The Instigator
Abielecki
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Natec
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Freedom of speech should not have limitations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Natec
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 896 times Debate No: 62608
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Abielecki

Con

As citizens of the United States it is our constitutional right to have freedom of speech. But take apart the word freedom. Criminals could have freedom to commit murder and steal as much as they want in a free country, terrorists could kill innocent people and cause chaos if they were free to. And a child can go to school and degrade and torment another student without punishment. When a little girl comes home crying because another girl called her ugly, there is nothing that a mother can do legally that will make the slightest difference, but if a man slanders a word on his Facebook about the president, he will disappear from society without a trace. That, is protected under our first amendment. The first amendment states that congress shall not make a law respecting an establishment or religion, or prohibiting the free exercise theroff, or abridging the freedom of speech. But we live in a society based on freedom only, Americans choose what they want to respect and want they want to disrespect. We live in a society where somebodies sexuality is immediately shot down by somebody elses religion. We live in a society where a group of people can stand on a street corner and protest the funerals of war veterans. The Westboro Baptist Church is a religious group that consists of daily songs about how they hate America due to the amount of gays that walk the street, and they plan pickets for the funerals of soldiers because "god has struck them down". No police are called, nobody can do anything about it, and why, because of freedom of speech. Two years ago, in Springfield Middle School, a rumor was spread by a few students and teachers, that two special education students, were commiting sexual acts in the restroom. The whole school believed that it was true. And its not only because their story wouldn"t make a difference, but that everybody wants to believe the more interesting story. They were helpless in a situation that they could not get out of. If a rumor is spread about an innocent person, no law is there to stop it, but there there is a constitutional right that is there to protect it.
Natec

Pro

"As citizens of the United States it is our constitutional right to have freedom of speech. But take apart the word freedom. Criminals could have freedom to commit murder and steal as much as they want in a free country, terrorists could kill innocent people and cause chaos if they were free to. And a child can go to school and degrade and torment another student without punishment"

Having a "free country" doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. The meaning of a free country is that people can do anything they want in a free and democratic society"until their actions infringe on my freedom or anyone else"s. So terrorists killing people is an obvious violation to the meaning of a free country, and it's irrelevant to a freedom of speech policy.

"When a little girl comes home crying because another girl called her ugly, there is nothing that a mother can do legally that will make the slightest difference"

First of all, you don't have a freedom of speech before you are 18 years old. [1] So pointing out children verbally abusing each other is therefore irrelevant. Furthermore, schools typically have a contract that the student and parent need to sign at the beginning of the school year that basically says that they have to abide by the school rules, obey the teacher, etc. Most schools, if not all of them, have rules and policies against bullying other students. Additionally, state laws and policies prohibit bullying in schools. [2] This argument that students will be bullied due to freedom of speech is simply not true.

"We live in a society where somebodies sexuality is immediately shot down by somebody elses religion"

A homosexual man's attraction to other men can simply be "shot down" because someone has a belief that homosexuality is wrong. Separation of church and state also prevents laws based off of religious beliefs, which prevents laws discriminating against gays to be made solely on religious beliefs. [3]

"We live in a society where a group of people can stand on a street corner and protest the funerals of war veterans"

One of the things you need to sacrifice for freedom of speech is other people having the same right as you do, which means they can protest for what they believe in as well. We can't just take away the rights one group has because everyone, regardless of their beliefs, have equality under the law in the United States. [4]

"No police are called, nobody can do anything about it"

You can protest at there protests. People have done this before and it actually made the church members stop protesting and leave the area.[5]

"Two years ago, in Springfield Middle School, a rumor was spread by a few students and teachers, that two special education students, were commiting sexual acts in the restroom. The whole school believed that it was true. And its not only because their story wouldn"t make a difference, buthat everybody wants to believe the more interesting story. They were helpless in a situation that they could not get out of. If a rumor is spread about an innocent person, no law is there to stop it, but there there is a constitutional right that is there to protect it"

This goes back to what I had said earlier about anti bullying policies and laws.

Con's arguments have been refuted. He has not met his burden of proof in this debate.

Sources:

[1] http://www.factmonster.com...

[2] http://www.stopbullying.gov...

[3] http://definitions.uslegal.com...

[4] http://www.law.cornell.edu...

[5] http://kfor.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Abielecki

Con

Abielecki forfeited this round.
Natec

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the round. This means that the rebuttals to his arguments currently go uncontested. His arguments have been refuted and he has thus not met his burden of proof for this debate. I extend my arguments and wait for his next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Abielecki

Con

Abielecki forfeited this round.
Natec

Pro

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The first amendment protects us from government stopping speech.Not just nice ,rosy speech. But also offensive speech.That is why people on here can bash Christian, without fear of legal action. That is why I can say that homo's live a very dirty, nasty sexual lifestyle.

The limits on speech is if we say something that may cause panic and thus injury.Like yelling " fire" in a public place.Or saying something that is a lie about someone or a business.The 1st amendments real teeth is we can criticize government and they cannot stop it.

Jesus said, " by your words are you justified and by your words are you condemned." He also said, " life and death are in the power of the tongue." There are consequences to our words. They should be the most guarded thing we do.
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
Regarding the protest examples; freedom of speech does not mean interfering with anything physically. Protest all you want, but as soon as you get in someone's way, or disallow something from happening, that isn't just freedom of speech anymore.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
So you chose to be CON on a negative resolution? You might as well choose to be PRO on the resolution "Freedom of speech should have limitations".

That's what majority of your arguments point towards.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 2 years ago
TrasguTravieso
AbieleckiNatecTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Error has no rights. ?Viva la Inquisici?n Espa?ola!
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
AbieleckiNatecTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
AbieleckiNatecTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF