The Instigator
uberslammer36
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Snax
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Threatening Speech Is Free Speech

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Snax
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 268 times Debate No: 105761
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

uberslammer36

Pro

Any speech is free speech.
Snax

Con

Ok, so, if I walk up to you and say "I have a gun and I will shoot you in 5... 4... 3... 2.. 1..," I cannot get shot because of it, and I cannot get punished in any way because of it.
Debate Round No. 1
uberslammer36

Pro

If someone shoots you because of that and only that they should be prosecuted. If they don't see any gun that you will shoot them with they have no reason to believe you will kill them. If something I said in public and taken out of context by someone and he thought I said "im gonna shoot yo" and then he kills me because of it that isn't fair.
Snax

Con

Context obviously matters, and if you are in a situation where you are unsure if they have a gun or not, would you really risk it? And What if it is indirect? If I say "I have a buddy a mile and a half away with a sniper rifle, and all I have to do is press this button and he will shoot," that should be warrant to take action.
Debate Round No. 2
uberslammer36

Pro

If I don't see a gun I'm not worried about getting shot because I understand that people say things that aren't true. Practically no one ever has been like "im shootyo in 5 seconds" then 5 seconds later shoots someone. That case is so rare and even if it does happen the person who said that has the jump on the other person and the other person won't be able to shoot back.
Snax

Con

If I had the chance to save a life, I would. I don't know why you would say otherwise. Nobody should be forced to not take action that could save their own life or somebody else's. And even if it is a joke, the person playing the joke should be fully aware that they are putting themselves at risk.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Masterful 3 weeks ago
Masterful
The supreme court would disagree with you.
https://law.justia.com...
Posted by John_C_1812 1 month ago
John_C_1812
Yes threats of violence are covered under Free Speech. This is done when the threat was a warning given verbally to the predictable outcome of group action. It is at this point of warning the self-value was lost. Free Speech means any verbal expression which can hold or losses self-value as well as its appointed value. Free Speech is not limited to only grievance on its own, and the word grievance was mentioned by name in First Amendment to basic principle and legal precedent.

The most well know threat ever made public was the use of the word abortion. As this one word used abortion along with pregnancy and together became a deliration to Civil War as it describes a self-incriminating confession to a felony crime. Specifically without Judicial impartiality by Grand Jury. Aimed at the United States Constitution which instructs such legislation must be described without the self-incrimination. Gender Specific Amputation would be one choice.
Posted by Masterful 1 month ago
Masterful
Threats of violence is not protected under free speech.

If you tell a cop you're going to kill him. You will get arrested.
Posted by Anastasia4368 1 month ago
Anastasia4368
Both contenders could have broadened the horizon of their arguments, it is difficult to decide a winner like this
Posted by What50 1 month ago
What50
Schenck vs United States ruled that free speech doesn't protected against dangerous speech lol.
Posted by uberslammer36 1 month ago
uberslammer36
btw i was doing this while on a call with Snax and he was yelling at me to hurry up so thats why my grammar is aids
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SupaDudz 1 month ago
SupaDudz
uberslammer36SnaxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments go CON. RFD: I feel as if the PRO relies too much on whether they don't have a gun and they won't shoot. The CON argues with the most winnable argument is that people can take that out of proportion because of this which is a valid claim. Then PRO uses opinion in his debate which it what is solely it relies on, but too much in this case. It seems like it is a I won't care and it's rare vs a people out of context and always a chance. There are many flaws but the CON's reasoning outweighs entire PRO opinion