ces because theywere offended by a company’s advertising, that company will pull the add.That is the American way, and it works. My second contention is that, Freedom of speech is based on our valuingthe autonomy of individuals to make informed decisions. The resolution suggeststhat it would be wise to remove certain types of information from the public-those that violate the cultural sensitivity of some people. The resolution alsosuggests that individual members of our culture are not capable of makinginformed decisions on matters of cultural sensitivity. No one cultural outlook is soprivileged that it cannot or should not be included in the testing that occurs inthe marketplace of ideas. If we as a society ever get to the point that we viewthe diminishing of freedom of speech as moral, we endanger our ability to live ina free society. Because the resolution asks that we as a society we adopt amoral stance that can only be seen as changing the way free speech operatesin our society, it cannot be affirmed.My third and last contention is that there is no moral responsibility of thecommercial media to suppress certain speech because it violates some culturalsensitivity. The responsibility of the commercial media is to their audience andshareholders. This is the moral basis of capitalism- to meet the needs of thepeople in a free society. Consumers enter the marketplace to satisfy theirneeds. If by chance members of a specific culture are offended by mediacontent, they are under no obligation to consume the products. They can putthe book down. They can turn of their Television. They can leave the theaterwhen an offensive movie is playing. They can also form boycotts against specificproducts and companies. These are the rights of the consumer.Because Free expression is a basic American value, and limitations on it shouldbe minimized, and because the concept of cultural sensitivity is too ambiguous, Iask you to join me in negating the...
