CreateDebate


Debate Info

19
22
No limits Limits
Debate Score:41
Arguments:45
Total Votes:47
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No limits (14)
 
 Limits (21)

Debate Creator

Mopac(73) pic



Free speech

Whats the limits? Yelling fire in a crowded theater? Slander? Hate speech? Disinformation?


Or should we have no limits?


No limits

Side Score: 19
VS.

Limits

Side Score: 22
2 points

You can say whatever you want, that doesn't mean there won't be repercussions to it. If you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater and there is none yet people get hurt in a panic, you are responsible for that action. Unlike some other countries we can say whatever we want about our President, but if someone takes that a step further and threatens his safety, they can be arrested for it. Just like any action, there are repercussions for freedom of speech.

Side: No limits
John_C_1812(279) Disputed
1 point

No you are not responsible for a groups panic. You are blamed for the actions of others.

Side: Limits
Mint_tea(4086) Disputed
1 point

The argument isn't about intent, the argument is that you yelled something that caused a cascade effect. Whether you meant to or not, malicious or not, is up to the courts. The fact that you yelled fire caused a reaction.

Side: No limits
1 point

Saying that is like saying "If you shoot a gun in a gun-free zone and people get hurt because they panicked, it isn't your fault and you aren't responsible." You are responsible, because you caused the panic.

Side: No limits
John_C_1812(279) Disputed
1 point

When the absence of Maranda right takes place in a civil law it effects the idea a lawyer can take part in a public crime. A lawyer is taking advantage that the person who has attacked a people, hurt them in that process cannot be found. So the person who can be found must be to blame.

Your argument is not considering that the person who yelled fire was simply mistaken. Either in a conduct of humor, or in identifying a real threat of flame. A civil lawsuit for money as vengeance does not institute justice.

Side: Limits
John_C_1812(279) Clarified
1 point

A person yelling fire when holding an incendiary device is a completely different story as they are clearly without interpretations a direct threat themselves.

Also all Council is not equal in their discriminations to Constitutional principle. Meaning there are exceptional lawyers and they should not all be blamed as a united state.

Side: No limits
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

So the Precious One speaks on Free Speech !!!!!!!!!

This must have escaped your Lefty Brain there Jewel !!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=090qmm3qRuo

Well now Jewel guess a Hollyweird Weirdo named Madonna has more Freedom of Speech than others do because what she said was a direct threat !!!!

Here is the problem with you fools and you are a great example of this as is Madonna-If it were not for Double Standards Progressives would have no Standards at all

So Jewel where are the repercussions that affected Madonna ???????? Speak up and show some legal actions taken against Madonna !!!!!

Side: Limits
Mint_tea(4086) Disputed
1 point

I'm not aware of what Madonna did as I don't follow her career. Again though, if you READ what I wrote you may actually understand. You can say what you want, that doesn't mean there aren't repercussions for it. Let me know where you get confused on that.

Side: No limits
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLmGMSIbN8w

Tell me about Johnny Depp and the Freedom of Speech there Jewel !!!!!!!!!!!!

Should he be arrested for it and was he arrested for it ?????????

Jewel you speak nothing but nonsense and unaware of what takes place around you when you babble on about Freedom of Speech !!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Limits
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/johnny-depp-when-was-last-time-actor-assassinated-president-n775881

Gets better for the 2 tier Freedom of Speech thang there Jewel !!!!!!!!

LONDON — Johnny Depp has been no fan of President Donald Trump, but the Hollywood star took his rhetoric up a level when he raised the prospect of the president being killed.

“When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?” he asked a cheering crowd at the Glastonbury music festival in the U.K. on Thursday night. “Now I want to clarify, I am not an actor. I lie for a living. However, it’s been awhile and maybe it’s time.”The Secret Service said it was aware of Depp's comment. Threats against the president are considered a crime under U.S. law and punishable by fine or time in prison.

“For security reasons, we cannot discuss specifically nor in general terms the means and methods of how we perform our protective responsibilities,” the Secret Service said in a statement.

A White House official said Friday: "President Trump has condemned violence in all forms and it's sad that others like Johnny Depp have not followed his lead. I hope that some of Mr. Depp’s colleagues will speak out against this type of rhetoric as strongly as they would if his comments were directed to a Democrat elected official."

Depp seemed to be referring to John Wilkes Booth, the actor who murdered President Abraham Lincoln.

Jewel was the Leftist arrested ??????

Unlike some other countries we can say whatever we want about our President, but if someone takes that a step further and threatens his safety, they can be arrested for it.

Side: Limits
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/26322-johnny-depp-threatens-trump-assassination-then-apologizes

One week after baseball-field shooter James Hodgkinson tried to kill as many Republicans “as possible,” Johhny Depp joked Thursday at the Gladstonbury Festival in Somerset, England, about assassinating President Trump. He has since apologized, but should his apology matter?

Unlike some other countries we can say whatever we want about our President, but if someone takes that a step further and threatens his safety, they can be arrested for it

An Apology should clear it right up when it comes to Freedom of Speech for the Hollyweird elite there Jewel !!!!!!!!!!

Side: Limits
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

Of course, Depp’s lowbrow remarks delivered in what appeared to be a drug- or drink- (or both) induced state of suspended brain activity, were eight days after a deranged leftist opened fire on a baseball practice of Republican congressmen and staffers, critically wounding Representative Steve Scalise (R-La.). They also came in the wake of other leftist entertainers making similar remarks, most notably Madonna saying she’s “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House” and Kathy Griffin’s video showing what appeared to be President Trump’s severed head.

Drugs and Alcohol must give the elite a pass on what Jewel wrote - Unlike some other countries we can say whatever we want about our President, but if someone takes that a step further and threatens his safety, they can be arrested for it.

Side: Limits
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

Absolutely destroying the Lefty mindset on Freedom of Speech is just to easy Jewel because you people have no idea what in the hell you are talking about !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Limits
2 points

Free Speech - Defined as "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint" should have no limits.

This doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want, Like "Kill that man!" or "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. This simply means your opinions won't be censored.

Side: No limits
BoneMaster(-17) Disputed
1 point

Free Speech - Defined as "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint" should have no limits.

This doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want, Like "Kill that man!" or "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. This simply means your opinions won't be censored.

Cute, but of course it isn't that simple. What if you express your opinion to a crowded theatre that: "This man needs to die!"?

Side: Limits
Flatlander(63) Disputed
1 point

That's called Incitement to Violence.

I included even an example of that using "Kill that man!" in my first post.

But, if for example a man was in court for murder and one of the options was the Death Penalty, then in context you probably could say "This man needs to die for his crimes." or something like that.

Language is complex, there is no perfect answer, so you should almost ALWAYS side with freedom over Security. You should avoid persecuting people for their speech as much as possible except in the most dire circumstances.

Side: No limits

If there are limits on free speech, how is it still free speech?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Side: No limits
TheNotorious(8) Disputed
1 point

If there are limits on free speech, how is it still free speech?

Because the very concept of freedom contradicts itself. You can never be completely free in any society with more than one person in it, because you must interact with others who have rights too. This is what people like you have massive difficulty understanding: you are not the only person with rights.

Side: Limits
1 point

with more than one person in it, because you must interact with others who have rights too

How do people affect the freedom of speech in any way, other than the people who fight against it? If I say nigger, it's your call to be offended by 6 letters or not. Personally, I choose to not give words power. And, even if you are offended, does it matter? In my opinion, no, it does not matter because I have not directly, physically harmed you in any way.

with rights

No one thinks that they're the only person with rights. We want to protect freedom of speech because it makes sense. They're just words; why does it matter if you say something that someone else doesn't like?

Side: No limits
John_C_1812(279) Clarified
1 point

Free describes a quality of state. Therefor must have a limit by its specification.

Side: No limits
themadgadfly(899) Clarified
1 point

free

frē/Submit

adjective

1.

not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.

--

Where in that definition does it state that free things must have limits? Also, speech is a concept. How can you put limits on a concept? And even if that were to be accomplished, why would you do that? What purpose does limiting speech serve in today's society, in America? Censorship?

Side: No limits

Free speech cannot have cost or assigned value, all things called free should have no cost, or assigned value fixed to them, that simple. The problem is somehow people believe that a basic principle is negotiable in its definition and speech is not either free or grievance as choice.

Adding additional confusion is the United States Constitution was written to perform judicial separation without its own written laws. As it may assume law of state, or grievance alone to perform separations of dispute.

Side: Limits
-2 points
Mopac(73) Clarified
1 point

So are you saying that you don't believe in free speech because you don't think hate speech is acceptable?

That is what it sounds like you are saying but I just would like that clarified.

Side: No limits
Mint_tea(4086) Clarified
0 points

"Ceptin"? I never figured you for a country boy, Excon. :D

Side: No limits