Question:
Democracies have an obligation to shield these people and to encourage further dissent

The universality of human rights, of the freedom of speech and of due process is all touted as crucial by the world’s democracies. Democratic countries are frequently vocal on the subject of liberty, on the superiority of their system of government that provides for the best protection of human dignity. By offering amnesty to bloggers, the people standing at the forefront of the democratic cause in oppressive regimes, Western countries take a largely low-cost action that provides for the security and safety of some the bravest people in the public arena. The West must stop kowtowing to oppression and make a stand to offer an umbrella of protection to those who need it. That protection is absolutely crucial to the development of more dissent in the blogosphere and on the ground. Only by nurturing dissent can it ever take root and overcome the vast powers of authoritarian government. The promise of protection is hugely powerful because it gives bloggers a safety net to fall back on. Those already active will feel more empowered to speak out against their oppressors, and some currently cowed by fear will have the courage to speak up. The guarantee of amnesty also removes the perceived randomness of such offerings that currently occur, as in the recent case of Cuba in which two bloggers of similar pedigree asked for asylum in the US, but only one received it. [1] Such inconsistency has bred fear in the minds of dissidents. This policy would correct for it and help bolster the cause of justice on all fronts. It is through offering amnesty that democracies can provide the catalyst for the change they avow to be the paramount aim of human civilization.

[1] Fox News Latino. “Cuba: Prominent Blogger-Dissidents Receive Contradictory Results on Visa Petitions”. 31 January 2013. http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/01/31/cuban-blogger-yoani-sanchez-granted-passport-while-dissident-moya-denied/

A democracy’s first duty must always be to the citizens that elect it, not to foreign dissidents. Their duty therefore is to be engaging with these regimes to the benefit of their own citizens; through encouraging trade relations for example. Offering amnesty to individuals oppressive regimes consider to be criminals will serve only to alienate those regimes from the process of negotiation so actually runs counter to the interests of the electorate. Such alienation would result in even more repression, and a greater unwillingness to adopt reforms. If democracies want to promote their mode of government abroad they would be best advised not to pick fights with those they wish to influence.

This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets.

In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.

As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion.

Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers.

Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.

The ends do not justify the means. The government may well wish to suppress publication of information that would be prejudicial to its success in the next elections or its war campaign, but it’s in the public interest to know about their dirty dealings or illegal activities.

Moreover secrecy in the name of security often leads to injustice; the rendition of British residents and secret evidence given at control order hearings are but a couple of examples.

Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.

This is clearly not the same as buying a gene as the timescales are quite different. These are not words sold off in perpetuity, neither were they previously in use by someone else as was the case with land grabs by colonizing settlers. This is a description of an event that would not have taken place without the sponsorship for the duration of that event. Both of the other examples are of the permanent acquisition of something that was previously communal property.

Society is entitled to define itself on certain issues – otherwise what does it stand for? Community is only possible among like-minded individuals. It is likewise entitled to tell those who refuse to accept the consensus on those issues to ‘lump it or leave it’.

It is also absurd to suggest that all challenges to orthodoxy are legitimate. Denial of atrocities is usually a mask for racial intolerance. Denial of established scientific truths in the public world is not usually about progress but rather about ignoring the evidence to promote theologically based worldviews. Society has a vested interest in suppressing those movements.

Society is self-regulating. The link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one - people who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do.

If the advocates of these views have hidden agendas, all the more reason to expose them in public. The fact that Holocaust denial leads to neo-Nazism will, for most people, be one more compelling argument against it; creationism’s necessarily literalistic approach to scripture can easily be shown to be ridiculous. Again, the truth has nothing to fear, and the evil implications of falsehood should not be covered up by refusing to engage with it.

Arguments that invoke censorship of materials for minors are just that - arguments for the censorship of materials for minors. They do not concede the general principal that censorship is good because until the age of majority the state has a duty to respect (and to take limited measures to ensure others respect) the parental responsibility of those bringing up children.

It is exactly because of the visceral response it causes that flag burning is such an effective tool of protest. It draws media and public attention, thus giving the protestors the chance to speak to a wider audience than they might ever have been able to had they used other methods. While there might be some rhetorical backlash, it is not enough to make it not worthwhile. In the case of violent response, the ability to exercise a right should never be infringed by the potential for a violent response to its exercise. People's rights should be better protected in that case, not restricted.

All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
This offer of amnesty serves as a powerful public statement in favour of free speech and rule of law

In offering amnesty Western governments make an exceptionally powerful public statement in the international arena, an area in which they already hold great sway as norm-setters. It is a statement that shows that they will not simply ignore the abuses of power used by repressive regimes to stifle dissent and the voices of reform. [1] Ultimately, the power of oppressors to act with impunity is the product of democracies’ unwillingness to challenge them. Authoritarian regimes often claim to value freedom of the press, for example article 35 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China guarantees it, [2] and this policy challenges them to make their practice more like what they preach. A policy of amnesty for those threatened with the lash of tyranny serves to actively protect those people while at the same time upholding the avowed principles of justice and fairness the West proclaims. This will show that the West does not play favourites or turn a blind eye to these repressions, but is an active player, willing to step in to shield those who share its dreams of a freer world. The international ridicule these policies can generate will serve to shame regimes into relaxing their policies and to embrace at least a road to reform. Nor should it be assumed that this rhetoric will have no real consequences, many authoritarian regimes encourage investment by companies from democratic countries, such investment is less likely when that company’s home state is publically condemning that state by granting amnesties to dissident bloggers.

[1] Clinton, H. “Conference on Internet Freedom”. U.S. Department of State, 8 December 2011. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/12/178511.htm

[2] Fifth National People’s Congress, “Constitution of the People’s Republic of China”, 4 December 1982, http://www.hkhrm.org.hk/english/law/const03.html

This policy will not be a public statement of anything other than Western attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of others. It is also a powerfully hypocritical message; many democracies have libel laws that prevent libel and misrepresentation and authoritarian states should be allowed to have the same laws which will sometimes impact on bloggers. [1]

[1] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party?page=6

This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets.

In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.

As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion.

Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers.

Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.

The ends do not justify the means. The government may well wish to suppress publication of information that would be prejudicial to its success in the next elections or its war campaign, but it’s in the public interest to know about their dirty dealings or illegal activities.

Moreover secrecy in the name of security often leads to injustice; the rendition of British residents and secret evidence given at control order hearings are but a couple of examples.

Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.

This is clearly not the same as buying a gene as the timescales are quite different. These are not words sold off in perpetuity, neither were they previously in use by someone else as was the case with land grabs by colonizing settlers. This is a description of an event that would not have taken place without the sponsorship for the duration of that event. Both of the other examples are of the permanent acquisition of something that was previously communal property.

Society is entitled to define itself on certain issues – otherwise what does it stand for? Community is only possible among like-minded individuals. It is likewise entitled to tell those who refuse to accept the consensus on those issues to ‘lump it or leave it’.

It is also absurd to suggest that all challenges to orthodoxy are legitimate. Denial of atrocities is usually a mask for racial intolerance. Denial of established scientific truths in the public world is not usually about progress but rather about ignoring the evidence to promote theologically based worldviews. Society has a vested interest in suppressing those movements.

Society is self-regulating. The link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one - people who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do.

If the advocates of these views have hidden agendas, all the more reason to expose them in public. The fact that Holocaust denial leads to neo-Nazism will, for most people, be one more compelling argument against it; creationism’s necessarily literalistic approach to scripture can easily be shown to be ridiculous. Again, the truth has nothing to fear, and the evil implications of falsehood should not be covered up by refusing to engage with it.

Arguments that invoke censorship of materials for minors are just that - arguments for the censorship of materials for minors. They do not concede the general principal that censorship is good because until the age of majority the state has a duty to respect (and to take limited measures to ensure others respect) the parental responsibility of those bringing up children.

It is exactly because of the visceral response it causes that flag burning is such an effective tool of protest. It draws media and public attention, thus giving the protestors the chance to speak to a wider audience than they might ever have been able to had they used other methods. While there might be some rhetorical backlash, it is not enough to make it not worthwhile. In the case of violent response, the ability to exercise a right should never be infringed by the potential for a violent response to its exercise. People's rights should be better protected in that case, not restricted.

All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
These people are under serious threat for their pursuit of justice

The internet has become the paramount means of voicing dissent within repressive regimes. As the technology regimes have to keep control of their people increases, with access to high-tech surveillance technology adding to their already formidable arsenals of physical oppression, the internet has become the only platform to express meaningful dissent. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, for example, wherein people mobilized to overthrow their dictator has even been dubbed the Twitter Revolution. [1] Bloggers have become a major voice of dissent in other repressive regimes, including Cuba and China. Yet the blog platform is far from safe. Governments have sought to crack down on bloggers’ ability to dissent, using draconian methods like imprisonment to cow them into silence. In China the arrests of bloggers like Zhai Xiaobing, who was arrested and detained for simply posting a joke about Communist Party, have served to frighten many into silence. [2] So long as information is denied to the public, governments are able to maintain their repression. Only external help from democratic, or at least more liberal, states can provide the safe haven for people who have rubbed their governments the wrong way in their pursuit of reform and justice.

[1] Zuckerman, E. “The First Twitter Revolution?”. Foreign Policy. 14 January 2011. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/14/the_first_twitter_revolution

[2] Wong, G. “Zhai Xiaobing, Chinese Blogger, Arrested for Twitter Joke About China’s Government”. Huffington Post. 21 November 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/21/zhai-xiaobing-arrested-china-twitter-joke_n_2170462.html

Offering amnesty will not serve the cause of justice, it is responding to the symptom not the cause. It is unfortunate that individual bloggers suffer at the hands of governments, but seeking to give them amnesty will only serve to anger the regimes, leading to even further oppression and stifling of dissent. This unfortunately means that an individual is saved even as their actions may result in further reductions in the liberties of those who remain. As seen in China, the process of reform is slow and gradual. Upsetting that process could well increase the repression Western peoples feel to be so reprehensible.

This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets.

In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.

As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion.

Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers.

Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.

The ends do not justify the means. The government may well wish to suppress publication of information that would be prejudicial to its success in the next elections or its war campaign, but it’s in the public interest to know about their dirty dealings or illegal activities.

Moreover secrecy in the name of security often leads to injustice; the rendition of British residents and secret evidence given at control order hearings are but a couple of examples.

Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.

This is clearly not the same as buying a gene as the timescales are quite different. These are not words sold off in perpetuity, neither were they previously in use by someone else as was the case with land grabs by colonizing settlers. This is a description of an event that would not have taken place without the sponsorship for the duration of that event. Both of the other examples are of the permanent acquisition of something that was previously communal property.

Society is entitled to define itself on certain issues – otherwise what does it stand for? Community is only possible among like-minded individuals. It is likewise entitled to tell those who refuse to accept the consensus on those issues to ‘lump it or leave it’.

It is also absurd to suggest that all challenges to orthodoxy are legitimate. Denial of atrocities is usually a mask for racial intolerance. Denial of established scientific truths in the public world is not usually about progress but rather about ignoring the evidence to promote theologically based worldviews. Society has a vested interest in suppressing those movements.

Society is self-regulating. The link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one - people who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do.

If the advocates of these views have hidden agendas, all the more reason to expose them in public. The fact that Holocaust denial leads to neo-Nazism will, for most people, be one more compelling argument against it; creationism’s necessarily literalistic approach to scripture can easily be shown to be ridiculous. Again, the truth has nothing to fear, and the evil implications of falsehood should not be covered up by refusing to engage with it.

Arguments that invoke censorship of materials for minors are just that - arguments for the censorship of materials for minors. They do not concede the general principal that censorship is good because until the age of majority the state has a duty to respect (and to take limited measures to ensure others respect) the parental responsibility of those bringing up children.

It is exactly because of the visceral response it causes that flag burning is such an effective tool of protest. It draws media and public attention, thus giving the protestors the chance to speak to a wider audience than they might ever have been able to had they used other methods. While there might be some rhetorical backlash, it is not enough to make it not worthwhile. In the case of violent response, the ability to exercise a right should never be infringed by the potential for a violent response to its exercise. People's rights should be better protected in that case, not restricted.

All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The liberal democratic paradigm is not the only legitimate model of government, a fact that democracies should accept and embrace

Ultimately, states’ laws have to be respected. Liberal democracy has not proven to be the end of history as Fukuyama suggested, but is rather one robust system of government among many. China has become the example of a state-led capitalist model that relies on a covenant with the people fundamentally different from that between democratic governments and their citizens. [1] Chinas ruling communist party has legitimacy as a result of its performance and its role in modernising the country. [2] China’s people have accepted a trade-off; economic growth and prosperity in exchange for their liberties. When dissidents challenge this paradigm, the government becomes aggrieved and seeks to re-establish its power and authority. If the dissidents are breaking that country’s laws then the state has every right to punish them. Singapore similarly has an authoritarian version of democracy that delivers an efficient, peaceful state at the expense of constraints on the ability to criticise the government. [3] This collective model of rights has no inherent value that is lesser to that of the civil liberties-centric model of liberal democracy. In the end, as the geopolitical map becomes complicated with different versions of governance, states must learn to live with one another. The problem of offering amnesty to bloggers is that democracies and the West seek to enforce their paradigm onto that of states that differ. This will engender resentment and conflict. The world economy and social system relies on cooperation, trade, and peace. The difference between systems and cultures should be celebrated rather than simply assuming that there is only one true model and all others are somehow inferior.

[1] Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. “Is State Capitalism Winning?”. Project Syndicate. 31 December 2012. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/why-china-s-growth-model-will-fail-by-daron-acemoglu-and-james-a--robinson

[2] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party?page=4

[3] Henderson, Drew, “Singapore suppresses dissident” Yale Daily News, 5 November 2010, http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2010/11/05/singapore-suppresses-dissident/

Liberal democracy is in a clash of ideologies with other competing systems, they promote their own systems through other means such as aid to regimes that are considered to be backsliding by liberal democracies with no strings attached. It is critical that the democratic paradigm not submit to the demands of other systems that would undermine the rights and values that democracy has come to view as universal. While liberal democracy may not be the only legitimate form of governance there are universal right, such as freedom of expression, which must be accepted by all states and should be protected both at home and abroad. China’s vibrant dissident community is example enough that the alternative rights framework that the Communist Party offers is deficient. Rather than let those fresh shoots of democratic advocacy be smothered, the West should nurture them, and give them protection when they face vicious threats from cruel regimes.

This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets.

In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.

As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion.

Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers.

Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.

The ends do not justify the means. The government may well wish to suppress publication of information that would be prejudicial to its success in the next elections or its war campaign, but it’s in the public interest to know about their dirty dealings or illegal activities.

Moreover secrecy in the name of security often leads to injustice; the rendition of British residents and secret evidence given at control order hearings are but a couple of examples.

Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.

This is clearly not the same as buying a gene as the timescales are quite different. These are not words sold off in perpetuity, neither were they previously in use by someone else as was the case with land grabs by colonizing settlers. This is a description of an event that would not have taken place without the sponsorship for the duration of that event. Both of the other examples are of the permanent acquisition of something that was previously communal property.

Society is entitled to define itself on certain issues – otherwise what does it stand for? Community is only possible among like-minded individuals. It is likewise entitled to tell those who refuse to accept the consensus on those issues to ‘lump it or leave it’.

It is also absurd to suggest that all challenges to orthodoxy are legitimate. Denial of atrocities is usually a mask for racial intolerance. Denial of established scientific truths in the public world is not usually about progress but rather about ignoring the evidence to promote theologically based worldviews. Society has a vested interest in suppressing those movements.

Society is self-regulating. The link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one - people who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do.

If the advocates of these views have hidden agendas, all the more reason to expose them in public. The fact that Holocaust denial leads to neo-Nazism will, for most people, be one more compelling argument against it; creationism’s necessarily literalistic approach to scripture can easily be shown to be ridiculous. Again, the truth has nothing to fear, and the evil implications of falsehood should not be covered up by refusing to engage with it.

Arguments that invoke censorship of materials for minors are just that - arguments for the censorship of materials for minors. They do not concede the general principal that censorship is good because until the age of majority the state has a duty to respect (and to take limited measures to ensure others respect) the parental responsibility of those bringing up children.

It is exactly because of the visceral response it causes that flag burning is such an effective tool of protest. It draws media and public attention, thus giving the protestors the chance to speak to a wider audience than they might ever have been able to had they used other methods. While there might be some rhetorical backlash, it is not enough to make it not worthwhile. In the case of violent response, the ability to exercise a right should never be infringed by the potential for a violent response to its exercise. People's rights should be better protected in that case, not restricted.

All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Democracies should be wary of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries

Authoritarian countries tend to guard their sovereignty jealously and will not take kindly to what they would consider to be interference in their internal affairs. In many cases this is exactly what the government offering an amnesty would be doing. Should foreign countries really be deciding that the justice system of a country was wrong in this or that case so amnesty should be provided? Where there are legal proceedings against a blogger that end up with the blogger being sent to jail those outside the country may think the sentences unjust but as countries that publically support the rule of law they should accept the result. It may well be the case that sometimes the judicial system has been used to persecute a blogger but it is difficult to see why an outside power with little interest in the case should believe they have the right to provide an alternative verdict through an amnesty. Where a country disapproves of the treatment of an individual this should be done by negotiating with the government in question and providing any alternative evidence they have. Cuba for example has released dissidents before as a result of negotiations with outside actors; the release 80 dissidents for the visit by Pope John Paul II in 1998 being merely the most successful example. [1]

[1] Human Rights Watch, “Cuba: Release of Dissidents Still Leaves Scores in Prison”, 8 July 2012, http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/07/08/cuba-release-dissidents-still-leaves-scores-prison

An amnesty would clearly only be offered under certain circumstances. In cases where there are judicial proceedings then the offer of an amnesty could only take effect when the individual being offered it is released and able to take advantage of the offer. It is also wrong to consider that an offer of an amnesty is unwarranted interference in internal affairs; the country in question clearly objects to what the blogger is doing so this is opening an avenue where both the state and blogger get what they want.

This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets.

In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.

As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion.

Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers.

Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.

The ends do not justify the means. The government may well wish to suppress publication of information that would be prejudicial to its success in the next elections or its war campaign, but it’s in the public interest to know about their dirty dealings or illegal activities.

Moreover secrecy in the name of security often leads to injustice; the rendition of British residents and secret evidence given at control order hearings are but a couple of examples.

Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.

This is clearly not the same as buying a gene as the timescales are quite different. These are not words sold off in perpetuity, neither were they previously in use by someone else as was the case with land grabs by colonizing settlers. This is a description of an event that would not have taken place without the sponsorship for the duration of that event. Both of the other examples are of the permanent acquisition of something that was previously communal property.

Society is entitled to define itself on certain issues – otherwise what does it stand for? Community is only possible among like-minded individuals. It is likewise entitled to tell those who refuse to accept the consensus on those issues to ‘lump it or leave it’.

It is also absurd to suggest that all challenges to orthodoxy are legitimate. Denial of atrocities is usually a mask for racial intolerance. Denial of established scientific truths in the public world is not usually about progress but rather about ignoring the evidence to promote theologically based worldviews. Society has a vested interest in suppressing those movements.

Society is self-regulating. The link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one - people who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do.

If the advocates of these views have hidden agendas, all the more reason to expose them in public. The fact that Holocaust denial leads to neo-Nazism will, for most people, be one more compelling argument against it; creationism’s necessarily literalistic approach to scripture can easily be shown to be ridiculous. Again, the truth has nothing to fear, and the evil implications of falsehood should not be covered up by refusing to engage with it.

Arguments that invoke censorship of materials for minors are just that - arguments for the censorship of materials for minors. They do not concede the general principal that censorship is good because until the age of majority the state has a duty to respect (and to take limited measures to ensure others respect) the parental responsibility of those bringing up children.

It is exactly because of the visceral response it causes that flag burning is such an effective tool of protest. It draws media and public attention, thus giving the protestors the chance to speak to a wider audience than they might ever have been able to had they used other methods. While there might be some rhetorical backlash, it is not enough to make it not worthwhile. In the case of violent response, the ability to exercise a right should never be infringed by the potential for a violent response to its exercise. People's rights should be better protected in that case, not restricted.

All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
An amnesty policy will serve only to alienate regimes, shutting down the possibility of discourse or reform

It is a natural conclusion that a repressive regime, which operates largely by force and the control of its population, will react rather negatively to an action by the West that appears to be a calculated, public, and on-going subversion of their power in favour of criminal dissidents. The result of such action by Western democracies will not be any positive discourse between the targeted regime and the West, but will rather cause a breakdown in communication. They will be reticent to engage for the very reason that the states seeking to influence them are clearly not interested in dealing on an equal footing, but rather wish to undermine their way of life in favour of asserting their own superiority. The best way to actually get talks about reform started, and to empower those who wish for more democracy and press freedom, is to patiently engage with these regimes, to coax them peaceably toward reform without threatening their core aims. [1] Aggression toward them will generate aggression in return as is shown again and again by North Korea and the responses to its actions by the United States. While incremental change may feel glacial, the long game is the only way to get changes without letting blood flow through the streets. The only possible outcome of this policy would be a harsher crackdown on bloggers by these governments.

[1] Larison, D. “Engagement is Not Appeasement”. The American Conservative. 17 December 2012. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/engagement-is-not-appeasement/

All countries, even authoritarian ones, desire to be considered legitimate and valued in the international community. The weight of condemnation that a policy of amnesty creates is one that bears down heavily on repressive regimes and can galvanize them to reform. Furthermore, it is essential that Western governments nurture dissidents and give them shelter so they can continue their mission to attain justice rather than be thrown into jail.

This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets.

In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.

As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion.

Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers.

Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.

The ends do not justify the means. The government may well wish to suppress publication of information that would be prejudicial to its success in the next elections or its war campaign, but it’s in the public interest to know about their dirty dealings or illegal activities.

Moreover secrecy in the name of security often leads to injustice; the rendition of British residents and secret evidence given at control order hearings are but a couple of examples.

Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.

This is clearly not the same as buying a gene as the timescales are quite different. These are not words sold off in perpetuity, neither were they previously in use by someone else as was the case with land grabs by colonizing settlers. This is a description of an event that would not have taken place without the sponsorship for the duration of that event. Both of the other examples are of the permanent acquisition of something that was previously communal property.

Society is entitled to define itself on certain issues – otherwise what does it stand for? Community is only possible among like-minded individuals. It is likewise entitled to tell those who refuse to accept the consensus on those issues to ‘lump it or leave it’.

It is also absurd to suggest that all challenges to orthodoxy are legitimate. Denial of atrocities is usually a mask for racial intolerance. Denial of established scientific truths in the public world is not usually about progress but rather about ignoring the evidence to promote theologically based worldviews. Society has a vested interest in suppressing those movements.

Society is self-regulating. The link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one - people who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do.

If the advocates of these views have hidden agendas, all the more reason to expose them in public. The fact that Holocaust denial leads to neo-Nazism will, for most people, be one more compelling argument against it; creationism’s necessarily literalistic approach to scripture can easily be shown to be ridiculous. Again, the truth has nothing to fear, and the evil implications of falsehood should not be covered up by refusing to engage with it.

Arguments that invoke censorship of materials for minors are just that - arguments for the censorship of materials for minors. They do not concede the general principal that censorship is good because until the age of majority the state has a duty to respect (and to take limited measures to ensure others respect) the parental responsibility of those bringing up children.

It is exactly because of the visceral response it causes that flag burning is such an effective tool of protest. It draws media and public attention, thus giving the protestors the chance to speak to a wider audience than they might ever have been able to had they used other methods. While there might be some rhetorical backlash, it is not enough to make it not worthwhile. In the case of violent response, the ability to exercise a right should never be infringed by the potential for a violent response to its exercise. People's rights should be better protected in that case, not restricted.

All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The offer of amnesty allows home governments to discredit bloggers and paint them as foreign agents of disruption

When Western states and democracies offer amnesty to bloggers under threat from their home governments, the blogger’s views and comments immediately become coloured in the eyes of the public. The government is able to point to the Western powers offering this amnesty and can easily claim that their offers are the result of collusion between bloggers and their foreign patrons to spread propaganda, so the blogger is therefore guilty of treason. As unfortunate as it may be in individual cases, the result is that offering amnesty will only weaken the cause of democracy. Being sent to prison for their beliefs will do far more to serve their cause than seeking succour in the arms of another state, one that has demonstrated antagonism toward their homeland. The ability for governments to stoke nationalist fires has been thoroughly demonstrated in recent months by China’s reaction toward territorial disputes with Japan. [1] It is very easy to rile the public against a perceived external aggressor, especially given that these states often control much of the mainstream media outlets, and those who offer amnesty give themselves up on a platter as an adversary to be exploited in the public consciousness. The better plan for democracies in pursuit of their goals is to condemn acts of oppression and to seek diplomatic redress, but direct interference in the course of states’ justice will doing nothing but harm relations with regimes and turn the people against the proponents of reform.

[1] The Economist. “Barren Rocks, Barren Nationalism”. 25 August 2012. http://www.economist.com/node/21560882

People in oppressive regimes are smart enough to know when they are being duped. They will listen if the bloggers have a good point and are being unjustifiably persecuted. In the case of the Japan-China territorial dispute, there is the tangible fact that the islands are being fought over for nationalists to attach to irrespective of ideology. Offering amnesty is simply an offer to rescue people facing imminent unjust punishment. While governments will no doubt seek to paint them as foreign agents, their ideas will be able to continue to battle in the public sphere, rather than be shut off forever with the closing of a prison-cell door.

This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets.

In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.

As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion.

Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers.

Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.

The ends do not justify the means. The government may well wish to suppress publication of information that would be prejudicial to its success in the next elections or its war campaign, but it’s in the public interest to know about their dirty dealings or illegal activities.

Moreover secrecy in the name of security often leads to injustice; the rendition of British residents and secret evidence given at control order hearings are but a couple of examples.

Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.

This is clearly not the same as buying a gene as the timescales are quite different. These are not words sold off in perpetuity, neither were they previously in use by someone else as was the case with land grabs by colonizing settlers. This is a description of an event that would not have taken place without the sponsorship for the duration of that event. Both of the other examples are of the permanent acquisition of something that was previously communal property.

Society is entitled to define itself on certain issues – otherwise what does it stand for? Community is only possible among like-minded individuals. It is likewise entitled to tell those who refuse to accept the consensus on those issues to ‘lump it or leave it’.

It is also absurd to suggest that all challenges to orthodoxy are legitimate. Denial of atrocities is usually a mask for racial intolerance. Denial of established scientific truths in the public world is not usually about progress but rather about ignoring the evidence to promote theologically based worldviews. Society has a vested interest in suppressing those movements.

Society is self-regulating. The link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one - people who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do.

If the advocates of these views have hidden agendas, all the more reason to expose them in public. The fact that Holocaust denial leads to neo-Nazism will, for most people, be one more compelling argument against it; creationism’s necessarily literalistic approach to scripture can easily be shown to be ridiculous. Again, the truth has nothing to fear, and the evil implications of falsehood should not be covered up by refusing to engage with it.

Arguments that invoke censorship of materials for minors are just that - arguments for the censorship of materials for minors. They do not concede the general principal that censorship is good because until the age of majority the state has a duty to respect (and to take limited measures to ensure others respect) the parental responsibility of those bringing up children.

It is exactly because of the visceral response it causes that flag burning is such an effective tool of protest. It draws media and public attention, thus giving the protestors the chance to speak to a wider audience than they might ever have been able to had they used other methods. While there might be some rhetorical backlash, it is not enough to make it not worthwhile. In the case of violent response, the ability to exercise a right should never be infringed by the potential for a violent response to its exercise. People's rights should be better protected in that case, not restricted.

All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Those unable to respond will be worst hit

Smaller businesses and other organisations see their freedom of expression worst hit by laws that prevent them from associating themselves in any way with major events, to the detriment of their communities. Free speech is not relative or conditional and certainly should not be determined on the basis of the thickness of someone’s chequebook. In this regard, freedom of information is a very real issue. Those organisations without access to huge legal departments are hardest hit, further disadvantaging them against corporations who can already outspend them on advertising. Free speech means that in the world of words and ideas, at least, there is an even playing field and undermining that runs against a sense of natural justice.

Sponsors are simply using this to increase an already fairly unfair advantage; many people supported Britain’s bid for the games on the basis that it would offer great benefits to local businesses, legislation restricting their ability to use their geographical and cultural association with the event make that pledge look extremely hollow.

One of the noticeable failings of the Games is just how little positive impact they have had for small business in East London where most of the events are being held added to this, 62% of small businesses think the games will have no impact while 25% believe the impact will be negative [i] and business outside the capital have actually suffered as a result [ii] .

The major sponsors already went into this situation with massive advantages over small traders who had the sole advantage of the geographical proximity to the events. The idea that, for example, Coca Cola can prevent street vendors in the Olympic Village from selling Pepsi is absurd. Coke isn’t planning to make their money back on direct sales of their product around venues but on the prestige it brings them as a global brand.

[i] FSB News Release, ‘Olympics legacy will be damp squib for small firms’, Federation of Small Businesses, 9 January 2011.

[ii] Now Retailers Outside London Suffer From Olympics Effect. Simon Neville. The Guardian. 3 August 2012.

It is important not to confuse two issues. The ongoing ‘Battle of the Brands’ between, for example, Coke and Pepsi or McDonalds and Burger King are the focus of the sponsors. It really seems unlikely that the directors of McDonalds lose a lot of sleep over competition from a family butcher in Dorset. The problem has come because the butcher is caught in the crossfire. It’s worth noting that that butcher has received the sort of media coverage that money really can’t buy, so he’s probably not complaining too much. It may have been wise to draft the legislation so that it only applied to companies of a certain size but, in reality, it only affects large-scale efforts to circumvent the rules. [i]

[i] London 2012: Organisers clarify rules on branded clothing for spectators. BBC website. 20 July 2012.

Liberal democracy is in a clash of ideologies with other competing systems, they promote their own systems through other means such as aid to regimes that are considered to be backsliding by liberal democracies with no strings attached. It is critical that the democratic paradigm not submit to the demands of other systems that would undermine the rights and values that democracy has come to view as universal. While liberal democracy may not be the only legitimate form of governance there are universal right, such as freedom of expression, which must be accepted by all states and should be protected both at home and abroad. China’s vibrant dissident community is example enough that the alternative rights framework that the Communist Party offers is deficient. Rather than let those fresh shoots of democratic advocacy be smothered, the West should nurture them, and give them protection when they face vicious threats from cruel regimes.

This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets.

In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.

As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion.

Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers.

Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.

The ends do not justify the means. The government may well wish to suppress publication of information that would be prejudicial to its success in the next elections or its war campaign, but it’s in the public interest to know about their dirty dealings or illegal activities.

Moreover secrecy in the name of security often leads to injustice; the rendition of British residents and secret evidence given at control order hearings are but a couple of examples.

Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.

Society is entitled to define itself on certain issues – otherwise what does it stand for? Community is only possible among like-minded individuals. It is likewise entitled to tell those who refuse to accept the consensus on those issues to ‘lump it or leave it’.

It is also absurd to suggest that all challenges to orthodoxy are legitimate. Denial of atrocities is usually a mask for racial intolerance. Denial of established scientific truths in the public world is not usually about progress but rather about ignoring the evidence to promote theologically based worldviews. Society has a vested interest in suppressing those movements.

Society is self-regulating. The link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one - people who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do.

If the advocates of these views have hidden agendas, all the more reason to expose them in public. The fact that Holocaust denial leads to neo-Nazism will, for most people, be one more compelling argument against it; creationism’s necessarily literalistic approach to scripture can easily be shown to be ridiculous. Again, the truth has nothing to fear, and the evil implications of falsehood should not be covered up by refusing to engage with it.

Arguments that invoke censorship of materials for minors are just that - arguments for the censorship of materials for minors. They do not concede the general principal that censorship is good because until the age of majority the state has a duty to respect (and to take limited measures to ensure others respect) the parental responsibility of those bringing up children.

It is exactly because of the visceral response it causes that flag burning is such an effective tool of protest. It draws media and public attention, thus giving the protestors the chance to speak to a wider audience than they might ever have been able to had they used other methods. While there might be some rhetorical backlash, it is not enough to make it not worthwhile. In the case of violent response, the ability to exercise a right should never be infringed by the potential for a violent response to its exercise. People's rights should be better protected in that case, not restricted.

All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
This creates a dangerous precedent

The idea that corporations can, effectively, buy words and phrases set a pernicious precedent similar to their ability to own genes. There are certain things that, self-evidently, are the property of the people. They are held in common and in trust for future generations. They cannot be sold because they are not owned. Attempts to evade that reality have, generally, been seen as pernicious by history – even where they have not been rectified. European settlers laying claim to land used by indigenous people would be one example.

Recent attempts by pharmaceutical companies to purchase genes [i] and now other Corporations to own chunks of the language – or at least rent them from governments and NGOs that also don’t own them in the first place - seems to come in a similar spirit.

Who can reasonably be said to own, for example, the phrase “London 2012”? If anybody could make such a claim, Londoners living in the city in 2012 would seem to be the obvious answer. However, there is a far more satisfying answer that nobody does.

The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 extends the scope of protection given to the Olympic and Paralympic Games by making it an infringement of the “London Olympic Association Right” (LOAR) to do anything which is “likely to create in the public mind an association” with the London Olympics [ii] . [iii]

The fact that this is happening in relation to the Olympics makes the precedent particularly troubling as the idea that the Games are for all mankind is at the heart of the Olympic ideal. It is an aspiration of our common humanity and all that entails. If chunks of that are for sale then it raises very real concerns about what else could go under the hammer.

[i] Noonan, Kevin ed., ‘This House would allow the patenting of genes’, Debatabase, 2011.

[ii] International Trademark Association.

[iii] Davies, Malcolm, ‘Intellectual Property and the London 2012 Olympic Games - What businesses need to know’, Intellectual Property Office, November 2009.

This is clearly not the same as buying a gene as the timescales are quite different. These are not words sold off in perpetuity, neither were they previously in use by someone else as was the case with land grabs by colonizing settlers. This is a description of an event that would not have taken place without the sponsorship for the duration of that event. Both of the other examples are of the permanent acquisition of something that was previously communal property.

Liberal democracy is in a clash of ideologies with other competing systems, they promote their own systems through other means such as aid to regimes that are considered to be backsliding by liberal democracies with no strings attached. It is critical that the democratic paradigm not submit to the demands of other systems that would undermine the rights and values that democracy has come to view as universal. While liberal democracy may not be the only legitimate form of governance there are universal right, such as freedom of expression, which must be accepted by all states and should be protected both at home and abroad. China’s vibrant dissident community is example enough that the alternative rights framework that the Communist Party offers is deficient. Rather than let those fresh shoots of democratic advocacy be smothered, the West should nurture them, and give them protection when they face vicious threats from cruel regimes.

This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets.

In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.

As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion.

Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers.

Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.

The ends do not justify the means. The government may well wish to suppress publication of information that would be prejudicial to its success in the next elections or its war campaign, but it’s in the public interest to know about their dirty dealings or illegal activities.

Moreover secrecy in the name of security often leads to injustice; the rendition of British residents and secret evidence given at control order hearings are but a couple of examples.

Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.

Society is entitled to define itself on certain issues – otherwise what does it stand for? Community is only possible among like-minded individuals. It is likewise entitled to tell those who refuse to accept the consensus on those issues to ‘lump it or leave it’.

It is also absurd to suggest that all challenges to orthodoxy are legitimate. Denial of atrocities is usually a mask for racial intolerance. Denial of established scientific truths in the public world is not usually about progress but rather about ignoring the evidence to promote theologically based worldviews. Society has a vested interest in suppressing those movements.

Society is self-regulating. The link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one - people who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do.

If the advocates of these views have hidden agendas, all the more reason to expose them in public. The fact that Holocaust denial leads to neo-Nazism will, for most people, be one more compelling argument against it; creationism’s necessarily literalistic approach to scripture can easily be shown to be ridiculous. Again, the truth has nothing to fear, and the evil implications of falsehood should not be covered up by refusing to engage with it.

Arguments that invoke censorship of materials for minors are just that - arguments for the censorship of materials for minors. They do not concede the general principal that censorship is good because until the age of majority the state has a duty to respect (and to take limited measures to ensure others respect) the parental responsibility of those bringing up children.

It is exactly because of the visceral response it causes that flag burning is such an effective tool of protest. It draws media and public attention, thus giving the protestors the chance to speak to a wider audience than they might ever have been able to had they used other methods. While there might be some rhetorical backlash, it is not enough to make it not worthwhile. In the case of violent response, the ability to exercise a right should never be infringed by the potential for a violent response to its exercise. People's rights should be better protected in that case, not restricted.

All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Governments and corporations have been complicit in an effective ‘privatization of language’.

Recent developments in IP legislation, particularly in the UK, have given corporations a carte blanche with regards to protecting their claim on associations with events they are sponsoring. The Olympics, for example, has required vastly more investment from the taxpayer than from any sponsor [i] [ii] and yet those very taxpayers have been prevented from using associations with the event to their advantage. The build-up to the games saw the international media full of stories of small businesses and others banned from using the logo or name of the games for their own advantage [iii] . Sponsors may have ploughed in millions but the taxpayers has invested billions, many of them will see precious little return on that investment and this is exacerbated by the official sponsors buying those terms. Effectively government has conspired with corporations to own chunks of language which morally, linguistically and financially can be said to belong to the public.

Nobody would challenge the right of sponsors to proudly promote their bought association with an event they are sponsoring and to use all of the means at their disposal to declare that association to the world, which they have done. However, there is a world of difference between the positive right to proclaim a particular association and the negative right to prevent anyone else from proclaiming theirs. Of course sponsorship should provide bragging rights and privileged access but that is a world away from buying the silence of others.

[i] London 2012 Olympic Sponsors List: Who Are They And What Have They Paid? Simon Rogers. The Guardian. 19 July 2012.

[ii] London Olympics Could Cost Taxpayer $17Bn. Fred Drier. Forbes Magazine. 10 March 2012.

[iii] Even Sausage Rings Are Put on The Chopping Block. Jere Longman. New York Times. 24 July 2012.

It is a massive overstatement to say that recent events are equivalent to the privatization of language. Were people to be charged every time they used the word “Olympic”, say, that would look like the privatisation of language, this is merely sponsors protecting the association with an event that they paid for in the first place.

Additionally, to portray this as a conspiracy raises the question of, “To what end?” Government works with major organisations as partners all the time, precisely because it saves the taxpayer money to do so. Although the taxpayer has footed a significant bill for the games, it would have been that much larger without sponsors and it is the taxpayer, not the sponsors, who receive the infrastructural benefits, which is what they paid for. The sponsors receive promotion for their brands, which is what they paid for. It’s a simple quid pro quo. Other companies trying to muscle in on the act have paid for nothing – and that is just what they should get. [i] .

[i] London 2012. Olympic Legacy Website.

Liberal democracy is in a clash of ideologies with other competing systems, they promote their own systems through other means such as aid to regimes that are considered to be backsliding by liberal democracies with no strings attached. It is critical that the democratic paradigm not submit to the demands of other systems that would undermine the rights and values that democracy has come to view as universal. While liberal democracy may not be the only legitimate form of governance there are universal right, such as freedom of expression, which must be accepted by all states and should be protected both at home and abroad. China’s vibrant dissident community is example enough that the alternative rights framework that the Communist Party offers is deficient. Rather than let those fresh shoots of democratic advocacy be smothered, the West should nurture them, and give them protection when they face vicious threats from cruel regimes.

This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets.

In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.

As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion.

Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers.

Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.

The ends do not justify the means. The government may well wish to suppress publication of information that would be prejudicial to its success in the next elections or its war campaign, but it’s in the public interest to know about their dirty dealings or illegal activities.

Moreover secrecy in the name of security often leads to injustice; the rendition of British residents and secret evidence given at control order hearings are but a couple of examples.

Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.

Society is entitled to define itself on certain issues – otherwise what does it stand for? Community is only possible among like-minded individuals. It is likewise entitled to tell those who refuse to accept the consensus on those issues to ‘lump it or leave it’.

It is also absurd to suggest that all challenges to orthodoxy are legitimate. Denial of atrocities is usually a mask for racial intolerance. Denial of established scientific truths in the public world is not usually about progress but rather about ignoring the evidence to promote theologically based worldviews. Society has a vested interest in suppressing those movements.

Society is self-regulating. The link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one - people who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do.

If the advocates of these views have hidden agendas, all the more reason to expose them in public. The fact that Holocaust denial leads to neo-Nazism will, for most people, be one more compelling argument against it; creationism’s necessarily literalistic approach to scripture can easily be shown to be ridiculous. Again, the truth has nothing to fear, and the evil implications of falsehood should not be covered up by refusing to engage with it.

Arguments that invoke censorship of materials for minors are just that - arguments for the censorship of materials for minors. They do not concede the general principal that censorship is good because until the age of majority the state has a duty to respect (and to take limited measures to ensure others respect) the parental responsibility of those bringing up children.

It is exactly because of the visceral response it causes that flag burning is such an effective tool of protest. It draws media and public attention, thus giving the protestors the chance to speak to a wider audience than they might ever have been able to had they used other methods. While there might be some rhetorical backlash, it is not enough to make it not worthwhile. In the case of violent response, the ability to exercise a right should never be infringed by the potential for a violent response to its exercise. People's rights should be better protected in that case, not restricted.

All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim