Is free speech a human right?
in Politics

YeshuaRedeemed · July 2019

I say yes. One of the hallmarks of a free, and open society, are the free and open exchange of ideas. If you don't support free speech, you don't support human rights. You know who you are.

TKDB · July 2019

Yes, it is.

AlexOland · July 2019

I think it is. I believe that the left (well, at least a specific part of it) has come up with this idea of "hate speech" to silence the people who oppose them (either consciously or unconsciously). If this was not what you were trying to mention with that last part, ignore the second sentence.

ZeusAres42 · July 2019

The idea of whether it is a human right or not is a complex issue that rests on several things such as morality, subjectivity, and so forth.

Nevertheless, I definitely support free speech and encourage an exchange of ideas; it's how we learn!

John_C_87 · July 2019

YeshuaRedeemed said:

I say yes. One of the hallmarks of a free, and open society, are the free and open exchange of ideas. If you don't support free speech, you don't support human rights. You know who you are.

How do you prove it in a court of law as a human right?
How do you instructed a group of others as a united state to established before a court the right to talk without self-value or assigned cost?

No freedom of speech is a United State Constitutional right not human right. Even a person who cannot speak as mute still has the united State constitutional right of freedom of speech, though lacking the human right of speech. There is a confusion made between the United State Constitutional right to file grievance and the United state Constitutional freedom of speech and press described as liberty.

AlexOland · July 2019

@John_C_87

I think they meant "right" more in a philosophical way. If they did not, I cannot make any further comments because I know very little about law.

MayCaesar · July 2019

Words do not hurt anyone; people's reactions to words do. As such, it is only reasonable to punish violent reactions to words, not words themselves.

Free speech is one of the most fundamental rights of the individual in a free society. Any attempt to infringe on it, no matter for what "greater good", is inherently totalitarian and should be stopped immediately.

John_C_87 · July 2019

AlexOland said:

@John_C_87

I think they meant "right" more in a philosophical way. If they did not, I cannot make any further comments because I know very little about law.

It's not about law its about basic principle.

John_C_87 · July 2019

MayCaesar said:

Words do not hurt anyone; people's reactions to words do. As such, it is only reasonable to punish violent reactions to words, not words themselves.

Free speech is one of the most fundamental rights of the individual in a free society. Any attempt to infringe on it, no matter for what "greater good", is inherently totalitarian and should be stopped immediately.

Funny, the right perjury can be a weapon, or have a person killed. Free speech are words said without cost or self-value so holding words at the standard of free specification falls on the talker. When the United state is held it is the burden of Judicial separation. In whole context the change made on the united state held by union of basic principle and legal precedent is grievance, a grievance can be filed publicly at liberty but a cost may be assigned by the public without self-value and some costs are criminal by there basic principle.

The difference in a weight set by basic principle of human right in balance against a Constitutional right, killing is a basic human right, this of preservation. Whereas the accusation of killing is a constitutional right to set limitation of outspoken grievance created a death intentional or accidental.

One of the hallmarks of a free, and open society, are the free and open exchange of ideas. This is not the truth it is Liberty that is the hallmark of a open ballanced society. Any bad idea is a exhanged by united state with the open free idea.

John_C_87 · July 2019

@YeshuaRedeemed ;

A free state explained by its union must lack both self-value and assigned costs or it is not free. All grievance has self-value, assigned cost, or both. The united state represented in the introduction of truth and fact by American United State Constitution is common defense and tranquility in a creation of justice.

A woman can never be President of the United State of America, a woman can only insist having a lie told by American's as a united state. Presadera is a liberty on uniting all woman without accusation, accusation is an assigned cost as well as self-value to the general welfare. Grievance is weighed against grievance they are a visibly equal principle for the public to verify.

WinstonC · July 2019

@John_C_87 "How do you prove it in a court of law as a human right?"

It's article 10 of the European convention on human rights. Of course, over here comedians still get arrested for offensive jokes so it may as well not be.

John_C_87 · July 2019

WinstonC said:

@John_C_87 "How do you prove it in a court of law as a human right?"

It's article 10 of the European convention on human rights. Of course, over here comedians still get arrested for offensive jokes so it may as well not be.

A human right is not a constitutional right, nor united state constitutional right. Such things as theft are a human right, animals can speak, it is not like a persons way of communication. The animal may not be understood, a person may be ignored. A human right by claim is not bound by a specification of legality precedent before introduction as right. A constitutional right has two qualifications. One it must be a basic principle. Two it must follow legal precedent. A united state Constitutional right has three qualifiers, the united state must be a connection of the basic principle, or legal precedent. It can even be both.

Yeah, but In Europe we use to be able to just duel and make a point stick by who was run-through by sword. That was a human right, duels of honor.

WinstonC · July 2019

@John_C_87 I can't understand 90% of what you say, your writing style is rather difficult to read.

Dee · July 2019

It is , but there are limitations in most societies including the U S .........

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

conservative4ever · July 2019

Hi! I think that freedom of speech is a human right. It states in the bill of rights that we have the freedom of speech.

John_C_87 · July 2019

WinstonC said:

@John_C_87 I can't understand 90% of what you say, your writing style is rather difficult to read.

The explaining of complex principles is the doings of others. The problem is the word free is clear, a freedom must not have assigned cost or self-value to be witnessed as a freedom before law, simply said freedom cannot hold this type state of the union as it makes the law a Ex post fact and will always require constant translation after fact. The United State in American Constitution is made with the legal precedent of Filing a grievances publicly, This is not a freedom it is a grievance to distress of tranquility, a filing can be made publicly alone, even more so once a political grievance has been turned from oversite of judicial inquiry by a congress, of people, nation, or world for that matter. in the first Amendment to the introduction of fact, truth and a future set in Preamble, to be common defense to a general welfare this event after independence, of the people, for the people. No offence but a convention is not a Constitution it is by fact a long way from it in all respects. A key in state's of union of the people are set and made with a balance of peaceful assembly.

John_C_87 · July 2019

conservative4ever said:

Hi! I think that freedom of speech is a human right. It states in the bill of rights that we have the freedom of speech.

The constitutional right to file grievances is part of that amendment as well. Correct?

John_C_87 · July 2019

WinstonC said:

@John_C_87 I can't understand 90% of what you say, your writing style is rather difficult to read.

Sorry......……….a common defense to preserve united state constitution is not always best said in basic principle.

John_C_87 · July 2019

Free speech is a word spoken without self-value or assigned cost. A grievance can be a word spoken or in writing the has self-value, assigned cost, or both assigned cost along with self value. On a free and open society a person does not pay a assigned cost or a self-value to be a part of that society. In detail this is saying that a prescribed price or flexible donation are both equal in the disqualification of anything said to be free. Free-speech is a human goal it does not hold a united state as right...………...only constitutional united state as right.
Why is it a constitutional right? In basic principle if someone can speak it is right to let them talk until their words length postpone whole truth.

all4actt · July 2019

The freedom of speech should be a human right but un fortunately in many countries it is not.

In the USA it is a constitutional right. A right that should be protected with rigor.

Although as dee stated there are circumstances where that right is abused. I don't necessarily agree with all those rulings but people need to realize that speech based on lies, false witness or rumor should be regulated.

Speech that icites violence is a case by case determination. For instance a military commander leading a charge is inciting violence but in this case is probably appropriately. On the other hand groups like ANTIFA who preach violence against anyone who disagrees with them is not ok, making them no better than the many religious terrorist groups who incite violence because they have no tolerance for anyone who doesn't follow thier doctrine of belief.

John_C_87 · July 2019

@all4actt ;

In the USA it is a constitutional right. A right that should be protected with rigor.

Yes, it is a Constitutional right, it is also an American Amendment right. How the United State Constitutional right is preserved and how the American first Amendment right are preserved are not the same process, they are not part of the same state of union made on speech. They are two different things.

AlofRI · July 2019

It depends on what country you live in, actually. In some countries, if you speak freely, you "disappear" (or have an unfortunate accident).

Today, we have those who don't like what some people say. They want to have only THEIR thoughts and words considered "absolute truth", anything against those words is considered "fake". If that comes about, free speech will not be a human right HERE either. Free speech has to be defended like any other freedom, or it is NOT.

John_C_87 · July 2019

It depends on what country you live in, actually. In some countries, if you speak freely, you "disappear" (or have an unfortunate accident). The issue with this example is that a person that speaks freely may not recognized the deference between free speech and filed grievance. As united state it is the person who files grievance without the wisdom of understanding the merit of free speech Do you know how to edit yourself as to remove cost or self-value in a united state?

Free speech when applied as human right means a person can be forced to against law and liberty to speak without cost or self value. In a united State of constitution when questioning free speech all that needs to be done is look for a state of common defense, when a common defense does not exist the words spoken or written are not without cost or self-value, thus they are in truth filed grievance. What is overlooked, in 1 Amendment and not in united State Constitution preamble "the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family" Treason is an a crime which is undertaken in united state by speaking freely when the motive is hate, love, or lust and not money.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Jury selection resumes for Trump "hush money" trial

In this Debate

Is free speech a human right?
in Politics

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Jury selection resumes for Trump "hush money" trial

In this Debate

Is free speech a human right?in Politics

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

Is free speech a human right?
in Politics