Freedom of speech should be practiced in all instances without exception

Thanks pro for presenting your argument. I must say that I really liked all of your points, and the main reason for that is because none of them support your resolution. As I pointed in the acceptance round, the resolution does not present a simple defense of freedom of speech as a right, but it specifically claims it to be an absolute right, that should not have any kind of exception whatsoever. In this argument, I intend to prove that such a right is [1] Not recognized by nation or any international institution [2] Not desirable to be recognized by either a moral standpoint or by common sense [3] A logical impossibility Freedom of speech have never been recognized as an absolute right In your argument, you say you are arguing for the “protection of all kinds of speech by the federal law”, claiming that this is a human right that should be recognized. I believe that in that point, you are referring to the article XIX of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Let’s see what this article states: (1) “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” As you can see, this article does not provide protection to all kinds of speech, but only for the expression of opinions, information and ideas, so any kind of speech that isn’t an opinion, information or an idea isn’t protected by human rights. Under your own definition (2), for example, hate speech isn’t any of those, but merely a form of attack to a person or group. Also, it’s important to notice that, even if laws don’t explicitly state exceptions to freedom of speech, it doesn’t mean they can’t exist. The 1st amendment of the US Constitution, for example, doesn’t set any exceptions to it; however, the Supreme Court of that country recognizes several cases where the freedom of speech should be restricted, including, but not restricted to the following cases: (3) - Obscenity - Child pornography - Incitement to lawless action - Defamation - False advertisement - Infringement of copyright - Publishing of national security information Considering that the United States is one of the countries that grant the broadest protections to free speech, it’s safe to assume that every country recognizes at least as many exceptions to freedom of speech as the US does, and therefore, no country recognizes this right as absolute. Freedom of speech shouldn’t be recognized as an absolute right You claim in your first round, that Freedom of Speech “takes precedence” over a non-exhaustive list of events, but since your resolution specifically asks for it to be practiced in all instances without exception, it can be inferred that you believe that the right to freedom of speech takes precedence over any other right, like for example, the rights to life, human dignity, safety, property or other freedoms. My point here is: That’s not morally acceptable! In fact, the exceptions made to the right of free speech I pointed above are basically the recognition that other rights should take precedence. The right to life, for example, is one of the most important, if not THE most important human right. Placing the right to free speech above the right to life cannot be justified morally, once it would result condoning with incitement to murder. There is also the more classical case of falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, with the sole intention of creating mass panic. This could cause several deaths as a result of a stampede, and endanger the physical and psychological integrity of many people. By advocating for the recognition of the freedom of speech as an absolute right, would mean not only letting this type of action go unpunished, but also promoting it (your resolution clearly states that unrestricted freedom of speech should be practiced, and not just accepted in all instances). Morality and common sense dictates that human life and integrity should be protected over a simple liberty. Unrestricted freedom of speech is a logical impossibility It’s actually impossible to find a right that is so absolute that any type of exceptions can’t be attributed to it. Take for example the right to life: many people believe that this right takes precedence over literally every other, however, even in that interpretation, there is still one exception to this right: when it contradicts itself. That is, in a situation when it’s impossible to guarantee this right to a person without taking it away from another. The right of self-defense is derived from this contradiction. The same thing could be applied to the right to free speech. Even if it was recognized as a right superior to every other, without exceptions, there would still be cases when one person could use their right to free speech to deprive someone from the same right, like for example, by interrupting the speaker in a debate or discourse. In that case, it would be logically impossible to unconditionally grant the right to free speech to both the speaker and the interrupter at the same time. Therefore, an absolute right to freedom of speech is impossible. That said, I believe I have proven that allowing freedom of speech to be “practiced in all instances without exception” is something that isn’t, shouldn’t and can’t be done. (1) - http://www.un.org... (2) - http://dictionary.reference.com... (3) - https://www.fas.org...