@@bigbirdmusic8199 Most don't, cuz instead of thinking about it for themselves, they listen to others who you're pushing a specific AGENDA -- which they also don't realize -- imagine that, lol! I'll tell ya what most are 'realizing'. That is, how important and POWERFUL free speech is, which is why it's been CENSORED. WE ARE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE!!! WWG1WGA
@@0megazeero you know trump partly got elected by a large number of republican's who spent all their time on the internet slowly getting radicalised further and further as they couldn't talk about there political beliefs in public.
I would like to apologize on behalf of my generation. I am genuinely embarrassed that this debate is even taking place after hundreds of years of progress and evolution of human freedom.
@@hamu_sando Spoken like a true cultist. How do you know something is "hate speech"? Are you afraid of idea's, or afraid of being wrong? Either way, you have no way of reaching consensus.
"How should universities handle controversial speakers?" By presenting them with a platform to present their views. Universities used to be the one place where you were *supposed* to be challenged to think outside the box you've put yourself in.
Free speech gives you right to say whatever you want without the fear of government censorship. It doesn't mean that universities (or any institution) have to provide a stage for your views.
@@rajashashankgutta4334 whats crazy is how blatantly you want people like me to just control your every movement in life, As someone whos at the forefront of this im suffering through human interaction and seeing how many people are willing to essentially sell their souls so i can maximize my profits
Tyler Carrell I disagree with your argument that free speech should be prohibited if it threatens. I disagree because it opens a legal loophole whereby almost anything can be construed as threatening. This is the "backdoor" to banning freedom of speech.
Abc Def anything short of calling for or threatening violence should be tolerated. Also screaming fire in a crowded movie theater isn’t free speech. That’s inciting mayhem.
Students are taught by professors to commit violence against speakers they disagree with. Universities typically invite these speakers and should be liable for their protection. Look at what happened to Riley Gaines. Pitiful university response and should be sued.
According to Supreme Court rulings and other legislature, there is no such thing as hate speech, and I absolutely agree. Hatred is an emotion, and emotions are subjective. Words are not. People can derive different emotions from the same string of words. The concept of hate speech is vague BECAUSE it's based on a subjective emotion, and allows for people to discriminate and censor ANY speech/idea that they simply don't like, under the guise of "it's hate speech". It's dangerous and, at its core, evil.
When it comes to controversial speakers at universities, I think protesting should only be allowed outside the venue and only in a non-violent way (obviously) that does not prevent people from accessing the speaker. For example, the protestors wouldn't be allowed to block building entrances. This pretty much requires marking off a "non-protest" area as a path for those seeking to hear the speaker. Otherwise, there's no way to say this person or that person is guilty of blocking access. People who pretend to be coming to hear the speaker only to shout him/her down should be removed and penalized for violating school rules. If they resist removal they should be arrested for trespassing and expelled. The same rules should apply to those seeking to block access to the speech. Protestors should not be allowed to wear masks. This way both groups get their freedom of speech. One group gets to express it's displeasure with the speaker (outside the venue) and the other gets to express themselves without interference.
There is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. So, many Americans wonder: Is hate speech legal? Contrary to a common misconception, most expression one might identify as “hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment and cannot lawfully be censored, punished, or unduly burdened by the government - including public colleges and universities.
This is kind of a moot argument. According to SCOTUS hate speech as a classification does not exist. It's best not to feed the campus delusion that it is a thing since obviously it is not. SCOTUS has spoken further discussion is a waste of oxygen.
Anyone that is against freedoms of speech, and American values should be removed. The internet should be free speech in every way. Because the truth is better than lies.
Holobrine fuck off please. If you can afford the stage then you get the stage. Capitalist life is money. Government is money. Too bad if you dont like it. change it america
International Ministry News Free speech means Trump can't arrest me for insulting him. And frankly I think he's an authoritarian racist sexist selfish man-child. We've dealt with the sexist and racist and selfish, but we've never before had a president that says we should copy China and remove term limits. He wants to be dictator-for-life.
HATE SPEECH LAW - THE CURE THAT’S FAR WORSE THAN THE DISEASE In the debate between free speech supporters and advocates of hate speech law, free speech supporters argue that, yes unfortunately in society there is a terrible disease called hate speech. However, despite this, the ONLY speech that should be criminally penalised is threatening speech and speech that incites violence. We do have to think about things that can be done to lessen hate speech in society (about which see later), but making hate speech laws is not the answer. Why? - because the proposed cure for hate speech, hate speech law, IS FAR WORSE THAN THE DISEASE of hate speech. Of course there is a price that we have to pay for this allowance of freedom of speech, and that price is the possibility of being badly offended or upset by what others say, but this is a far lesser evil and price to pay than the negative outcomes that hate speech laws produce in a society or have on an individual. What are the negative outcomes of hate speech laws for a society or for an individual? • The only way to discover truth is through fully free and open debate. Without free speech an individual and society loses the ability to discover truth. This very fundamental and valuable knowledge is lost. A very bad outcome. • The fully free market place of ideas can flush out bad ideas. Preventing free speech would prevent this. By exposing bad ideas to the disinfecting light of free speech we can improve society. • Hate speech laws stop people from saying what they really think, because everyone starts worrying that what they say will get them into serious legal trouble or make them lose their job. This means that totally free debate and the free flow of ideas are stopped. The positive outcomes that could have arisen from this free flowing debate and totally honest dialogue are all lost to society. Totalitarian states are always less creative and productive than free states. • With hate speech laws society becomes an Orwellian nightmare where everyone is afraid that other people will report on them. In addition some people will make false hate speech claims for revenge or other purposes. This would be a terrible society to live in. • Hate speech laws can be used an idealogical tool dressed up as a moral good. That is hate speech laws, whilst claiming to protect people, can be used in a political way to further a political agenda by preventing political opponents from putting their case forward. A terrible outcome for society. • In denying someone else’s speech you are denying yourself (and society) the right to learn something that might change your life (or society) for the better. That is, free speech is not only about the other person’s right to speak, it is also about your right/need to hear and be exposed to ideas different from your own. • The person who says something outrageous, in your eyes, may have put a lot of thought into what they have said and, even if outrageous to you, there may be a grain of truth in what they have to say that both you and the rest of society may learn a lot from. These grains of truth would be lost in a society with hate speech laws. • Other people’s outrageous views, in your eyes, may force you to look again at what you believe and why you believe it, making you go back to first principles and improving your understanding of why you believe what you believe and your understanding of the issues involved. A very valuable outcome. • To paraphrase George Orwell, if free speech means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear. If this freedom is lost, society loses the ability to improve. • In the USA you have no right to be free from being offended. If you don’t like what you hear it is up to you to debate and counter what you disagree with. Without such debate society cannot improve. • If you and society in general are shielded from different ideas and perspectives you (and society) will not reach your (and societies) maximum potential. • It is particularly important to defend the speech of the person who thinks differently. Free speech must be applied fully and consistently. When someone has ideas that seem extreme, radical, inflammatory or controversial, that’s the person, in particular, whose free speech must be protected. That person may be you one day. • The FIrst Amendment of the USA was particularly passed in order to allow a minority to say what the majority may find offensive. You may find yourself in that minority one day. • By curtailing the free speech of others, you may in future find that you yourself are prevented from speaking, that is, you are in potentia creating a rod for your own back. • It is important to defend the free speech of your worst enemies. If they can’t speak then your speech becomes a privilege and not a right. A bad outcome for a society. • If free speech is not applied fully and consistently eventually there can be a silencing of speech “creep” because the justification to silence one person sets the precedent and opens the door to justifying the silencing of another person and then another etc etc. A terrible outcome for society. • If people can’t say what they truly feel, they may become frustrated and take more aggressive or violent routes to vent the issues that they feel strongly about. A very bad outcome for society. In addition we have to ask these questions • Who would you want to entrust to decide, for you, what hate speech is? • What individual on earth is uniquely qualified to make this critical decision for you? • Who is to decide, for you, where the line is to be drawn between speech and hate speech? • Do you want to be ruled by what is in effect a “Thought Police”? • Once we as a society lose critical thought and freedom of speech what is left between us and totalitarianism? In Conclusion • Nobody should be in fear for their liberty for speech, unless it is threatening speech or speech inciting violence. Apart from these two exceptions it should never be “you can have free speech, BUT”. There should be NO BUTS. • Hate speech laws produce far more pernicious results for societies and for individuals than beneficial results. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. What CAN be done to reduce hate speech in society? Of course some groups are more vulnerable to hate speech than others, so what CAN be done to protect these groups and reduce hate speech in a society? Civility and respect codes can be used instead of implementing hate speech laws. People tasked with drawing up such speech codes should be chosen from across the political spectrum with equal numbers from the left and right. What these codes should be can be controversial, so they need to be thought about carefully before coming to a final consensus. The “policing” of these hate speech codes should also be carried out by people chosen from across the political spectrum and all hearings and rulings should be fully open to public scrutiny. Within an institution such as a university a very high burden of proof would be required for people making hate speech complaints. If the proof was deemed good enough, the person deemed as making hateful comments could be given a lot of warnings before they are temporarily suspended. There would never be any legal prosecution for hate speech. They would be allowed to return to their job after a reasonable period of time and given more chances to resolve the situation. A faculty member would only lose their a job for example or a student would only be expelled from a university after a lot of repeated transgressions of this code. That is, the people in institutions would be secure in knowing that they could speak freely. They would know that if anything they said was deemed as offensive by someone, the person complaining would have to have a very well proven complaint. They would also know that the civility codes had been decided upon by a group of people chosen from across the political spectrum. They would also know that they would not be in fear for their job except under extreme circumstances and would never face legal action. They would have plenty of time and chances to turn the situation around. Outside of institutions eg in public spaces, civility and respect rules could also be in place, again with high levels of evidence required for reporting to police. The police could be required to give for example four or more warnings to someone and only after this could they ban that person from a public space. This would be temporary, for a specified period of time, but no legal action would be taken and there would be no fines. On social media people could be temporarily suspended for repeated transgressions of hate speech rules but would never be banned or penalised legally or fined. This much more lenient civility code system would mean that the vital free flow of ideas in institutions, on social media and in society generally, would not be restricted by fear.
You've basically started off the entire text all for free speech and you digressed towards "civility and respect laws". This is a basic rehash of the hate speech regulations that are soo needed in society. Hate speech regulations or what ever you want to refer to them as are a necessary components in society.
If we can't agree on the specific hate speech regulations/civility & respect codes. The next logical thought is to have a debate on what's most appropriate instead of suggesting no hate speech regulation at all. It's like saying if we can't agree on a treatment for a disease we shouldn't treat it at all. Instead it'd be best if we debated the treatments and came to an appropriate conclusion
I was with you until the civility / respect laws because those are speech regulating laws. I will fight to the death to defend the right of some misguided ass hat I don't agree with rather than restrict his speech in favor of the group i agree with. Once we start to regulate thoughts, and the expression of them through speech( both written, or verbal) in the name of feelings I will no longer accept the government for it shall have become a tyrannical government at that point. It's both misguided and naive to be willing to turn over freedom in the name of safety and feelings. Things such as speech infringing laws, and the patriot act are things we as free people should fight against not for. Long story short i could care less about your sensibilities and feeling, but i will defend your right to express them.
That's a pretty illogical point of veiw if I may say so. Let me explain why... Firstly let's be real, you probably won't fight to death to defend the right of some misguided ass hat you don't agree with. Such statements are no more than barks to attempt to add validity to an argument by saying I will fight for it and die for it. Just because you'd fight and die for Racism or Hitler's Nazi ideology doesn't make it right. Quit the barking if you wan't to sound intelligent. Nobody said anything about regulating thoughts. Your thoughts are your own and do with them what you please. Even if it means thinking of the million different ways you could stick it up Beyonce's behind... Hate speech regulation is the regulation of speech not thoughts, and it's not done in the name of feelings, it's done to prevent catastrophic harm to society. Just have a look through the 20th century history to get a flavor for the harm its done. Just because a government regulates "Hate speech" doesn't suddenly turn it tyrannical.... Look up what a tyrannical government is please. You said it's misguided to be willing to turn over freedom in the name of safety... I'd say it's not misguided at all... We already do it. You've turned over certain freedoms such as the freedom to kill whomever you please, the freedom to beat and punch who ever you please, the freedom to steal from who ever you please and much more in the name of safety. How unsafe would society be if these freedoms weren't turned over. To be honest you don't even turn these freedoms over for safety. You turn them over in order to run a stable society. I recognize the specifics of Hate speech regulation are messy but open dialogue and majority rule can over come these. Just because the treatment ain't perfect don't mean the problem doesn't need a treatment.
@@TheKillaMali While I accept your premise that racism is shitty, I reject the premise that regulation of speech is not tyranny. The freedom of speech is a basic human right espoused in the 1st amendment, and to remove it is to further nullify the constitution. Rights should not be dependent on the will of the majority. If we were to base rights on the will of the majority we'd still have ; slavery, no women's suffrage , segregation, debtors prison ect ect. Rights are not given but fought for by the manority. If we abolish the first amendment, and leave decision to the majority what's to stop us from becoming a theology? Christians are the majority. What if the majority decides one political ideology (say conservatism) is hate speech? What then, are we now in a one party system? How is that not tyranny? This country has grow by giving more rights, not taking them away because they are inconvenient or scary. Instead of using authoritarian tactics we as a people need to acknowledge that prohibition never works. You simply can't regulate morality. When you try, you end up with the largest prison population in the world. We have tried to regulate alcohol, drugs, weapons, and now you want to regulate speech. Alcohol, drugs, weapons never went away. Those are actual tangible items that couldn't be regulated away. You can't polish a shitty old idea, and pretend it's a good new idea. Instead of regulation how about proven to work ideas like education, or economic mobility?
There's no such thing as "hate speech." It just some concept that that was invented by the ADL so no one can criticize Jews or expose their agenda. And that statement I just made is neither "hate speech" nor is it "antisemitic." Stating facts is simply stating facts.
You have to be careful with banning hate speech because in its own definition, it would be okay to ban Critical Race Theory, which has many broad definitions against the white race. So, yeah, threatening hate speech should be banned, but critisizing a race, religion, or movement should not be banned.
omg at first i thought she said "gender disability" but then i read the comma on the screen and chilled. I was gonna be like wtf has become of the pc culture?!
I don't like argument that hate speech allowed while we should be able to criticise public persons: the public interest in minimizing the Agency problem (public personalities, politicians, managers) is more important than the inconvenience caused to these criticized or ridiculed persons in connection with their position and work. This is an irrelevant example. Similarly with blackmail, incitement to crime, lying in court and so on - the public interest in these cases is more important than the inconvenience caused to someone who is not free to lie or say what he thinks. A speech that calls for the prohibition of everything else that it does not like cannot be protected by freedom of expression by definition: if we say that we tolerate all other opinions, that we listen everyone, then the opposite opinion about the prohibition of the expression of all the opposite, contradicts this principle
People never seem to realize that government isn't the only distributer of accountability, nor is it always practical and/or moral (prohibition for example). There's *extraordinary* social and economic accountability. We're social creatures. To act as if isolation, demonization, dehumanization, hate, fear, annoyance, or losing your job, future positions and opportunities within the market, etc, has *no* effect to counter the basic human nature of _'mean' 'hateful'_ words is a complete fantasy. The action should have equally bad consequences where it's effective. There shouldn't be fines and sentences for every supposedly bad thing we do, think, or say. Individuals deal with most of this amongst themselves, very effectively I'll add. That shouldn't be interfered with on a whim. Language is the very way we make change. How can we know when it's gone too far and fix it if the very words we use to do so are under coersive control? Combine that with terrible structural institutional incentives capitalizing on this arbitrariness & subjectivity and problems are inevitably gonna emerge. That's just a fact.
YES , i mean , people shouldnt be shitty to each other but by all means , because if you CAN NOT TALK about those radically DIFFERENT issues then the ONLY other option YOU HAVE is to PHYSICALLY FIGHT YOU . with out FREE SPEECH . there can ONLY be violence .
Does speech cause violence? I don’t know but I will certainly let you know the instant I see a word fly out of someone’s mouth and punch another person in the face... I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting.
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” ~ George R. R. Martin
"Be open minded, but not to the point that your brain falls out". Hateful speech towards a race DOES nothing good in the world. It should not be allowed.
I dont think that quote works every time though. What if I merely hate what somone is saying, and wish foe them to stop? Hate and fear are not the same, and what use is hate speech? All it does is hurt, even lies are like daggers.
Not really. It's speech about a policy that was ended by a bloody war and it was said countless times before that war was over. If said today, it would not be hate speech. It seems you haven't really thought your "joke" through well enough.
@@rk7912 i have to disagree. The government will see the criticism against them as hate speech. As in malaysia, if you criticise the commies you will be incarcerated. Or if you say bad shit against islam you would get locked up for 3 years.
You dont even seem to understtand what hate speech even is. She defines it for you halfway through the vid ffs. Its not just “i dont like blank” its specifically against certain groups of people not institutions. You big goof
@@billybatts9491 LMAO. First of all, I don't self-identify as liberal. Second of all, my comment literally says I'm against criminalizing hate speech. And lastly, what exactly are the rights of yours that you think I want to suppress? 🤔
@@billybatts9491 Well, people who think I'm American assume that. But I'm not, and I don't subscribe to these labels. I form my own opinions, and it just happens that a significant amount of them are in agreement with liberal values. I had most of these opinions before I even knew about liberals or anything about American or Western political affiliations.
@Los Angeles Man Censorship is a deadly sin. This is moot argument anyway. According to SCOTUS hate speech as a category does not exist. Therefore further discussion is pointless.
@@kamikazesoviet are you serious? On twitter any comment against the current president can lock your account and you'll be forced to remove the comment if you want to keep using twitter
Free Speech should remain uncompromised. It isn't "Hate Speech" just because someone 'hates the speech' or its message. Even if a message is hateful, it should still be freely heard. Let's not delude ourselves to think those who threaten violence against people saying hateful things are any better than those saying hateful things (They are worse).
Did we watch the same video? Review the definition on 2:47. It's definitely not “hates the speech”. For some unknown reason you brought in “those who threaten violence against people saying hateful things”, which were not part of the discussion in the first place.
>> which were not part of the discussion in the first place. of course it wasnt; that wouldnt comport with a liberal pov. and in the context of a discussion on "free speech v. hate speech", it's disingenuous to offer that the same POV is not synthesizing said discussion.
Vince, I'm not sure what you mean. The problem with comparing “people saying hateful things” with “those who threaten violence against people saying hateful things” is that there is no clear reason to compare them. Why not compare “people saying hateful things” with “baby eating satanists”? If your point is that there exist such people “who threaten violence against people saying hateful things”, then why not compare them with “white supremacist terrorists, who perform mass shootings”, like Breivik or Nikolas Jacob Cruz? Clearly the latter group is worse.
if you fail to see the obvious liaison between “people saying hateful things” and “those who threaten violence against people saying hateful things”, i cant help you. i'm not comparing them (even if omega did), it's that the former were part of this video and the latter were not. i agree they could have been and offered a reason as to why they werent. on a totally unrelated note, can you provide one single shred of evidence that the FL douche was a "white supremacist". i see a very disturbed kid, completely failed by the government, who ended up going full douche nozzle. did he shoot only blacks and jews? i missed that. you do know the jereb claim was quickly and totally debunked, right? but, youre sort of supporting my theory: if he's a white supremacist; and it's ok to punch white supremacists b/c, as you note, "the latter group is worse"; then it's cool to punch him. and here we arrive at the "those who threaten violence against people saying hateful things”, full-circle conclusion.
Yeah, my bad on FL shooting. Dylann Roof would have been a better example. My guess why “those who threaten violence” crowd was not included was partially because threatening violence is illegal and there is no discussion [mainstream] to make it legal. I just don't see how mentioning them would help the discussion about free speech. It's a red herring.
Kudos to the production team! Great job handling dicey topics and presenting ideas in a fun and flowey way. Graphics, sound, camera, edit, writing and presentation all amazingly good.
So, how does a whatever-ist get a platform to for speech on campus in the first place? It all makes sense that a public university can't stop a speaker, but it's not like anyone who wants to take the podium can just get up there at any time, especially if a large audience is expected.
I know YAF is a conservative student organization. They go through the administration to pay for and secure their venues. They then invite speakers like Ben Shapiro. It's not like these speakers just show up or ask to come; they are invited, often by students.
Thank you! I was democrat years ago, but I totally changed my point of view when I started to do some researches on RU-vid. This video explained to me why free speech should be allowed.
i believe the most intelligent democrats are the ones who used to be republicans and the most intelligent republicans are the ones who used to be democrats because they are the ones who challenged their own belief and changed from it. Kudos to you dude
I thought one of the few things that both Democrats and Republicans can both agree on, is that the Bill of Rights shouldn't be touched, especially the first amendment.
hate speech is very difficult to define, and that is the main problem. One person's idea of hate speech was maybe very different from the other person's perspective, so how do you regulate that unless all parties come together and really discuss it?
But it also protects the right of inclusive speech that discourages offensive speech. Censoring constructive criticism only radicalizes a base, like a giant echo chamber. And I assure you it’s definitely not just progressives that are hostile to free speech. Just take a look at how ideas and facts Republicans disagree with are being censored from classrooms, libraries and street sidewalks in GOP led states!
The quotation on that is provoke somebody what does it count to provoke somebody? If I was to call somebody insult does that mean they have the right to do physical violence no but does that mean I don't have the right to tell somebody what I think of them?
Considering the kind of political bent I'm conditioned to expect from PBS affiliated enterprises, this take is particularly nuanced. I came expecting to witness Free Speech get sacrificed on the altar of social justice yet again, but I've got the video paused at 6:16 and I'm surprised at how much of this I agree with. If nothing else can be said about this video, at least I feel confident saying that this video lives up to the channel name. Whether it's pseudo-militaristic racists over exaggerating, or the autistic screeching of the latest "victim" of the internet, I'm glad to see that someone out there still just wants to present reality as it is.
I've noticed, as the alt left gets more and more heated, more and more typically left leaning outlets are taking notice and drawing a line, usually defining it with sensibility, historical precedent, research, ect.
HATE SPEECH LAW - THE CURE THAT’S FAR WORSE THAN THE DISEASE In the debate between free speech supporters and advocates of hate speech law, free speech supporters argue that, yes unfortunately in society there is a terrible disease called hate speech. However, despite this, the ONLY speech that should be criminally penalised is threatening speech and speech that incites violence. We do have to think about things that can be done to lessen hate speech in society (about which see later), but making hate speech laws is not the answer. Why? - because the proposed cure for hate speech, hate speech law, IS FAR WORSE THAN THE DISEASE of hate speech. Of course there is a price that we have to pay for this allowance of freedom of speech, and that price is the possibility of being badly offended or upset by what others say, but this is a far lesser evil and price to pay than the negative outcomes that hate speech laws produce in a society or have on an individual. What are the negative outcomes of hate speech laws for a society or for an individual? • The only way to discover truth is through fully free and open debate. Without free speech an individual and society loses the ability to discover truth. This very fundamental and valuable knowledge is lost. A terrible outcome. • Hate speech laws stop people from saying what they really think, because everyone starts worrying that what they say will get them into serious legal trouble or make them lose their job. This means that totally free debate and the free flow of ideas are stopped. The positive outcomes that could have arisen from this free flowing debate and totally honest dialogue are all lost to society. Totalitarian states are always less creative and productive than free states. • The fully free market place of ideas can flush out bad ideas. By exposing bad ideas to the disinfecting light of free speech we can improve society. • With hate speech laws society becomes an Orwellian nightmare where everyone is afraid that other people will report on them. In addition some people will make false hate speech claims for revenge or other purposes. This would be a terrible society to live in. • Hate speech laws can be used in a political way to further a political agenda by preventing political opponents from putting their case forward - a terrible outcome for society. • In denying someone else’s speech you are denying yourself (and society) the right to learn something that might change your life (or society) for the better. That is, free speech is not only about the other person’s right to speak, it is also about your right/need to hear and be exposed to ideas different from your own. • To paraphrase George Orwell, if free speech means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear. If this freedom is lost, society loses the ability to improve. • The person who says something outrageous, in your eyes, may have put a lot of thought into what they have said and, even if outrageous to you, there may be a grain of truth in what they have to say that both you and the rest of society may learn a lot from. • Other people’s outrageous views, in your eyes, may force you to look again at what you believe and why you believe it, making you go back to first principles and improving your understanding of why you believe what you believe and your understanding of the issues involved. A very valuable outcome. • If you and society in general are shielded from different ideas and perspectives you (and society) will not reach your (and societies) maximum potential. • If people can’t say what they truly feel, they may become frustrated and take more aggressive or violent routes to vent the issues that they feel strongly about. • It is particularly important to defend the speech of the person who thinks differently. That person may be you one day. • The FIrst Amendment of the USA was particularly passed in order to allow a minority to say what the majority may find offensive. You may find yourself in that minority one day. • By curtailing the free speech of others, you may in future find that you yourself are prevented from speaking, that is, you are in potentia creating a rod for your own back. • In the USA you have no right to be free from being offended. If you don’t like what you hear it is up to you to debate and counter what you disagree with. In addition we have to ask these questions • Who would you want to entrust to decide, for you, what hate speech is? • What individual on earth is uniquely qualified to make this critical decision for you? • Who is to decide, for you, where the line is to be drawn between speech and hate speech? • Do you want to be ruled by what is in effect a “Thought Police”? • Once we as a society lose critical thought and freedom of speech what is left between us and totalitarianism? In Conclusion • Nobody should be in fear for their liberty for speech, unless it is threatening speech or speech inciting violence. Apart from these two exceptions it should never be “you can have free speech, BUT”. There should be NO BUTS. • Hate speech laws produce far more pernicious results for societies and for individuals than beneficial results. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. What CAN be done to reduce hate speech in society? Of course some groups are more vulnerable to hate speech than others, so what CAN be done to protect these groups and reduce hate speech in a society? Civility and respect codes can be used instead of implementing hate speech laws. People tasked with drawing up such speech codes should be chosen from across the political spectrum with equal numbers from the left and right. What these codes should be can be controversial, so they need to be thought about carefully before coming to a final consensus. The “policing” of these hate speech codes should also be carried out by people chosen from across the political spectrum and all hearings and rulings should be fully open to public scrutiny. Within an institution such as a university a very high burden of proof would be required for people making hate speech complaints. If the proof was deemed good enough, the person deemed as making hateful comments could be given a lot of warnings before they are temporarily suspended. There would never be any legal prosecution for hate speech. They would be allowed to return to their job after a reasonable period of time and given more chances to resolve the situation. A faculty member would only lose their a job for example or a student would only be expelled from a university after a lot of repeated transgressions of this code. That is, the people in institutions would be secure in knowing that they could speak freely. They would know that if anything they said was deemed as offensive by someone, the person complaining would have to have a very well proven complaint. They would also know that the civility codes had been decided upon by a group of people chosen from across the political spectrum. They would also know that they would not be in fear for their job except under extreme circumstances and would never face legal action. They would have plenty of time and chances to turn the situation around. Outside of institutions eg in public spaces, civility and respect rules could also be in place, again with high levels of evidence required for reporting to police. The police could be required to give for example four or more warnings to someone and only after this could they ban that person from a public space. This would be temporary, for a specified period of time, but no legal action would be taken and there would be no fines. On social media people could be temporarily suspended for repeated transgressions of hate speech rules but would never be banned or penalised legally or fined. This much more lenient civility code system would mean that the vital free flow of ideas in institutions, on social media and in society generally, would not be restricted by fear.
I appreciate this channel's unbiased look at different topics, especially in a video like this that is very controversial nowadays. There is a reason that hate speech is free speech, and that is because, simply put, hate speech can be broadly defined. As described in the video, a liberal campus could ban Ben Shapiro from talking, and a conservative campus could ban Colin Kapernick from talking; additionally, I wanted to expand on this idea. Since hate speech is so broadly defined, it could be perpetuated as different minority groups try to speak up. Imagine if it were "hateful," as least defined by the government, to talk about certain issues like gay or transgender rights. I don't agree with a lot of transgender ideas, but that doesn't mean they should be barred from talking because they are a minority. It's just the same as the KKK. It's jusy the same as African Americans. Each a minority; each potentially being barred from speaking because the government defines their speech as hateful. I also want to clarify what "hateful" means because, although we should have an unbiased government, we do not. So each person defines "hate" differently. This could go as far as specifying "hate" as saying something that somebody doesn't want to hear. And that's the danger of allowing the government to ban hate speech. That's the reason our founding fathers decided to make that the first amendment.
well said. i would only argue that contrasting shapiro to kaepernick is a bit of a stretch in this context: one is a well-read, harvard-educated lawyer with years of focus on politics. the other is a football player. agree or not with their perspectives, if politics is the topic, shapiro is relevant. if how to throw a football is the topic, kaepernick is relevant. this is not about throwing footballs.
Vince R The comparison is appropriate. Calling out one's formal education when talking about freedom of opinion is: A) Ad hominem. You should attack the arguments, not the speaker, which in turn makes it: B) Contradictory with a position that says that hate speech shouldn't be banned. You can't easily say an argument is better or worse than other for the same reason you can't easily call out a speaker for incurring to a certain degree of hateful speech.
Ekki for what I understood it's not really what he is trying to say. Its about the relevance of what they talk about. Indeed they can have an opinion but for the general public it is like having a plumber telling you about how quantum physics works, he may know about it enough to explain it of course but for the most part there wont exist many plumbers that know about it at all.
DoseOfAwesome Except politics is not an exact science. It doesn't need to follow the scientific method (because most of the time, it can't) and most "experts" just have a vast array of anecdotal evidence (to a scientist, that essentially reads as "manipulated data"), which means you can't draw a line in the same way you can do for science or other subjects where a line is explicitly drawn. Even the most experienced political commenter isn't fundamentally different from someone commenting on politics by their own experience, because there isn't a proper "degree" or qualification that makes your arguments fundamentally better than someone else's as opposed to degrees that ensure you have knowledge of a science or the inner workings of law.
Ekki: you're an idiot if you're unable to distinguish ability to say something with the value in what is said. kap and shap can both speak. when the former is talking about throwing balls, i might listen. but if you think there is no difference in their political insight , you're an obtuse troll.
The Supreme Court? You mean a group of unelected judges that get to decide for all of us? Think about that for a second...do you really want *them* to be making the laws?
You would think they grow these trolls in test tubes somewhere? " so you believe in appointed laws over media sensationalism!?!?!" YES! In fact most of us do
What you think in your socialist deluded consumer packaged daydream that you personally will get to make the laws? Jesus you people defy the imagination with the buckets of stupid you garble down wholesale from people who actually literally hate you I.e politicians. And on a public forum too. I would be embarrassed. Highlighting THEM. As opposed to what? The guy on the internet? From here in out this guy on the internet will be deciding which rights we will be entitled to. Because socialism is like totally the future. A govt run by the media and the fools gullible enough to buy AND EAT the steaming crap sandwich
As long as you don't threaten direct harm to someone...."hate speech" is perfectly fine...if somebody "hate speeches" me I just ignore them. Soon enough you wont be able to SPEAK FREELY anymore.
“There can be no right of speech where any man, however, lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments”
Those Westerners are contradictory . You can see them standing with communities in the name of human rights like LGBT when some people speak out against them. While in another time they stand with freedom of speech when a person or some people speak out against someone who said or did something that seems offensive to some communities
I think hate speech is discriminating someone because of their - race - gender - sexuality/identity - disease or disability - etnicity - nationality - religion and so on.
@@puffcatco"attack" means a lot of things, attack their opinion, speech yes - which isn't contradictory since they still have the speech. Assault them, otoh, no - that wouldn't be a kind of attack protected.
People express their energy and feelings through words. We spread information through our language as well. You have brain damage if you think humans should be banned from saying certain words to express their ideas(unless you work for special interests and intentionally hide the light from the public)
How should colleges handle protests? Easy. Actually hold people accountable. If you want to protest, fine. You get out of line, break equipment, or get violent, you get punished to the full extent of the law, just like non-students would.
there is free speech in the US. there is no such thing as "hate speech". that is a useful jargon term for those that dont like free speech, to characterize the speech they dislike. too bad.
Just banking stuff as hate speech is dangerous who decides what's hate or offensive it doesn't take much just claim any idea is hate speech because you disagree
I think that if the free speech incurs costs for the platform, by security or some such that the platform does not provide by default, then the speaker should cover those costs. Because otherwise, the speech is coercive of the platform that can't say "no" to hosting it.
that is a good case for supporting the hecklers veto. how about the people responsible for the need to have security pay the security fee? i dont fear someone like shapiro: words are pretty harmless. i carry a gun because of people like antifa and alt-right loons: their 'sticks' can be quite painful.
The cost of security is not caused by the speaker. It is caused by the violent illegal protesters! Why would you charge the peaceful speaker for the unlawful actions of those that oppose them? To put it plainly: The problem is not with speakers, but with violent mobs of protesters. Don't blame the victim.
Try watching the video again. Pause and contemplate two segments - 2:47 (definition of hate speech), consider, whether such speech is possible; and 2:08 (illegal speech) and consider, whether really “ all protected speech under the 1 st amendment and supported by the supreme court”. The centre piece of the discussion is whether the “hate speech” should be moved into the “illegal speech” category. If you don't believe that either of those two things exist, you are in denial.
do people say "mean things" (according to some arbitrary standard)? sure. this is subjective. is there speech that can have legal ramifications? sure. this is objective. are these in any way related? no. are you conflating them? yes.
In my opinion yes it's okay to have hate speech, but like all things there's a line where it can be too much. Eventhough you can you shouldn't say it. It's like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, words have power and people can get hurt.
@@Adventurer-te8fl You can also lie through action by hiding, pretending or feigning certain behavior or actions. Deception and lying isnt just verbal or words.
