Generate text that refutes this claim: The government here may legitimately limit ‘free speech’.  We already set boundaries on what constitutes ‘free speech’ within our society. For example, we often endorse a ‘balancing act’ [1] an individual may express their beliefs or opinions, but only up to the point where it does not impede the ‘protection of other human rights’ [2] – other peoples’ right not to be abused. In this case, if an individual expresses abuse towards another – especially racism - they may be deemed to be outside of the boundaries or free speech and can be punished for it. This motion is simply an extension of this principle; the kinds of sites which would be banned are those which perpetuate hatred or attack other groups in society, an so already fall outside of the protection of free speech. The harms that stem from these kinds of sites outweigh any potential harm from limiting speech in a small number of cases.  [1] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association,  on 09/09/11  [2] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association,  on 09/09/11
censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor
Outright banning this kind of prejudice does not directly tackle it – it ignores it. A better way for the government to tackle derogatory and prejudicial speech is to engage with it in a public forum and reasonably point out the flaws and ignorance that it embodies, rather than desperately trying to hide it from public view. In this way, those who are being attacked by these websites would feel as if the government is actively protecting them and their rights and punishing those who have violated them, rather than simply closing a few websites and allowing their authors to continue in other ways. This motion does not solve the problem of prejudice in the way it claims to.