Freedom of speech should be practiced in all instances without exception

Before we put forth our arguments, I'd like to invite your attention to the fact that I'm arguing for the protection of all kinds of speeches by the federal law (along with its equivalent in the ancient and medieval periods) and in no manner do I condemn public moral defamation of any subject caught using any kind of speech including but not limited to hate speech. I simply argue that freedom of speech - in all forms - should be recognized as a universal human right. Due to time constraints, I won't be convering hate speech and controversial opinions in this round, over which the whole debate revolves around. I'll make my case in the next round. Hope you have the best of times arguing, and hope you hope to demolish my arguments utterly. That being said, please allow me to state my case that free speech may be protected: #1: Free speech is a human right. The Oxford Dictionary defines freedom of speech as "the right to express any opinions without constraint or restraint. "[1] As such, free speech then allows people to express their opinions, regardless of their nature. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares freedom of speech as a human right and states that federal law in all governments around the world should safeguard this basic, intrinsic human right. [2] It is important to realise that free speech doesn't allow people to act according to their own whims according to the definition. ---#2: Importance as a democratic ideal:Restrictions imposed by a federal authority on the expression of speech naturally and subsequently debar people from expressing their honest opinions on matters included in the restricted category. This discourages essential and productive economic and political public debates. Freedom of speech is an absolutely intrinsic part of democracy without which a democratic system cannot function and hence is an essential prerequisite to run a democracy. [3]---#3: What history teaches us. Free speech as a right did not take deep roots in society until the 17th Century. [4] If we observe history before this period of time, we find that death and destruction on an unprecedented scale has been caused in the name of various causes. [5] Many were slaughtered and tortured for committing blasphemy and other similar offenses where they were denied the right to freely express themselves. [5] We come to understand that when free speech was yet to be recognised as a human right, many were executed for committing the apparently innocent crime of expressing their harmless opinions. ---There've been regulations passed in certain countries prohibiting the use of hate speech. While hate speech is a loose term, (this is a point I'll make in the next round) it can be defined as "speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. " (notice that it doesn't include threatening behaviour) [6] Hate speech can then prove to be hurtful and offensive to certain groups which makes it a major and highly debated realm of free speech. I'll make a case for hate speech in the next round due to severe time constraints which is the crux of this debate, anyway. [1] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] . http://www.un.org...[3] . http://www.youthmedia.eu...-[4] . http://law2.umkc.edu...[5] . http://markhumphrys.com...[6] . http://dictionary.reference.com...