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

Should we have Absolute Free 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 740 times Debate No: 112663
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Welcome to this debate.

This debate will be about whether we should have free speech or not. Then figure out if any limitations should be placed on free speech. And then a general law that should be in place for the government and citizens use.

I would like for the both of us to have a starting position in our first argument. I would like for you to state some basic facts about your position, you can use my as a guide line. This is to help use better communicate with one another.

My Stance:
I believe that free speech should not have limitation put on it.
I live in the U.S. so I will mainly discuss the free speech in the U.S. but examples from the world may be used.

If you have any further question my stance feel free to ask.


I know what Steven Crowder and the rest of your right-wing conservative crew will argue.

I hate to break it to you but you first need to justify the Constitution before using it as absolute basis for rights and then need to explain why you are allowed to amend the Constitution if it's so infallible and why the Constitution itself states it should be amended.
Debate Round No. 1


We use the Constitution because it is the law that is in place for the United States. It is what the U.S. uses to help protect our rights. So until a new law is put into place the Constitution and Bill of Rights will be what we use to determine and protect our rights. The reason that the Constitution is able to be amended or have addition is to make sure the future will be able to adapt the government and laws for changing times. The amendments are to help with growth or changes. Two examples are the 13th and 19th amendments, ending slavery and allowing women to vote. The Bill of Rights was put into place to insure that the citizens would have their freedoms protected from the government. Unless you do not live in the U.S. the Constitution does not apply to you other wise it is the law of the land.

I have a question for you. What limitations do you want on free speech?


Buddy I can win this any way I want. Posting terrorist threats online? Not allowed, can go to prison for it. I have been a troll myself and bullied by them and I know how to do it responsibly, you should never prey on the weak and push them over the edge either by threats or encouragement to self harm etc.

USA also agreed with my terrorism exception to freedom of speech along with other nations.

If you got an issue, I can go into the details of what internet bullying does for less extreme cases.
Debate Round No. 2


So is your problem with free speech threats and insults on the internet?

The problem with a couple of those articles is the laws that were used is they can be used if someone feels offended. Now the big problem with this anyone can be offended by anything they disagree with and you can be jailed. That is a pretty important problem with those laws used. You have not said any law that would avoid this. I get people can get carried away with trying to insult people online and they try to push it but by putting laws into place like the Malicious Communications Act people can use this to silence those with different political opinions.

People should be taught to handle trolls or online bullying. That is were we should focus instead of making vague laws that can be abused. We should teach people to grow up and ignore the people in the internet who try to insult you and move on with you life instead of believing they know who you are.

I will give you an example of these laws being abused meant to prevent terrorism.
On March 12, 2018 Lauren Southern was denied entrance to the United Kingdom. She was held under the Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and prevented for entering into the U.K. The reason she was held was holding a social experiment on Allah. She did not threaten anyone with terrorism but she was held and banned from the U.K.

Another example is when Martin Sellner and Brittany Pettibone where also denied entrance into the U.K. There crime for holding different opinions that could offend someone else. The U.K. Government has stopped a speech on free speech.

So have laws that limit or ban speech can and will be missed used to silence speech from others. That is why we should allow free speech and help people handle hurtful comments.

I want you to give me a law that would avoid these issues that would help prevent bullying.

Sorry for making it this argument so long.


You can say the risk is that anyone can call offence on anything but the society where no one can call offence on anything is known as 'true anarchy' which is highly problematic.

It's easy to victim-blame but being afraid for your own livelihood or wanting to self harm as a direct result of speech solely intended to cause that result well, that'a a damn injustice that the 'right to speak' just should never supercede.

You speak of absolute free speech, I have yet to see a defence. A constitution saying something doesn't defend the validity of that amendment.
Debate Round No. 3


My defense of free speech is it allows everyone to be protected to having their own opinion and to voice that opinion. That is far more important than being protected from anything that could offend you. If you have the freedom to say as you please than you can speak against those who try make you hurt yourself. People should learn to stand up for them self instead of wanting to take away others rights to feel safe. Being able to have your own political opinion and expressing your opinion should never be threatened even if the intent is to help.

Right to your own opinion should be on a higher position than guaranteed safety for your feelings. I do not think you live in the U.S. but here is a quote from Benjamin Franklin "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." He was a founding father of the U.S. so I do not know if you would care much about him but he and others at the time know that having freedoms and the ability to protect your self were far more important than safety by putting regulations on personal freedoms. I think that you are missing that point.

Again amendments to a constitution are changes or additions. The U.S. Constitution for example mainly talks about the powers of the government and how it will be set up. And the Bill of Rights were put into place to insure the peoples rights were protected. Later additions were added to the Constitution which brought on more amendments.

Give me a law that would support your opinion and would work.


The right of the harassed to speak out against their abusers is actually also curtailed very often (to avoid them screenshotting the chat and posting it themselves to spread the vile content). The moderation is done privately and court cases handled equally so but sometimes the News does get out.

This is nothing to do with protecting the right of the abusers to abuse in the first place.

What you 'would like' to happen and what should happen are two different things at times. That is the price you pay when you don't live totally isolated or as a Totalitarian ruler.

You believe there should be no limitation on free speech, I (for this debate) do believe it. You live in the US and like Benjamin Franklin, I live somewhere in Europe (not Russia, thank god) and don't like Benjamin Franklin much at all nor his views.

I mean everything you say I can combat saying 'I don't like it' or 'I don't agree' because you are saying you like it and agree as your entire basis for your case.

Most countries other than USA have no concept of freedom of speech being an absolute right at all, the right to not be offended is held quite highly (especially in Sharia nations for instance). When you ask 'give me a law that would support your opinion and would work', the legal system of all nations other than USA have laws against freedom of speech and even US has 6 exceptions which all come unde rteh trolling variations, including obsenity, violenct threats and inciting such violence as well as lies stated as fact and offending coworkes (because private institutions are entitled to kick you out for offending them with your speech). []. I don't know what you want more proof about.

I am not going to go through the entire legal system of every nation and cherry pick the parts that highlight what you could say to land you wit a fine or prison sentence but literally all non US nations have an element of this in their law, Sharia nations tend to be the most extreme (ok North Korea is most extreme).
Debate Round No. 4


I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not out to tale away peoples political freedoms. I believe that you are a good person and want people to be safe. But what you are proposing can lead to people with other opinions being taken away the ability to speak their mind. You and I have grown up in different places and different ways so I do not expect for you to know everything about where I grew up and I do not expect to know how you grew up. So our views will be different and it will be hard to make solid connections but I believe that you like freedoms.

When I brought up Benjamin Franklin my main focus was on what he said. His quote was reflecting my point for when I said that personal freedoms are more important than safety. You should not give up your freedoms for safety that is provided by someone else. It should be up to you on keeping your feelings safe not anyone else.

My base for my argument is not based on whether or not I like it but on keeping peoples freedoms over protecting people who cannot handle mean comments. That is the most important part of my argument because your right to think and speak the way you wish should never be prevented because someone may be offended by it. People should grow up and leave a website if they are being harassed or correct whoever is harassing them.

Your examples of limitations of free speech in the U.S. are related to private property and government facilities. When you are on private property such as a business or someones home they dictate the rules so free speech can be removed. This also applies for websites that are privately owned the owner has the right to kick you off or mute you on their platform. Then Government buildings such as public schools or any government run buildings they have the ability to remove you. Then in court rooms you are not supposed to lie because you swear an oath.

Here are my points:
- People need to stand up for them selves
- People should not be limited on their freedoms because some people miss use it and and anyone can claim offence.
- A free society that has limits on its peoples political opinions and voice is not free because criticism can be banned.

When I asked you to come up with a law was I wanted you to make up a law not pick a political system. An example would be the first amendment. You could make something like harassment is not allowed with in free speech.

Thanks for the debate.
If you wish to continue this you can ask.


The victim-blaming mentality of Pro is why so many people commit suicide and have been told that being depressed is nothing more than weakness for centuries. They deny all mental health and keep defending the resolution by asking me to invent a law that is present in every single nation other than USA because only USA holds free speech as a right more important than the protection against abusive speech.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by RMTheSupreme 3 years ago
No John-C, it does not.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
The United States Constitution describes liberty of speech as form of common defense to the general welfare made as transfer by declaration of Independence. The first Amendment describes two additional types of speech meaning it verbal expressions must have no self-value, or cost to be established by representation as really free. Otherwise the speech fall s into the second form of speech grievance meaning it has either or both self-value and cost.

The United States Constitutional expression of common defense as it effects the liberty of speaking dictates a right as not being wrong to warn others or the legislation of law that a crime is potentially taking place by creation of law. One of the most complex examples of this need of liberty is Abortion legislation. The legislation is dictating that all woman must confess to a felony crime which is spread publicly through self-incrimination. Though the criminal fraud and perjury is hard to prove it may not remain that way indefinitely. So a liberty can be taken by addressing the Constitutional issue of self-incrimination. Female Specific Amputation does not demand I share the self-incrimination nor does it insist other must as well.

The idea is Absolute free-speech already exists, the first Amendment is a separation process to define the purpose before legislation. Grievance or non-valued expressions.

We are looking at states of Union.
Posted by RMTheSupreme 3 years ago
Exactly, poliskeptic, great points.
Posted by PoliSkeptic 3 years ago
So I should be allowed to...

make direct threats towards someone?

yell "FIRE!!" in a theater and cause panic?

lie under oath?

slander someone and lie about their character and actions?

yell at the top of my lungs up and down the hall of an apartment complex at 3am?

mislead and lie to a customer about a product or service?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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