Is the freedom to speak an innate human right, or is it a privilege which we should be grateful for, since many do not have it and it comes at a cost?

Freedom of speech is a right. Just because many people don't have it doesn't mean it's not their right. Many people don't have food, and in many countries homosexuals can't marry. Doesn't mean it's not a right.

The only cost for freedom speech if one for example says something people find offensive, is that these people that have been offended have a distaste or dislike towards them. No killing, jailing, or any sort of physical harm. You don't hurt someone for being a douche.

Then how far do your rights extend?

As far as people are willing to defend them.

It really comes down to a matter of semantics. You can either see free expression as a "privilege" granted to us by governments, or a fundamental right which governments choose not to interfere with, neither is technically wrong. I think ideally it should be a fundamental right for all people.

The freedom to express an idea is an absolute right, provided that it does not give people the means to cause physical harm.

The fact that there are limitations on the extent to which the right can be exercised means it's not an absolute right.

There are only 5 absolute rights recognized by international human rights law and freedom of expression isn't one of them.

True, I was speaking more in plain terms than using the word 'absolute' in it's legal definition. My bad.

I should have said it was 'absolutely' a right.

Everything except something along the lines as yelling "fire" in a movie theater is a right. Everyone has the right to express an idea. It's foolish that someone could even be offended by such a thing.

Quote from Sea Beast

Everything except something along the lines as yelling "fire" in a movie theater is a right. Everyone has the right to express an idea. It's foolish that someone could even be offended by such a thing.

How about telling people sincerely to go kill themselves for being gay? How far does freedom of speech go when people are being hurt by it?

I was once told that I've got my First Amendment so I could speak against those who would wrong me and my kin, and my Second to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Regardless, it is a basic human right to say what one wishes, when they wish, regardless. People might be hurt, but nobody is going to come up with a perfect solution where everybody's happy.

Quote from Skeletonxf

How about telling people sincerely to go kill themselves for being gay? How far does freedom of speech go when people are being hurt by it?

People who are offended by speech can go to hell. People's actions can offend you, but saying that someone else can't hold an opinion against you (no matter how repulsive it might be) is ridiculous.

Quote from Skeletonxf

How about telling people sincerely to go kill themselves for being gay? How far does freedom of speech go when people are being hurt by it?

I call those people biggots.

And in response to their ignorance I choose to flex MY right to speak up and inform them about exactly how fucking retarded I think they are.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should be a pedantic shit heel. I expect adults to not be so socially inept.

As far as I can tell, there are only two ways of thinking about "rights" which make sense (in terms of morality). Either they are protections enshrined in law, or they are protections which should be enshrined in law. If you try to talk about absolute rights entirely independent of the law then I just don't know what you mean.

If we use "right" in the first sense, this isn't a debate topic. It's just a matter of fact. You have the right in the US. You don't have it (or it is more restricted) in North Korea.

If we use "right" in the second sense, you should have the protection as far as that protection makes people better off in general. As a starting point, I suggest that you have a right to say anything so long as (a) your utterance will not negatively impact anyone who is not listening to you by choice (including people who are not listening to you at all, so this condition precludes you from teaching others how to make a bomb) or, in situations where your speech could not reasonably have been expected, anyone who would not have chosen to listen to you if they had known what you were going to say, or (b) you can reasonably expect that the negative impact of your speech will be outweighed by positive impact further down the line ("reasonably expect" in these cases is being taken to mean what an ideally rational person would deem probable given the information available, ruling out religious fanatics who think that teaching someone how to build a bomb now will lead to a future where more people go to heaven).

This is a more restrictive condition, I think, than is employed in the US or Britain. I don't know the details; I'm not a lawyer.

Quote from Skeletonxf

How about telling people sincerely to go kill themselves for being gay? How far does freedom of speech go when people are being hurt by it?

If I told you to kill yourself because I don't like you, would you want to do it? No?
Then why should they.

I'm not going to say that words will never hurt someone, however if you let words affect you THAT MUCH.
There's something wrong.