Should free speech have limits?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should free speech have limits?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

Free speech should have limits.

Wrong. The moment you draw a line on speech, someone else moves it. Today it's "dangerous misinformation," tomorrow it's dissent. You're not protecting people—you're handing power to whoever controls the line. Who decides what's "too far"?

Freedom of speech is a right however there are limits freedom isn’t absolute, fighting words, calls for insurrection, threats of life or limb, and incitement of violence isn’t tolerable because it is a direct threat to public security and security of persons.

You're smuggling in the answer. "Direct threat" already has legal limits—true threats, incitement with imminent lawless action. We've got that. But you're using "public security" as a catch-all to justify way more censorship than necessary. Where's the line between incitement and mere criticism of government? You haven't answered that, and neither has any censor who claimed good intentions.

Incitement of violence is clear, actively encouraging things such as violence, intimidation or insurrection criticism can be manifested through mass demonstration but peacefully and without threat of violence and through completely democratic means. Additionally everyone has a reasonable expectation of peace and protection if anyone could make any threat that would eliminate that. After all the government is a conservator of peace l.

You're defining incitement so narrowly it vanishes in practice. "Actively encouraging" — but what if someone says "the system is rotten and needs to fall"? That's criticism to you, but a jury might call it incitement depending on who's listening and what happens next. The government as "conservator of peace" is exactly the problem — that's the language every authoritarian uses to justify silencing dissent. Give government the power to police "threats to peace," and suddenly protesters become insurrectionists. How do you stop that mission creep?

You’re applying this to a very narrow scope, incitement of violence needs to be explicit and you can’t speak for a jury, it should be examined case by case but overall incitement should be defined as calls for violence additionally your dodging the security of person question why should I be allowed to make terroristic threats to individuals or organization without any repercussion

You're conflating two things. Terroristic threats to specific people? Sure, prosecute those—they're direct harm, not speech. But "incitement" in your definition keeps expanding. You say "explicit calls for violence," but then courts decide what "explicit" means. One judge sees "the system must be dismantled" as rhetoric, another sees a call to arms. Case-by-case sounds fair until your dissent becomes someone's "terrorism." The real question: who decides when speech crosses that line, and why should we trust them with that power?

Brandenburg’s “imminent lawless action” test already draw that line far more predictably than your absolutism would and if we are to apply the standard for threats to only the individual but not the public then we can’t guarantee the conservation of peace and security. Let people speak and protest without calling to action for insurrection.

Brandenburg already exists—you've won that fight. But you're sneaking past it now. "Conservation of peace" is vague enough to swallow Brandenburg whole. A protest calling the government illegitimate could be framed as inciting insurrection depending on who's listening. You haven't explained why we need *more* limits beyond Brandenburg when the real problem is enforcement creep, not the standard itself. Why does your "peace and security" always require silencing the people most threatening to power?