Is free speech a human right? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities

DebateIsland Referral Program: Get a Free Month of DebateIsland Diamond Premium Membership ($4.99 Value) Per Each New User That You Refer!

Is free speech a human right?

Debate Information

I say yes. One of the hallmarks of a free, and open society, are the free and open exchange of ideas. If you don't support free speech, you don't support human rights. You know who you are.
all4acttJohn_C_87Zombieguy1987



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • TKDBTKDB 692 Pts   -  
    Yes, it is.
    YeshuaBought
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    I think it is. I believe that the left (well, at least a specific part of it) has come up with this idea of "hate speech" to silence the people who oppose them (either consciously or unconsciously). If this was not what you were trying to mention with that last part, ignore the second sentence.   
    Zombieguy1987
  • The idea of whether it is a human right or not is a complex issue that rests on several things such as morality, subjectivity, and so forth.

    Nevertheless, I definitely support free speech and encourage an exchange of ideas; it's how we learn!




  • I say yes. One of the hallmarks of a free, and open society, are the free and open exchange of ideas. If you don't support free speech, you don't support human rights. You know who you are.
    How do you prove it in a court of law as a human right? 
    How do you instructed a group of others as a united state to established before a court the right to talk without self-value or assigned cost?

    No freedom of speech is a United State Constitutional right not human right. Even a person who cannot speak as mute still has the united State constitutional right of freedom of speech, though lacking the human right of speech. There is a confusion made between the United State Constitutional right to file grievance and  the United state  Constitutional freedom of speech and press described as liberty. 
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

     I think they meant "right" more in a philosophical way. If they did not, I cannot make any further comments because I know very little about law.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3819 Pts   -  
    Words do not hurt anyone; people's reactions to words do. As such, it is only reasonable to punish violent reactions to words, not words themselves.

    Free speech is one of the most fundamental rights of the individual in a free society. Any attempt to infringe on it, no matter for what "greater good", is inherently totalitarian and should be stopped immediately.
    Zombieguy1987anarchist100
  • AlexOland said:
    @John_C_87

     I think they meant "right" more in a philosophical way. If they did not, I cannot make any further comments because I know very little about law.
    It's not about law its about basic principle.
  • MayCaesar said:
    Words do not hurt anyone; people's reactions to words do. As such, it is only reasonable to punish violent reactions to words, not words themselves.

    Free speech is one of the most fundamental rights of the individual in a free society. Any attempt to infringe on it, no matter for what "greater good", is inherently totalitarian and should be stopped immediately.

    Funny, the right perjury can be a weapon, or have a person killed. Free speech are words said without cost or self-value so holding words at the standard of free specification falls on the talker. When the United state is held it is the burden of Judicial separation. In whole context the change made on the united state held by union of basic principle and legal precedent is grievance, a grievance can be filed publicly at liberty but a cost may be assigned by the public without self-value and some costs are criminal by there basic principle.

    The difference in a weight set by basic principle of human right in balance against a Constitutional right, killing is a basic human right, this of preservation. Whereas the accusation of killing is a constitutional right to set limitation of outspoken grievance created a death intentional or accidental.


    One of the hallmarks of a free, and open society, are the free and open exchange of ideas. This is not the truth it is Liberty that is the hallmark of a open ballanced society. Any bad idea is a exhanged by united state with the open free idea.
  • @YeshuaRedeemed ;

    A free state explained by its union must lack both self-value and assigned costs or it is not free. All grievance has self-value, assigned cost, or both. The united state represented in the introduction of truth and fact by American United State Constitution is common defense and tranquility in a creation of justice.


    A woman can never be President of the United State of America, a woman can only insist having a lie told by American's as a united state. Presadera is a liberty on uniting all woman without accusation, accusation is an assigned cost as well as self-value to the general welfare. Grievance is weighed against grievance they are a visibly equal principle for the public to verify.
  • WinstonCWinstonC 205 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 "How do you prove it in a court of law as a human right?"

    It's article 10 of the European convention on human rights. Of course, over here comedians still get arrested for offensive jokes so it may as well not be.
  • WinstonC said:
    @John_C_87 "How do you prove it in a court of law as a human right?"

    It's article 10 of the European convention on human rights. Of course, over here comedians still get arrested for offensive jokes so it may as well not be.

    A human right is not a constitutional right, nor united state constitutional right. Such things as theft are a human right, animals can speak, it is not like a persons way of communication. The animal may not be understood, a person may be ignored. A human right by claim is not bound by a specification of legality precedent before introduction as right. A constitutional right has two qualifications. One it must be a basic principle. Two it must follow legal precedent. A united state Constitutional right has three qualifiers, the united state must be a connection of the basic principle, or legal precedent. It can even be both.

    Yeah, but In Europe we use to be able to just duel and make a point stick by who was run-through by sword. That was a human right, duels of honor.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • WinstonCWinstonC 205 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 I can't understand 90% of what you say, your writing style is rather difficult to read.
    PlaffelvohfenAlexOlandDeeTreeMan
  • DeeDee 3940 Pts   -  
    It is , but there are limitations in most societies including the U S .........

    Freedom of speech does not include the right:

    • To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
      Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
    • To make or distribute obscene materials.
      Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
    • To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
      United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
    • To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. 
      Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
    • 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).
  • Hi! I think that freedom of speech is a human right. It states in the bill of rights that we have the freedom of speech.
  • WinstonC said:
    @John_C_87 I can't understand 90% of what you say, your writing style is rather difficult to read.
    The explaining of complex principles is the doings of others. The problem is the word free is clear, a freedom must not have assigned cost or self-value to be witnessed as a freedom before law, simply said freedom cannot hold this type state of the union as it makes the law a Ex post fact and will always require constant translation after fact. The United State in American Constitution is made with the legal precedent of Filing a grievances publicly, This is not a freedom it is a grievance to distress of tranquility, a filing can be made publicly alone, even more so once a political grievance has been turned from oversite of judicial inquiry by a congress, of people, nation, or world for that matter.  in the first Amendment to the introduction of fact, truth and a future set in Preamble, to be common defense to a general welfare this event after independence, of the people, for the people. No offence but a convention is not a Constitution it is by fact a long way from it in all respects. A key in state's of union of the people are set and made with a balance of peaceful assembly.


  • Hi! I think that freedom of speech is a human right. It states in the bill of rights that we have the freedom of speech.

    The constitutional right to file grievances is part of that amendment as well. Correct?
  • WinstonC said:
    @John_C_87 I can't understand 90% of what you say, your writing style is rather difficult to read.

    Sorry......……….a common defense to preserve united state constitution is not always best said in basic principle.
  • Free speech is a word spoken without self-value or assigned cost. A grievance can be a word spoken or in writing the has self-value, assigned cost, or both assigned cost along with self value. On a free and open society a person does not pay a assigned cost or a self-value to be a part of that society. In detail this is saying that a prescribed price or flexible donation are both equal in the disqualification of anything said to be free. Free-speech is a human goal it does not hold a united state as right...………...only constitutional united state as right.
    Why is it a constitutional right? In basic principle if someone can speak it is right to let them talk until their words length postpone whole truth. 
  • all4acttall4actt 227 Pts   -  
    The freedom of speech should be a human right but un fortunately in many countries it is not.

    In the USA it is a constitutional right. A right that should be protected with rigor.

    Although as dee stated there are circumstances where that right is abused.  I don't necessarily agree with all those rulings but people need to realize that speech based on lies, false witness or rumor should be regulated. 

     Speech that icites violence is a case by case determination. For instance a military commander leading a charge is inciting violence but in this case is probably appropriately.  On the other hand groups like ANTIFA who preach violence against anyone who disagrees with them is not ok, making them no better than the many religious terrorist groups who incite violence because they have no tolerance for anyone who doesn't follow thier doctrine of belief.


    Plaffelvohfen
  • @all4actt ;

    In the USA it is a constitutional right. A right that should be protected with rigor.

     Yes, it is a Constitutional right, it is also an American Amendment right. How the United State Constitutional right is preserved and how the American first Amendment right are preserved are not the same process, they are not part of the same state of union made on speech. They are two different things.



  • AlofRIAlofRI 1390 Pts   -  
    It depends on what country you live in, actually. In some countries, if you speak freely, you "disappear" (or have an unfortunate accident).  

    Today, we have those who don't like what some people say. They want to have only THEIR thoughts and words considered "absolute truth", anything against those words is considered "fake". If that comes about, free speech will not be a human right HERE either. Free speech has to be defended like any other freedom, or it is NOT.
  • It depends on what country you live in, actually. In some countries, if you speak freely, you "disappear" (or have an unfortunate accident). The issue with this example is that a person that speaks freely may not recognized the deference between free speech and filed grievance. As united state it is the person who files grievance without the wisdom of understanding the merit of free speech Do you know how to edit yourself as to remove cost or self-value in a united state?

    Free speech when applied as human right means a person can be forced to against law and liberty to speak without cost or self value. In a united State of constitution when questioning free speech all that needs to be done is look for a state of common defense, when a common defense does not exist the words spoken or written are not without cost or self-value, thus they are in truth filed grievance. What is overlooked, in 1 Amendment and not in united State Constitution preamble "the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family"  Treason  is an a crime which is undertaken in united state by speaking freely when the motive is hate, love, or lust and not money.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason




  • Maddy_SindelMaddy_Sindel 2 Pts   -  
    Free Speech is a human constructed idea, just like the titles and so-called power that Americans in the U.S. government have or any other government around the world. Before all of this (centuries ago) people could say what they mean and mean what they say without fear of isolation or incarceration. Now if you say something that someone with power disagrees with and they take insult to your speech, they can lie and deceive to the public about your "true" intentions causing so many to hate and provoke you. People will believe that as citizens of the United States, we have free uninhibited speech: But, we only have a partial version with the illusion of complete freedom. People should be allowed to say whatever they want whenever they want unless it is to provoke or put down another human being or community. 
  • @Maddy_Sindel ;
    Free Speech is a specification not idea. To be free something must lack self-value and assigned cost. Without both of these condition the state of free is not proven.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1281 Pts   -  
    Human rights are social constructions. The only way to have the privilege of freely expressing yourself is to take that privilege and keep it for yourself. Malcolm X said nobody can give you freedom,  or equality, or anything like that. If you really want those things, you need to take them.

    This thread was created because of my much better discussion on whether YouTube has the right to take down videos, and this person didn't like my views that I freely expressed on that much better thread. Apparently the person who created this thread doesn't think YouTube should have freedom of speech by saying which videos they don't like. The person who created this thread doesn't think YouTube has the right to freedom of private property, and the right to take down videos it doesn't want on its website. The person who created this thread has since unfriended me. I hope that person realizes that they should just keep me off their friends list because my message caters to no privilege, and I change my message for no one. The person who created this thread is really mad that I said Alex Jones should drink a bullet, and that's the only video I would protest if YouTube took it down, and I will not back down from that assertion.

    LETS SEE IF THE PERSON WHO CREATED THIS THREAD WILL TAKE THIS COMMENT DOWN. IF THAT PERSON DOES, WE WILL TRULY KNOW WHAT THAT PERSONS VIEWS ON CENSORSHIP REALLY ARE. I WILL CALL THIS PERSON OUT IF THIS COMMENT IS DELETED.

    https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/3729/should-youtube-silence-the-right
  • AmpersandAmpersand 796 Pts   -  
    It is a human right, but most people take a very simplistic approach of "Well it's a human right, so therefore I can say whatever I want" which doesn't really hold true when you consider that there are a whole other gamut of rights which can conflict with the right to free speech e.g. inciting racial hatred with your speech can threaten the life of others putting their right to life at risk.

    The real discussion is around where you draw the line between competing rights - although of course many complainers don't want to have that discussion.
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    The idea behind can you talk is not an argument for if something you say, should be punished. Within reason, there are things people shouldn't say.
    It's logical that speech should be protected only where the truth is preserved, but inane comments should not be made.

  • @piloteer ;

    There is a question in understanding the facts presented by the American Constitution's 1st Amendment. The question does You-Tube have right to allow public grievance to be file openly, the idea people are not allowed a freedom of speech is a misperception of the 1st Amendment  as a whole in its changing of the constitutional reasons behand speech. Spoken words are told in the public without self-value or assigned cost placed on them
  • I say yes. One of the hallmarks of a free, and open society, are the free and open exchange of ideas. If you don't support free speech, you don't support human rights. You know who you are.
    When not knowing the difference between free speech and filed grievance a human is wrong not right. The exchange of idea is a filed grievance not free speech it is filed grievance in basic principle which is a human right, so is ignoring the truth. Like people, words are often understood by the company they keep and don't contend with.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 491 Pts   -   edited April 23
    @Dee
    Then it's not free speech, free speech only exist if it exist for all speech.
  • DeeDee 3940 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100



    Then it's not free speech, free speech only exist if it exist for all speech.


    Take it up with your government then , why are you telling me I don’t make the laws? 



    It is , but there are limitations in most societies including the U S .........

    Freedom of speech does not include the right:

    • To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
      Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
    • To make or distribute obscene materials.
      Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
    • To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
      United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
    • To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. 
      Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
    • 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).
  • @Dee
    Then it's not free speech, free speech only exist if it exist for all speech.
    Free speech does exist with all speech, at anytime we Americans can prove what they say has no cost. Snarchist100 the 1st Amendment is a united state and a choice is made as to where in the 1st Amendment the words we speak belongs, as something filed by speaking and writing, or something is spoken or written grievance. It is important to understand the principles of the 1st Amendment are expected to be held in a united state with peaceful assembly as the consitution specifically states in order to form the more perfect union as part of the principle that is to be held as a state of the constitutional union a person and the ratified amendment is to hold.
  • @Dee

    There is no limit to free speech other than the meaning of the word free itself, it is the person who makes the claim what is spoken as free speech is without cost. What is given into account is if what is spoken is in fact addressing a part of the united state created by the 1st Amendment a consitutional right to file a grievance by saying it or writing it down. As a basic principle, even a Canadian to have and to hold a right by its United State held in  American Consitution to create something held in this union better than how it once was.

  • @anarchist100

    When someone tells others they are holding their words in the 1st Amendment, or they are holding their words as part of the freedom of speech the two ideas are not the same thing as a basic principle. A person who is part of the gathering around such people holds a burden of knowing and understanding what is being said to them is done without cost, or if it is a grievance that is in the process of being filed into the public. In the united states of  America even in a formal education institutional debate is subject to scrutiny under the basic principle of a more perfect union, a person has a Consitutional burden if a union in the process of being formed is not clear to them to ask a question. Is what has been written or spoken freedom of speech or grievance? As the two things have a direct influence on how people are gathered in a state of the union with peaceful intention.

    The question of peaceful assembly starts when a person makes a public claim that their words are to be heard at no cost, not by themselves but by others, then it can be seen as illegal to address them as a basic grievance. Is free speech a human right? Yes, and as a human right, it then can be consitutional challenged as a lie because the words human right hold no written burden to be connected by law. Freedom of speech out of its united state is making a claim the words held at no cost are someone else's problem and are being transferred onto others, taking money from speak of a principle that is expected to be held by others without cost is not only a contradiction in actions it is a form of fraud. You can't pay for this information but I will take your money anyway?
  • anarchist100anarchist100 491 Pts   -  
    We have to put a stop to the idea that it is a part of everybodys civil rights to say whatever he pleases - Adolf Hitler
  • AaronAaron 111 Pts   -  
    it is a human right but honestly some people shouldn't be allowed to speak (Half joking)
  • MrX2107MrX2107 2 Pts   -  
    I think it is a human right to be able to express yourself and your opinions, But there's also the question of IF you should freely speak your mind.
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 51 Pts   -  
    People think that they are protected 100% on whatever they say, that isn't the case though, as the first amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Congress essentially means the government, it says nothing about anyone not affiliated with said government preventing what you say, as in a social media service deleting posts that say "RAW", or a person yelling at you for saying "Blue Lives Matter".
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 51 Pts   -  
    But yes, I do believe free speech is a human right.
  • @Luigi7255

     "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    The 1st Amendment is a change to what part of the American constitution directing a person's legal right and abilities to speak, write, or form unions of people?

    Free exorcise is an exorcise performed without cost. A Congress will not prohibit the: Without cost, the something performed or practiced in order to develop, improve, or display a specific capability or skill. 

    Exercise | Definition of Exercise by Merriam-Webster
    Which is by building a united state on the preamble of the American United States Consitution. "In order to form a more perfect union."

    Free speech is a human demand or a human right. Free speech under constitutional union, a right which is to practice, developed, or improve a union as capability towards a united state is something without cost. and without legal cost. Not just a price, an expense of some kind that can be placed as a burden on others.
  • Cringe_TrainCringe_Train 217 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaBought

    Free speech is a human right, but with that free speech comes the right to disagree, if that makes sense.

    I'm allowed to shut someone up if they're saying something incredibly offensive because I have the right to do that.

    People do have a right to hate speech but it needs to be controlled. Hate can easily get out of control resulting in people getting physically and mentally hurt. The holocaust is a good example of this.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 491 Pts   -   edited April 30
    @Cringe_Train
    Free speech with exceptions is not free speech.
  • @Cringe_Train
    Free speech with exceptions is not free speech.
    Free speech is a basic principle, words without cost.
  • A human right is not a basic principle.
  • Cringe_TrainCringe_Train 217 Pts   -  
    @Cringe_Train
    Free speech with exceptions is not free speech.
    If you hurt people physically and mentally and use free speech to justify it. You're just a d*ck. It's not free speech it's just hate.
    You can't justify hurting someone just because you don't agree with them.
  • Cringe_TrainCringe_Train 217 Pts   -  
    @Cringe_Train
    Free speech with exceptions is not free speech.
    If you hurt people physically and mentally and use free speech to justify it. You're just a douche. It's not free speech it's just hate.
    You can't justify hurting someone just because you don't agree with them.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 491 Pts   -   edited May 2
    @Cringe_Train
    It doesn't matter it's still not free speech, also I don't do that.
  • @Cringe_Train
    Free speech with exceptions is not free speech.
    If you hurt people physically and mentally and use free speech to justify it. You're just a d*ck. It's not free speech it's just hate.
    You can't justify hurting someone just because you don't agree with them.
    Free Speech is a basic principle, if speech has a cost that can be proven it is no longer free speech it is held in a united state with the first Amendment only as a filed grievance. In the search for a more perfect union is a united state which can be explained by basic principle. 

    You can't justify hurting someone just because you don't agree with them.
    This is neither a basic principle nor united state, people make attempts to justify any and all situations when hurting others with the use of force on others that is a circumstance of protest, had that statement been true women would have never attempted to justify the crime of women being elected as President of a united state by stating discrimination as its creator to a united state non-discrimination. The cost of perjury is the right to vote discrimination does not change the idea of a lie set against the basic principles of a female held in a united stater with all other women. Without the need for her consent as it is a legally proven means to an end which results in a gathering of the largest group of women by using the order of law

    In accidents, a person may not at the time of accident be aware anyone had been hurt.
  • @Cringe_Train
    It doesn't matter it's still not free speech, also I don't do that.
    It's not free speech but still holds a united state inside the 1st Amendment to the preamble of the American Consitution. The fact that a grievance is made allows others to address the state of perfect union-made by any introduction of facts of that specific grievance.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch