QF Lee vs. Stinger

[FromTheSouth]

Me, GD, and IC will judge this round. 2/3 wins.

Lee affirms

Resolved: When in conflict, the right of the free press outweighs the right to privacy.

 

[Lee]

So we meet again, my one time opponent Stinger, for round two. Let battle commence!

Resolved: When in conflict, the right of the free press outweighs the right to privacy.

A simple enough question to ask that one naturally would assume the answer would be against. However when you get into the nitty gritty of it it seems a lot deeper than it looks. As is ever the case I will show you the definitions of the terms in the title that I will be using throught the debate.

Conflict: Essentially war.
Free press: Not restricted or controlled by government censorship regarding politics or ideology
Privacy: the condition of being secret.

Though taking the definitions at face value, there's another question we ask “Who's privacy does it outweigh?” here I will assume the privacy of the government in reporting such things as government affairs, the opinions on the war as set by the people as well as the privacy of the individual families of soldiers. OK now that's out the way lets kick start with the obvious place to start: The US constitution, since most of the people reading this debate is American I will tailor parts towards them. So as most of you know the first amendment to the constitution is this

“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.”

There we go, in the US is is set in the constitution that the press should have the right to be 'free' that's pretty cool The UK laws are a bit different and numerous times there have been gags placed over newspapers from naming certain people involved in certain crimes, including a couple of cases of behind closed door trials. However I'll stick with the US. First though a pretty picture, it's just to show the freedom of the press worldwide:

That pretty much shows the restrictions worldwide, as I've said several times I will stick with the USA. Since the First Amendmant was adopted in 1791, I'll roughly take that to 1800 for maths case. Now using wiki as a source (I know, I know!) I have found that the USA since the year 1800 has been in some form of conflict every year aside from twelve of those. Out of 210 years 12 wern't in conflict (two of those were in the cold war too!). That is roughly five percent according to my calculations. Using simple logic then if you were to say that during conflict the right to privacy outweighs that of the free press, only roughly five percent of US history would have allowed for free press to take place. That is staggering to think that that should be allowed in a country called the “land of the free and the home of the brave!”

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

Lee, I'll get to your post in a few minutes, but first I want to make my own statements.

When in conflict, the right of privacy outweighs the right to free press.

Well, first off, I am going to define the word "privacy"

The state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affairs

Well, right there is a big point that no matter what, one's private life or affairs are to be respected.

Simply put, people don't need to know what is going on. Now whether we are talking about a personal conflict between you and your family, or your country as a whole.

Let's say you are a renown athlete in your country. You wake up one morning to find that your grandmother is in the hospital and may not make it. Now, with paparazzi following you all the time, you may just want to keep this to yourself. This would be an example of a personal conflict. You wouldnt want the public to know what was going on in your family, just as they wouldnt want you to know what is going on in your family. As you are still trying to cope with the fact that your grandmother may not make it, you begin to drive to the hospital to see her. As you are walking in, paparazzi spot you and ask what is going on. At a hard time like this, at a time where you are quite saddened, and unsure of what the future holds, would you really want the people at home to turn on the TV and find out what was going on, so they can ultimately just make things worse? I know I wouldnt. In a time of personal conflict, the right to privacy outweighs the right to press.

Now on to another type of conflict. A country-wide conflict. Although this may not be a good example, the US has a place called Area 51. There have most likely been numerous conflicts in the past there, because of people wanting to know what the hell was inside. However, the US over many years have been able to keep it all a secret, keeping it private. Again, the right to privacy outweighs the right to press. To be quite honest, there could be dangerous things or life-forms in there, and if it were ever to be revealed on what was inside, people would come from all over to try and see, therefore, upsetting the US's natural balance of order.

Now onto your post.

Conflict: Essentially war.
Free press: Not restricted or controlled by government censorship regarding politics or ideology
Privacy: the condition of being secret.

Well free press is correct, as is privacy. However, conflict shoudnt be narrowed down to JUST war. As I said before, there are many types of conflict. Most of which, do not pertain to war.

OK now that's out the way lets kick start with the obvious place to start: The US constitution, since most of the people reading this debate is American I will tailor parts towards them. So as most of you know the first amendment to the constitution is this

“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.”

While that may be true, I want to draw your attention to amendments IV and IX of our constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Pretty much, what it's saying is, that in conflict, a person has the right to keep what is in their homes private, unless accused of a crime. Now to amendment IX.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

All that is pretty much a continuation of Amendment IV, saying that all citizens have the right of privacy protected.

So, there you have it, Two amendments in our constitution say that the American people have the right to privacy. Which further proves my point that When in conflict, the right to privacy outweighs the right to press.

 

[Lee]

I do believe my esteemed opponent has missed the ball on this one, and in fact I do not believe the question relates to personal conflict and not to personal privacy but rather conflict on the wider scale and privacy relating to said conflict.

Those Amendments to the constitution I feel are not in conflict to the motion and as already shown it's rare for the USA to be OUT of conflict. So with that in mind I am going to bring up the second point of my debate. The people (that's me and you) have a right to know what's going on and the government needs to be transparent about it.

You may ask why would this even be needed, not like there's anything being hidden?

Spoiler

Ohh yeah, that erm. This photograph (and others at the time) opened up a lot of questions about the war and really gave a catalyst to the stop the war coalition. The underhand techniques used were brought to light as a result of the media and in turn lead to a few changes in how things were brought about. Various charges were made and resignations/removals happened. This was as a result of the free media being able to report without worrying about the privacy of those who did the torture.

How about we know how the war is getting on? Do the public have a right to know that 281 British soldiers have dies in Afghanistan? Do the public need to know when an attack has gone well? When things are going bad? Of course they do, we as citizens of free countries have the right to know what is going on with money coming from our taxes for wars and the best way to do that in a non bias way is through the free press.

 

[FromTheSouth]

First of all, the when in conflict phrase means that when privacy and press come into conflict, not when the nation is involved in a conflict. This is what Stinger argued. It is hard for me to get away from this.

Lee does bring up the good point about the press being able to expose atrocities hidden behind a veil of "national security." That privilege gets used far too often.

In the end, Lee brought up enough times that the conflict between the two proved to be harmful to society as a whole until the press saved the day. Stinger's examples weren't convincing enough.

Lee wins.....narrowly.

 

[gd]

Pretty much what FTS said. Lee's extra post and the fact that he expanded a little more made up for the fact that he wasn't arguing the whole argument. Stinger probably would've won with another post. Lee is the winner.

 

[Lee]

To be honest you need to be more precise in your wording then, everyone I spoke to sided with what I thought it meant. Vague topic titles get you nowhere.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

It was close for me too, basically because both posters' arguments were minimally acceptable. Nobody really blew me away or convinced me either way. I felt that Lee's use of the photographs from the war detainees drove his point home a tad better because it showed honest, historical value in the freedom of the press and the positive manifestations from the release of those pics.

Lee wins, but will need to bring his "A" game next round. I felt like this was his "C" game.

 

[FromTheSouth]

To be honest you need to be more precise in your wording then, everyone I spoke to sided with what I thought it meant. Vague topic titles get you nowhere.

Punctuation and context speak otherwise. When in conflict (comma) words -

means when these things are conflicting with each other, which should prevail.