Is freedom of speech a privilege(no) or a right(yes)?
Debate Rounds (3)
Can a child say anything he or she wants to say? No. Can anyone in fact say anything at any given time? No. Certain expressions will and should be prohibited due to its context. Freedom of speech is in fact a privilege, not a right. A right is given at birth, but a privilege is earned throughout your life. A child shall not practice freedom of speech at all times. I could go on and on about this subject, but due to this debate having multiple rounds, I will save some points for later parts of the debate.
Here is why freedom of speech is important: It helps people air their grievances and opinions, as well as make decisions of their own making. If you do not have the right to speak freely, your ability to make your own decisions or to make group decisions is limited. This is exactly what George Orwell predicted when writing '1984'. He could see the possibility of governments limiting human speech, as well as all other daily actions as well.
We as a society - as a species - cannot let that happen. Our actions are very important, and if taken away, limits our daily lives. Not being able to speak freely to the government would just prove Orwell right. Like I said before, limiting speech is like limiting movement. It's unreasonable in almost every way.
I would like to make one more point: If you go back far enough in human history, there is was no government; there were no leaders. All there was was people, living together. They could talk freely, act freely, and live freely. People are born with the ability to speak, move, and live. What gives the government the right to take that away?
If we were face to face debating this issue, I could emerge as the victor. But this is an informal debate, and therefore I am not going to make myself sweat. - I hope you have seen my points and I hope you strive to agree with them.
If someone did not have freedom to express his ideas, and he/she had a marvelous idea that they wanted to share, they may not be able to do it. Here's another example: If a government official committed a crime and one man knew about it. That man could only release that information to the news channels if he had freedom of speech. See what I'm getting at here? If you don't have freedom of speech, what can you really do?
In your response, please explain your point instead of telling me you would do better face to face. If you really want to win this, you will need a good response.
Now, the first amendment does state that citizens have the right to freedom of speech. However, it does not protect certain kinds of free speech: insulting an officer, swearing to a politician, etc. It is these kinds of free speech that I am mostly addressing. I should have made this point before, but it is not too late to do so. That is why I am saying it now. No one can say ANYTHING at ANY time. You must agree with this. I see this debate in two ways: Your argument somewhat works for traditional speech while mine goes more into depth and includes other things that yours does not (certain kinds of free speech). I do not take freedom of speech literally. If you interpret the saying 100% seriously, it would drive this nation and this world to chaos.
I do agree with you when it comes to that humans have been given the gift of speech and that they must use it. However, this use must be somewhat restricted to protect the people of this Earth and to avoid chaos. I could seriously write an entire 5,000 word essay about this very topic, but I believe that this is an informal occasion and that we can hold ourselves back a little. Also, I believe I have made my point. - Now, this debate is in the hands of the people. I am anxious to see the vote.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.