No, it isn't up for debate.

Free speech is only an unalienable right, in the US, from the government. Not facebook, not google, and certainly not individuals suing a private entity.

Everything else stems from the public and historical landmark court cases related to free speech- and the benches of the supreme court have staunchly defended freedom of speech from the government.

> Free speech is only an unalienable right, in the US, from the government.

You’re confusing the concept of Free Speech and the law codified in the First Amendment rights. Free Speech as a concept is (by necessity) much broader (both as defined in the declaration of human rights, and as envisaged by the thinkers who originally proposed it). It doesn’t mean “there’s no accountability whatsoever” but it does mean that there’s an active duty to uphold individuals’ rights to articulate themselves. Unfortunately this confusion is extremely common — even the Wikipedia article restricts it to government intervention in the opening paragraph (but then broadens it).

That's exactly what I'm saying. The writers of the Bill of Rights took the general concept of Free Speech and debated it, resulting in a concrete implementation in the form of the First Amendment.

And that debate is ongoing; for example, you can be held accountable by the government in certain cases (see "Seven dirty words").

I guess it depends which country you're in. For many Europeans, free speech means that you're allowed to voice your opinion but are forbidden from insulting people just for the sake of insulting them. For journalists, they are allowed to print what they think but not knowingly lie or defame people with untrue stories.

Free speech isn't absolute, you somewhere have to draw a line determining where free speech ends and the protection of an individual's rights begin.