The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should free speech be regulated?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 491 times Debate No: 81711
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Freedom of speech

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.


If freedom of speech is regulated then who is to decide what is okay to be said and what isn't because everyone is offended in different ways, what might be hurtful to one person won't be hurtful to everyone.
- 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.
Debate Round No. 1


By not having rules and restrictions on free speech, people will take advantage of this and preach hateful messages.

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.

First Amendment
"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


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.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


The day that people start respecting other people opinions, is the day that free speech won't need to be restricted.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Scorchtheblaze 1 year ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
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.