Instigator / Pro
14
1442
rating
45
debates
56.67%
won
Topic
#4404
America does not have hate speech laws and never should.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
Americandebater24
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
6
1500
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
First I would like to thank Con for participating in this debate. I am sure this debate will be very enlighten for all involved.
Starting argument: In my role as Pro, I must demonstrate that the USA has no limits to freedom of speech and justify its continuation. My primary evidence is found in the United States Constitution's First Amendment, which supports the notion of unrestricted freedom of speech.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. U.S. Constitution - First Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
The term "abridging" is crucial, as it specifically means to shorten. According to the First Amendment's language, it is unlawful to limit freedom of speech under the US Constitution. Furthermore, the First Amendment is one of the ten amendments comprising the American Bill of Rights, making freedom of speech not only unlimited but also the foremost and most important civil right enjoyed by Americans.
2nd argument: My initial argument establishes that the Constitution protects freedom of speech and prohibits its limitation. I will now justify why America must maintain its unrestricted approach to freedom of speech. Opponents of unlimited freedom of speech often cite acts of violence or bullying as reasons for censorship, aiming to prevent potential discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc. Although bullying and related issues exist, and racists may use speech to express their views and gain support, these problems are neither caused by freedom of expression nor solved by censoring speech.
Conflicts in society are inevitable, regardless of whether speech is regulated or not. Therefore, advocating for hate speech laws under the pretext of combating hateful or discriminatory behavior not only fails to achieve its intended results but also serves as propaganda designed to persuade individuals to relinquish their ability to speak freely and influence societal viewpoints beyond a controlled narrative.
ending statement: In conclusion, freedom of speech is not only unlimited under American law, but it must remain so. Allowing speech to be limited by hate speech laws is wrong because. controlling the speech of others, regardless of intentions, is an act of oppression that supersedes any other oppressive acts that censorship supporters may claim to oppose or fight against.
Forfeited
Round 2
Since Con forfeited the first round without a rebuttal, my previous argument will remain unchanged until Con addresses it rather than forfeiting.
Forfeited
Round 3
It appears that Con is uninterested in this debate. Nevertheless, I have presented constitutional law and a well-structured argument supporting the unlimited nature of free speech in the USA and the necessity for it to remain so.
Vote Pro.
In the United States, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. This means that people are free to express their opinions and ideas, even if those opinions and ideas are offensive or unpopular. However, there are limits to this protection. For example it is illegal to use language that is intended to cite violence or discrimination against a group of people.
Round 4
In the United States, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. This means that people are free to express their opinions and ideas, even if those opinions and ideas are offensive or unpopular. However, there are limits to this protection. For example it is illegal to use language that is intended to cite violence or discrimination against a group of people.
Con asserts that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Although many statements considered hate speech in other countries may not be legally recognized as such in the US, it is incorrect to claim that the First Amendment protects hate speech. For this to be true, the Constitution would need to differentiate between freedom of speech and hate speech and explicitly protect both. However, as the Constitution does not make this distinction, it is more accurate to say that hate speech is simply not recognized under US law, rather than being protected by the First Amendment.
Additionally Con is right that it is illegal to incite violence against others they are incorrect in asserting that the language itself is punishable or that you can not use discriminatory language under the first Amendment. According to the definition of incitement, incitement is defined as
The action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully incitement - Search (bing.com)
Incitement refers to the act of provoking or urging unlawful behavior. Although your words could be used as evidence for incitement, the determining factor lies in your actions rather than the usage of prohibited speech. Discriminating against a group is not illegal unless it escalates from mere words to actual threats of violence. Discrimination, like incitement, is based on someone's behavior and not the manner of speech they use, even if that speech can later be proven as evidence against you in a trial.
Overall, Con's argument is flawed as they falsely claim that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, which in reality does not exist under the First Amendment. They follow a common but untrue belief that incitement and discrimination are not protected by the Constitution. In truth, speech intended to discriminate or cause violence is not unprotected, as there are no words prohibited under US law. Instead, they are considered actions, and while speech can be used as evidence, it cannot be used to convict someone solely on the basis of unprotected speech.
Vote Pro.
Forfeited
okay sounds good.
Redo this debate, and I will take it on. Change the time to the argument to 3 days please.