Umm as you said they are not contradict each other

But may be Democracy, because after some freedom of speech a big speech fight will happend
but in democracy one have to control his anger and keep the words for him self

I don't know...maybe !!

What's the definition of both :P

Both are not absolute. They don't contradict each other in the sense that for democracy to exist then everyone has the right to express their opinion and form an uncensored channel of information to all (<< that's a sad attempt to simplify a complex issue).

Free speech has - for the lack of a better word - limitations. It's back to the topic of "how free is free speech" and you get "how democratic is your democracy?"

Free speech can easily become hate speech because people simply tolerate things differently. Taking this into account, free speech is most probably motive-driven and should have a certain value (or should it?).

Once you put limitations on free speech, you put limitations on democracy (depending on the limitation) as there is a block of information flow.

The very act of trying to define either confines them with our own mental agenda. Unless there is a universal consensus (and by universal, I mean universal, not just 4-6 representative countries) then we're still stuck in the abstract

I agree with KJ's ideas, but if I have to choose, I'd go for Democracy, as it would offer a framework for the excercise of Freedoms, including the freedom of speech, while safeguarding the rights of everyone, those who speak freely, and those who "choose" to listen, agree, or disagree, freely.

I believe democracy is more important because what value does freedom of speech have without equality, human rights and the right to participate in political elections. You can have freedom of speech but that doesn't guarantee you any rights at all.

I think it doesn't really matter.  If the collective set of morals, values and beliefs are good ones then both democracy and freedom of speech are in good hands.  They are both tools for a better life.

I think Democracy should win, because if someone's Speech is deeply offensive, in a Democracy, the majority would beat the living crap out of him.

Since nobody knows or cares what's civil or acceptable behavior anymore, it's vitally important that obnoxious Speech be punished on an individual basis (not by the State, which can't do the job effectively). If someone's an ass, his Speech earns him a punch in the nose, and he learns to be more circumspect next time, or to bring more friends to ensure his safety when he Speaks. Freedom Of Speech enables bad behavior, and to insist on someone's right to Freedom Of Speech merely encourage more bad behavior.