This post will discuss how media was used in the debate we took part in for restrictions on freedom of speech, and the other teams argument; no restrictions.
We were divided in to two different groups, the first being ‘for’ limitations on freedom of speech, and the second being ‘against’ limitations on freedom of speech. The group I chose was to conduct a debate for limitations. Within the research process in the seminar, I researched many different websites and finally came across a website that has many different personal opinions ‘for’ and ‘against’ the argument. This enabled me to see both sides of the story, giving our debate a stronger outcome due to knowing what the other team could say. Research on Charlie Hebdo and other public preachers were researched to argue our debate, also giving us a strong rebuttal. do showcase our research, we used images and powerful quotes within our presentation to get our message across to the other team, and most of all, to the judge. To boost our chances of winning, we conducted some secondary research to get some statistics; the results we gathered supported both sides of the argument but the statistics went our way. We interviewed ten people from the public to get an insight on their views of freedom of speech.
Conall and Emily were speakers for our team as we thought they are the best at public speaking out of our debate team. As we were debating for limitations on free speech, we were certain we could win the debate. we reached the recommended speech times with all evidence to back up our arguments. The counter teams argument didn’t seem completely valid as they spoke about freedom of expression, so our goal was to target that in the rebuttal. As the other team were speaking, our team took down several notes on what they were saying as we could get correct information and quote what they had said. After the debate was over, the judge decided the team who’s argument was no limitations on freedom of speech, won the vote.
Published from The Guardian – 18th June 2014. ‘Free speech is a bad excuse for online creeps to threaten rape and murder’ by Jessica Vanelti: