Basically- should people be able to say 'whatever' they want to say? What if saying it pushes a person over the edge? What if saying it violates private business policy?
That's the debate: Should free speech be a right?
For the most part, human beings are "able" to say whatever they want to say regardless of what others think about it. What I mean is this: Whether or not some particular speech is legally or morally acceptable to others does not necessarily deprive anyone of their ability to say what they want. That is not to say that it is not possible to deprive someone of their ability to speak, because we most certainly can. While it is nearly impossible to prevent a person's first utterance of unacceptable speech, we are certainly capable of preventing further breeches of unacceptable speech by those whose words we find intolerable. But most human beings are physically capable of saying anything they want to say. Most of us seemingly possess the necessary anatomical structure and physical components necessary for uninhibited speech. While this is apparently true, I must acknowledge that there is the possibility that this might not be entirely true, because while most people possess the necessary anatomical components for speech, there are certain things that some people can say that others just can't say, or will not say. It is quite possible, usual, and presumably the case that the reason that some people cannot or will not just say anything is not the result of some physical or chemical process which prevents them from saying it. It is more likely that most people refrain from certain types of speech as a matter or choice, which is usually a reflection of their own personalized set of values, ethics and morals.
But of course, the question was, "should freedom of speech be a right?" Or in other words, should all speech be considered to be morally and socially correct or acceptable? According to the merriam-webster online dictionary, a right is something that a person is or should be morally or legally allowed to have, get, or do. According to this definition, the word "right" not only applies to speech that is moral and legal, but apparently also applies to speech that should be moral and legal. By this definition, if a person, any person believes that all speech should be legal and moral, then it is true that all speech is indeed a right. However, it would also be true that if any person were to believe that all speech should not be considered to be moral and/or legal, than no such right exists. Thus the concept of rights is just that; it is a concept, and in a sense, nothing more than a subjective one at that.
After all, who is it who gets to decide if something "should" be morally acceptable? In a closed system of human beings, whether rational or not, such an idea can only be subjective. There is no one person on this planet who has the moral high ground over all other individuals on the planet to determine what is right for all. Every individual's moral beliefs are subjective and therefore of equal value to the next person.
I should also point out, objectively speaking, that simply because some possibly authoritative body such as an individual, a society, a government, or some other authoritative body endows itself with the ability to grant members of it's society with a right to free speech, it does not, and cannot give anyone a right to free speech that cannot be taken away and denied by someone else. Because rights are subjective by nature, any member of a society could have a different view with regard to an individual's right to free speech. While the government can establish laws which permit free speech, another person might not recognize such laws as just, and easily deny people their perceived right to free speech. Of what value is a right that is capable of being denied? Whether or not an individual truly has a right to free speech is dependent upon whether or not other members of the society agree that that person, and/or every other person has a right to free speech. And in order for all members of a society to fully enjoy such a perceived right, without the possibility of that right being denied by someone else, every member of the society must agree that everyone has the right to free speech. And that is not the case. Thus, there is no objectively existent right to free speech, and there likely never will be in any system of government devised by men. Having rights is not actually about having rights, but rather, having rights is about whether or not individuals or governing bodies have the power and authority to punish those who fail to recognize the rights that have been established by that governing body.
