reading media texts journal

this week we were asked to prepare a debate for next week, so im gonna try to lay the groundwork here.
our topic is “freedom of speech is an inviolable right“
we are on the affirmative.
(To start with, i dont actually fully agree with the statement, and no-one in my team does either.)
We define freedom of speech as any act which expresses opinion, meaning it could be a sentence, an artwork, a protest, anything. We define an inviolable right as a right which cannot be interfered with, that cannot be censored by anyone.
We think that freedom of speech is extremely important, but there is a fine line between speaking your mind and hurting others, whether it be morally, physically or emotionally. It is important to be able to say what you want, but it is also important to make sure that does not cross the line of what we think is right and wrong (which i am aware is a whole other thing).
Having said that, however, revolutions and change could not have happened without people freely speaking things that were found extremely offensive to people.
Black, gay and womens rights would never have been realised if people were not allowed to express ideas that others found offensive. Freedom of speech is important for change.
I, as a woman, would not be allowed to vote if it were not for someone saying something that other people didnt approve of. So, even if an act of freedom of speech is morally, ethically offensive, it may still be valid and does not neccesarily mean it should not be said.
This introduces another point- if freedom of speech is censored, who gets to do the censoring? Certainly noone in this room can claim that they think they have the almighty power to censor someone elses thoughts. then who should it be? the government? religion? a team of philosophers? how could we ever come to a point where we pick on neutral source that can decide whos act of free speech is valid and whos is not? If one person can express something than everybody should be able to. Uncensored freedom of speech makes everyones argument valid, and furthermore allows each person viewer/listener/reader to evaluate for themselves what is opinion and what is stepping the line, because these things are different for everybody.