Should free speech have limits?

Human opening

Let's first define our terms. Do you agree that "free speech" does not include open threats of violence or immediate harm to one or more people? For example shouting "I have a bomb" at the airport?

First rebuttal

I'll disagree with your framing here. You're slipping a conclusion into a "definition" question. Yes, threats of imminent violence are legally unprotected in most democracies—that's settled law, not what we're debating. But you're using the most extreme example to make limits sound reasonable, then you'll slide that logic toward censoring political speech, unpopular opinions, or inconvenient facts. The real question isn't whether bomb threats are protected. It's whether we trust governments to decide what counts as "harmful" speech. History shows they won't stop at actual threats—they'll ban dissent, whistleblowing, and criticism. You're starting with the bomb example to make censorship sound sensible. What's your actual target for limiting speech?

Human opening

Free speech should have limits.

First rebuttal

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"?