Unit 6: Speech and Debate Project
Q: Do you think there should be laws enacted to further regulate media and speech in the United States?
No, I do not believe there should be further laws to restrict and regulate media and speech in general. I believe that the current laws that are in place that restrict those things regarding the first amendment are suitable for our time. Even though there are many issues such as racist behavior, derogatory comments, and other negative forms of speech, these are considered issues with morals, not necessarily the freedom of speech. Some other forms of speech that are protected by law are profanity and mean or rude tones. In addition to this, there are current restrictions on speech that help to prevent illegal behavior. An example of this would be if a U.S. Citizen stated that they were aspiring to commit some type of crime, like robbery perhaps. This statement would be considered an offense and is not protected under the first amendment.
According to the United States 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.” The amendment, it talks about various forms of expression such as religion, freedom of the press, and lastly, speech.
With the protections of the amendment in mind, some individuals still argue that there should be further restrictions put on speech and media which is mainly due to moral issues. One of these issues is a term individuals refer to as “Hate Speech”. According to Oxford Languages, hate speech is, “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.”
Essentially, what hate speech means is any media or speech an individual or group may use that is hurtful in some way to another individual or group. But even though this may be a term in the language of some, it is not referred to in any form in law.
As The Federalist put it, “For the purposes of the First Amendment, there is no difference between free speech and hate speech”. Now, with this in mind, arguments based on how there need to be further regulations on speech to protect others from “hate speech” isn’t valid, because speech is allowed, even if it may be deemed as offensive to others.
In regards to something similar, some would argue that “fighting words” (which is a term that is legally defined) is a direct correlation to hate speech. The courts define “fighting words” as a face-to-face insult directed at a specific person for the purpose of provoking a fight. By comparing the two, we can see that the definition of “fighting words” is in fact different from hate speech. This case is the same for incitement, which is not a form of hate speech either but is a form of speech that is not protected under the first amendment.
In conclusion, the United States does not need to have further laws put in place to regulate speech. There currently are many laws that already regulate speech and help to protect others, such as fighting words of incitement which are defined in law.
Sources:
https://thefederalist.com/2017/04/20/sorry-college-kids-theres-no-thing-hate-speech/
Unit 7: Speech and Debate Project (pt.1)
Task: State and support your opinion on the following statement. The United States Federal government should adopt a carbon tax to help reduce CO2 emissions.
Proposed “carbon taxes” have the main intention of helping to reduce CO2 emissions by increasing the price of fossil fuels. If this tax were to be adopted, it would make it very difficult for the American public to purchase fossil fuels to power their vehicles or other gas-powered tools/appliances. Another intention of this is to decrease the demand for fossil fuel-related goods and services which pushes individuals or businesses to utilize more “eco-friendly” alternatives such as Electric Vehicles, appliances, etc. From my perspective, I believe that carbon taxes are not a good idea, and it should not be adopted at this time (or at all). If such a tax were to be imposed, it could have negative consequences on the American public.
A potential negative consequence of imposing a carbon tax in the United States would be an increased difficulty for transportation. Since the majority of vehicles and other forms of public transportation involve fossil fuels, this makes being able to get from one place to another very difficult. Switching from ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicles to EVs (Electric Vehicles) would be must easier if there was infrastructure and a larger number of options for people to purchase an EV.
Currently, EVs are very expensive to produce because of the battery components and increased demand for semiconductor chips. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused slowdowns in the supply chain which has further contributed to the cost of producing these vehicles. As a result, most electric vehicles on the market cost $35,000+.
In regards to the argument for the utilization of public transportation, most of its forms still involve fossil fuels. A very small percentage of public transportation actually uses technology that reduces emissions or has no emissions (such as EVs or Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles). Simply, the United States lacks the infrastructure to allow for more zero-emission solutions. While there has been evidence showing that carbon taxes effectively reduce emissions, it still hurts the American public.
At this time, alternatives to fossil fuels for the use of appliances and transportation is not at the same level of performance or reliability as fossil fuels. Even with the amount of research and development going into alternative energy sources for transportation, there will be a significant amount of time before these renewable or clean energy sources become actually reliable. The infrastructure that currently stands is not powered by 100% renewable energy but rather non-renewable energy that has a relation to fossil fuels. There is still a very low percentage of places in the world that can rely on power from most renewable energy sources such as Wind, Solar, Geothermal, or Hydroelectricity.
In conclusion, while encouraging further development and adoption of alternative renewable energy sources is a great idea, forcing others to switch is not. With all of the issues concerning the American people, reducing Carbon emissions should not be the #1 priority, but rather investing in the health, safety, and wellbeing of others in the country.
Unit 7: Speech and Debate Project (pt. 2)
Task: Should the United States keep the Electoral college system instead of a national popular vote?
Ever since the ratification of the United States Constitution, the Electoral College has been used in the process of electing the president and vice president of the country. As mentioned and explained in the first section of Article II in the U.S. Constitution, each state is directed to appoint a number of electors that are equal to a state’s own number of representatives from the House and the Senate in Congress. Within this clause, each legislature for a state has the ability to determine how they are to appoint electors for the state, but those who hold a federal office position are prohibited from becoming an elector.
Today, some argue that a direct popular vote is a better method of electing the president instead of the Electoral College system. Additionally, these critics have argued that there is inequality in the voting system where smaller populations have a higher proportion of voting power than those in more populated states. Despite this, I believe that the Electoral College system is a vital function of the United States Government.
One reason why I consider the Electoral College to be a vital function is that it allows smaller states to also have a say in the elections. According to nationalpopularvote.com (through wiki), when combining the 50 largest cities in the United States, it only accounts for about 15% of the total population of the country. If there were to be an election utilizing the popular vote system, the larger, more populated states would easily gain favor in the election over the smaller, less populated states.
Another reason why the current voting system should stay is that it encourages candidates in the presidential election to campaign in lower populated areas. This is important because people in different areas of the country have different concerns on issues. If the president were to be elected through a raw national vote, states that are smaller and more rural would be of no interest to presidential candidates, as more largely populated areas would be of higher interest.
The main concern that many have about the national popular voting system (including the founding fathers) is that there is a risk of giving the power to the uninformed public. Having the Electoral College is essentially a balance of power between the larger, more populated states, and the smaller, less populated states. Minorities’ concerns are highly significant in this system as are all of the states.
The last reason why I think the Electoral College is still relevant today is that it simplifies the process of campaigning. Under the system of a national popular vote, presidential candidates from either competing party must appeal to a majority of the population of the entire nation. This not only increases the amount of time needed to campaign across several states, but it is also more costly.
With the Electoral College system, presidential candidates from either the Democrat or Republican parties do not have to spend much of their time and money campaigning in states that are already leaning in favor of their political parties. For example, Republican presidential candidates have a much less need for campaigning in a state like Alaska or Texas, which are already Right-leaning, politically. The main focus of the Electoral college system is to appeal to states that could vote either way politically (which are referred to as swing states) or states that are generally changing in political opinions or belief sets.
In Conclusion, while utilizing a national popular voting system as means for electing the President (and Vice President) of the United States may seem appealing on the surface, its cons outweigh the benefits. The founding fathers of the United States clearly chose the Electoral College system for a purpose and that is to keep the balance of power within the country which has shown relevance ever since the establishment of the U.S. Constitution. If this system were to be abolished or replaced with a different voting system, the opinions and concerns of minorities in the country would be in jeopardy.