells them that almost nowhere in society are they respected and granted the ordinary dignity and courtesy to others will, as a matter of course, begin to doubt their own self-worth. Minorities may come to believe the frequent accusations that they are lazy, ignorant, dirty, and superstitious. The accumulation of negative images, presents them with one massive and destructive choice, either to hate one’s self, or have no self at all, to be nothing.”

MARKET PLACE OF IDEAS IS BAD:

Proof for marketplace of ideas relies on flawed circular logic

Benjamin Duval Jr., Prof of Law at University of Louisville, 1972 (George Washington Law Review,December, “Free Communication of Ideas”, p.190)

“Moreover, apart from these practical difficulties, it seems questionable that a determination that free discussion will lead to greater knowledge is theoretically possible.  To determine the relative degree of error at different points of time requires knowledge of what is true, or a least knowledge that current beliefs are more accurate than those held during the period under evaluation.  Yet this flies in the face of the fundamental premise of the marketplace theory itself—that experience has taught that no matter how firmly any proposition is believed to be true, there is a substantial possibility that it is untrue.  This is not to suggest that there is no evidence in support of existing beliefs, but only that more convincing evidence to the contrary may subsequently develop.  The difficulty is that any proof that existing beliefs are more accurate than past beliefs is inherently circular.”

 Impossible to prove marketplace of ideas can reach truth

Benjamin Duval Jr., Prof of Law at University of Louisville, 1972 (George Washington Law Review,December, “Free Communication of Ideas”, p.190)

“A more fundamental skepticism questions the assumption made by both sides of the argument that discussion, if it can be free, will lead to truth.  The practical difficulties in establishing such a proposition are forbidding.   To prove that a society operating on the principle of free discussion has progress toward truth, it would seem necessary to determine the relative degree of error of the beliefs of the population at two different times.  If error had declined, and if factors unrelated to the legal treatment of free expression had not contributed to that change, it would be reasonable to assert that free discussion had led to truth.  The difficulty of determining the beliefs of an entire population and the effect of factors other than free expression is obvious.  Even more difficult is the determination of the weight to be ascribed to varying degrees of error.  Indeed, it seems impossible to rank errors for the purpose of determining whether rejection of one fallacy for another reflects progress towards truth.”

Marketplace of ideas structurally incapable of finding truth

Benjamin Duval Jr., Prof of Law at University of Louisville, 1972 (George Washington Law Review,December, “Free Communication of Ideas”, p.190)

“In recent times, however, this theory has been subjected to skeptical attacks.  It has been asserted that all too frequently the desire of one side to win the game overrides the desire to reach the truth, that concentration of mass media in a few hands distorts the functioning of the market, and that the multiplicity of arguments presented today is greater than man’s ability to assimilate them.  These attacks, however, question the operation of the market only at the mechanical level, where correction is quite possible.  They implicitly assume that if the market operated at peak efficiency, truth would be discovered, and suggest only that there exists a partial disequilibrium which renders the market temporarily incapable of correctly tabulating the results of free debates.  Answers to these attacks have not been offered, but the answers, like the questions, do not go to the problems.”

political correctness is good:

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ENSURES A HARMONIOUS SOCIETY:

A Little Political Correctness Goes a Long Way, Part 2, http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/german_joys/2006/02/political_corre.html, 2006

“This answer is usually mocked by Europeans as "political correctness," but many Americans would call it "good taste," "decency," or simply "respect." In order to harmoniously accommodate the huge variety of ethnic groups and religions that exist in the U.S., everyone agrees to avoid discussing certain extremely sensitive topics in the public sphere, and to avoid intentionally insulting the basic tenets of other peoples' religious faith. every American agrees that a large, multiethnic, diverse country should enforce informal -- but strict -- restrictions on gratuitous mockery of ethnic or religious groups.  They will even permit the state to outlaw behavior that needlessly inflames racial tensions. The Supreme Court held that it was permissible for the State of Wisconsin to punish people more severely when their criminal conduct was motivated by racial hatred, and upheld a law making it illegal to burn a cross (a KKK ritual symbolizing oppression of blacks).”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS NEEDED FOR A BROAD CULTURE

political correctness is just alright with me, John Ransom, 2006, http://www.long-sunday.net/long_sunday/2006/01/political_corre.html

“There have always been terms, words, that are more or less acceptable, depending on social context.  Plenty of places today where you can do just fine using the word 'chick'!  No one will say a word! But in the "broader culture" this is a no-no.And so is it a good thing that the "broader culture" restricts terms and words.  Every single thoughtless critic of political correctness would be forced to admit this.  Easily forced.  All one has to do is say, "Does your criticism of political correctness include the unspoken, but certainly effective, stricture against making Jewish jokes?"  I just looked on the internet for what must have been something like, I don't know, 1.8 seconds and found nothing but the most innocuous jokes about Jews.  If there had been an internet in 1965, which there wasn't, and you could do a search of Jewish jokes, who wants to bet they would have been a lot less innocuous?”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS A GOOD THING, JUST SOMETIMES PEOPLE ABUSE IT:

Political Correctness Can Be a Good Thing: By David Sloan, 06

http://www.thisisull.com/opinions/davidcorrectness.html

“The idea of using political correctness to improve society is a very good one. Everyone has the right to be treated equally, regardless of their sex, color or religion. Unfortunately, as with most good ideas, it has been corrupted and distorted by small-minded people who use it to their own ends. Political correctness used in this positive radical way, and not in the negative manipulative way some small-minded politicians want it used, can only make for a better society.”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS PROTECTS THE FEELINGS AND RIGHTS OF MINORITIES:

THE LAST PERMISSIBLE BIGOTRY: Suzanne Fields, 2000

“BIGOTRY IS BAD. Everybody knows that much. That's why political correctness thrives. It's supposed to protect the feelings as well as the rights of vulnerable minorities, whoever they may be. Political correctness was born on the left and can be extremely narrow-minded, but the motivation behind it is not always bad. It strives to reduce offense, and sometimes it works. It's no longer socially permissible to be blatantly anti-Semitic or anti-papist.”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS GOOD IN TERMS OF RACE:

Ben Tracy, CBS NEWS, 2005

http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_326093232.html

“Gaetano said political correctness has been a good thing in terms of race."How we label people determines how we communicate with them, how we perceive them," Gaetano said. "We know that certain labels can empower people and certain labels can disempower people." That is why crippled became handicapped, then disabled, then physically challenged and now the term is differently-abled.”

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS REDUCES OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE:

Political Correctness a Matter of Good Manners, Alexander Chancellor, 2004http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/05/26/2003157026

"Political correctness" is a tired old expression, not used much nowadays by anybody but the right-wing Daily Mail, which employs it as a weapon with which to castigate the left. But personally I am rather in favor of it, insofar as it means the avoidance of words and phrases that cause gratuitous offense and make bigotry respectable. Understood in this way, political correctness is just a form of good manners. It is clearly rude to refer to a black man as a "nigger," so we don't do so unless rudeness is our intention. But there are also subtler forms of insult that might not superficially seem offensive but have become so through association. There may, for example, be Biblical grounds for referring to the Jews as "the chosen people," but Jews have every reason to suspect that non-Jews who describe them thus are not well-disposed toward them, for the phrase is part of the traditional vocabulary of anti-Semites.”

POLITCAL CORRECTNESS IS GOOD BECAUSE IT CENSORS WHAT YOU CAN SAY:

In defense of political correctness, 2004, http://www.cardinalcollective.com/blog/archives/2004/12/001220.html

“This myth includes references to the 'tyranny of the Left' and 'community based tyranny'. Basically it is grounded on the myth that free speech should allow anyone to say anything, no matter how offensive, and not be subject to rebuke by the members of the community. This myth is based on the same type of 'courtroom truth' I talked about earlier, that every issue has two sides, and that each side needs equal access and status in the debate. However, free speech is more than just your right to express your views without government interference (which is ALL free speech is), it's also my right to say that your views are offensive and wrong and uncivil and shouldn't be brought up among educated people. In fact, this type of confrontation has led to a lot of good. In my grandmother's day, racial epithets were part of casual conversation. Today, no one of good upbringing engages in such behavior. When I went to junior high, teenage boys used to deride homosexuality in vulgar and offensive ways. Today, that attitude is changing. And that's a good thing.”

YOU DON’T HAVE TO GIVE A THRESHOLD FOR WHEN POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS MET:

David Farr, 2006, http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2005/04/political_correctness.html

“Those who rail against political correctness are often asked to give a definition of what is political correctness. And it can be hard to do, because it is a bit like spam. Bloody difficult to define exactly what qualifies, but we always know it when we see it.”