A brief counter-argument to a counter-argument. Hate Speech Argument: • Hate Speech Tweet: / counterarguing Post: / counterarguments Buy: teespring.com/... Donate: www.paypal.me/... Email: countertheargument@gmail.com
This is good. You actually read the comments and address them, and challenge us again to counter your argument, now that you made clear what you meant. Fantastic attitude. Keep up the great work.
+Last Man Standing While Discord would be a nice idea, maybe Reddit is more known and therefore more accessible for people. It would actually be a good idea to have some platform for this channel to discuss, something more than the RU-vid comments, that is.
The way I see it free speech is a needed absolute, without all ideas being expressed we can never learn how to analyse and properly dissect / debunk them. I mean it makes more sense to let the westboro baptist church for example show their hatred for gays and let them de-legitimise themselves in the public eye then to stop them speaking and give any onlooker the idea that "hey they could of had an actual argument here"
I think the last example he gave in this video is incorrect. The website used the phrase: unnecessarily-devisive, counterproductive and even hateful. To me it sounds like they're describing what happens when arguement get unnecessarily aggressive and name calling (Hateful even). So veiwing it that way the company is totally correct for believing in Free speech, just that their "mission" as they put it is to promote healthy and productive discourse/environment. This is like, the most basic rule and understanding of debate. But he still views the companies decisions as contradicting when they actually arent.
I think freedom of speech should legally be imposed on college campuses that take money from the federal government and thus should be legally required to uphold the first amendment. If it is a 100% privately owned business they can do what they want, but if even 1%, or even less, comes from the government, they shouldn't be able to censor speech in any way.
Fellicious From my understanding that is the general ruling.. once you take money from the government you aren't just a private company anymore because the government in essence endorsed you.
UnbaptizedHeathen It depends on where you live. In Colorado there is a right to work law saying you can be fired for any reason, as long as it isn't because you are a member of a legally protected demographic. But even then it can be very difficult to prove you were fired for that reason. But as a bonus, you are also able to quit your job for any reason even without giving notice. I tend to think that law is justified. You can go to antifa events or kkk rallies all you want, and I think your boss should be able to fire you for it. If I owned a business and found out an employee was a kkk member, I wouldn't want to be legally forced to maintain their employment against my will.
No that is a terrible idea. Certain organizations, such as the school and military need to restrict your rights because they wouldn't work well at all if they didn't. In school, multiple rights such as the freedom of speech and freedom of movement (in high school and under) are restricted because if they were not then the learning environment would be terrible. If you don't restrict free speech, than any student can just talk in class loudly and no one else can concentrate. And obviously you can't have students just moving around and playing sports in front of their classmates during class.
To sum up, ideas aren't a protected demographic. The employer-employee relationship should be consensual, and one party shouldn't be legally forced against their will to maintain that relationship.
UnbaptizedHeathen Yes they should be able to do that. What kind of question is that. If you work for a company like that, you obviously dont care about job security.
The government is not the only entity that can infringe upon a person's right to free speech. Private citizens and organizations can also infringe upon an individual's right to free speech through threats of violence, actual violence, blackmail, kidnapping, destruction of property, etc. I don't see any way to discuss free speech other than in it's legal context. In a moral sense, it may not be polite to say certain things, but that all depends on who you are, who you're with, who's around you, and where you are when you say those things. We can all use our freedom to assemble, a right which is also protected by the 1st Amendment, to choose who we associate with, and where we go. If you don't like what someone has to say, you have every right to voice your criticism, or not associate with that person at all, you do not have the right to be violent towards them, nor do you have the right to prevent others from hearing what they have to say. What is so hard about this?
Yes this may be true but in the argument it wasn't saying disliking those you agree with is wrong but stopping someone from speaking using your power in life while also being a firm believer in free speech is contradictory.
Wait! Who are you calling stupid? It can't be Counter Arguments you're calling stupid? If so could you give us hard facts that he is stupid? If you can't then it's just you're opinion which is still factually wrong.
I don't exactly remember who said it, but the quote goes somewhat like this "it is vital, that we, as philosophers, have the ability to raise a question of whether or not it is feasible to eat children. It is our job to get to the bottom of it, and settle once and for all the answer to that question as well as the detailed breakdown to why we came up to that answer, because it's only a matter of time until someone misinformed or maliscios concocts an argument - not a good argument, but an argument good enough to convince a commoner - as to why it is absolutely necessary to eat children. I think it was Sam Harris, but i'm not sure.
+talky Mctalface Well the ability to yell fire in a theater (incite panic) and threaten someone are actually forms of censorship. If I don't like what you're saying I can censor your speech by inciting panic or threatening you. Since threats and inciting panic limit the expression of opinions instead of allowing them, threats and inciting panic are not free speech. An act or speech that is deliberately to censor someone is mutually exclusive with free speech. It's not "his version" of free speech, banning threats and inciting panic actually upholds free speech by protecting people from censorship.
"and so is racism, sexism, and so on" Racism and sexism are still opinions and someone expressing their own opinion doesn't stop other people from expressing theirs. "The right words might harm you more than any physical damage ever could." Hyperbolic bullshit. Is there a string of words that can harm me more than a nuclear explosion? No. Well then your statement is total bullshit. Show me a some words that can rip me apart at a molecular level and maybe I'll believe you.
"I mean in their current form they're just terms that describe hatred and discrimination and you rarely find someone who actually has at least an argument behind those "opinions". So no they are closer to infringing other peoples rights than they are to an opinion." Why is opinions in quotes and how are they infringing on other peoples rights? It doesn't matter if they have an argument or not, they're still entitled to their opinion, not "you're entitled to your opinion only if you have a good argument. Harrasment, slander and whatnot are forms of censorship, not forms of speech. Censorship is not speech.
Talky McTalkface Talky McTalkface Being racist is still an opinion. Just because the opinion isn't productive or you don't like, doesn't stop it from being an opinion. If someone says something wrong like "my race is superior to yours" that doesn't automatically make it on the brink of being illegal.
If racism isn't consistent on facts or solid arguments then it's not a threat to the market place of ideas. The market place of ideas are then a threat to the idea of racism because only the best ideas succeed in the market place of ideas.
Being cool with the concept of free speech doesnt mean you have to accommodate anything anyone says regardless of how offensive or reductive it is. Dawkins said (or endorsed) what he wanted and the science org responded accordingly. Part of the philosophical approach to free speech also involves people's freedom to respond to speech they dont like in a manner that they choose while also not hindering someone's ability to express that view.
Super late reply, but I think this is the main point that was missed. I agree with everything he had to say in the 2 videos, but I think the Dawkins example specifically was poor because he wasn't being censored; the organization simply disassociated themselves with him which is their right and doesn't contradict the philosophical idea of free speech (regardless of their wonky/contradictory statement). The other 2 examples still seemed to fit given that the people were either being harassed into silence or legitimately censored. Either way, valid point to mention I'd say.
What was the bar made of, and where on his body did it make contact? Also what was the orientation of the bar to the point of impact, could he have impaled himself?
The bar was vertical, like a pole, or horizontal with the ends pointing perpendicular to the direction he's facing. That information is still being investigated. It hit him in the face, we know that, and luckily he was not impaled.
It may not be a Law, but the Article 19 of the *Universal Declaration of Human Rights* says: - "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Article 30 says: - "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, *group or person* any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." So even if it's not the government but any group or person, limiting the expression of somebody's expression is an infringement on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Talky McTalkface Those that advocates for absolute freedom are anarchist. There are very few anarchist states in the world and ones that exist aren't very pleasant e.g. Somalia
Yes, the protection of free speech against individuals and groups is no different than the protection against the state. The state can prohibit you from yelling fire in a crowded space just as a private organization can (even in the US with 1st amendment). Anywhere the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is adopted, the state can't prohibit you from expressing your political opinion just as a private organization can't. I'm merely responding to the argument that "the first amendment only protects you against the state". Yes, but that's a poor argument against free speech. 1) The USA is not the world. 2) Even for the USA, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted and tells anybody else to respect free speech just as the state.
@@vryafoat777 I'm pretty sure Somalia is a Federal Parliamentary Republic. Or, uhh, is supposed to be, at least. It's a failed state - it's not institutionally anarchist. The only period in history where anarchism seemed close to being implemented was the CNT-FAI side of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. Had they won (which was a slim possibility, since, even had the Republicans been victorious, the pro-Stalinist communists would have eradicated the anarchists anyways), we don't know how successful they would have been. We have no examples of a truly anarchist society.
the way you deconstruct arguments to really break down what is actually happening should be taught in schools. This is one of the most underrated channels ever, I am learning so much from you thank you C.A.
Corporations (google/youtube) want to have their cake and it eat it too. If they just said, "we are under no obligations to ensure your freedom of speech on our platforms," there wouldnt be an issue. But to pay lip service to free speech, while restricting speech found disagreeable to management, causes this confusion.
Kowone Nevith Except that they can’t, because of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights saying that no state or person may infringe on any Human Rights.
(for this argument I'm going to assume all parties are in a public space.) I support free speech. I dislike hate speech but I think you should be allowed to say it. I equally have the right to tell you that I don't like it and that you shouldn't say (i.e. think) such things but I cannot stop you unless you choose to. It's not censorship for me to tell you to stop doing something because I disagree with it. Same goes for if it's ten or a hundred people saying that they disagree with what your saying. Same goes for if I stop associating with you for said beliefs. It is not opposing free speech for me to state and believe the opinion that certain things should not be said because I disagree with the intent and ideas behind that speech. But the right should exist to say them.
That makes no sense. I think we can agree that hate speech is the oral equivalent of racism and discrimination by definition: "speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability." So by saying "I dislike hate speech but I think you should be allowed to say it", you are basically saying "I dislike racism and discrimination, but I think you should be allowed to practice it".
Tastypie words aren't actions. Being a racist isn't illegal, though it is morally repugnant and will risk you running up against anti discrimination laws if you attempt to enforce those beliefs, but the beliefs, and the expression of them is legal, and essential in both combating the belief, but preventing it's underground spread.
+Devin Anderson This only works if racism and discrimination are seen as morally repugnant by society. If they aren't, expression of racism and discrimination, even if it's "just words", will lead to more cultural appreciation of racism and discrimination (as can be seen right now). You also make it sound as if words are not as bad as actions, but words can in fact be more damaging than actions, because ideas are conceived and spread via the word at first. Racism and discrimination must be suffocated immediately after arising, otherwise it will grow until you can't handle it anymore. Do you reall think that more and more people will openly express their racism but at the same time, this will never lead to an increase in physical violence?
I think we should start saying things like "I support the free exchange of ideas." Because I support more than just speech being legal. I want ideas discussed and explored openly.
Say whatever you want, outside of threats and things you have legally agreed not to say, in a public place, unincluding privately owned places and governmental organizations, and you should be fine, but others are allowed to react however they please in response as long as their actions are within the law.
I like your comment responses, i betcha you studied LD debate in HS or college. Your analytical analyses of ideas is so aesthetic to my brain. I do really disagree with some of your ideas, but you actually bring an argument down to the claim, the principle, examples, analogies and a thesis, all while separating claim,, thesis and principle, from stories or examples. So when you make a statement, it's based on principle, not on an example. This means that when i disagree with you, i know why, and i have more of an understanding of why people agree with you. You are very clear and direct and its so refreshing, so many people who tackle political ideas on youtube fly off the handle and base their claim on examples, or opinions from the ether. So many logical fallacies go unnoticed because of this, I will continue to support your channel, recommend it to others, and send occasional videos to my grandfather so he thinks that i'm really smart. Please continue this channel
Counter Arguments Greetings and salutations. I'm subbed to you on my personal channel, and I wanted to say thank you for making logical, emotion-free arguments about various topical issues. Sometimes it's hard to cut through the bullshit, and you do that in a way that's both entertaining and informative. Edit: I almost forgot, happy International Men's Day!
The argument or counterargument that was given to you _is_ a good one because it points out an issue with the way you made your point. If all of your examples are bad examples, then it's hard to call your argument strong. 1) A private entity has more to worry about than the rights of people. Though they are endorsing free speech, inviting someone whose opinions fall under their idea of hate speech can be seen as an endorsement of those opinions, or at least a lack of condemning of them (which, contrary to many people's beliefs, is not the same, but can have the same effect on a private entity). In a similar way, disinviting them can have other negative effects, and the entity must weigh the pros and cons of each. 2) It's unclear who you think has the right to free speech here, the speakers or the audience member. Of course, they are both allowed to speak, but it is generally considered rude and disruptive to have screaming outbursts during someone else's assembly, and they are of course allowed to kick you out for it. Similarly, the University would have the right and the power to stop such an assembly if they believed it to be truly hateful. They, however, would probably receive more backlash for that than the entity in example 1 for many reason (which I won't cover). 3) This example really has two sides to it. The first is the action that Twitter took, which is completely reasonable. Twitter is essentially a forum, and like any forum, there are moderators who make sure that the things that go on are appropriate for said forum. Twitter wants to be a forum where it's members feel like they will be protected from things which many classify as unnecessarily aggressive, negative, or hateful. Where they draw the line isn't always consistent, and it could be argued to be in the wrong place, but it is necessary for them to do so in order to accomplish their goal as a forum. There are plenty of forums where this is allowed (4chan for example), so it's not like people don't have an outlet for it. The other side is what the woman states, which is that free speech and hate speech are two different things. I don't think there's a correct way to interpret this, because it's not a sensical statement. My personal interpretation is that free speech doesn't protect you against the consequences of hate speech, so when you are punished for hate speech but retaliate by saying that the punishment violates your right to free speech, you're making an invalid argument.
i cant believe that so many people missed that context considering that it was fleshed out so well... at least it reminds me to not have such high hopes for peoples logic and critical thinking.
The reason people run to the legal basis is because it's the only argument with a definite endpoint of someone being right/wrong. The actual argument it frankly stupid beyond belief and boils down to "I don't like this!" with no real logical pathway being followed. People pick and choose examples and play favorites to no end and it's clear that the argument's pointless.
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is something I often hear in regard to hatespeech and it's really a terrible notion. You could apply that logic to North Korea rather neatly; the North Koreans have robust free speech! It's just, ya know, that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for criticizing the dear leader!
Considering that I'm watching this video a day after criticizing Muhammad is illegal in Europe, I'm very sad that we're losing ground both philosophically and legally on this matter. Godspeed good man.
I see no problem with someone saying "I believe in free speech but not in hate speech". I understand the fact that the first encompasses the second, but that doesn't mean it's a contradiction. It's the same as when someone says "I really like pizza, but not when it has pinneaples on it". They're just excluding a part of the whole that they don't like/agree with. Could it be better phrased? Yes. But that doesn't make it contradictory to the first statement. Despite this minor dissagreement I really enjoy your videos and I think that your promotion of counter-arguments in the comments is fantastic. Keep up the good work!
Just outta curiosity, I'd liek to one day see one of your personal viewpoints on these issues outside of simply stating the facts i.e. how one argument is just inconsistently structured. Too many times, in an extremist climate, people assume if you counter a viewpoint you embody, in its entirety, its logical opposite. That's of course usually not the case. For that reason I'm interested to see the subjective viewpoint you have towards this issue, even if your reasoning isn't swamped in logic and is more "I don't like people being dicks to each other" or "I just really feel if someone wants to speak like a fool that's all on them" or something along those lines.
JenoPaciano Yes. Your "job" is really an employment contract and you signed that contract at the beginning of your employment. If you agreed that speech could affect your job, and that speech isn't otherwise protected by law, then that's just that - you choose to enter that contract and gain employment.
You don't have freedom from consequences given the consequences are within reason. That is not mutually exclusive with free speech. I.e. If you're a kidnegarden teacher that thinks the age of consent should be 5, you can still be free to express that opinion but your employer is still free to fire you.
vryafoat777 that isn't my point. If all employers start firing any employee who expresses a particular set of opinions, then it doesn't matter whether those opinions result in legal penalties or not. People should be free to express their opinions outside of work without fear of losing their jobs. I can vote with my labor, and I wish more people were willing to do the same. Don't work for a company that tries to control you.
People need to remember that allowing free speech doesn't render the fact that you can openly criticise their arguments, or better yet, ignore what they're saying altogether. Or otherwise try to argue with them and change their perspective so that they might see the problem from your angle. Shutting them down altogether is counterproductive and stupid, and it won't help us at all.
You have a good voice for this channel. If somebody like Gilbert Gottfreid did the voice over for your channel, it would most likely have a drastically different affect on my ability to listen to it regularly.
I was one of the people who commented on the primary video, focusing a counterargument on the legality of what the organizations in the examples were doing. I acknowledge that doing so was not a well-targeted counterargument in the context of that video alone. Rather, it was probably subconsciously targeting the faction of people who do seem to be making the argument that these actions by these people are true infringement in a legal context. It was cross arguing: countering a point which someone else was centered on, but you were only touching on as a vehicle. That said, I do think there is a legitimate counterargument to be made against your argument that the actions of the NECSS were *philosophically inconsistent*, because they claim to strongly believe in free speech yet are censoring it. Here's that argument: people can have more than one value, and those values can often be at odds with each other. A parent, for example, can want (A) their kids to be safe, and (B) their kids to be happy. It would be totally ordinary for a parent to encounter a situation where they have to keep their kids safe even if it pisses them off, or let them take a risk because it makes them happy. Either any choice in such circumstances is philosophically inconsistent, or it's philosophically acceptable to value multiple things and choose to let one (or many) outweigh the other (or several others) in a particular context. I want you to be happy > but you can't go to that party/ is an "inconsistent" position. I want you to be happy > but I also want you to be safe > so you can't go to the party/ doesn't deserve that label. We value protected free speech > but we're keeping somebody who makes particular speech out of our event on the grounds that it's hateful, and not deserving of protection/ is an "inconsistent" position. We value protected free speech > but we want to use this big investment of time and money to draw attention to science and skepticism, not become a grounds for a massive political mudslinging contest > so we're keeping somebody who makes *unnecessarily divisive*, *counterproductive*, and even hateful speech out of our event/ is not so inconsistent, in my eyes. It's reasonable people making a calculated decision about the circumstances at hand, using their several values and interests. To engage in some further cross-arguing here, if a university perceives that a particular speaker can be reasonably expected to indirectly cause the campus to become unsafe, even if they don't themselves engage in violence or directly incite violence, it can be a reasonable decision to value the security of the people on the campus over the rigorous exchange of ideas universities should be trying to facilitate. That choice is being based on the values of the university, it's not a betrayal of those values. If, on the other hand, a university values an unchallenged mind, well, that's a pretty stupid thing to value.
You state that one couldn't have freedom of speech without allowing hate speech by pointing out that these concepts contradict each other, but ignore the fact that the people talking about the concepts are completely aware of this and therefore stated hate speech as the exception of freedom of speech that should not be tolerated. In other words: The sentence "You can eat everything, except for X" is not actually inconsistent. Or do you not know what you can eat after it is said?
I feel like either you or me misunderstood the purpose of the word "however" in the used phrase, because I understand it as though they are agnologing that hate speach is an element of free speech, but they don't want that particular part about it. Example: there's A and B is part of it. Now, how do I say that I like every part of A expect B without defining a new group C? For my probably really lacking underestanding of english, however seems like a good fit to exclude B. How would you say it?
I completely agreed with your main/final argument in which defining hate speech in and of itself leads to circular reasoning (based solely on the opinion of the person deciding what counts as hate speech). But I do have to note that your premise in which you compare the separation of free speech and hate speech to a statement such as "I believe in X, but not X" and therefore consider it contradictory (using the venn-diagram style image) is flawed. The example you gave is the statement "you can eat any food you like. However, you cannot eat junk food". The statement is not saying two separate unconnected and conflicting points, but instead the second point is a simply a restriction on the first, and is therefore equivalent to "You can eat any food other than junk food" or "You can eat any food that is not junk food". As such, the statement is simply creating a third group (after 'food' and 'junk food'), which is 'food you can eat' (In the venn-diagram style you present, this would be a third circle which is the 'Eating food' but with a hole cut out by the 'junk food' circle) Resulting in no contradiction or conflict in logic. And I believe *that* is what these people and organizations are trying to say: the definition of the free speech that they believe in is one which does not include hate speech (What they fail to say is that this is a different definition of free speech from the current legal one). But that is why the real counter to anti-'hate-speech' is simply by pointing out that the definition for hate speech will always be vague and based on circular logic, and therefore cannot be properly defined anyways.
I'm not convinced that the NECSS statement is internally inconsistent. I take them to be saying, we believe in free speech up to a point, with specified exceptions. One could say, "I believe in using every letter of the alphabet, except 'g'" without contradicting oneself.
So its legal for a business to fire an employee who has a certain political view? if say john was a member of x party which believes in some controversial subject, and then proceeds to make a tweet about his views, which then get a lot of backlash, would it be legal to fire said person? if hate speech is free speech, but not free in private business, wouldn't that be a door to employment bias? is it even legal to deny service to someone bcause of their political stance?
The right of association means businesses can fire/hire whoever they want to on any basis. Certainly we have the right to criticize them on poor judgement or not buy their products, but they have the right to do so as private individuals. I am not discussing the legal perspective, however, as legal perspectives are always so twisted and convoluted, devoid of any objective reasoning. It may well be illegal, but that does not make it immoral or wrong.
The fact people had a problem with your video just says a lot about how screwed we are as a civilization. You blatantly called out the hypocrisy in saying hate speech is not free speech, and people still tried to fight against it. Logic and reason is not a strong suit for anyone even remotely left leaning apparently.
The problem isn't calling out the hypocrisy in saying hate speech is not free speech. I agree with him on that. The problem is claiming if one believes in free speech, they must allow everyone to speak on their private property. Are you willing to open up your private property to everyone who has something to say?
John Stephenson Listen, I hate lefties as much as you however, the people who is responding to are only inquiring about the examples he used in the video, not the premise or conclusion of the video itself.
People like free speech. People don't like hate speech. When you say they are one in the same, people get offended. I don't believe that is entirely ridiculous for someone to have an emotional reaction to that. When peoples ideologies are challenged it's difficult and they'll fight it. It's completely natural and happens on both left and right. Logic and reason would tell you that
I was against the argument about not being able to be for one but not the other, especially if I take the constitution into account as hate speech is, arguably obscene, given your interpretation (mine being incititing violence or prejudice towards a single person or group of people through prejudice speech...) However by banning even hate speech as I define it at least, can fuel the flames of hatred and make the (thankfully usually minority) of hate fueled people feel like they are the ones being opressed, making them defensive and more offensive. So what I'm saying is that, to make a counter argument against predudiced people you first have to let them speak (as distasteful as that may be)
For those who don't understand, the law doesn't allow censorship on grounds of "hate" but on danger. Plus hate speech can be anything if someone finds your view hateful so no one has the upper hand on basis of "hate" in the general sense. Reasons have to be rooted on something more objective; in the sense of the meaning.
This video kinda illustrates how terrible verbal communication is currently. Ideas that are very simple are way too hard to convey. I honestly hope we keep coming up with new words that catch on, even if they are stupid.
I think where the supporting free speech as a concept vs a law gets interesting is with social media and the internet in general. The internet has gotten so big and important that if you're ideas were somehow banned from it; they might as well not exist at all. So I think the more interesting question is if web hosts and major social media sites should have a legal duty to uphold freedom of speech. Because while I think platforms, such as conferences (that are trying to push specific ideas) have to (by their very nature) not endorse countering ideas. But something like Facebook or Twitter or web hosts like GoDaddy? They aren't about anything. And I wouldn't be against the idea of passing a law that allows its users to sue companies like them that censor anything that would normally be covered by the first amendment.
The problem here is that different nations say that hate speech isn't free speech, nor does a lot of nations actually have this. So basically when you reference free speech that is a very American value so in the context of where people are from people have different views on it. Plus free speech does not have a definition so we must look towards the legal ones since the dictionary's don't have one sense why legal context becomes tangled in this debate.
Here's a question; is it okay for businesses to refuse to do business with someone because of their opinions? Most people agree that they have to serve people of all races and LGBT people, with the argument that removing their ability to buy food and other basic goods would put them in a state of poverty and foraging. But that argument holds true to people being refused service for any reason. For some reason, a lot of people would readily accept Walmart refusing to sell food to KKK or Antifa members, but not blacks or gay people. How would you justify the difference? What about employment rather than just services?
Legally, sexual orientation and race are protected classes. Opinions and political affiliations are not. It is unfair to discriminate against people for attributes they have no control over and do not harm anyone, like their race or sexual orientation. You can choose whether or not you wish to state your opinion. You can choose your political affiliation.
Do you see anything wrong with having a situation in which you can't openly state your opinion in society without being treated like a black person in the Jim Crow era? And as to being unable to change your attributes causing it to be unfair to discriminate based on sex or race, opinions can't really be chosen either, at least without serious brainwashing. Expression of them can, but forcing someone to keep their feelings and what they believe their best interests or the best interests of the people around them to be secret or face poverty and hunger doesn't seem very fair either, if we go with the precedent of laws protecting race, gender, and orientation
Perhaps Jim Crow might not have been a perfect fit, but keep in mind the results of not being able to buy services or food leads to much the similar outcome. Being ostracized to the point of being unable to function as a normal citizen is the exact reason most people had when making it illegal to refuse services to gays, blacks, ect. You didn't answer that, and I don't know why you would be replying to that question if you didn't believe in the premise I was talking towards. You actually didn't answer a lot of things. Why did you not answer my other points, and instead made up a personal thought on insults?
My favorite part of the video was that the word hat was constantly on screen. Yes, I know it's the hate speech thumbnail being partially cut off by the monitor but my eyes wandered and it led to a chuckle.
There is nothing logically inconsistent with saying "I believe you should have the right to say what you said, but because you said what you said you're not invited to our event anymore" Which is essentially what all of these events boiled down to. Disinviting someone from an event isn't infringing upon their rights. You're being intentionally obtuse and trying to conflate "freedom of speech" and "freedom of consequences for speech", which are radically different things.
One's belief in the 4th Amendment does not make one obligated to never ask a personal question. The key difference is consent. Now if I were to pin someone against a wall and force them to answer the question or proceed to find out the answer for myself, that would be a contradiction.
The problem is also that they say they don't like your view/opinion and that you shouldn't be allowed to have it, but then if you criticise them they say they are allowed to say what they want, because free speech, and say that means you are not allowed to criticise them, but they are allowed to criticise you. It's not just a matter of "hate speech". These people try to use their right to freedom of speech to try to silence other people's freedom of speech. And the "counter argument" about freedom of speech only protects you in a legal context, well okay then, why am I not allowed to demand they not be allowed to have or express their views? And also by that logic, why is anyone allowed to express opinions publicly. That train of thought only makes sense if people were only allowed to express opinions in a legal context, and I shouldn't have to explain how stupid that is.
Isn't the legal system based on philosophical ideas? Matter of fact, the first thing you did when you defined freedom of speech philosophically, is going back to the 1st amendment and see if it limited your definition. By the way, you wrongly stated that the 1st amendment doesn't limit free speech. Revealing classified information is part of free speech in a philosophical way. And are you really not questioning the limitations it puts on obscenity? If you want, you can argue hate speech falls under that category. Philosophically speaking, of course. But back to my first point. I think you can adress it in a legal context, because it is based on philosphical ideas. The thing I read in those arguments is that free speech can sometimes conflict with other freedoms. And if you value those freedoms more than their freedom of speech, it's pretty logical that you'll defend those freedoms.
Free Speech doesn't violate other freedoms, I have no idea what you are talking about. Free Speech does not mean private institutions have to host every guest who rolls along, nor does it mean advocating violence is permissible. No other freedoms are being violated.
The 1st is just a protection of free speech from the government Free speech is a idea, a concept, it can still be violated by others. This is not that complicated. I think asking these people a simple question how does the government violate free speech? Will quickly clear up and refute the dumb argument that free speech is about the government, the first amendment is about the government. Free speech or that act of speaking freely is not.
If speech in the abstract is the ability of an individual to communicate a message in a forum, and is not contingent on the reception of that message, then these broad statements can be parsed in the context of saying "the acceptance within discourse of hate speech is not the same as the agreement or acceptance of free speech within public discourse." Understood in this way, the NCC something's statement becomes "While we support anyone's right to communicate their message, we do not condone speech of this nature and do not want to give a platform with our name on it to communicate messages of this nature." With the Hoff Summers case: what was being said exactly by the student is irrelevant. Hoff Summers was exercising her free speech, and the student was exercising her free speech. To me, it's more akin as a someone complaining to a security guard that there is a dude spouting that "the end is nigh" or something in a public venue. TL/DR: Eating food isn't the same as force-feeding someone. If someone is force feeding me, I'll bite their finger off. In this case, it becomes a matter of subjective degree of force, which is contextual and conditional, and is not contradictory.
In Canada you would be seen as conservative. Since you are American, what party do you align yourself with? (If you align yourself with any party at all?)
He makes videos agaimst both sides. This channel wasnt about politics, it was about teaching correct ways to argue and lines of reasoning. He debunks what are and are not good arguments and then explains why they logically are not sound
Free Speech is an idea that can be applied to any institution, regardless of if it is a government-run one or a privatized business. If you're in a cult and they say you have free speech within that little isolated community- they effectively have allowed free speech without government. If a company like Apple says that all employees have the ability of Free Speech within their company without fear of termination- then that is free speech too. Free speech doesn't just apply to official government. Any group can run by it, and the degrees of punishment that would follow if not guaranteed.
Saying anything against hate speech is hate speech in it's own. So if you ban the hate speech you can't say anything against hate speech because it would be hate speech and so the initial hate speech should be allowed. In effect all hate speech is always allowed no matter if it's banned or allowed officially. Hate speech banning literally doesn't exist in logic.
There is a ton of philosophy involved in extending the ability to breach the first amendment to a person or people who has or have been reasonably construed to be capable of significantly influencing the public. Cults are illegal, in part, because of this very idea. Furthermore, you can hardly consider an argument in the US, for or against free speech, without addressing what free speech is within a representative democracy. If you are representing or misrepresenting other individuals, it matters. Groups of people and corporations, many times would like to think that their views matter more than a census of views directed by elected officials, and here stands a major issue, currently illustrated by the discord in Washington.
Why must it always be all or nothing? Why is there no shades of gray in this? Especially given the only argument I can think of to counter it would be a slippery slope fallacy?
I think when organisations say they belief in free speech but then distance themselves from hate speech, they are really engaged in super self censorship. They probably really do belief in free speech for other people just not themselves or people that they are associated with. when allies or employees say stuff that might effect how people see the organisation, they have to damage control the situation and make it clear the beliefs of one do not reflect the whole and above all else protect the reputation of the brand.
This argument is exhausting. Can someone please tell me what the purpose of this argument? I'd like multiple perspectives, because I find this topic boring and not in the least bit productive. I don't see a clear goal.
Personally, I basically agree with the logic of your argument in the previous video. Overall, it does get really fishy if you try to ban hate speech, and the definition of hate speech does tend to be pretty subjective. However, I have two points to make about your examples. In the first example, with the Islamist/Feminist video, I do see the perspective of the people who disinvited the guy who retweeted the video. Whether or not the points that video makes are true, it kind of did come off as offensive. It seemed really mocking of feminists, maybe to the point of being too harsh. If that organization doesn't want to associate themselves with people that are mocking others, they are free to do exactly that. On the other hand, the universities in the USA seem to have something against right-wing speakers, and they have never really justified that in my view. They don't have to justify themselves, and they are just as free to ban right-wing speakers, but if people don't permit some particular group to speak at their place, they should give a reason that the majority of people will find acceptable. There shouldn't be any legal consequences for whatever choice they make, but of course, there will be social consequences. That's fine with me. This kind of brings me to the second point. I wasn't sure exactly what you were pointing out in your second example. Was it the fact that right-wing speakers are almost never allowed to speak on college campuses, and when they do, students heckle them so they don't really get to speak anyways? Or was it that the demonstrator had every right to shout the speakers down, because hey, "free speech." The problem with this example is that in a situation like that, you can't really have more than one speaker at a time. Since Christina Hoff Summers (I think that was her name) was actually invited to speak, and the person in the audience wasn't invited to speak, I think that the speakers had a right to pull the person in the audience out of the event since the event was advertised as having a particular set of speakers, and the person in the audience was distracting from that. I would be fine if the person in the audience wanted to protest outside the event, but interrupting the invited speakers is rude (continuously interrupting others isn't really socially acceptable and hasn't been for a long time, and while different people see manners differently, most people probably see this as disrespectful), and kicking people out for rude behavior isn't a problem to me. They even gave her more than fair warning. So rules of decorum are also necessary to free speech, because otherwise, I can talk over you, and whenever you try to respond, I can say that you're trying to override my free speech. It is also wise to express your thoughts with care, or else you risk never reaching the ears of the people you are trying to convince.
Re-edit* I realize my comment was missing the entire point of the video and that you already addressed the legal vs. personal ideas, I will just make this comment a positive one saying have a great day and great video as always.
I think that there is one specific little thing that most people don't understand. The Constitution is not the law, it is essentially the rules for the government. They are not rules or laws that the public must abide by, they are essentially regulations put in place on our government by the people so that way we are guaranteed that they do what is said in those rules. The government must respect your free speech, the government must respect your right to bear arms, the government must respect your right to privacy. None of these none of these however are laws that must apply to any private entity, that includes people.
To take up your privacy analogy, your neighbour might think privacy is important, but still want to know why there are screams for help coming from your basement. This would not make them a hypocrite. Similarly, I can believe strongly that freedom to express even controversial views is valuable, but still have good reason to oppose the expression of _some specific views_ because I expect them to cause harm. I would only be hypocritical in this if I claimed that I believed freedom of speech to be _always and invariably the most important thing._ Which NECSS didn't. If you value more than one thing, like any sane person presumably does, you will often have to choose which one to prioritise. Free speech absolutism is intellectually lazy.
While I'm a fan of Dawkins, I think the NECSS could have made a better case by stating that they strongly believe in free speech, and that they were exercising their own right to free speech by disinviting Dawkins. One could easily argue that the act of revoking an invitation to another party is a form of rebuke and therefore is, in itself, an expression of an opinion. IMO, not offering a platform to speak and shutting down somebody's ability to speak, as TrigglyPuff did, are two entirely different things.
It's surprising how such a controversial issue can generate a civil comment section with reasonable arguments (for the most part)… I haven't seen many RU-vid channels like that. >.>
If X is the set and Y is a subset of X then you can define Z as the set of all X that don’t include Y. Where is the contradiction? Z in this case would be all free speech that isn’t hate speech. You can argue that X is preferable to Z, but I don’t see a contradiction...
Only thing I'm arguing is that free speech as a thing that only a government would not be oble to criticise is an American consept and part of law in United States. All the other countries are different and different set of laws. So in legal sense it much depends on where you live. Also - giving an example of Richard Dawkings is a little weird since he is Brittish and I am not sure if he was describing American free-speech when saying that quote.
The issue here is that all of your examples were of people speaking in a legal context. Where they support the legal right to not have the government come down on people because they said something "wrong", but still disagree with the idea that you can say whatever you want and no one is allowed to do or say anything back to you. If your argument was based in a much broader, all-encompassing philosophical usage of the term "free speech", then your argument immediately falls flat because you aren't addressing the things the people you are criticizing said. You've just invented a strawman to dismantle by falsely conflating the legal and philosophical meanings of the term.
The thing that really gets me are the people that say they believe in freedom of speech, but that there also are consequences to that. I see the sentiment here, but what you're actually saying is you believe in free speech, but that anyone that says things you don't like or agree with should be punished for it. Well... then you don't believe in free speech, do you? You don't punish someone or put consequences in place of something to endorse it, do you? No, you put consequences there to DISCOURAGE it. So you can't logically say, "I approve of people saying whatever they want, but I discourage people saying things I don't like," without contradicting yourself. It'd be like telling a child they can have anything out of the kitchen that they want for dinner. However, if it's sweets or ice cream, they'll get a spanked and grounded. They aren't _really_ free to eat anything they want then, are they? It's the same thing with people that say they believe in freedom of speech, but that there are consequences to it. Because if you believe there need to be consequences to certain things people say, then you don't really feel that people should be free to say anything they want. To boil it way down and greatly simplify it, what you're actually saying is, "I believe people should be free to say whatever _I_ want."
Surely by saying that they strongly agree in free speech these companies are just saying they support his ability to say/post these things and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that but that they do not want to be represented by them.
The concept of free speech only really applies in a legal context, though. If there is no law preventing you from saying something, then you have free speech. There shouldn't be any laws preventing somebody from carrying out hate speech, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us shouldn't condemn it, or refuse it a platform when given the chance. When one condemns hate speech, they aren't so much condemning the act of hate speech so much as they are the idea of hate itself, and it's very much an important aspect of critical thought to separate the good ideas from the bad -- and the morally permissible from the morally impermissible -- and to downplay or condemn those that are logically or morally faulty. We don't have to give a place to hate speech in our discussions or our media outlets in the same way that we don't have to reserve a space for creationism in our textbooks on Evolution, or in the same way that a science conference shouldn't have to allow Flat Earthers to speak. If an idea has been objectively and critically analyzed and determined illogical or morally impermissible, then there is no reason to further consider it in any further discourse. We can't prevent one from expressing hate, but we can certainly refuse to hear them, and refuse to include them in any of our discussions on the grounds that hate has already been considered, and deemed illogical and reprehensible. If those that wish to express hate feel disenfranchised by their social exclusion, then they have the right to express those ideas in other circles that may wish to listen.
The more equivocal statement is: "While I don't think the government should arrest you for not indulging me in my interests, I would like to know what color of underwear you are wearing." A person can support the government not infringing upon free speech while thinking it is good for private groups to moderate what they find acceptable.
Which still isnt addressing hia argument. Private groups can do whatever they want, he just used them as an example because their logic and reasoning is unsound. Im in favor of protecting free speech and even views i disagree with, however im going to discourage you from saying things I disagree with. That is not a logical line of reasoning, and once you apply it in a broader sense to a society rather than a rather small and independant group, it becomes a bigger issue as it can be used to discourage dissenting views *Period* inside a nation from what the majority believes.
I believe you're purposefully not reading between the lines. In the case of the whoever uninviting Mr. Dawkins, they are saying they do not wish to inhibit free speech, but also cannot condone the views Mr. Dawkins recently expressed and must save face. It's fine to be for free speech without having to endorse views that contradict your own. I'm all for free speech, but I'll ask you to leave my house if you start witnessing to me. Does that mean I don't think you should be able to witness? No. Does that mean I don't support free speech? No. It does mean you've got to get the hell out of my house, though.
It's not true that only the government can infringe on the right to free speech. Just look at the text of the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech" Freedom of speech itself is defined nowhere within the constitution. It's assumed to exist prior to and independent of the constitution (and law in general). This means that infringement of free speech can also be done independently of a legal interpretation. The first amendment doesn't even make sense if you think that freedom of speech came into existence when the constitution was drafted since that would require the constitution to reference something which didn't even exist at the time of its writing. A private organization can infringe on freedom of speech, it just may not be illegal for them to do so. Infringement of a freedom or right is not necessarily an illegal act.
While I do appreciate this Counter, Counter(?) argument. I'm not sure If I'm satisfied with it. Using your Junk food analogy it is possible to believe philosophically that the government should not infringe on your right to eat whatever you want (I assume this is the argument your making here, if not than I'm not sure if I agree with your analogy either), but still understand and advise others to not eat Junk food which is bad for you. Because those who believe that the government shouldn't interfere with free speech do so because they understand that that power can be abused by the government to suppress their own, more positive, speech. I think people would support restrictions on freedom of speech if they knew for sure that they could completely get rid of hate speech without impacting their own, once again more positive speech.
To me the biggest issue is that you cant actually define hate speech. Im sure all of us would 110% agree that if evil beings were running around eating our children and casting spells, then yeah thats pretty bad and we ahould stop it. Some evil being such as, oh idk, witches. The issue is not that we shouldnt stop an evil being, but more that... Well who is one? Is it hate speech if I say something that you dislike? Its a slippery slope. We all agree some racist old man screeming to hang all black people is bad. But when you throw him in jail for it you open up the pandoras box of ok well this white guy said that OJ Simpson deserves the death pentalty. Thats hate speech towards black people. Then it gets worse, thus white guy disagrees with someone whos non white. And im not saying white people are the victim, more just an example cause this is what happened in the south during jim crow and such. It turns into legal punishment for those you dislike very fast. My political rival said something negative about me, can i take him to court for it? Hate speech is an opinion, saying to hang blacks offends me, but it definitely doesnt offend a KKK member. It comes down to opinion of the moajority which is very dangerous road to go down
I always wonder why you seem so much more logical than live debates which a-lot of the time both people make a fool of themselves even if they are both logical I guess it helps that you can actually research while making the video instead of just having to wing it off of what you know.
The NECSS response is valid. I believe strongly in the idea of Free Speech but if my neighbor starting giving sermons on how Hitler was right, I can’t say I’d want him in my house. You can support a person having the right to voice opinions without wanting to associate with said person.
Something I think is worth considering when discussing this topic is whether or not the idea of universal freedom even exists. If universal freedom existed, i.e. everyone was free to do as they wanted, then that entails that I would be free to kidnap someone and lock them in a cage, but in doing so I would be depriving them of their freedom and thus, universal freedom for all people wouldn't exist. People cannot be free from other people. Any instance where an external force engages with you is an instance where your freedom is restricted as you now have to engage with that force in return. Even if you choose to ignore an external force your freedom is still being infringed upon, as you are now making a decision (the decision not to engage) that you wouldn't have made or been forced to consider otherwise. The point is that since other people's actions inevitably affect you, freedom for all people at the same time cannot exist, because enacting your will on someone else restricts their freedom, even if only in some minute way. (I know some people will inevitably bring this up, so let me be clear that no, I'm not claiming that people can't or shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. External forces can only restrict your freedom in the the fact that you MUST react and the CONTEXT you are forced to react in. While this may limit what actions, if any, can be made and that's certainly worth considering when examining responsibility, any and all reactions are still yours to make and face the consequences of.) I bring this up because I think we can apply this concept to the free speech debate. If the point of hate speech in many instances is to harass, embarrass, distress, degrade, humiliate, or intimidate someone to the point that they no longer feel capable of engaging in the discussion, then one entity's exercise of freedom of speech is being used to remove the exercise of free speech from a different entity. There's also the more common and likely case of hate speech being used in extreme volume to drown out other views expressed in the discourse. And of course, blocking or banning people who engage in hate speech also restricts people's free speech. Both sides are, at the very least, attempting to restrict the other side's speech. If we accept that free speech can't exist (and I fully accept that most people will consider that idea bullshit. I'm not even sure if I believe it but I think it makes for a good thought experiment), then instead of asking "How do we protect free speech?" it might be more productive to ask "How do we protect, encourage, and exercise free discourse?" And by free discourse, I mean formal discourse, the respectful exchange and examination of ideas instead of the shouting matches that hate speech typically involves or creates.
I'll need to bookmark this video for the millions of times people say "But it's not the government intruding on free speech". Really tired of people conflating freedom of speech as a principle and freedom of speech the Fist Amendment,
My belief in free speech does not make me obligated to allow you to speak on my property, especially since one may consider such an allowance an endorsement of your views, which might result in tarnishing my reputation. Plus, it's my property. And it certainly does not mean I cannot express dissent.
Wait, people thought this argument lies outside a "philosophical" context? The most relevant figure invoked concerning free speech is John Stuart Mill! Do they think Mill was an American? Do they think _On Liberty_ was about the American government?
The NECSS response seems pretty clearly to be "we believe people should have the right to say things. We also believe we should have the right to kick them out if they talk shit - they can go do that somewhere else". While I think they were wrong to deplatform Dawkins for this milquetoast tweet, I fail to see the inconsistency. It's essentially a NIMBY thing, and there's nothing inherently inconsistent about NIMBY. Your position is strangely pick-and-choose absolutist here, and there's a whole list of things which you should also be against with your approach. You even listed a lot of them, but then special pleaded them all away in one swoop. Limiting free speech for good reason (like in the cases listed) is still limiting free speech, and if we accept "there's a good reason" as valid grounds for making an exception, you'll find that the argument shifts to an area that you've not really covered much at all, of evaluating whether there's good societal reasons to ban or otherwise limit hate speech - and additionally for actually comparing it individually to the apparently-ok-to-ban expressions, to ensure consistency. It actually shares important traits with a number of them.
