The Debate Club discussion
: ̗̀➛ Ethics and Education
>
•✩• Can Freedom of Speech Be Considered True Freedom If We Put Limits on It?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Barnette ⋆˙⟡ , Creator, Head Moderator
(new)
Aug 18, 2025 06:41PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
freedom of speech is still considered freedom even if we put limits on it because without these limits arent we essentially just getting rid of some of our other fundamental rightsbut saying this, yeah people should be allowed to publicly defend controversial ideas as long as it doesnt directly cause any harm to others
I understand your points, but I think the problem is that “harm” is a relative concept. What one person sees as harmful, another might see as just an opinion. So who decides where to draw the line? I believe it’s difficult to limit freedom of speech without coming close to censorship.
Another thing we can think about is context. Some ideas might be acceptable in academic debate but dangerous when spread on social media without proper context. Maybe the issue isn’t just the idea itself, but how and where it’s expressed
yes. I totally see your point when it comes to the context. I personally believe that freedom of speech can still be considered true, even though we have some limits, e.g. insulting someone personally etc. And I feel like sometimes, freedom of speech is a bit mistaken. Because freedom of speech allows you to say anything you want rather than say anything you want without getting any opposition. and at least in Germany, I feel like many people don't see the difference between these two things. Anyway, I got a bit off topic but, yes, I believe that one should be able to discuss controversial ideas. I mean being able to discuss controversial questions is one of the key parts of a democracy. but still, it is important and it is right that we put limits on it to prevent harm. I feel like this was a bit too long and a bit off topic but I could go on writing an entire essay about it...
Like Voltaire said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I completely agree with that idea. Even if we don’t like someone’s opinion, the fact that they’re allowed to express it is what real freedom of speech is about. Once we start limiting speech just because it's uncomfortable or unpopular, we start moving toward censorship — and that can be very dangerous.
That said, I also understand the arguments for setting some limits, especially when speech becomes a real threat to someone’s safety. But like I mentioned earlier, “harm” is a very subjective concept. What’s harmful to one person might seem like a simple opinion to someone else — so who gets to decide what crosses the line?
Context plays a huge role too. Some ideas might be fine in academic debates, where people are trained to think critically. But when those same ideas are thrown out on social media with no background or nuance, they can quickly become harmful or misleading.
In the end, I believe that being able to discuss controversial ideas — especially the ones that challenge us — is a key part of any democratic society. We need open conversations, not silence. As long as it’s not directly hurting someone, it should be allowed — and defended.
I completely agree with that idea. Even if we don’t like someone’s opinion, the fact that they’re allowed to express it is what real freedom of speech is about. Once we start limiting speech just because it's uncomfortable or unpopular, we start moving toward censorship — and that can be very dangerous.
That said, I also understand the arguments for setting some limits, especially when speech becomes a real threat to someone’s safety. But like I mentioned earlier, “harm” is a very subjective concept. What’s harmful to one person might seem like a simple opinion to someone else — so who gets to decide what crosses the line?
Context plays a huge role too. Some ideas might be fine in academic debates, where people are trained to think critically. But when those same ideas are thrown out on social media with no background or nuance, they can quickly become harmful or misleading.
In the end, I believe that being able to discuss controversial ideas — especially the ones that challenge us — is a key part of any democratic society. We need open conversations, not silence. As long as it’s not directly hurting someone, it should be allowed — and defended.
Yes, as long as personal attacks aren't involved. That's when things fall apart. Reasoned discussion of controversial topics, backed up by empirical evidence and examples, is always interesting and enlightening.
yeah, I totally agree with you. and @Az din I haven't known that idea of Voltaire yet, but it's great. And I think everyone has to be able to say anything, as long as it doesn't attack someone personally.
Freedom of speech is a must but at the same time respect towards others must also be given whenever you are giving your opinion
I think that it is still freedom of speech even with limits, like would yall be okay with someone going around and talking bad and being rude? Ik I wouldnt nd there really isnt any limitations besides one that have to do with the law
message 12:
by
Sky ~take from you like you took from me~, Assistant Moderator
(last edited Sep 04, 2025 08:35AM)
(new)
Mod
Here is a part of this article: https://www.aclu.org/trump-on-surveil...
"Since President Richard Nixon was held accountable for deploying the DOJ against his political enemies, the department’s independence has been a fundamental norm preventing presidents from overstepping. Yet Trump has asserted that, as president, he has “an absolute right” to do what he wants with the DOJ. The Supreme Court recently removed one guardrail in Trump v. United States, ruling that the president cannot be criminally prosecuted for “official acts,” including actions taken through the DOJ. Trump can use a politicized DOJ by dropping civil rights enforcement cases and instead bringing abusive cases attacking voters, protestors, journalists, abortion care providers and patients, and others he perceives as enemies.
If we take Trump at his word, he will not stop with the DOJ. During his presidency, he instructed governors to deploy the National Guard to “dominate the streets” in response to the 2020 racial justice protests, threatened to unleash the military on protestors, and called out the National Guard to disrupt peaceful protests in Washington, D.C. He has threatened to do so again, repeatedly asserting that he will invoke the National Guard or the U.S. military to stop civil demonstrations in cities and states across the country. He has aimed his comments at major cities with relatively large populations of people of color and immigrants, including Washington, D.C., Chicago, and New York. Trump has also indicated that he wants to do away with the existing limits on his ability to use the military at home to suppress and punish the people and places he views as his political enemies, asserting unilateral power to deploy the military domestically."
According to Trump, he has the power to restrict what we say. Freedom of speech doesn't seem to apply to a lot of things in governments around the world. We are restricted, but I feel like that's not always bad? I mean, the protesting for abortion rights and Black Lives Matter and stuff like that shouldn't be restricted, but racism and stuff should be stopped. The problem is, I feel like different people will have different opinions on if or what should be restricted based on their personal views. For instance, a person may be super racist, but is pro abortion, so they might say that Black Lives Matter protests shouldn't be allowed, but abortion rights protests should. Then there might be someone who is super against racism and against abortion who would say that racism protests should be allowed and abortion ones shouldn't.
What I'm saying is that people's opinions might affect what they think should be allowed, which is kind of a problem ig? Idk I'm so tired I can't think straight rn.
(Sorry if I'm not phrasing this right guys)
Skybird (Nickname Sky) wrote: "I feel like the whole idea of "freedom of speech" is kinda twisted. There are some things that people simply shouldn't say, like racist or sexist things, but we also have the right to peacefully pr..."Trump is only doing this because of how violent these things get.
I lived in and have been to Atlanta GA (The biggest BLM area and with the most black population) I agree black lives do matter but ive seen these protests they are scary, most of these turn into riots or mass shootings, trump is just gonna prevent this. Like these are VERY violent and it is prefered that they doent do this due to some people have VERY strong opinions and turning to violence and discrimination. There is a whole month to recognise these people, there doesnt need to be protests. If someone is racist so be it, live your best life.
(Yall I am republican so u might not agree..)
Ella wrote: "Skybird (Nickname Sky) wrote: "I feel like the whole idea of "freedom of speech" is kinda twisted. There are some things that people simply shouldn't say, like racist or sexist things, but we also ..."most of these protests are actually very peaceful, and the majority of the shootings you're talking about were started by police who were sent to shut them down. there's nothing wrong with peaceful protest. i think Trump is intent on shutting them down because they're protecting things that are too "diverse" and don't align with his agenda, like BLM and abortion.
just because there's a month the recognize the black population doesn't mean they're not discriminated against lmao. i think your idea of racism is someone saying "ew i hate black people", when in reality it's people getting treated unfairly by their neighbors and the police. it's hard to "live your best life" when the people running our society are literally against your existence just because your skin is darker than theirs, but that's a different conversation
anyways i'm sorry if that wasn't clear, i'm sleep deprived and annoyed lol
Mod
exactly!!
Mod
i see where you're coming from, and i agree, violent protests can get pretty scary and we should try to put them down. but, like @soph said, a lot of protests that get shut down are actually entirely peaceful and are only shut down bc of petty, and often hypocritical, reasons. like a lot of the time someone can't hold up a pro-palestine sign without being called an antisemite, but the same person who called them an antisemite will ignore an african american who has been called a racial slur. case in point our president.
(im not trying to be antisemitic with this example or draw attention away from antisemitism, which is a serious issue, but im just trying to say that there's a lot of hypocrisy in which issues different people care about.)
