Free speech, explained by Greg Lukianoff 

I appreciate his stance on free speech and it truly is a messy topic. I think my biggest challenge with whole-heartedly accepting this POV is that, to me, this assumes there is a foundation that many people are willing and able to take the time and energy to fully assess, digest and reflect on the bombardment of information and arrive at rational & logical conclusions. It seems to me that the speed and ferocity that emotional opinions can catch fire and cause action far outpaces people's capacity for complex cognitive assessment.

Awesome to see a clear and rational explanation of this online. This video truly makes RU-vid, the country, and perhaps the world a better place. This needs a sequel with Greg Lukianoff. ❤‍🔥

Just wanna say that Greg Lukianoff's and Jonathan Haidt's work in the last 20+ years has been nothing short of a blessing for reason, critical thinking, and common sense. I encourage everyone to read their books and check out their talks. Incredibly insightful stuff :O

The USA doesn't have any laws banning hate speech. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right protecting your freedom to criticize the government without fear of retaliation from said government. What you are framing as an "attack on free speech" is actually just public backlash for spewing bigotry on social media. You have the right to express your views and opinions (however distasteful they may be), but that also means that people have the right to openly criticize you for it. Free speech was never intended to shield people from criticism. Quite the opposite.

This video did more for my understanding of free speech in the US than anything I've seen in the past 20 years.

I like the way questions were framed by the host. Very crisp and helps getting in more information on the table for viewers

Having gone to Columbia in the late 1990s, I can tell you that free speech was already a controversial idea at the turn of the millennium. It just took longer for the ideas of repressive tolerance to be instituted throughout the culture and college systems.

To be honest all evil starts with a speech but also good. Its best to just be careful with what you say, i think most people use the Internet to express things they cant in real life now.

THANK YOU!!! Just because someone disagrees with a point of view , does not mean you can BAN IT, even if you find it hurtful, NOT EVERYONE DOES !!!! you cant ban it from platforms, just have a dialog to change the view

The printing press backlash analogy comparing social media was perfect

There is a responsibility to educate your society if there are exceptions because there are clearly too many people that have zero understanding of FIRE's take on free speech. Freedom comes with tremendous responsibility and too often freedom of speech is used to justify hatred in word and action.

This, above all else, is the crux of all our ills today. People in the education system do not understand basic freedoms. They use a very rudimentary and almost childlike view to understand their world. This privilege and not "white" privilege. It is having the best system in the world, the best military, the best police and then not knowing where that came from. Thank you, and bless you for bringing this conversation to us all.

I feel that this should be a required video to watch before any human joins the Social Media Realm.

Greg is a treasure. Free speech pins together our other freedoms, without which tyranny lies. Given that the university is our premium rationality institution, FIRE is one of the most significant groups I can think of

It's important to consider the change in the ways we are able to communicate. When this amendment was devised, it wasn't possible to speak to millions of people at once. With the advent of easily streamable videos, millions upon millions can hear the same speaker present their opinion over a short amount of time, and then that video can still be viewed for decades until it's taken down. This complicates this discussion and shouldn't be ignored. Millions of people believe that a school somewhere put out a litter box for a child who thought they were a cat - this was made up and is not true, but the damage has been done. Whether someone believes the story is true or not is now moot, because the "sentiment" of the accusation, some believe, speaks to something that rings true for them. This lie still exists and can be found all over the internet, and is only one small example of the viral potential of lies, rumors, and misconceptions that shape the way we each view each other. It seems irresponsible to think that mass communication isn't stressing the boundaries of what we consider acceptable practice. It's another challenge to have a nuanced conversation about this without being accused of being "the thought police," so it's important to know that it's not any one individual's opinion that is the issue, it's that any one individual can now broadcast that opinion indefinitely, and with algorithms deciding what we are shown online, those videos can be delivered to people who aren't even seeking it out. We also share spaces online with people of all ages, an intergenerational mingling that has never happened before, from children on tablets to the elderly and everywhere in between. Children wouldn't choose to attend a political rally, but they can access those speeches, or can be delivered those speeches by an almighty algorithm without seeking it out. This should give us pause and encourage reflection at the very least.

I am Irish (which is in Europe). I wish we had a first ammendment! Here in Ireland censorship is being legislated in stealth under the guise of preventing hate speech. Never was it more important since some groups as well as the political ilk are trying to claim a monopoly on what constitutes acceptable/permitted speech. The new EU DSA will be used as a weapon.

The cultural peak in Western free speech in the intellectual sphere was right at the Renaissance, and with Erasmus and his followers. We might never enjoy a period where the ability of expressing one's opinion was so highly regarded as one of the driving forces of progress. Yes, that was more than half a millenium ago.

Very good questions from the host. Love it

I generally agree with what he's saying, but there's one thing he gets wrong that most people get wrong, and I'm so surprised someone in his position would get this wrong. People certainly have the First Amendment right to shout down speakers and shut down events, as a matter of fact, that is protected by the First Amendment. The idea that the government has to protect speakers or events is absolutely false. The first amendment does not protect citizens from citizens in that scenario, it protects citizens from the government. Them protesting is exactly what the First Amendment protects, it is part of freedom of speech. If people can protest and get the institution or the company to cancel the event, that's that.

"Cancel culture" seems to used for two scenarios: On one hand it's about forcibly preventing others from listening to a speech or preventing someone else from speaking. On the other hand, the term is also used for an individual's ability to voice their opinion, choose to boycott and bash an individual or company online to a point that it impacts an individual or company financially. The distinction is very important. The former is a clear violation of the 1st amendment while the latter is also freedom of speach and right to protest.

What isn't discussed is stochastic terrorism and the weight of collective speech.

The first amendment is to protect the citizens, from government suppression of free speech. Any disscussion of this constitutional right, needs to include this.

I feel like this is the biggest problem we face as a species. We've thought ourselves into a box, I hope we can think of a way out. ❤

You can say any word in any language at any time. But you can still be fired for it. And You may be asked to leave a venue, private property. And you can be arrested and imprisoned if you incite a riot, violence, or defraud or worse to someone.

Well done! So well done.

Back in the late 1970s, each spring a man in a three-piece suit, preaching fundamentalist Christianity, would come to the center green of my state college. Many students would gather around and listen, and some would even engage in debate with the speaker. Although his views were widely rejected by students, neither they nor the administration made any attempt to remove or censor the speaker. What happened to young people? How did they became fearful of different ideas?

So weird and problematic to think of this problem as contained within universities in any meaningful sense, especially in the age of social media...

Great interview.

I agree that it is a "balancing act!"

I'm amazed this one got through. Great talk! The Trusted News Initiative (TNI) and the governments on their trying to ban misinformation really must hate this guy.

This was such a great watch! Thank you

As an non US citizen I really enjoyed listening to Greg. Someone try teaching this to politicians. Greg?

How hate speech is defined can vary widely and is subject to change at the whims of whatever political group or societal group is in power. Think about that? Do you want to live in that future?

Top notch content right here.

Whew. I’m 44 now. I fear for the future. The young aren’t being left with a livable world or a just society, it’s all being stripped away. Consumption. We have the consumption. If humanity survives its own ignorance, I predict a return to tribal lifestyles like the Native Americans. The young are much more immune to the consumption, it seems. Hopefully they survive the rest of us.

Thank all that is good in the world that people like Lukianoff are here to protect these ideas.

One of the best Big Think vids I've seen.

Excellent conversation! 😊 on the topic of the amount of information we are creating, I’d like to point out that on RU-vid alone there is about a lifetime supply of content shared every day; e.g. 650,000 - 750,000 hours

Thanks!

Great work Keep at it😊

Good questions. Please educate other interviewers.

Nice hope there will be a part 2 to this "discussion". I suppose this underlines my impression of seeing no sense of studying at colleges with no certain degree of free speech while protecting individuals. Would love to see a more neurological/biological view on how inputs effect our capabilities of controlling our outputs in certain situations. Just hope we as a society will manage to be clear about trying to differentiate between reactions, emotions, intension and words we should just try not to say. Especially in black history month try to be sensible and think about how others feel about the words you may say. At the same time to be clear i am not a fan of the theory of letting one person speech freely because he "is part of a certain" group this will just reproduce inequality. While accepting the fact language is a reflection of reality lets try to be better and create a more peacful future for all.

I'm American and remember when the ACLU defended the KS right to march in Ill. That was a difficult position to defend. But they stood up. What I've noticed is speeches getting shut down because of security issues. I think there's an implied freedom to listen.

Aww. Footloose! 😊

When people say that there is a line beyond which speech is unacceptable, ask them WHERE they think this line is and more importantly, WHO they think should get to decide where it is? It usually doesn't take very long to establish that this supposed line of acceptable speech is precisely where THEY think it should be.

It really hurts my brain how this new generation seemingly doesn't value freedom of speech and/or thinks it's a right wing position. While I do think "freedom of speech absolutists" tend to end up hypocritical when there's one topic that hits a nerve, I think drawing the line at direct enticement of violence makes the most sense. Other than that, speech is speech. Words can hurt but they can also defend and no one should have the power to silence you. I really hope there is some way to teach the new and future generations how important it is but it seems like most favor hate speech laws not understanding that those in power at that given time will define what "hate" is. It's absurd and narrow-minded.

Can we make this video mandatory viewing for all Americans?

They really need to change "free speech" to sanctioned expression

Everyone watching should look up who these people are and where they get their funding. There's a reason this guy is framing the conversation the way he is. Koch money.

29:49 wheelsbarrows cus senates are pluralistic, pools but costco positive

Some people are offended by the burning of the flag. I find it ridiculous that they are most likely to _wear_ the flag, even though we have "laws" against that. I don't find it offensive, just tacky.

This free speech thing would never be an issue if boundaries were respected on all sides. Unfortunately, this is not the case, especially because of the internet/social media. Too much brain energy goes into discussing this stupid issue when really, it is easily solved with a little cooperation 🙄 These topics convince me everyday that we are doomed.

you should never judge, whether you feel you've "walked a mile" in their shoes or not

Freedom and free speech requires responsibility/accountability and a moral foundation.....these don't exist broadly in our society anymore.

Great interview with Greg here as he handles questions from ChatGPT well

The issue I see is that we're trying to limit the dross, rather than educating people to recognize and subsequently discard it. It doesn't matter one bit if a professor or politician asserts that women are less capable or intelligent, etc. Because I know how to fact-check, recognize rhetorical tactics, and call out opinion with evidence. The real solution is to universally arm people with critical thinking skills. Also, a return to journalistic standards for "news." When I was in broadcasting, anything beyond the facts would be struck by your editor. I had pieces sent back to me because I had chosen words that were "evocative." We had to allow time for stories, and be 360 about what happened. Anything with opinions or emotions was consigned to a specific print space or the end of the broadcast, and was CLEARLY marked "Editorial." I cannot find a single network, station, channel or anchor who offers that kind of reporting today.

Are there correlations with classism, organized ideologies or superiority/elitist thinking & assumed justifiable freedoms of speech?

News websites lost even more readers by eliminating comments. In the late 2000s, I ran a newspaper website. At the time, having comment sections below news stories and opinion was standard. It was my job, however, to police the comments and keep them relatively “civil.” Those whose comments were removed complained that we were trampling on their free speech rights. My answer was, if you want unfettered ability to comment then you can start your own website because a news organization is a private business and has no obligation to provide freedom of speech to its readers. Unfortunately, news organizations were stuck between a rock and a hard place as commenting became more popular. Not only did it require more people to supervise, we also had to give that unsatisfactory answer that free speech rights belonged to the paper but not the reader. Today, it’s almost impossible to find a news organization that has a commenting platform. By getting rid of the community’s ability to virtually gather to debate the local issues of the day, out of expediency, they got rid of one of their most popular features. Now, local news organizations are dying or dead.

The easiest way to learn if a country is becoming a dictatorship, is asking their citizens if they stablished forbidden words. That's the first sign that totalitarianism is taking over.

Free speech gives us the power not to misconstrue existing narratives, rather give our own proper takes on them.

Everything is free speech

Intifada should have been protected bc it attempted to show solidarity with anti-colonalists movments. That's err not as good as free speach, but still a resonable argument.

You can say whatever you want, but you're not entitled to people agreeing with you or being immune to any backlash, especially if it's contrafactual bs, racism, etc.

I remember free speech and anti war used to be left wing pillars. Crazy how political parties seem to flip every so often.

All speech is free

Any hard-heads that don't want to hear what they don't want to hear don't realize that growing up (becoming mature) includes the ability to not be so damn sensitive and triggered by verbal sound. Not being able to control one's own meaning making machine makes one's life self-inflicted misery. Use your 'free will' to set yourself psychologically free (unless you 'enjoy' being miserable). Good luck.

I really appreciate rhe points made on the lomitations of frwe apeach. It helps me put some perspective around my issues with hate speech. And the potential violence it might lead to.

In Sweden, things are not banned just because they're offensive. It's mostly things like hate speech against a group of people like based on ethnicity or religion.

Kinley 23:23

Perhaps we shouldn't try to get rid of cancel mobs - their foolishness provides alot of entertainment.

Wow! Excellent interview! Somebody send it to Elon Musk!

Seeing some supportive posts in this but also a lot of other people who seem to not understand why freedom of speech is so important, if you have it. They are more than happy to see people they don't like stripped of it but fail to consider - what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? Would they be okay with having their speech quashed? To be forced into silence? Of course not. So why then would you choose to do that to others? Worse yet, why would you trust a *Government* with the power to determine whose voice is allowed to be heard? For pities sake there are countless works of fiction and philosophy who speak to that very danger! I don't like what a lot of people have to say. I will still fight to my death to protect their right to say it on the provision that their opinions are declared as such and that their statements are *true*. Not subjectively true but 2 + 2 = 4 type of true. A person should be allowed to be an ass, though as free individuals you need not invite them to social gatherings. But to forbid a persons opinion just because you don't like them? Foolishness. To strip away their right to a livelihood? Monstrous or evil if you would prefer. For the record when I say statement, I mean a concrete phrase that is not opinion but scientific or real world instance true. Like the UK bombing Berlin during world war 2. Opinions don't have to be true because they are based on a persons own lived and very heavily biased experiences. Cavate being that opinions would require the structure of "In my opinion...", "It is my opinion..." or "... in my opinion." Some clear indication that it is an opinion, not tied to factual reality. Again, I reiterate. I don't like the climate denialists views. But in my mind they have a right to them. I don't like the opinions that demonize homosexuals and other non-standard orientations. But people are still welcome to their opinions. At the same time, I don't like the opinions expressed by more than a few who comprise the non-standard orientations who demonize heteros because past history has not been kind to non-standards. As with all things, two wrongs do not make a right. Tit for tat only encourages the gap between humans to widen and for civil society to deteriorate. I'm not special. Surely most people can see what is at risk if humanity continues down this course? Any way. I'm done. Later folks.

I have no problem with people shouting down the speech of those who work to destroy the democratic freedoms that they use to spread their message. We had a war about this. We do not have to tolerate the destruction of tolerance.

I don't know why but I feel like his hands are talking about an all other subject

My issue is who decides what is “hate speech”? Seems like something nebulous and vague is ripe for abuse.

A very good interview. For me, the US freedom of speech exception really boils down to are you knowingly lying? All of the preemptive stuff is going to come down to a judge's decision as to what is inciting such that what happened is the responsibility of the speaker versus the people doing actual/physical harm/wrong. We've had prior-restraint decisions that prevent censoring speech based on what _might_ happen. But, to knowning lie...that has consistently been held as non-protected (e.g. perjury). The oft poorly used example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre refers to someone that does not see fire yet yells it to clear the theatre and harm the business, if not the people inside. Fire alarms are perfectly legal and required in theatres and their jobs is to "scream fire" in theatres (and other people spaces) if they "think" there is a fire. A bad trend of today, that is equivalent...is to "SWATTING."

11:30 The Communists/Socialists/Marxists. That's what happened.

Freedom of speech So where it would not cause harm. It means you can't convince someone to go and kill someone by voice. In so far as making the listener think you are they're voice of reason. Trying to make someone believe they should do something to harm our cause harm to themselves or others.

Legalize Dueling, imo. I may not agree with what a person does but if they are willing to have skin in the game; I at least believe they believe what they say.

Here is your free engagement comment: Please stop changing the thumbnail picture, so that people can recognize in their feed which videos have already been watched.

Thank you for your work FIRE but you've been slacking off lately. Get back to it!

Brown shirt tactics

"incitement to imminent lawless action is not protected"... somebody tag Trump on this video. Also, Tesla, somebody show this to Tesla.

What “FIRE” does? Lol. If this company was founded in 1999 then they are a giant failure. I hope he’s not getting paid…

Uh. Wanted to express something of truth here. Not absolute truth, just my truth. There's so many people trying to sow fear, some others relentlessly pursue a mockery stance to diminish any opposing point of view. This... Leads to fear once again. Fear gets us into fight or flight mode. Nothing of profit there, just loss or loss situation. Then we don't see history, we don't reach into the unseen. People are afraid to admit what they believe in. What I wish? For people to admit their beliefs without any fear. Are you pro Biden? Pro Trump? Pro Hillary? Democrat? Liberal? Dixie? Republican? Go for it man, say it proudly, wear a hat, place rainbow thingies on your duster, I don't care man, my opinion on your belief doesn't matter, however your freedom to express it does. Whatever you are into, man. Whatever really, doesn't matter how weird it may sound. I'll bring a example. My friend is one and I am two. One, my friend is a complete Ron DeSantis apprentice. A devout scholar of him. And two, I hate Jehovah witnesses. Accidentally we started sharing these thoughts and immediately we found relief on our beliefs. All he wanted was to give Ronald some props, and all I wanted was to throw some Watchtower magazines in the trash. We found mutual ground and we laughed. Life is about that. Expressing ourselves. It's nothing like oh, he's a Republican and he's a villain, a douche and bla bla bla, no, he is a harmless Uber driver with less than a hundred followers, married and with a goofy ass poodle dog. But he thinks DeSantis is his super hero, and that's ok man. I also work a 9 to 5, here I am paying my taxes and would never hurt a fly, but in my most distant from reality dreams I wish I could light a flamethrower on a door knocking Jehovah witness that claims that I should not pray to Jesus, neither Odin, neither whoever the brick because there is only Jehovah. I would never do it! But yeah... Freedom of Speech, a thing and a thought we must think with recurrence in order to make it work, in order to keep it. Freedom of Speech.

will show the world what free speech is.

He talks about constructive "messiness" (a.k.a. debate and/or consensus-building, actual critical thinking and strong argumentation) but doesn't talk about doing anything to help ensure the "messiness" is constructive. But reducing it to "messiness" conveniently lumps together the good and the bad to make people just accept the whole thing without digging into details.

10:07, eminent domain scholars only 4stat(e

It’s not that I disagree with his stance on free speech or the data he used to back up his assessment, but it feels like this topic is often used as a Trojan horse for hate and the forfeiture of other constitutionally protected rights. I fear that the hyper focus on this topic by default aligns you with potentially bad actors which compels you to make nuance. Ore to your argument. There is still not enough in his free speech positions imo. Lastly, I’m only halfway through, but the 1st amendment is intended to protect us from government infringement on rights to free speech and I’ve heard no discussion of this fact so far. Not advocating for censorship but this needs to be considered if you are going to make a constitutional argument.

So I can say whatever I want ?

People not wanting to hear your shit, or don't think you're funny, that is not an infringement on freedom of speech. If someone offends someone with their speech that person can tell the other to fuck off, in fact a group can tell the person to fuck off, and on both sides that's freedom of speech.

Twitter people should see this

I didn't think FIRE's survey was valid. They asked students whether they thought they were free to speak and free from oppression, rather than measuring actual incidents of suppression. I've gone to meetings of Jewish organizations, like the Zionist Organization of America, where speakers told their audience that the media was biased against Israel, that academia was biased against them, that they had to be afraid to speak out in classrooms, etc. Then when somebody asks them in a survey question, "Are you ever afraid to speak out in class because you're Jewish," they would tend to answer yes. Surveys are subject to that bias. If the health care insurance industry launches a nationwide ad campaign saying, "Government health care will take away your freedom of choice," and then you run a survey asking, "Do you think government health care will take away your freedom of choice," people will tend to answer yes. That's not because they believe that. I think they see the survey as a test, and they think yes is the right answer -- "That's what I keep hearing on TV".

Here a good example: A MusIim had the right to go off anytime of the day for floor kissing activities just like toilet breaks but you can't go off for video gaming activities.

I was hoping this wasn't just a verbose version of the tired ass "you can't say anything anymore" argument. That's what I get for hoping 🤦🏾‍♂️.

The bottom line is Those Who Want To Express Fanatical Religious Racism, And Hatred Don't Want Consequences For Their FREE SPEECH. *You have free speech, but not freedom of speech on all platforms.* Free Speech doesn't absolve you of wrong doing!

Love the talk. You should have Dennis Prager on because everything that is being said today he was saying 20 years ago that it’s coming. The horse is long out of the barn… Talk to people who see the gate being unlocked before it happens.

There is zero chance the interviewer believes in or even conceptually understands Free Speech.

Young guys want over simplification. They want a brief summary of a work, the have an dismissive attitude so that they can trash much of the past as being irrelevant or improper.. What is the charecter of this youth intelligentsia or loud voice? It is to secure maximum attention, deny space to any not confirming. Their confirmity is most times is an external image, they are invested in image wars to the hilt, a way of speech or jargon that is used to cut off the lesser identities, a private dictionary designed for this elusive crowd. Their being elusive is far more important than they being accessible😅😅. Now these high energy 'cut off' clubs have no universal agenda ever. They may sometimes on one rare occasion discuss another high energy cut off club to confirm a parity, to impress upon their intelligibility of the markers that define a ultra sophisticate, high on visibility, high on cut off Cults. Our vocal champions now no more have universality and accessibility as imperative criteria, they are representative of cults that are meant to have a short life span, once not representing the youth of a time they are referred to as retired cult personality 😅😅.

Holy smokes, all credibility was lost when he called the enforcement of the Sedition Act “a grave sin against the First Amendment” without context. A traitorous sect that wanted to maintain slavery within our country with war lost their protections to any amendment. Tbf, I understand education is not well appreciated in this country (US), but if you lack basic historical facts in your arguments, you’re not being “canceled” or “censored.” You’re displaying Dunning-Krueger traits and experiencing cognitive biases once challenged, and it leads to platforming persons like Greg, which further perpetuates ignorance.