Should free speech be regulated?
Debate Rounds (3)
Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas to anyone who is willing to receive them.
Do you think free speech should be regulated?
I am For regulations.
I think that free speech should be monitored and restricted.
- Forcing someone to stop expressing their views or opinions limits your own access to new ideas
- Free speech is the core of a progressive society, if we were limited then we would not grow.
- Limiting free speech can be seen as dictatorship.
A dictatorship implies absolute power " one person who takes control
If you are in a country that is under a dictatorship, You have absolutely no rights.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The first amendment is meant to protect the right to free speech and self expression.The first amendment does not protect what you say, only your right to speak
I think this is fair because it doesn't restrict your right to speak. You still have the right to say what you want. But you just have to be mindful that what you say might get you in trouble
Over the years, social media has been used as a platform for political movements and change. People have taken to social media such as twitter and facebook to voice out their opinions.
People have used free speech as an excuse for cyber bullying. Online threats and abuse should be taken seriously and there should be consequences to them.
We need rules as they help us to prevent chaos. Without rules, people don't know the difference between right and wrong
ps: Thank You for debating with me :) It's good to hear different people opinions
Free speech as an excuse for bullying is abuse and there are already rules and consequences in place for that.
Yes we do need rules to prevent chaos but as I said earlier, who's to say what's hurtful and what isn't. What upsets one person won't upset everyone.
However In today's society, people are offended easily.
"Even if people preach hateful messages it's up to individuals to take it on board or not. People are not attack dogs, they aren't going to automatically become violent if the hear hurtful things."
Take the Charlie Hebdo massacre, you could argue that they were using their right to free speech. They were killed for expressing themselves.
In a perfect world, everyone will have the right to freedom of speech without restrictions.
But this is not a perfect world, we have to understand that there are people out there that will abuse this power.
ammebwalya forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Scorchtheblaze 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited and did not provide any strong evidence in their first or second round of debate. Pro on the other hand was successfully able to use reliable facts and kept everything aimed in one general direction rather than switching things around. Pro also made more convincing arguments as opposed to con who claimed that freedom of speech is an excuse for bullying without providing any examples as to why this is true.
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.