The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Is freedom of speech a right?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
camelCase has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 702 times Debate No: 106110
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




Con will make the first move.


Freedom of expression is often regarded as an integral concept in modern libertarian democracies, it refers to the concept of being able to express one's opinion freely without the fear of punishment or censorship. As exemplified by the U.S. constitution, free-speech rights granted by the first amendment states that the government cannot constitutionally restrict speech is not absolute. There are many situations where government regulation of speech is definitely permissible. The rapid expansion of the internet created an exponentially growing number of free-flowing information. A vast majority of people would agree that government oversight preventing cases of radical groups of dangerous or toxic individuals is justified. A minority of the content on the internet contains disturbing and unethical material exists on the internet as a byproduct of this culture of free expression. The low barrier-to-entry enables misleading commercial advertisement and frequent copyright infringement.

Additionally, just because they're given the right to speak of anything, it doesn't mean they aren't accountable for what they say or responsible for the following consequences. Statements that deliberately damage one's reputation known as slander or defamation can invoke political prosecution.

Overall, the free speech rights granted to the general public and societies are typically not absolute, they are held as an important tool for protecting unpopular political opinion, criticisms towards the government, protests promoting a public message. But under specific instances forms of regulation are permissible. Therefore, the right to freedom of speech in a complete and utter sense (absolute libertarianism) has not historically worked in our most prosperous democracies but rather should be a limited, and to some extent a permissible guideline to judicially and socially running a democracy.
Debate Round No. 1


You are right. Freedom of speech is intergral to many people. I'd like to say why. The First Amendment says it's a right, much like freedom of religion. What I mean by freedom of speech being a right is that freedom of speech as a two way street is a right, meaning I support speech that is often very ugly, even if I disagree with it, because I want my own speech rights. I support freedom of speech with the right to challenge or ignore. There are limits, but not many.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 2 years ago
The most basic truth tells us in fact Rights can be accrue from God. And it is therefore separation of such state should be maintained, and held by the people, for the people to find use of impartial separation. As this type separation is in the best interest of all people whom wish to form a State of single Nation safely.
As a Republic we do not need be the parent, question, tell, or allow what is safe, or happy. All separation need do is ask only yes, or no, there is separation made. Neither Free Speech, nor a complete First Amendment create any immunity"s to impartial separation to the general welfare held in United States Constitution. So again, no change had been made upon the United States Constitutional at the completion or ratification of the First Amendment.
It is simply a chronical of judicial separation shared on a Federal level to other states of the Union between Basic principle and legal precedent.
Posted by John_C_1812 2 years ago
All rights are lost and granted from governing. Freedom is the expression to loss of both self value, and appraised value.

The First Amendment does not truly change the Untied States Constitutional, it is simple a head start taken by licensed representation on basic judicial separation to maintain a balance for impartiality. The issue of argument for Free speech is made within the First Amendment itself. A separation of self-value is left to be publicly described between filing grievance, and right to peaceably assemble. Grievance can be seen as admitting a loss of peace as it is an official protest of order, and can be challenged by order of law. Always.

This is the Constitutional understanding of basic principle with legal precedent, meaning a change is made by combination of simplest understanding of two described factures and not based on law alone.
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can"t do. - Jack Sparrow
Posted by Surgeon 2 years ago
Rights cannot accrue from a god, because that Inculcates an obligation on the whole of humanity. Something forced or compelled. For example in the xtian tradition, I do not have the right to blaspheme or contravene Commandment 4. But under free speech I have those rights.

However this question seems to presume we have to concern ourselves with speech codes or categories. There is just speech it can neither be free nor hate nor anything else. As long as it does not directly incite harm (suborning of murder), all speech is just speech. The modern trend towards defining things as "hate speech", is a direct attempt by leftist motivated groups to control what people say. Reminiscent of Maos cultural revolution.
Posted by NKJVPrewrather 2 years ago
We get our rights from God, not government.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
The only rights we have are our natural rights, anything else is man-made.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.