Resolved: Freedom of Speech Must Include the Right to Offend

"Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." - Louis D Brandeis, Justice of the United States Supreme Court "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1st United States Postmaster General "My opponent here brings up that if we illegalize the right to critize then the government has the right to determine what free speach is, but Pro contradicts herself by saying that they have introduced the legislation." Free speech is determined by laws, which are passed by the government, in response to political pressure. In many countries, political pressure has forced the government to pass laws protecting the right of freedom of speech. If that right is taken away, by laws that specifically limit what you can and cannot say, then your right to free speech is being violated. I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that laws that specifically prohibit speech deemed as "offensive", or do not protect your speech if it offends someone else, violate your rights in such a manner. "Westboro Baptist Church" Their statements are incredibly offensive; I don"t think there"s any disagreement here. But to censor them would bring forth a precedent of allowing censorship imposed upon unpopular groups. Back in the days when the KKK still had political power, a black man advocating for racial equality was likely to be lynched, as his speech was offensive to the white southern majority. During the Rwandan genocide, when the majority Hutus massacred the minority Tutsis, Hutus who attempted to speak out against the genocide were silenced, as suggesting that Tutsis were equal was unacceptable was hate speech against Hutus, and you would likely be killed by a Hutu militia (such as the Akazu) for being a "racial traitor". I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that while the Westboro Baptist Church"s actions might be offensive, the need to protect unpopular minorities outweighs any perceived good of censorship. "year they exicute non believers in Islam." It would be more accurate to say "Muslim Countries and NGO"s" than "Islam" in this case. "They behead homosexuals and discriminate against women. People in the Middle East fell deaply about there religon to where many people have even looked into cenosoring their television for their children." Indeed. Any you know why that is? It is because to them such expression is incurably offensive and must be banned. Islamists have extended their reach into even western media, and have begun to censor any criticism of them they find "offensive"[1][2]. I would like to remind my opponent than in Muslim and in Communist countries, conservative Christian voices such as his are silenced, as they are deemed irredeemably "offensive". May I remind you what happened when Salman Rushdie decided that he had right to free speech, regardless if it offended anyone. I would like to thank the audience, my opponent, and everyone else reading this. I submit to you that your rights do not end where my or anyone else"s feelings begin, and would like to once again ask the question: to whom would you give the right to decide what it offensive, and therefore not protected by free speech? Who would you give the right to decide what you can read, what you can hear, and, most importantly, what you can say? [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly...