The Instigator
MasterOfDebates413
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TBR
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

This house supports unfettered freedom of speech.

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 2 votes the winner is...
TBR
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 439 times Debate No: 73641
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

MasterOfDebates413

Pro

Do we have the rights to say what we want to say? Are we allowed to speak anything we want to? In this debate I am in for Pro/For. What are you going for?
Debate Round No. 1
MasterOfDebates413

Pro

MasterOfDebates413 forfeited this round.
TBR

Con

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. " 1st Amendment US Constitution

Despite the freedom guaranteed the citizens of the United States of America to "free speech", there are historically rooted exceptions. Of these exceptions, manner of speech is the most controversial. While restricting the use of bullhorns in residential neighborhoods at night is not overly detrimental to the freedom granted, restricting of the message of the user or the bullhorn just may be. The question therefor must concentrate around content, and what content may or should be restricted.

Examples of speech that has been restricted [1]
" To incite actions that would harm others
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
" To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
" Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
" Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

These limits to speech have been tested in the courts and unhealed.
Debate Round No. 2
MasterOfDebates413

Pro

MasterOfDebates413 forfeited this round.
TBR

Con

There are legitimate restrictions to speech.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
MasterOfDebates413TBRTied
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 Mathgeekjoe 1 year ago
Mathgeekjoe
MasterOfDebates413TBRTied
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: Con had better conduct because pro forfeited. Con had the more convincing argument because pro didn't have an argument. Con was the only one who gave sources.