CreateDebate


Debate Info

67
61
Yes No
Debate Score:128
Arguments:133
Total Votes:139
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (58)
 
 No (55)

Debate Creator

AbbyNestor(1028) pic



Does this break your freedom of speech?

Recently a kid in my club came in with a swastika on his t-shirt. Some students were shocked and some were offended. Others didnt care. A staff member made him change his shirt. He said they cant do that because that's against his freedom of speech: symbolism. Is he correct? 

Yes

Side Score: 67
VS.

No

Side Score: 61

Yes. Under certain circumstances. You have to look up the origin of the swastika. It means "to be good" or "being with higher self". In modern times most people place it into the same category as the Nazi movement. If there were and Jewish people in there I can see why this would happen but mostly no because it truly has a better meaning.

Side: Yes
Ingenious(193) Clarified
2 points

One goes anticlockwise.

Nazi's one doesn't.

Side: Yes
AbbyNestor(1028) Disputed
2 points

Actually. Both were used. The Nazi's faced theirs on the flag rightly. In the end it still means the same thing. You wouldn't know anything about Nazis though since you cant even understand true rebellion.

Side: No
LizziexLaura(4277) Clarified
1 point

The Nazis had both currently active. It is still applying its ancient meaning. They were all about the clock work of their designs.

Side: Yes
MuckaMcCaw(1968) Disputed
1 point

The meaning and symbolism of the swastika is irrelevent. Our constitutionally protected freedom of speech was designed to protect citizens from THE GOVERNMENT, not other citizens. Unless the government becomes directly involved, it is not a violation of freedom of speech.

Side: No
1 point

Wait so you are saying that our freedom can be infringed by another citizen? So a citizen can literally just say whatever he want or portrait whatever he wants to another citizen even if the things he said are threatening or degraded the quality of that persons life? The symbolism behind is is extremely relevant because that is the core of this debate.

Side: Yes

It is breaking the freedom of expression.

Whether the sign is negative or the sign is positive, he was expressing his views and the staff member censored it.

Side: Yes
3 points

Thank you. Sheesh. Prodigee is giving me tons of crap about the symbol it self.

Side: Yes
Quocalimar(6470) Clarified
2 points

Lol, it's best to let him tire himself out in a corner.

Side: Yes
1 point

He is correct in fact the swastika actually is not hateful it is a religious Hindu symbol.

Side: Yes
Ingenious(193) Disputed
1 point

It's more Buddhist than Hindu.

Side: No
TheAshman(2299) Disputed
1 point

Its Buddhist, Hindu, Aztec, Egyptian and many Native American tribes used it and has always had peaceful connotations until Nazi Germany used it and forever tainted its meaning and it does not belong to one any more than any other

Side: Yes
1 point

I hate neo Nazis. I hate them alot but unfortunately you cannot do anything because that IS freedom of speech.

Side: Yes

Let's say he was a hardcore Nazi, I still wouldn't personally care. If he wants to go around and kill people so what? The way I see it, if it doesn't affect me, why should I care? Also, freedom of speech is still very far from actually being true. There are a LOT of things that are censored in public, such as swearing or wearing an offensive religious t-shirt.

Side: Yes
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Really? That was part of the problem with the original Nazis. No one spoke up for other people because it didn't affect them. How could you not care if he was going around killing people?

Side: No
Idiotobx914(1341) Clarified
1 point

People die everyday. Whether it be from a gun or natural causes, it's all the same to me.

Side: Yes
1 point

Probably, I mean if you kill someone then claim" I am entitled to my opinions, and it was my opinion he should die, so you can do nothing!" Then obviously not. If, however, you wear a swastika on your shirt, you should expect to be taunted and harassed, but no one can take the shirt away from you as long as there are no rules saying " you're not allowed blah blah blah" like a non school uniform regulatory list.

But if she made him change the shirt, then yes break of freedom of speech.

Side: Yes

Freedom of speech should be absolute, the constitution doesn't mention any exceptions of the rule.

Side: Yes
MuckaMcCaw(1968) Disputed
1 point

The nature of the constitution itself does, due to it being a set of rules concerning how the government governs. The freedom of speech outlined in the constitution prevents the government itself from impinging on that freedom. Unless the person in this club was prevented from wearing that shirt by an agent of the government, or arrested for wearing it, the government itself is not involved and so it does not violate the constitution.

Side: No
1 point

If the constitution is the supreme law of the land, no set of rules should allow government to govern freedom of speech.

True, the club can exercise its right to ask the kid to change or leave being it was on private property, I just misread it at first.

Side: No
PrayerFails(11165) Clarified
1 point

Freedom of speech was not broken since it was in a private club, infringing on speech is from government in private settings.

Side: Yes

What is with the the dispute over the meaning of the symbol. The meaning does not matter, he was not hurting people, he was just expressing his views.

While expressing his views he was silenced.

His freedom of expression was broken.

Side: Yes
1 point

This is more freedom of expression which ties into the whole freedom of speech thing so yes. It's pure censorship.

Side: Yes
1 point

There is nothing wrong with wearing clothes that have a symbol on it. I thought USA was the "Land of the Free". People need to understand the origin of that symbol before considering it a symbol of "hatred". Did the symbol kill people? Nope.

Side: Yes
-1 points

SWASTIKA is a symbol of limitation of human rights, symbol of limitation freedom of speech, symbol of evil.

Only true cunt gives something like that to their child. In my country you would end up in prison for 2 years and it's a good chance that you would never see your kid again.

Side: Yes
TheAshman(2299) Disputed
1 point

The Swastika is infamous for the reasons you have stated but its origins and use in certain religions is the opposite to what the Nazi's stood for and you would not end up in Jail in the UK for wearing a Swastika shirt we have freedom of speech and expression no matter how distateful (unless of course you are being threatening).

Side: No
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
0 points

It's irrelevant that some redneck tribes used Swastika before Nazi. I'm from Czech republic. Wearing swastika has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Wearing it is qualified as "Openly supporting regime that seriously violates human rights" it's up to 5 years in prison. If you gave it to your child to wear it.. you will get the maximum of 5 years and you will never see that kid again. Same is it with Islamist extremists their visa/refugee status is instantaneously cancelled and they will wait in prison for deportation to random destination.

Side: Yes
Sitara(11088) Disputed
1 point

You are wrong and uneducated. The swastika is not a hate symbol, but an ancient Hindu religious symbol.

Side: No
2 points

There is no freedom of speech in USA. It is limited.

Nazi symbolism being part of that limitation.

Side: No
sayyad99(773) Disputed
1 point

This symbol is not a hate symbol hence it is protected by the 1st amendment. There are indeed other limitations on freedom of speech. This symbol does not qualified to be included in those limitations.

Side: Yes
2 points

The swastika is not a hate symbol. It is an ancient Hindu religious symbol that Hitler abused. Have the kid claim First Amendment rights violations.

Side: No
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

No. A symbol similar to the swastika was, and still is, an ancient Hindu symbol. It's still a symbol that can be seen on streets all across India & other places, on temples, that inspires people to do good.

But, symbolism is not just about the origins of symbols. Symbolism is about what certain images means to people. And in the Western world, any symbol which resembles a swastika is fundamentally a symbol of pair, murder and the holocaust. Yes, Hitler did twist the meaning of the original symbol into something horrible, but just because we disagree with him does not mean that we can pretend that his actions never existed. His actions have changed the meaning of the symbol to billions of people, and you cannot ignore that.

Also, for the record, freedom of speech does not mean that you can and should say what you want at any point in your life. Freedom of speech means you have the right to hold certain views, and say certain things, and that you also have the responsibility to follow those views and express your thoughts, in a way that is a beneficial aspect of society. I may have a right to shout out fire in a crowded environment, but I have a responsibility to never do that - if I do, then I am abusing my freedom of speech. The same is true in this instance. The kid may have the freedom to support the views of Hitler, but he does not have the freedom to voice those views in a way that will hurt others, and he is not guaranteed a medium by which to do so, as you seem to think that he is.

Side: Yes
sayyad99(773) Disputed
1 point

In this case, one would have to evaluate the intent of the person who wore the shirt. If the intentions of the person were to to express himself through that ancient Hindu symbol, then one cannot argue based on how the rest of society will perceive that symbol if it has been established that this symbol belongs to a peaceful religious group and is part of their ancient history. Lets assume that terrorists have abused the Islamic symbol that represents their religion which is also ancient by bombing down towers and buildings ending in the loss of thousands of innocent lives. Does this mean that simply because someone else has abused a symbol, we as a country should prohibit anyone from using that symbol or expressing themselves when the foundation of that symbol is based on a message of goodness? While Hitler's actions have changed the meaning for billions of people, there are still billions and possibly trillions of people around the world who believes in this symbol as spiritual expression and guidance through their religion. The United States is a pluralistic society, founded on the beliefs of diverse groups of cultures and origins which are protected by the constitution.

And to begin with, any symbol that could mean murder or holocaust could actually mean something else and even if it did mean murder or holocaust it still does not promote violence using fighting words, it does not create an imminent threat and it is not an obscene word. I believe when you are talking about hurt you are referring to emotional hurt. If any concerns should not be voiced simply because they have the potential to hurt others then we wouldn't need the constitution at all. If the intention of the person at the time of wearing this symbol was to spread a message of goodness associated with Hinduism, then society cannot argue otherwise.

Side: No
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
1 point

That's besides the point. Whether the shirt was negative or the shirt was positive, his freedom of expression was infringed on.

His freedom of speech was broken.

Side: Yes

If he had been wearing this in a public place and not affiliated with a club, then this would be a violation of freedom of speech. When you represent a club, organization, even a school then you have to act accordingly to what is supposed to be respectable standards. These standards are determined by the staff, school boards, etc. and have to be followed until those in charge have had their rulings over-turned by some act. This act maybe a decision made within the group itself or a ruling as a result of legal action. Until then; When in Roman, do as the Romans do.

Side: No

Hmmm. I never thought about that .

Side: No
2 points

With age comes a little bit of wisdom. Very little .

Side: No
1 point

It all depends on how the swastika was being portrayed. He may have been a Hindu.

However, if it was being used as a Nazi symbol, than it should be banned.

Side: No

I think the kid may have meant it to mean good things but he may have thought the way the nazis positioned theirs was the same as the Hindu and other cultures. Not to sure though.

Side: No
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
1 point

It does not matter what way the swastika was portrayed.

He was expressing himself, his expression was not physically hurting anyone, yet he was silenced.

His freedom was broken.

Side: Yes