End freedom of speech? - 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 best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is a leading online debate website and is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

End freedom of speech?
in Politics

By piloteerpiloteer 887 Pts
I don't agree with this proposition, but there are some that think hate speech should not be protected by law. Threats of violence are not, and have never been protected by law in the United States. Should hate speech be categorized as a form of violent speech and therefore become outlawed? I'm hoping there is someone on this site who can make some good arguments as to why we should limit our freedom of speech and how it may be advantageous to our society. If nobody is able or willing to do that, I will try my best to play devil's advocate and defend this proposition as if I do believe our freedom of speech should be limited.    
Itz_Rere
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • @piloteer. Im guessing youll have to play devils advocate.  Good luck trying to defend it.  All proplsals will lead you down the path of s authoritarian government thats tells its citizens what they can or cant think/say/do...limiting ideas only they deem fit.
  • @piloteer ;

    Freedom of speech is self-evident, in that for any word to be free it must not have assigned cost or self-value. This is not a hard to understand idea. It is an easy to ignore principle. Hate speech in basic principle is a filed grievance, people have a basic right to verbally file a grievance while at the same time this right makes them legally unwelcome as an assigned cost is created in all cases that accompany filed grievance. When on public property you have a big handicap as the United State constitution has legal precedent of Court to preserve tranquility of the general welfare. Not a street, story front or business, outside of court there is the Independence mall. IN this matter most States, Cities, Towns, and Countries simply did not live up to a preservation of United State Constitution.

    Freedom of speech has ended, it has been gone for some time now....

  • In the understanding of United State Constitution, it should be understood as a state of union. The word without cost or self-value is pail in all ways to the words a person speaks that are truly priceless.


  • For the sake of the debate, I will also play a devil's advocate and take the stance one of my fictional characters, a Japanese princess of mid-21-st century, holds.

    A little bit of the background. In the fictional story, the world around year 2050 has progressed very far technologically, and people are rapidly abandoning religions and other traditions and embracing cold logic and science. The main character is one of such people, a very charismatic scientist who completely dismisses all traditions.

    One one of university events, he meets a visiting Japanese princess. Japan still has a royal family, and people there still regard its members highly, unlike the West where royal institutions have fallen apart. The princess is not quite a traditional royal person; she, in fact, is in disfavor of her family for her skepticism towards traditional values, although she is beloved among the people for her fiery personality. Nonetheless, she takes her royal duties very seriously.

    As it goes in such stories, they fall in love with each other, and they have a lot of conversations. In one of them, the main character wonders, "If you are so critical of traditions, then why do you not denounce your title?" The princess then makes an interesting argument. While she is not a fan of traditional values, she appreciates the value of traditions and believes that any societal change should be rooted in them. She says that without traditions there would be pure chaos, and traditions are a necessary evil for the society to be able to move forward, but not get ahead of itself. She tries to use her royal position to influence the Japanese people to change in the right direction, but also to remember their roots and appreciate what they gave to them.

    Along these lines, she criticizes the idea of unlimited free speech. Japan still has quite a few free speech limitations, and she believes that those are important to keep the society together. She does not see the value in the restrictions themselves, but rather in the fact that they have been around for a while and shaped the Japanese culture, and that removing them would destabilize the society and cause people to lose direction in life.
    For example, there are decency laws in Japan according to which a very derogatory public speech can get one fined. She argues that these laws are necessary for Japanese people to stay true to their nature, and that their abolition would interfere in the communication between people and make people understand each other less.
    She also uses the "forbidden fruit" argument, stating that free speech restrictions only make it sweeter for people to break them in private; it should be a taboo in public, like sex, for example, so people appreciated it more. We do not really appreciate things that we can do anywhere we want any time we want, and not appreciating speech can be very dangerous for the integrity of the society.

    Not saying that I agree with this argument, but I did come up with it, after all, after quite a bit of thinking about how a real Japanese princess would think 30 years from now. It does not seem to be terribly wrong to me, although I disagree with the conclusion. Cultural laws are not the same as legal laws, and you can have the former without the latter. In Japan, culture and law are less separated and on the West, and there people are less wary of making subjective traditions legally binding.
  • I, Myself do not agree with the proposed statement. if freedom of speech was abolished, politicians running for president couldn't say certain things in an electoral debate that we need to hear and so much more. also, abolishing freedom of speech would do nothing because in the first amendment it states that we also have the ability of free press, so people could say almost whatever in the press anyways so that would be useless.
  • My question is who decides what constitutes "hate speech"?


    smoothieZombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • As long as no atheists get freedom of speech
    smoothieZombieguy1987VickINTJ
  • DeeDee 2364 Pts
    @JesusisGod777888

    **** As long as no atheists get freedom of speech

    You would have no one then to correct your stupidity in print but that’s the way you Christians like it 
    VickINTJ
  • @MichaelElpers

    The purpose of this proposition isn't to justify authoritarian policies meant to suppress our freedom of expression. This is discussion is about justifying hate speech and how it benefits society to allow it. 
  • piloteerpiloteer 887 Pts
    edited December 2019
    @MayCaesar

     Would you be able to objectively demonstrate the difference between cultural and legal laws?
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 386 Pts
    edited December 2019
    @piloteer It is authoritarian in its premise, limiting ideas and letting the government decide what ideas is good and bad. There may be some good, although i struggle to think of any, it certaintly doesnt outweigh the bad.

    Hate speech in the legal realm is limiting freedom of expression.
    smoothie
  • piloteerpiloteer 887 Pts
    edited December 2019
    @MichaelElpers

    The government is elected by, and representatives for the American public. What ever they (the government) decide is good or bad will be reflective of the opinions of the American public, and there are many in the American public who believe hate speech is a crime, not a mode of expression. Thus far, I've yet to see a valid benefit hate speech has for society.   
  • @all4actt

    The American public can decipher what constitutes hate speech. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @piloteer

    Legal laws are those violation of which causes the government to take a violent action against you, or extort something under threat of violence.

    Cultural laws are those violation of which causes the society to ostracise you. This may or may not result in a violent/coercive action; it is just something that is deemed by a large fraction of the population as completely unacceptable.

    In Western democracies, a sharp line is drawn between the two, and it is generally believed that cultural norms are relative and should not be made into a law.
    But in East-Asian democracies, the line is much more fuzzy, and one of the purposes of the legal system is seen to be preservation of culture by enforcing its major principles. On the West, the purpose of the law is primarily considered to be preservation of human rights, while on the East it is maintenance of some form of societal stability.

    There are good arguments for both positions. The latter, however, is much more oppressive and can only work in a society of a very particular kind. In Japan cultural dissent is a fairly rare phenomenon, and most people are happy to comply with the rigid societal norms. In the US, on the other hand, cultural dissent is virtually a way of living, and each subsequent generation brings something to the table that just a generation ago would be considered unacceptable.
    A Japanese society could probably be forced into the American system and be somewhat fine in it, albeit feeling lost in the chaos all the time. But an American society forced into the Japanese system would probably rebel immediately.
  • @piloteer. These are people too weak to have an actual exchange of ideas. Either the person is spouting nonsense that no one should listen too, or they are wanting a safe space because they cant challenge the ideas. The government doesnt get to take away freedoms just because the majority want it.

     This is the kind of stuff that leads to a holocaust.


  • @MichaelElpers

    Your statement is just conjecture and baseless claims as it is not reinforced with any evidence. It also lacks anything that demonstrates why hate speech is beneficial for society.    
  • piloteerpiloteer 887 Pts
    edited December 2019
    @MayCaesar

    The legal laws in the United States are upheld by a government that represents the American public. The government themselves are members of the American public, so it is the American public that decides the legal policies in the United States. I think that sharp line between legal and cultural laws is just an illusion and they are actually the same phenomena. The only reason the United States government is any kind of a valid authority is because they are accepted as an authority by the public. The legal laws in the United States are just a philosophical extension of cultural laws and social beliefs that are manifested in an indoctrinated manner, whereas cultural laws are just unwritten rules.    
  • @piloteer

    I do not really share this idea that the government members are a part of the American public; I believe it is a separate institution, only loosely connected with the public. People may think that they are the ones deciding policies, but this actually is not how it works in reality. Quite often a policy that virtually no one supports will be pushed through by bureaucrats, that form a negligible minority of the entire population, and people will shrug and say, "Oh well, we were unlucky today".

    Regardless, I was not talking about the explicit way the legal system is organised, but, rather, the culture that embodies it. In the US, a law, say, prohibiting children under the age of 16 from playing violent video games would cause an incredible uproar and, probably, result in mass resignations in the government - but in Japan such a law might not be a very big deal in the eyes of the public. This is because the goal of the legal system in the US as seen in the eyes of the public is to uphold human rights, while the goal of the legal system in Japan is seen as primarily a stabilising mechanism in the society. In the US the law exists to uphold human freedoms, while in Japan it exists to uphold the Japanese way of living.
  • Legislated laws are a form of filed grievance set by elected political figures on behalf of the people and the United State concern that brings the category of focus together for governing, A first amendment right. In a world that looks at free speech as a right to speak at total liberty where a key interpretation of free is ignored, cost. Words with cost are not free so are then something else. Altering any writing does not just mean removal of wording or law it also means words or phrases can be rearranged in the order of placement, or even the creation of word to better describe postures which are not legally in line with intention when read or applied.
  • @piloteer

    Do you really think it would be the people or the elected law makers? Two very different things.  We have law makers all over that push through laws, ordinances and even legislation that are not always supported by the majority of  people.  We still have laws on the books that are outdated and should be taken off the books because the majority of people would disagree with them.  Most legislation that is passed includes things in it that has nothing to do with the primary body of the legislation.   So the decisions made by the elected officials do not always reflect the majority of the peoples opinions.

    What constitutes "hate speech" is a matter of perspective.  How many words can be labled as hate speech?  What words would you suggest?  Do the laws have to include context?  

    I believe any impediment on speech will only weaken our rights to freedom of speech.  So while  even if the majority of people find what someone has to say to be apprhensensable they still have a right to say it.

    We also have the right not to lgnore or disputte the point or wording that what was said.

    We already have enough laws that govern speech when it becomes harmful to an individual(s). We have other legal remedies available to us when speech becomes harmful to an individual(s).

    I do think that reporters that claim to be reporters and not commentators should be held to a higher standard but that is a different discussion completely.
  • @piloteer

    No its not.  What you get offended by is entirely up to you. Tyrannical governments are the ones that limit speech, this is historical.

    For examples, some people think not using the incorrect pronoun is hate speech.

    Another example if we were allowed to limit speech back during slavery, youd probably be able to use the nword as much as you wanted while blacks wouldnt not have been able to say a whole host of things.  There is nothing about limiting speech that delivers and good outcome.

    If someone wants to show that they are a jerk in open display let them.
  • piloteer said:
    I don't agree with this proposition, but there are some that think hate speech should not be protected by law. Threats of violence are not, and have never been protected by law in the United States. Should hate speech be categorized as a form of violent speech and therefore become outlawed? I'm hoping there is someone on this site who can make some good arguments as to why we should limit our freedom of speech and how it may be advantageous to our society. If nobody is able or willing to do that, I will try my best to play devil's advocate and defend this proposition as if I do believe our freedom of speech should be limited.    

    This can go a couple ways America has always preserved the basic principle of. STOP! or lethal force will be used, hate speech it is a Warning hate speech is a method in filing that takes place with a grievance. Free speech needs no limit it is the limit to separate types of speech. Free Speech, Free Press, And Free religions are acts that are proven free before order of constitution in United State.


  • @MichaelElpers

    Tyrannical governing is that which holds no common defense to the general welfare. Enforcing the declaration of independence made by saying something is free without proof is not tyranny. It is assembly of facts as either hole or incomplete fact.


     
  • Part of the issue in basic may be proper English grammar is not a translation that works for law as a united State. As grammar may make a point unclear as the rules of English grammar change in no relationship to the restrictions imposed on people and liberty by law.
  • @MichaelElpers @all4actt "@MayCeasar ;

    Your arguments seem to be more of an apprehension with the process of governance rather than the proposition of limiting speech. If the government is able to pass laws that are not supported by the majority of the American public, then it is our civic duty as American citizens to replace the people in government and reverse the laws that are unpopular. It is also our civic duty as American citizens to pay close attention to any legislation that is being discussed in our local, state, and federal government, and to vote accordingly as we see fit.

     MayCeasar, I can't say I agree with your argument that people within the United States government are somehow separate from the common public. They are flesh and blood like the rest of us, and they are involved in public and legal policies just as much as the rest of us (should be). I'm curious as to what exactly it is that government officials possess or are born with that truly separates them from the common public, beside the acceptance of their status by the public. If the acceptance of government officials status were taken away, what is it they have that still separates them from the rest of us?

     Although some may disagree, government officials are still held accountable when they try to push unpopular  legislation through. I think we also may have a different interpretation of what unpopular legislation is. There's probably all kinds of policies in the books now that you and I would both agree is ridiculous and counterintuitive. But what we consider bad policies doesn't actually mean it's unpopular and not supported by the majority. If there are actually any policies that any of you can think of that are not supported by the majority of the American public, it would be helpful if you could be forthcoming with said information to help make this discussion less conjecture and more objective. Stopping the protected speech status of hate speech is actually not an unpopular proposition among the American public. Some polls say that as much as half of all Americans agree that hate speech should not be protected by law.     

    I see a lot of rhetoric about why limiting free speech is a bad idea, but I'm still in the dark about what benefits hate speech has to offer for our society other than "it would be a bad idea if we got rid of that freedom", or "there's already to many restrictive policies in place". What good for society does it do to allow hate speech to be protected by law? Exactly what specific bad effects would be caused by not allowing free speech to be protected by law beside just "being a violation of our rights"? Leave us also take into consideration the fact that it's not an unpopular proposition.         
    PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473
  • @John_C_87

    The progressive nature of language is of absolutely no consequence when it comes to interpretation of the law. The constitution is a living document that was purposely made to be changed as attitudes change with the meaning of the policies. What they meant when they were first written is of no value any longer. What the laws mean now to the public that exists now is the only valid interpretation of the law.  
  • I support the censorship of hate speech. Hate speech often results in the target committing suicide. No one has the right to motivate someone to suicide. I just left a religious forum where I was called a burden, and victim blamed for some abuse, I received from a family member. I want to kill myself, because I am so effing tired of this.
    Zombieguy1987
  • piloteer said:
    I don't agree with this proposition, but there are some that think hate speech should not be protected by law. Threats of violence are not, and have never been protected by law in the United States. Should hate speech be categorized as a form of violent speech and therefore become outlawed? I'm hoping there is someone on this site who can make some good arguments as to why we should limit our freedom of speech and how it may be advantageous to our society. If nobody is able or willing to do that, I will try my best to play devil's advocate and defend this proposition as if I do believe our freedom of speech should be limited.    


    I agree with you, in principle. Right now I see our democracy being torn apart, conservatively, so I think this is a minor problem at the moment … except when it comes from our White House. We SHOULD have our elected officials work on that, and many other problems that have popped up lately … some of them actually trumped up, you might say. We have lost our respect … from the top down. As long as that continues there is no stopping hate speech.
  • @YeshuaRedeemed

    It would be very unfortunate if you did anything to harm yourself. Please seek the help of those who will properly help you. The world needs you to.
    YeshuaBoughtall4actt
  • piloteer said:
    @YeshuaRedeemed

    It would be very unfortunate if you did anything to harm yourself. Please seek the help of those who will properly help you. The world needs you to.
    Thank you. I had my doctor increase a medication, and am waiting for it to work. It is hard though when religious people bully me in the name of Christ. Why doesn't Jesus stop His followers from being so cruel?
    AlofRI
  • @AlofRI

    I do agree with you. I'm trying to play devil's advocate here, so I shouldn't be coming up with good arguments for protecting hate speech, but I don't actually think the government can stop hate just by making hate speech illegal. If they can't actually stop the hate, I don't find any value in making hate speech illegal. Shhhh, don't tell anybody I said this though because it may be a good argument for the people I'm arguing against.      
    AlofRI
  • @YeshuaRedeemed

    It's not Jesus fault they do it, it's their fault. I hope you find solace quickly. When we suffer, sometimes it helps to help others who are also in need.   
  • piloteer said:
    @YeshuaRedeemed

    It's not Jesus fault they do it, it's their fault. I hope you find solace quickly. When we suffer, sometimes it helps to help others who are also in need.   
    I agree. Thank you, and if you ever need help, lemme know.
  • @YeshuaRedeemed. If that is truly the case you really need to see a counselor. Again when it comes to what people tell you,
    1. If you respect them ir cant find an argument maybe you should listen.

    2. If they are just jerks, there opinion shouldnt matter, just let them be jerks.

    It is you that gets to determine how offended or affected by speech you are.  People must train themselves to be less emotional about things.
  • @YeshuaRedeemed. If that is truly the case you really need to see a counselor. Again when it comes to what people tell you,
    1. If you respect them ir cant find an argument maybe you should listen.

    2. If they are just jerks, there opinion shouldnt matter, just let them be jerks.

    It is you that gets to determine how offended or affected by speech you are.  People must train themselves to be less emotional about things.
    I don't have to tolerate hate speech. You don't have the right to say hateful things.
  • As long as no atheists get freedom of speech

    Ah, i see you want to live in a religious echo chamber

    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteer said:
    @John_C_87

    The progressive nature of language is of absolutely no consequence when it comes to interpretation of the law. The constitution is a living document that was purposely made to be changed as attitudes change with the meaning of the policies. What they meant when they were first written is of no value any longer. What the laws mean now to the public that exists now is the only valid interpretation of the law.  
    Ah. Nice try can I get a translator……..please?
  • John_C_87 said:
    piloteer said:
    @John_C_87

    The progressive nature of language is of absolutely no consequence when it comes to interpretation of the law. The constitution is a living document that was purposely made to be changed as attitudes change with the meaning of the policies. What they meant when they were first written is of no value any longer. What the laws mean now to the public that exists now is the only valid interpretation of the law.  
    Ah. Nice try can I get a translator……..please?
      :  :o :rage: :tongue: :unamused: :sweat: :-1: :trollface: :sleepy: :warning: :cookie: :star: :heartbreak:
  • @YeshuaRedeemed. Well actually you do. I choose not to say hateful things but yes i do have the right to.

    What someone deems hateful is opinionated.  

  • piloteer said:
    John_C_87 said:
    piloteer said:
    @John_C_87

    The progressive nature of language is of absolutely no consequence when it comes to interpretation of the law. The constitution is a living document that was purposely made to be changed as attitudes change with the meaning of the policies. What they meant when they were first written is of no value any longer. What the laws mean now to the public that exists now is the only valid interpretation of the law.  
    Ah. Nice try can I get a translator……..please?
      :  :o :rage: :tongue: :unamused: :sweat: :-1: :trollface: :sleepy: :warning: :cookie: :star: :heartbreak:
    Okay, I was going to ask for a translator for my translator....
    Thank you DebateIland …...
    Free speech has to be provably free... otherwise it is grievance. Basic principle. A word created has no assigned cost or self-value it is new and addresses grievance for the first time.
  • It is a right by constitution to file a grievance how it is directed can be seen as obstruction. Filed means control, free is a basic form of specification made only on cost or self value a person applies. Freedom of speech is limited, and filing of grievance is limited. A protest that is registers for a permit to march as protest on public street can be influence by use of civil litigation against the basic principle of liberty and free.

    We are at complete liberty to create and chose our words righteously. Frenglish, Amersian, Purpanies…...What is the cost here? What is the self-value? It is clearly not filed grievance. DebateIland has the liberty to move my posts if they are found not to be of the American United State Constitutions preamble of in the common defense of the general posterity. 
  • I do not think that free speech should be removed. I think that protecting the right to be able to say what you want is more important than preventing people from being nasty and/or hateful to one another. It is essentially censorship to prevent someone from saying what they want to say. This is what we have in communist countries like China. Is this really what we want?
  • piloteerpiloteer 887 Pts
    edited December 2019
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Half of all Americans believe that hate speech should be considered a crime, so as far as wanting limitations to free speech, there are a lot of people who agree with the proposition of this debate. We never had absolute freedom of speech in America to begin with. It is, and has always been a crime to threaten people with violence, just as its always been a crime to incite a riot.   
  • piloteer said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Half of all Americans believe that hate speech should be considered a crime, so as far as wanting limitations to free speech, there are a lot of people who agree with the proposition of this debate. We never had absolute freedom of speech in America to begin with. It is, and has always been a crime to threaten people with violence, just as its always been a crime to incite a riot.   
    Again respectfully I disagree Prasedera is an application of free speech and free press. Where a woman President is a free religion. The two filed grievance are a woman cannot legally be President and a woman cannot be illegally discriminated against to keep her from Executive office. The cost which removes free speech is criminal perjury or sexual discrimination. if, a person is to preserve constitutional vote for a woman in Executive office the vote must place her in a way that creates all woman as equal. In the most basic way possible. Complete truth, whole truth a woman can only be made equal to a woman not a man she must be physically changed to be equal to a man. This goal of being created equal is a goal both men and woman may bear by prove either all woman are created equal, or all men are created equal by their creator.

    Without a assigned cost or self-value making it free speech and press. Presadera of the United States of America. The assignment of this title does not cost woman or men.
  • piloteer said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Half of all Americans believe that hate speech should be considered a crime, so as far as wanting limitations to free speech, there are a lot of people who agree with the proposition of this debate. We never had absolute freedom of speech in America to begin with. It is, and has always been a crime to threaten people with violence, just as its always been a crime to incite a riot.   
    Maybe half of all Americans think that hate speech should be a crime, but to put it bluntly I don't. I know there are lots of people that will agree with the proposition of the debate, but I do not. Making threats is separate to free speech, and yes there are a few exceptions. But what if I said something hateful as a joke? I'm not happy with the Government deciding what's funny...
  • I support the censorship of hate speech. Hate speech often results in the target committing suicide. No one has the right to motivate someone to suicide. I just left a religious forum where I was called a burden, and victim blamed for some abuse, I received from a family member. I want to kill myself, because I am so effing tired of this.
    I strongly disagree with your argument. You say that no one has the right to motivate someone to suicide. There is one big error with this point. In America there is free speech and that includes hate speech, so actually this is a protected right. My next point is that there are often many factors at play when someone commits suicide, and it's not about the words but how you react to them that causes you to commit suicide. My final point is that it should be up to private companies like Facebook, not the government, to control the use of hate speech on their platforms.
  • @YeshuaRedeemed. If that is truly the case you really need to see a counselor. Again when it comes to what people tell you,
    1. If you respect them ir cant find an argument maybe you should listen.

    2. If they are just jerks, there opinion shouldnt matter, just let them be jerks.

    It is you that gets to determine how offended or affected by speech you are.  People must train themselves to be less emotional about things.
    I don't have to tolerate hate speech. You don't have the right to say hateful things.
    Actually I do. Free speech is a right, and that includes hate speech. I would not want to say something hateful, but the law would not prevent me from doing so if I chose to.
  • piloteerpiloteer 887 Pts
    edited December 2019
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Who says it is the government who dictates what constitutes hate speech? You have already admitted to another person on this site that you yourself would not use hateful speech, and obviously you do that out of a social obligation, not because of the law. That is made obvious by the fact that it is not against the law for you to use hateful speech, but yet you still do not use it. Laws are actually derivative of social orders, not documents or governments. This is how society is shaped. You already possess a sense of contractual obligation for a social order, what good does it do to keep laws in place just for you to feel OK to not be told to not do what you already don't do?

    Would you post racial slurs on this site just for the sake of flexing your right to freedom of speech? Would you post racial slurs on Facebook, or YouTube, or any public medium that could get your words across to a large portion of society? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that you wouldn't do that. Perhaps you wouldn't because you wouldn't want people to think of you as that kind of a person, or perhaps you wouldn't do that out of fear of the social consequences that could come from that. Either way, both those things come from a sense of social responsibility that you feel you/we all have. The only thing standing in the way of you not agreeing with this proposition is that you don't want to be told not to do what you already don't, or won't, or even CAN'T do. You already abide by the social laws that are being laid out before us. 

    If social attitudes about free speech are changing, what good does it do to keep laws in place just for us to feel like we're not being told to not do what we're already forcing ourselves to not do?
                  
  • @YeshuaRedeemed ;

    Hateful things are a basic filed grievance. You do not have a free speech, free press, free religion right when saying something without assigned cost or self-value it is a liberty at that point, there can be questioned by grievance at which point you must show ability to share the common defense to the general welfare. The 1st Amendment changes the truth told as fact in the preamble of American Constitution only when not there the next document is the Declaration of Independence.

    By writing you do not agree with hate speech as right, your grievance is saying specifically in common defense it is/was wrong. The difference is that civil proceedings often govern what is held conditional in an official sense in criminal court, time between views of expression on liberty. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch