I disapprove what you say, but I defend to death your right to say.

I do not exactly remember my outline word for word or even the structure properly. But my main argument was two folds. So basically, the right of freedom of expression and the right not to be discriminated against are both in the Human Rights Charter and both these rights are in various democratic constitutions. The introduction, introduced both these rights, and said as a thesis statement, that the argument is two fold. One, it asks us to ethically and morally examine how absolute the right of freedom of speech/expression is. And second if the right is not absolute/ or is absolute what are the policy considerations.
So next I discussed the history of freedom of speech, comparing Islamic ideology with Western. Stating that freedom of speech existed in Islam many centuries before it even existed in the West. But freedom of speech had a purpose in Islam, it was not meant to be vulgar or abusive, its a way to raise your voice against injustice. And everyone in Islam had the right to voice their just opinions be it man, woman or slave. In the West up until the end of colonization, which happened in 20th Century freedom of speech was non existent. Freedom of speech was afforded to usually the privileged white men, and other races and women were excluded from having this right. ETC. I then compared and contrasted the western and Islamic ideology of freedom of speech, and conclude how the west got it wrong, by claiming freedom of speech to be an absolute right. In fact in its own constitutions (USA) freedom of speech is limited i.e. in case of hate speech etc.
Moving on from there I give examples how absolute freedom of speech which even allows freedom of abusive content is wrong and leads to anarchy. Charlie Hebdo and then the 3 muslims killed by an atheist following that incident.
Then going on to my next example, how good democracies have enshrined limits of freedom of speech in their laws and constitutions for example anti-hate speech laws etc. Hence the right to not be discriminated against.
After concluding that ethically and in reality freedom of speech is not absolute or something along the line.

My next argument is policy issues. I talk about different platforms of speech, internet, protest etc. How we value these platforms and unfair blockage to these platforms does infringe on our rights of speech etc. But then I talk about IS and how it uses these platforms to get people to join them and organised meetings through platforms like whatsapp, twitter and snapchat. Hence the policy consideration is now security vs freedom of speech and now security wins here. It is up to each state to balance these competing rights. No one right is divine etc. (I must have said some more but I cannot remember it that well).

My conclusion, yes you do have a right to say what you want but within limits, as your right does not override the rights of others not to be discriminated against etc.

Examples I used, were Charlie Hebdo, Chapping Hill killing, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan, Racism etc. I also mentioned the August Protests in front of Parliament in Pakistan. Trust me it all linked up, I just cannot remember how I did it accurately.