Instigator / Pro
Americandebater24's avatar
6
Americandebater24
1480
rating
17
debates
52.94%
won
Topic
#4422

America does not have hate speech laws and never should.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Slainte
Tags
Politics
Law
freedom of speech
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
29,999
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Slainte's avatar
14
Slainte
1511
rating
25
debates
68.0%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Americandebater24's avatar
Americandebater24
Pro
#1
First I would like to thank Con for participating in this debate. I am sure this debate will be very enlighten for all involved. 

Starting argument: In my role as Pro, I must demonstrate that the USA has no limits to freedom of speech and justify its continuation. My primary evidence is found in the United States Constitution's First Amendment, which supports the notion of unrestricted freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. U.S. Constitution - First Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
The term "abridging" is crucial, as it specifically means to shorten. According to the First Amendment's language, it is unlawful to limit freedom of speech under the US Constitution. Furthermore, the First Amendment is one of the ten amendments comprising the American Bill of Rights, making freedom of speech not only unlimited but also the foremost and most important civil right enjoyed by Americans.

2nd argument: My initial argument establishes that the Constitution protects freedom of speech and prohibits its limitation. I will now justify why America must maintain its unrestricted approach to freedom of speech. Opponents of unlimited freedom of speech often cite acts of violence or bullying as reasons for censorship, aiming to prevent potential discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc. Although bullying and related issues exist, and racists may use speech to express their views and gain support, these problems are neither caused by freedom of expression nor solved by censoring speech.

Conflicts in society are inevitable, regardless of whether speech is regulated or not. Therefore, advocating for hate speech laws under the pretext of combating hateful or discriminatory behavior not only fails to achieve its intended results but also serves as propaganda designed to persuade individuals to relinquish their ability to speak freely and influence societal viewpoints beyond a controlled narrative.

ending statement: In conclusion, freedom of speech is not only unlimited under American law, but it must remain so. Allowing speech to be limited by hate speech laws is wrong because. controlling the speech of others, regardless of intentions, is an act of oppression that supersedes any other oppressive acts that censorship supporters may claim to oppose or fight against.

Slainte's avatar
Slainte
Con
#2

Pro States:

I must demonstrate that the USA has no limits to freedom of speech and justify its continuation.
I accept this wider  resolution definition.  I accept that I as Con my demonstrate that the USA DO have limits on the freedom of speech.  All I have to do it prove that there are limits to freedom of speech to meet my burden, as doing so make Pro's second argument moot.

Intro:
Pro has modified the resolution, however based on the original resolution, and based on their first argument, I would be fair to assume that the term "limits' in the revised resolution, actually means legal limits, or law.  This is supported by Pro using the constitution as their primary support.

I do not dispute what the First Amendment says.    I will dispute that it does not tell a complete story.

Where Pro has made a serious error is by saying "has no limits to freedom of speech".   Lets look at how the law works.

Supreme Court:
The foundation of law is set forth in the Constitution.  It among other things outlines the separation of powers.  Article III establishes the Supreme Court and vests it with "the judicial Power of the United States".  In 1803 there was the landmark case Marbury v. Madison. This case established the principle of judicial review, which means the Supreme Court has the power to determine the constitutionality of laws.    This is essential.  The Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of constitutionality.  

Speech:
Based on the above, the SCOTUS has had many cases to help define what is included as the constitutional definition of speech:  

Limits:
I have to demonstrate that there are limits in the US over speech to meet my BOP.  Here are a list of statutory or SCOTUS cases that curtail, limit, or abridge speech, contrary to Pro's positions

Let's kick things off with the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the Supreme Court drew a line in the sand about what's considered dangerous speech. They established the "Brandenburg test," which says speech can be restricted if it's "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is likely to do so.  This is the infamous case where the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre, could be criminal and is not protected".

Next up, we've got the 2003 case Virginia v. Black. The Supreme Court held that burning crosses with the intent to intimidate isn't protected by the First Amendment.
It's like the Court is saying, "Hey, if your speech involves a lighter and a heaping dose of terror, it wont fly.

In the 2006 case United States v. Williams, the Supreme Court focused on "pandering" child pornography. They ruled that offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are NOT protected by the First Amendment, even if the material in question doesn't actually exist, or is considered "artistic" in the eyes of either party.

Another child porn case is the 1982 case New York v. Ferber. The Supreme Court ruling that states can ban its sale and distribution, even if it doesn't meet the usual test for obscenity.

And the 1969 case United States v. Watts. In this case, the Supreme Court held that a "true threat" isn't protected by the First Amendment  What's a true threat, you ask? It's a statement that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to cause harm, even if the speaker doesn't actually intend to follow through. So, if your speech sounds like a threat, you are under limits.  

I will describe how the courts interpret theses issues if required.

Thought Experiment:

Can Pro demonstrate that the following actions are legal, and if not legal, they do not constitute free speech.

  1. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire, or risk of fire, causing panic and problems, even if the results was not intended.
  2. Putting up a billboard saying "I wish all neocons from Imagistan would die.  Who is with me?"
  3. An internet post saying "My 12yo neighbours daughter is really hot,  who wants some hidden photos of her?"
  4. A robocall campaign saying "Press 1 if you like Biden, 2 if you like Trump".  they press 2, and then the robocall says "We know who you are and you are going to pay."
  5. An angry parent at a school committee, and the parent says, "If you pass this bylaw, I will fuck you and your family up.  I am watching you"
  6. A sign on your store front door saying "You need shoes, a shirt, but can't be a Chick with a Dick....  For Service!!"
Conclusion:

No rights are absolute.  There are limits to free speech, and I have shown them.  





Round 2
Americandebater24's avatar
Americandebater24
Pro
#3
Let's kick things off with the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the Supreme Court drew a line in the sand about what's considered dangerous speech. They established the "Brandenburg test," which says speech can be restricted if it's "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is likely to do so.  This is the infamous case where the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre, could be criminal and is not protected".
First rebuttal: Con's evidence for limits to freedom of speech begins with the common claim that one should not be allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. However, this is a common misinterpretation. The case the Con refers too is not  found in  Brandenburg v. Ohio. The Ohio court case refers to the Supreme Court's landmark decision stating that inflammatory speech cannot be punished unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The case Con may have been looking for is Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. coined the phrase while making his ruling. In Schenck v. United States, he expressed the opinion that shouting fire in a movie theater was illegal; however, this was not made into law, and the case in question dealt with a different matter. In fact, Brandenburg v. Ohio counters the Con argument, as it reversed Schenck v. United States by ruling that speech could not be restricted unless found to cause incitement. It has long been established that incitement is excluded from freedom of speech and is characterized as an action, not a form of speech, although speech can still be used as evidence to prove incitement.

Next up, we've got the 2003 case Virginia v. Black. The Supreme Court held that burning crosses with the intent to intimidate isn't protected by the First Amendment.
It's like the Court is saying, "Hey, if your speech involves a lighter and a heaping dose of terror, it wont fly.
Second rebuttal: Con's claim is subjective because, although burning objects like flags has been deemed a form of protest, cross burning is an entirely unrelated case. Moreover, Con has not proven that the Supreme Court recognizes cross burning as an act of speech and that it is restricted. They only establish that cross burning was ruled unconstitutional, implying that the Supreme Court did not consider cross burning with the intent to intimidate others as a form of speech related to terrorism. Unless Con can factually prove that the court case concluded in the manner they quote, this is merely hearsay based on a subjective opinion.


In the 2006 case United States v. Williams, the Supreme Court focused on "pandering" child pornography. They ruled that offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are NOT protected by the First Amendment, even if the material in question doesn't actually exist, or is considered "artistic" in the eyes of either party.
Third rebuttal: Child pornography laws and the first Amendment are unrelated to each other. It may be true that the subject of child pornography was discussed is the courts concerning the question if the first Amendment protected requesting or providing said illegal material. However by the Con's own admission the courts ruled that the first Amendment did not cover it hence there is no restriction of speech as the ruling establishes a fundamental difference between the first Amendment and distributing and requesting said illegal material. 

Conclusion:  Con's argument does not sufficiently meet the burden of proof needed to establish limits on the First Amendment. Although they present court cases as evidence of speech limitations, their first example is based on misconceptions regarding Brandenburg v. Ohio and Schenck v. United States, as well as falsely believing that shouting fire in a theater is illegal. Their second example relies on hearsay, as it is based on their interpretation rather than the actual court ruling. The final example is self-defeating, as the only way something cannot be protected by the First Amendment is if it is not recognized as free speech, thereby working against Con's argument.

Regarding Con's thought experiment, none of the mentioned speech is actually illegal. While all the statements admit or express intent to commit a crime such as violence or child pornography, words alone do not constitute a crime. Con confuses the fact that speech can be used as evidence against you with the idea of speech being illegal, which are not the same. Without empirical evidence, any speech is automatically dismissed as hearsay, rendering the thought experiment unsuccessful.

Lastly, Con has not demonstrated limitations on freedom of speech, but rather highlighted crimes that were once argued to be protected by the First Amendment, only to be later ruled otherwise. This does not prove that free speech is limited in US law.
Slainte's avatar
Slainte
Con
#4
I have established that the Supreme Court are the arbiter's of the Constitution, and their decisions are in fact law.

Rebuttal
It has long been established that incitement is excluded from freedom of speech and is characterized as an action, not a form of speech, although speech can still be used as evidence to prove incitement.
(emphasis added).  It appears as if Pro is trying to say that because something that comes out of your mouth is incitement, it technically is not a form of speech.  I cannot reconcile this argument at all.    I will ties this into rebutting Pro's second rebuttal.  that being said

cross burning is an entirely unrelated case. Moreover, Con has not proven that the Supreme Court recognizes cross burning as an act of speech and that it is restricted.

Pro is patently incorrect.  In  the majority (7-2) decision  of Virginia v Black, found its way to the Supreme Court, because a law in Virginia about banning cross-burning, was found unconstitutional by the Virginia Supreme Court.  The entire foundation of the law, and the SCOTUS appeal was around the rights to restrict symbolic expressions of speech, which include the burning of a cross.  The court recognized that a burning cross is symbolic speech and should in part be protected, because

such burnings have also remained potent symbols of shared group identity and ideology, serving as a central feature of Klan gatherings."
SCOTUS also adjudicated symbolism as free speech, and can be considered the purest form of speech requiring the highest level of protection.   in Tinker v Des Moines,  (the link I did provide under Symbolic Speech in Round 1),  it was establishes the symbolism is protected speech.

SCOTUS in Texas v Johnson. ruled that burning of the American flag was protect speech, as it was a symbolic expression  of political protest.

SCOTUS has repeatedly stated and supported that symbolic acts, are a form of expression.  The First Amendment protects expression.  THEREFORE any decision which restricts expression, is a limit against free speech.  

Finally, Pro has just put the nail in their own argument.  They say with respect to the thought experiment:

While all the statements admit or express intent to commit a crime
Pro attempts to argue that the words, need to be separated from the intent, and it is not the words that are illegal, but the intent.  This is absurd.  The foundational principals of free speech from an action perspective is "exercise". That is the word in the first amendment.  An overt act.   That act has an intent, either positive, or negative, legal or illegal.  The expression of an idea, is the exercise of the idea, which are connected.  One cannot live without the other.

So therein, if there is an expression of an idea that demonstrates an intent to commit a crime, that may be subject to limits.  If I hit someone in the head with a baseball bat, the first thing we look at is the intent, or the mens rea.  Was it an accident, or did I intend it.  Pro admits that my thought experiment cases show a prima facia illegal intent.  They are also all expressions of an idea.  They are also all illegal.

It is like pro's argument is "You can say whatever you want to say, provided it is not illegal" The laws surrounding what you can say are limits.

REGULATION IS A FORM OF LAW

We can all agree that when the government puts a regulation down, it is a form of law.  So any regulation that impacts the expression of an idea, would be a first amendment limitation.  I will provide source examples for all of these if required.  I would expect they are self evident.

  • Political Protests can be regulated.
  • Philosophical Protests can be regulated.
  • Use of noise 
  • Use of lights
  • Use of images
  • Legal and Commercial Activities (confidentiality and non-disclosure)
  • Education
  • Employment
  • Financial
  • Medical
I need not continue.  Those are all areas where there are regulations limit what someone can say, and in many circumstances they are deemed acceptable limits.  Those are laws that limit free speech.  

Despite what Pro says,   this  above proves free speech is limited under law, in the United States.

Round 3
Americandebater24's avatar
Americandebater24
Pro
#5
Con did not address and or misrepresented the arguments I made.

(emphasis added).  It appears as if Pro is trying to say that because something that comes out of your mouth is incitement, it technically is not a form of speech.  I cannot reconcile this argument at all.    I will ties this into rebutting Pro's second rebuttal.  that being said
Con's argument is incorrect. I stated that the court case they used to argue that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater was invalid because it claimed speech could only be restricted if it crossed over to incitement. This works against Con's argument, as incitement is excluded from the First Amendment. Additionally, I pointed out that the "don't shout fire in a crowded theater" statement was not an actual ruling but merely a judge's opinion, rather than law. Con has not addressed these facts and instead provided an interpretive response rather than a factual one.

Pro is patently incorrect.  In  the majority (7-2) decision  of Virginia v Black, found its way to the Supreme Court, because a law in Virginia about banning cross-burning, was found unconstitutional by the Virginia Supreme Court.  The entire foundation of the law, and the SCOTUS appeal was around the rights to restrict symbolic expressions of speech, which include the burning of a cross.  The court recognized that a burning cross is symbolic speech and should in part be protected, because  such burnings have also remained potent symbols of shared group identity and ideology, serving as a central feature of Klan gatherings."
I do not dispute that the Virginia v. Black decision led to the Supreme Court banning cross burning. However, freedom of speech and "symbolic" expressions of speech are not identical. When I make a verbal statement, I have a constitutional right to say whatever I want, with the only consequence being that it can be used in court. Burning objects as a form of expression is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and is inherently interpretive. Thus, when courts rule that burning is constitutional in some cases and unconstitutional in others, it does not restrict free speech. This is because symbolic expression, unlike free speech with a clear meaning, is not constitutionally protected in all instances.

Pro attempts to argue that the words, need to be separated from the intent, and it is not the words that are illegal, but the intent.  This is absurd.  The foundational principals of free speech from an action perspective is "exercise". That is the word in the first amendment.  An overt act.   That act has an intent, either positive, or negative, legal or illegal.  The expression of an idea, is the exercise of the idea, which are connected.  One cannot live without the other.

Con did not listen to what I said. I stated that "words alone do not constitute a crime," meaning that one cannot be arrested or convicted simply for saying something. I never claimed or suggested that intent was illegal, rather than the words themselves. I stated that admitting or intending to commit a crime through words alone is not illegal, as the context of those words cannot lead to imprisonment. For example, if I told an officer, "I stabbed someone last night," this statement alone would not result in jail time. The officer would need to investigate further and gather empirical evidence beyond speech to prove the truth of my claim. This is because no speech is in itself illegal , which would have to be the case for the thought experiment to apply. Con challenged me to prove that every statement they provided was not illegal. which is exactly what I did by pointing out that no speech under laws considered illegal in one of itself and that empirical proof has to be gathered in order for speech to be used against you as a form of evidence. so in plain fact what I said was not absurd at all but rather consistent.

So therein, if there is an expression of an idea that demonstrates an intent to commit a crime, that may be subject to limits.  If I hit someone in the head with a baseball bat, the first thing we look at is the intent, or the mens rea.  Was it an accident, or did I intend it.  Pro admits that my thought experiment cases show a prima facia illegal intent.  They are also all expressions of an idea.  They are also all illegal.
Incorrect. Expression of intent to commit a crime is not illegal. For this to be the case, Con needs to demonstrate this by providing a list of words or statements deemed illegal by federal law, which would contradict the First Amendment that establishes speech cannot be limited. Additionally, Con is using an action as an example to argue that statements in their thought experiment are illegal. This is absurd because actions and expressions are two different concepts in law. Hitting someone with a bat is not the same as saying, "I'm going to hit someone with a bat." If empirical evidence shows that I indeed committed the crime of hitting someone with a bat, then my actions are clearly illegal. However, if I have only been reported for stating my intention to hit someone with a bat and no further evidence is provided to confirm that it actually happened, then I cannot be arrested for an assault that did not occur, regardless of my verbally expressed intent. This is because speech alone does not warrant an arrest; it is considered hearsay unless proven otherwise. I also challenge Khan to prove how in American law expressions of an idea can result in a rest or imprisonment on the basis that they are illegal, because the framework of the 1st Amendment makes that unconstitutional.


It is like pro's argument is "You can say whatever you want to say, provided it is not illegal" The laws surrounding what you can say are limits.
I am confused at this point because how can I, the pro, argue that one can say anything they want as long as it's not illegal if I already stated in my opening statement that there are no limits to the 1st Amendment, which allows free speech? I believe Con needs to focus on what has actually been said and not on false interpretations. I never made the statement they quoted in bold; in fact, I stated the opposite - that one can say whatever they want since freedom of speech is unlimited.
REGULATION IS A FORM OF LAW

We can all agree that when the government puts a regulation down, it is a form of law.  So any regulation that impacts the expression of an idea, would be a first amendment limitation.  I will provide source examples for all of these if required.  I would expect they are self evident.

  • Political Protests can be regulated.
  • Philosophical Protests can be regulated.
  • Use of noise 
  • Use of lights
  • Use of images
  • Legal and Commercial Activities (confidentiality and non-disclosure)
  • Education
  • Employment
  • Financial
  • Medical
I need not continue.  Those are all areas where there are regulations limit what someone can say, and in many circumstances they are deemed acceptable limits.  Those are laws that limit free speech.  

Despite what Pro says,   this  above proves free speech is limited under law, in the United States.
Political and philosophical protests, as well as protests in general, are not protected by the 1st Amendment. Although the amendment states that people have the right to peacefully assemble and demand redress of grievances from the government, it does not specifically mention a right to protest. Therefore, the 1st Amendment does not cover the right to protest. Secondly, philosophical and political protests are regulated only in the manner they are conducted, not the speech itself. For example, protests often take place in public areas such as streets or parks. Since these areas serve a public function, protests may intentionally disrupt these functions to get their point across. However, in doing so, they often disturb the peace or become disruptive, resulting in police intervention to disperse the protesters. The regulation does not target the speech itself; therefore, Con's argument fails.

The use of noise and lights in this argument  makes sense, as these are not expressions or statements. Images have a certain truth to them, such as the illegality of child pornography. However, it has been established that this type of imagery is illegal because it is not considered a form of expression and is therefore unprotected and unrelated to free speech.

Legal and Commercial Activities (confidentiality and non-disclosure, Education, Employment, Financial, and Medical) are not suitable examples for arguing aginst the unlimted nature freedom of speech. The First Amendment protects citizens from government retribution based on their speech but does not shield individuals from consequences in areas such as employment. Even though consequences may arise in these fields, none of the actions are considered illegal. In all cases, the only possible regulation is that private employers have the ability to terminate your employment, and others have the right to sue you for using unpopular speech in any of these affiliated fields. This is not a government regulation, but rather a lack thereof.

In conclusion:  freedom of speech remains unlimited as Con conceded to the Constitution's wording that makes it so. Although Con gives examples of limitations in the United States concerning symbolic means of expression, symbolic forms of expression differ from free speech. Con misrepresented my arguments, demonstrating a lack of understanding regarding the legality of speech. Unless Con can prove that certain words or statements are illegal solely based on their expression, freedom of speech remains limitless in the United States.
Slainte's avatar
Slainte
Con
#6
Pro admits:


 speech could only be restricted if it crossed over to incitement.
Restriction are based in law, which included regulations.

Pro is taking a literal interpretation of the first amendment, arguing that anything that is not verbal speech is technically not free speech.   All expressions of ideas, are not speech.  Only the actual words are.  In the legal circles, this is what we call a Reductio ad absurdum

An interpretation that only leads to absurd results.  

Pro states:
one cannot be arrested or convicted simply for saying something.

I stated that admitting or intending to commit a crime through words alone is not illegal, as the context of those words cannot lead to imprisonment.
Federal Law:   18 U.S.C. § 875(c)

"Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Elonis v. United States, a Supreme Court case decided in June2015. The Court held that when a speaker subjectively intends astatement be taken as a threat or knows that it will be taken as a threat, shemay be convicted.   This got to the Supreme Court because there is no requirement for intent.  Reckless  words can count.  It is the words, written, phone, internet.

That clearly contradicts Pro's statement
Expression of intent to commit a crime is not illegal.
Words alone can cause conviction on many levels, as I have brought up so many examples.  Here are a few more:

Perjury,
Uttering Threats,
Releasing Classified information
Speaking about details of a court case under a gag order
Public Disturbance (which is the screaming Fire in a crowded theatre)

Pro's tries to claim that   

However, if I have only been reported for stating my intention to hit someone with a bat and no further evidence is provided to confirm that it actually happened, then I cannot be arrested for an assault that did not occur, regardless of my verbally expressed intent.

Pro does not understand the requirements for assault, and is confusing it with battery.   Pro is just wrong.  The essence of assault is not just the actual results (which is the battery) it is also the threat, or intimidation.   As Blacks Law provides:

Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an apparent present ability to do so, and any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reason to fear or expect immediate bodily harm.”

Thought experiments to close this round off.  

Jimmy is a Nurse at an HMO.  Jimmy see's Kim come in to emergency, and Kim has broken her arm in a bar fight.  After Jimmy's shift, he goes to the 7-eleven for some beef jerky.  He starts talking to the cashier.  No one else is in the store.  Jimmy says to the cashier, "This crazy arm break came into the emerg tonight.  She said she busted the other guy up pretty bad."  Cashier responds "Hmmm. she has to be tough, I wonder if I know her"...   Jimmy goes "You know her..  ya know that cute one that works at Ciceros, the one with the nose ring and the tattoo?"   Cashier say...  "Oh Kim!!!".

That was a federal crime (HiPPA), punishable by imprisonment, and or a fine, and it was a crime based 100% on the content of the speech.  

George is a lawyer, and his Client is involved in a criminal case, that the judge has put a gag order on.  George goes out of the court house, and says  "I don't understand this gag order,   it is not like everyone actually knows that the O'Neill family boy Marcus is the real target here"

Crime...  Based on words alone.

WORDS ALONE CAN BE CRIMINAL, AND THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF CIVIL, AND CRIMINAL LAWS THAT REGULATE SPEECH, AND CERTAIN EXPRESSIONS RELATED THERETO.
Round 4
Americandebater24's avatar
Americandebater24
Pro
#7
Before I begin, I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate and maintaining professionalism throughout the discussion.

First statement: Throughout the debate, Con attempted to persuade you that, despite the First Amendment expressly prohibiting limitations on free speech, regulations and court rulings have established a basis for setting limits on speech. However, during this debate, I consistently demonstrated that Con's understanding of the court proceedings was unreliable at best. In round 1, their first argument contained contradictions and outright falsehoods, such as the "shouting fire in a theater" example. Con incorrectly cited the court case and failed to conduct proper research. I had to provide the correct case they were referencing and highlight that even the correct case did not establish any law stating that shouting fire in a crowded theater was illegal. Con not only lacked a rebuttal but also ignored my argument, attempting to use different court cases to establish limitations, which I refuted effectively. Con provided little to no counter-argument in response. The only aspects Con seemed to address were my statements that words alone do not constitute a crime, incitement is excluded from free speech, and that I am interpreting the First Amendment text literally. This leads me to my second statement.

Second statement: I am not denying that I take the First Amendment words literally. However, contrary to the Con's claim, my interpretation does not lead to absurd results. The Constitution is not comparable to the Bible. While some gray areas in the Constitution are debated, this has more to do with unclear specifications rather than interpretations. The 2nd Amendment is a perfect example because, while no one disputes its purpose to grant all Americans the right to bear arms, the methods for safely and legally exercising these rights remain unclear. This is why state laws are constantly argued over their constitutionality. The First Amendment, unlike the Second Amendment, explicitly states that freedom of speech cannot be abridged, meaning it cannot be shortened or limited. Therefore, it is not an interpretation to claim that the First Amendment grants Americans unlimited right to free speech. Every court case presented by the opposition to refute this has either been misrepresented or unrelated to speech, making their argument ineffective. Additionally, they initially agreed with me on the wording of the First Amendment but now challenge it by claiming that my statement is an absurd interpretation rather than a fact.

Third statement :In the last round, Con attempted to claim that words can lead to legal trouble, such as committing perjury, uttering threats, releasing classified information, ignoring gag orders, and causing public disturbances. However, Con fails to understand the crucial difference between being convicted due to evidence of committing a crime and actually being jailed for a specific offense related to speech. All of the aforementioned offenses can result in a criminal conviction; however, they are based on the actions committed, not the speech itself. As I have acknowledged, speech can be used as evidence against you in court. The charges are not based on the words themselves, as no American can be brought into a US court and charged with any form of speech considered "criminal speech" or based solely on words. Courts can only charge individuals for actions, like many of the examples Con mentions, and then use recorded words as evidence against them. This clarifies Con's misunderstanding of how words can be used against someone in court. It was never denied that words can be used against a person; however, they alone cannot result in a conviction, as words are merely hearsay unless proven.

Final statement:  Con has misunderstood that in their examples of convictions based on words, the charges were not focused on speech itself. Additionally, Con fails to comprehend the fundamental principles of hearsay. If a mere utterance of a threat could lead to criminal conviction, then nearly everyone would have a criminal record before reaching 25 years old. This is due to the high likelihood of having said something in anger that could be interpreted as a threat at some point, yet no criminal charges were filed. There are two compelling reasons for this: 1. no assault actually occurred, and 2. it was not recorded and therefore could not be proven. In US law, words alone are not criminalized, and individuals are considered innocent until proven guilty. Any claim about what someone else said is deemed hearsay. Even if words are used in a threatening manner, they hold no relevance to the case, as their sole purpose as evidence is to prove criminal intent to commit a crime unrelated to speech itself. Speech, regardless of its usage, is not inherently criminal in nature. This renders the claims of words resulting in convictions baseless.

Conclusion: Since I have established that freedom of speech is unlimited in the United States, and my respected opponent has only offered misinterpretations and unintentional misinformation based on their own lack of research on the subjects of hearsay and the court cases they mention, the only conclusion a reasonable person can reach is that I, as the Pro, have established the legal fact that America has no laws against speech and only has laws supporting freedom of speech. Meanwhile, Con has failed to provide any sufficient evidence that limits or criminalizes the use of speech in America and has therefore lost the debate.

Vote Pro.

  
Slainte's avatar
Slainte
Con
#8
As Pro states, the BoP is 

I must demonstrate that the USA has no limits to freedom of speech and justify its continuation.

I have demonstrated that there are legal repercussions based on words alone.  That is a limit.   That occurs in regulations, laws, and court decisions. 

I have demonstrated there are limits.  Regardless if I may have quoted a single case improperly, that does not negate the plethora of citations, and examples I have.

BoP has not been met by Pro.   Vote Con.

Thank you Pro for your continuation, and great conduct.  I will see you again I am most certain, and I look forward to it.