What are the limits of free speech? | Big Think

What are the limits of free speech?
Watch the newest video from Big Think: bigth.ink/NewVideo
Learn skills from the world's top minds at Big Think Edge: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The free speech debate typically happens at either end of a spectrum - people believe they should be able to say whatever they want, or they believe that certain things (e.g. hate speech) should be censored. Who is right, and who gets to decide?
While they acknowledge that speech is a powerful weapon that can cause infinite good and infinite harm, former ACLU president Nadine Strossen, sociologist Nicholas Christakis, author and skeptic Michael Shermer, and others agree that the principle should be defended for everyone, not just for those who share our views. "I'm not defending the Nazis," says Strossen, "I'm defending a principle that is especially important for those of us who want to have the freedom to raise our voices, to protest the Nazis and everything they stand for."
However, as Strossen and attorney Floyd Abrams point out, there have always been boundaries when it comes to free speech and the First Amendment. There are rules, established by the Supreme Court, meant to ensure that speech is not used to inflict "imminent, specific harm" on others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
NADINE STROSSEN: There is absolutely no doubt that speech can do an infinite amount of harm as well as an infinite amount of good. The reason why censorship is bad is precisely because speech is so powerful. And with that power, we, human beings can exert it, either to great good or to great ill. Now, the question is, what does more harm: Trusting our fellow citizens on the whole to minimize the adverse impact, adverse potential impact of speech or trusting government to pick and choose which potentially dangerous harmful speech should be censored? What we've seen throughout history and around the world, not surprisingly, is whoever exercises censorship power does it in a way to perpetuate their own power and to disproportionately silence the voice of their critics. Freedom of speech really is the bedrock of every other right and really, almost everything positive in our society could not be achieved without that essential bedrock.
NICHOLAS CHRISTAKIS: There's a difference between defending an important principle and advocating for the implications of that principle. Let me give you a couple of examples. One example is defending the freedom of expression, even though you disagree with what someone might say when they exercise that freedom. So for example, I might defend your right to speak. I might defend your right to express yourself without fear of losing your job, for example. But I might still not agree with whatever it is that you're going to say. So, you say something I don't like. I don't like it, I respond to it. That's the proper way to handle it. That is to say, we defend the right of people to express themselves even though we acknowledge that the outcome of that might not be what we agree with. So the famous saying of course, is I don't agree with what it is that you want to say but I will defend your right to say it to the death. You test your ideas by arguing with people who disagree with you. And actually, if you're good at it, you even learn to enjoy it.
JOSH LIEB: I think legally, you should be able to say anything you want. Then again, and I think if you're seeing that someone is booked on a TV show that you don't agree with, I think it's not against free speech. You're not violating anyone's free speech to say, I don't wanna be in a program with that person. Or if you're a publishing house that's publishing a book by someone you don't like. There's no violation of free speech, you're not impinging on anyone to say, I don't care to be associated with that person. That's fine. I don't like hate speech laws, I'm vehemently against them. I think they are as anti-American and anti-Democratic as anything can be. And I don't like the idea of criminalizing thought no matter how hateful or stupid the thought is. It sounds like something from 1984. I don't think we make the hate go away by not saying it. You know, I'm basically I'm Lenny Bruce in "Harry Potter," I will say Voldemort's name. It doesn't make Voldemort go away to not say that fucking word. I always curse too much on these things, I'm sorry. You know, the road to hell is paved with great intentions. Like I get it, but it's a bad path for us. And the problem is things are so chaotic now. Things are at such a high tenor. People are so filled with vitriol that it's very possible that, just to get everyone to cool down, this is when this kind of stuff can get through, but that would not be American.
FLOYD ABRAMS: There've...
Read the full transcript at bigthink.com/videos/freedom-o...

[@bigthink]

What's your stance on free speech?

[@theyoungkulaks3381]

I'm for it. Why? the National Socialists of Germany were against it. HitIer disposed of free speech very quickly as he and his Socialist party took over. Marxist-Leninists of the Soviet Union quickly disposed of free speech when they took over - around the time that miIIions of Kulak farmers were sent to gulags for the crime of being competent farmers. Mao Zedong of China, around the time he slaughtered millions of "his" people, also disposed of Chinese history and free speech. I just watch what the myriad Socialist/Communist dictators did and think we should do the opposite. Hugo Chavez, when he was "elected" in Venuzeula, had his answer to Antif@, known as the Colectivos, who harassed people with vioIence in the streets, and he also took down statues, censored movies and books - banning quite a few, even, and instituted speech regulation. And yes, the National Socialists were Socialists; they nationalized many industries, save for a few that they heavily regulated, but their "oppressor/oppressed" propaganda was focused on race, rather than class. National Socialists were Marxism - internationalism + partial nationalization of industries + race focused oppressor/oppressed propaganda. I reject Socialists entirely. Bureaucrats have no business running the capital of a nation, especially from a central planning board. I do not want the same efficiencies and good cheer of the DMV and IRS running the industries, and they especially scare me since they also command an army. I am anti-Marxist, and I want the full freedom to denounce this horrid ideology and its divisive propaganda.

[@YouLoveMrFriendly]

@No Ma'am lol I'm screenshotting your message and showing this to some forums. That's pretty intense! Disciples of Stalin marching through America.

[@BarryAllen-xg4pj]

I think someone is emulating the sites name and appearance to contact people for business pitches

[@johannesh.9955]

@@YouLoveMrFriendly I didn't see any Stalinists, but Natzis waving torch against Jews and fascists who wanted to storm the Capitol. All because you let a wannabe dictator get away with every lie for 4 years.

[@leukota]

Getting offended is primitive, free speech and honesty only makes the world better.

[@wuziq]

"if we disagree with an idea, if we despise it, we should answer it back, not suppress it"

[@TheMetalfreak360]

I fear that if we supress ideas or thoughts, it will only manifest itself into something more dangerous. If they cannot talk out loud with their ideas, and get countered or given counter arguments, people cannot learn and change their stances or opinions on matters. If they stay in their box, they will only seek out people that have the same thoughts and have encountered the same about being shut down or supressed, and they will form their own groups where their ideas manifests into something far worse, and come to a point where they cannot change their minds. I know many people that have different opinions compared to everybody else in the local community here, they don't talk and just go with the flow, because if their voice their opinion, even though it might be right in the current argument or subject, they will get shut down instantly. I saw this when studying politics, where people were afraid to voice anything that was remotely right wing, no matter the subject matter. And it has gotten worse since that imho.

[@radiatormike6090]

Spot on!

[@redneckhippiefreak]

@@TheMetalfreak360 Self Censorship is a choice of the Manipulated and Meek..It seems as if this is why they are supposedly going to inherit the Earth because the critical thinkers will Leave the planet for more appeasing climates. XD.

[@TheMetalfreak360]

@@redneckhippiefreak I disagree that it is a choice, it is a choice of sorts, but a forced one, if you don't, you are singled out and will feel the consequences of going your own way. There is no stumbling in the dark and find your own path, you have to go the pre-designated road, or none at all. "Self Censorship is a choice of the Manipulated and Meek" I am confused by this line, because you think that people that self censor their ideas and thoughts to the public and close ones are manipulated by the public in itself? Or? And the meek? Self preservation is not a meek or manipulated response to a situation. It is a forced option that many have to take manipulated would be that they legit changed their view based on the response and the general consensus, the meek follows whatever the general population follows. In my eyes at the very least, more than anything I am just confused by the comment in itself (not a native English speaker btw, so maybe I lost something when reading it). So if you could eleborate more I would appriciate it. I think I understood, and that is what the top part is about.

[@zitronentee]

@@redneckhippiefreak Define 'critical thinkers'

[@brianswindall]

Thank goodness there are still people advocating for our basic human rights!

[@DJWESG1]

Freedom of thought and expression is just one of 30 articles enshrined in the UDHR. It's probably not taught in schools that it exists, but it does, it's law and it overrides national law.

[@DJWESG1]

@@imannpc2562 everyone is free to speak. No one has stopped anyone from speaking. This all madness

[@SoloTravelerOffTheBeatenPath]

@@DJWESG1 Have you been living under a rock my man? Twitter just recently banned the President of the United states from their platform. That is one of the most egregious examples of censorship in modern history. They are modern-day book burners. A judge already ruled that Twitter is a public forum, which is exactly why Trump wasn't allowed to block his opponents. So the whole "it's a private company" argument doesn't apply.

[@DJWESG1]

@@SoloTravelerOffTheBeatenPath I reported trump to twitter for three whole yeara for his discrimination against women, disabled and bame communities. Instead twitter perma banned me just b4 UK general election telling me via a email that I had "attacked a minority".. still have the email ready for the police.

[@ferg775]

@@DJWESG1 You put "attacked a minority" in quote marks as if it's not true but what did you actually post?

[@miltiadiskoutsokeras9189]

Elephants in the room: Edward Snowden and Julian Assange.

[@marcelo55869]

Underrated

[@fgregerfeaxcwfeffece]

Since Nazi comparisons are taboo we should thank Erdogan! JK, just call the witch trials witch trials.

[@meandyouagainstthealgorith5787]

I like Snowden. Assange not so much. Assange held back information until it was politically expedient for him.

[@miltiadiskoutsokeras9189]

@@meandyouagainstthealgorith5787 I will not argue on that. The thing is that both broke the wall of lies and paid for doing the right thing.

[@w.8424]

@@meandyouagainstthealgorith5787 I'd overlook that in a heartbeat for what he achieved

[@CVS19851]

"Speech overtime has been a weapon of the powerless" if you censor it, "it will turn against the people with less power". So accurate!

[@ToadstedCroaks]

This is pretty apt for any tactic used to suppress or make war against another entity. There is an overwhelming chance in the future for this to be used against you. It's why pandora's box is both a cliche and a mythological warning. The unsuspecting opener of the box does not realize their mistake, despite all the warnings being presented before them. A single person with a weapon can be empowered by it, but a nation of weapons is overpowering.

[@rafaelc9299]

And they’ll turn against their government , voting , freedom of speech gives people freedom or at-least the illusion of freedom which prevents rebellions for the most part .

[@hiihienghui1086]

Speech will aways be a weapon , rather you have freedom of speech or not... if the majority belive black people should not have right , democracy will take always black people right

[@hiihienghui1086]

And that did happen in a democracy country ,that what happen to Indonesia minority Chinese , thay can speech in mandarin and have give their culture,

[@hiihienghui1086]

Can not speech in mandarin and have to give up their culture

[@MarkoKraguljac]

They were very shy on discussing big business, corporate censorship of public speech and "money as free speech". In absence of government's censorship, these two are very powerful and cunning with infinite corruption potential.

[@Robert-yc9ql]

Please remember that BUSINESSES (Facebook, Twitter, et. al.) are allowed to run their businesses HOWEVER THEY CHOOSE. They are not bound by the 1st Amendment, which is superseded by their own set of rules.

[@MarkoKraguljac]

@@Robert-yc9ql That was the case with railroad robber barons as well, until the government recognized that their monopoly is becoming dysfunctional and harmful. Government comes first, because, at least in theory, it represents everyone in society. Private business is allowed and encouraged only as long as it provides useful service or is at least not harmful to anyone. Private business' sole purpose is to provide something to society. Profits, ownership and the rest are secondary and irrelevant if their activity is harmful to others or society as a whole.

[@wuziq]

@@MarkoKraguljac are we talking about free speech? or something else?

[@tomymelon6293]

@@wuziq private businesses are heavily limiting free speech. Your internet service provider, application companies, and search engines control what they show to you. Private businesses is controlling what information is seen. If allowed to continue, government will be allowed to limit our free speech. Example, police taking your browser history if you are suspicious to them. Companies suppressing viewpoints that go against a government type. In other words, companies will be used by the government to limit free speech.

[@life9000]

Bro, that's not the topic that they were discussing. They were discussing free speech which is regulated by the government not by businesses. If they went deeper on discussing big businesses and corporate censorship that would have atleast taken them another 20 mins to discuss and would have taken away with the core point that they were trying to present.

[@rivenraven1]

The final speaker nailed it! Exactly right!

[@teIekid]

No limits beyond *literally* inciting violence.

[@Miranox2]

I expect your comment will soon be classified by YT as hate speech.

[@TomasPetkevicius94]

Indeed.

[@Tomyo95]

What about: - spending billions on promoting white supremacy - advertising gambling to children - spreading information that smoking is good for you - the press publishing defamatory information all that should be allowed in your small minded world?

[@TheBighatter]

@@Tomyo95 Yes, offensive speech is a necessary consequence of protecting everyone's speech. And where exactly is anyone 'spending billions on promoting white supremacy'?

[@ThomasOrtizMusic]

@@Tomyo95 the comment that you're replying to is self explanatory. Also, calling his comment small minded borders on oxymoronism. If history is any guide, trying to walk an authorizarian tight rope is just too much of a slippery slope. Also, you are being very idealistic, looking for, for a lack of a better word, a "perfect" solution. Sadly, humans are flawed to the point of your ideals never being met, so I sympathize with you.

[@1DangerMouse1]

Thank you for sharing this video, Big Think. I think it's an impressive, timely defense of freedom of speech. It's VERY needed!

[@fakhermokadem11]

1:00 it’s not trusting ‘fellow citizens’ vs trusting ‘government’. It is trusting ‘fellow citizens’ vs trusting ‘a very small subset of fellow citizens’ Government is not a mysterious oracle of truth. Government is just a group of people.

[@joetheperformer]

Thank you! This is so true!

[@zashbot]

Ahh yes, the classic random photo of somebody holding a Nãžï flag with the creases from the Amazon packaging still on it.

[@ironicdivinemandatestan4262]

Not even the proper Nazi flag, but the Hitler Youth flag.

[@meh_m6345]

@@ironicdivinemandatestan4262 who cares they just want to show their point

[@endloesung_der_braunen_frage]

Freedom of speach must only be given to those that believe in IT AS a Principle. If your Worldview IS apriori that is to say AS a Matter of Principle opposed to freedom of speach then IT must be banned or Else we lose freedom in its entirity. Here is my Argument Argument for the Restriction of free speach for the Sake of freespeach Argument from Logic P1: To be logical and necessairly by Extension to have logical consistency are fundamentally good and desirable Things. C1: We ought to be logical and consistent. P2: If ought to be logical, Then we ought to create societal Systems that are based on Logic and consistency. C2: Therefore all rights that such a logical societal System would Grant, must also be Logical and consistent in their application. P3: Within a liberal Democracy free speach IS a right. C3: Thusly free speach must be logical and consistent in its application. P4: Free speach can only be logical and consistent in its application If those that demand IT remain Logically consistent within the internal Logic of their Ideology while demanding it. P5: If the apriori structure of an Ideology is a contradiction to freedom of speach then one cannot be logically consistent in demanding IT. C4: Thusly one must not by reason of this contradiction be given freedom speach. C5: Free speach thusly ought to only be granted to such people whose ideologies internal Logic are themselves a positive Affirmation of free speach. C6: Free Speach must only be granted to those Who believe in IT AS Principle, NEVER Just as a means.

[@TheMetalfreak360]

Great video. This is an interesting thing to bring up, I am personally conflicted often on where the line goes or if there should be a line at all. I normally supress myself over anything else.

[@TMacGamer]

There are no limits on free speech as long as you are not directly threatening to harm someone... Just because you don’t like what someone has to say doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to say it. That is part of the problem we are having these days is when people don’t like what someone is saying they think they have every right to shut them down and silence them when in all reality they don’t. Just because you don’t like someone’s ideology or beliefs doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to believe that. If you think you are right or have better ideas, then debate them and show them. Otherwise it is legal for them to believe what they believe. I don’t agree with ANYTHING that nazis or white supremacists believe, but if they want to believe that crap then that’s their right. They have a right to hate. There is a landmark case where the ACLU actually supported the rights of a Neo Nazi hate group to March through Skokie Illinois. The ACLU took the controversial stand for free speech by defending the rights of the neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie. Believe it or not that suburb had many holocaust survivors that lived in it. Even thought these people are scumbags that believe in the Nazi ideology, they do have a right under the constitution. As long as you are not directly threatening somebody or being violently provocative you are protected under the first amendment. You are guaranteed the right to free expression as long as you are not physically harming anyone.

[@thomasvontom]

Ya. Like look at Trump and storming the capital building. Sorry guys. But I watched his speech that day. I never got the impression he was telling anyone to storm the building. Now I will say. Once things got underway. He was guilty of seeing a coup in his favor and supporting it by taking no meaningful action. I mean president is in the capital at the same time as capital building being stormed, by his supporters. No way he was not taken away to some situation room and given every chance to do something. You got to let people speak. Even if you think they are the worst. Further more. I want to know who the crazy people are. I don't want them hiding in the shadows and spewing their crap to kids unchallenged.

[@FernandoVazquez-ro1nw]

Just because someone has the right to say something doesn't mean I have to hear it - I still don't understand how is that the harassment of families during fallen soldiers funerals is allowed under the first amendment? How is someone else's freedom tramples my right to have a solemn moment with my departed?

[@thomasvontom]

@@FernandoVazquez-ro1nw I feel you. Standing around during those times doing that. I feel ya. But it starts with something like that. The world is better for it not being allowed. Then next its something else then something else. Before you know it it's something right being silenced

[@TMacGamer]

@@FernandoVazquez-ro1nw And guess what, you dont have to listen. Do what NORMAL people do & ignore it. I know, crazy concept. Your feelings don't matter to everyone else. grow up.

[@Siddhartha02]

The limits are "don't say anything that threatens those in power".

[@mnwsupercrazy]

Unfortunately, anything can be deemed threatening

[@westcoast8961]

Look at Hong Kong free speech .The ones that spoke out got 15 to 30 years. The question do we want that here? No You might not like someone thoughts but each have different views.

[@mnwsupercrazy]

@@westcoast8961 Liberals say it's fine as long as it's the conservatives being jailed.

[@westcoast8961]

@@mnwsupercrazy Do they really put them in jail?

[@mnwsupercrazy]

@@westcoast8961 No, but that is what they want. Liberals are anti-freedom. It's like a cult and if you don't share the cultists beliefs, they want you gone.

[@mjnyc8655]

Watching and listening to this, I felt like a member of a choir preached to. Still, it feels good.

[@patrickdallaire5972]

The philosophical questions at the heart of moral/existential frameworks are often such as: How free are we to choose our own actions? Even if we are free to choose how to act, how free are we to choose the impulses, beliefs, and thoughts that come to mind? How much influence does our environment have on us? How much accountability falls on the individual (relative to the context of course)? There is still a lot of research being done to better understand how the human mind works but I think it's undeniable at this point that we are more likely to think and behave like our perceived authorities seem to suggest. That said, for 4 years, the US had a president that outright encouraged discrimination and distrust based on lie after lie. On many occasions, he could've condoned violence or corrected his lies and rarely did until after the damage was done (if at all). Someone in such a powerful position really ought to be held accountable, forced to at least admit it when they have, intentionally or not, treated something undeniably fallacious as fact. Are journalists, lawyers, and doctors not held accountable for this sort of behavior? Why not politicians?

[@billbillerton6122]

Encouraged discrimination? We must be living in alternate timelines from one another.

[@endloesung_der_braunen_frage]

Freedom of speach must only be given to those that believe in IT AS a Principle. If your Worldview IS apriori that is to say AS a Matter of Principle opposed to freedom of speach then IT must be banned or Else we lose freedom in its entirity. Here is my Argument Argument for the Restriction of free speach for the Sake of freespeach Argument from Logic P1: To be logical and necessairly by Extension to have logical consistency are fundamentally good and desirable Things. C1: We ought to be logical and consistent. P2: If ought to be logical, Then we ought to create societal Systems that are based on Logic and consistency. C2: Therefore all rights that such a logical societal System would Grant, must also be Logical and consistent in their application. P3: Within a liberal Democracy free speach IS a right. C3: Thusly free speach must be logical and consistent in its application. P4: Free speach can only be logical and consistent in its application If those that demand IT remain Logically consistent within the internal Logic of their Ideology while demanding it. P5: If the apriori structure of an Ideology is a contradiction to freedom of speach then one cannot be logically consistent in demanding IT. C4: Thusly one must not by reason of this contradiction be given freedom speach. C5: Free speach thusly ought to only be granted to such people whose ideologies internal Logic are themselves a positive Affirmation of free speach. C6: Free Speach must only be granted to those Who believe in IT AS Principle, NEVER Just as a means.

[@crossocean5663]

It is not government. But private companies. Even more dangerous.

[@w.8424]

"I don't think we make the hate go away by not saying" Big fax right there. You don't make people stop hating, you just silence it. It's worse

[@DDCrp]

It would give people plenty of credence to silently grin when “their” institutions are compromised or degraded because they would justifiably feel nothing but long simmering resentment towards them. This would happen in so many different ways and dimensions- It’s a great way to make people feel like they have less genuine stakes in their governments success- because their relationship with their institutions will always be somewhat disingenuous.

[@jafersorianocamargo6723]

Rights and freedoms have the tendency of being thought as something innate and not won by struggle. That struggle educated those who won certain right or freedom on how to claim it and exercise them, but anyone that didn't live through the struggle, have inherited a privilege. Then the struggle should be learnt and those rights and freedoms can be exercised. People who want to use, for example, nazi or confederate rhetoric and imaging ignoring what that rhetoric and imaging did to their specific victims and the world in their time is nonsensical. The tremors of those actions still vibrate trough our lives, if we're still paying the damage, why should the punishment, the shame, the repercussions over said speech should be lifted? The academic bubble this people live in is sometimes isolated from the subjects or communities they claim to study, that's another topic, though.

[@themac7915]

This is a great comment. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence. If you say anything hateful or spread misinformation, then you should get in trouble for it. When you don't punish people or teach them right from wrong, you end up with situation like how COVID-19 is commonly misinformed.

[@BiancaZombie]

Free speech must be defended at all costs.

[@metalgearsolidsnake6978]

Are there limits to free speech?

[@BiancaZombie]

@@metalgearsolidsnake6978 sure, death threats because they lead to immediate violence, defamation, tortious interference.

[@metalgearsolidsnake6978]

@@BiancaZombie How do you know it is not said as a joke? So if the law says i will get 5 years in prison for death threats, will be ok with you? Does that sound fair? many people might end in jail for just sayind "WORDS". Take care

[@Adventurer-te8fl]

@@metalgearsolidsnake6978 Does it sound fair that you can falsely accuse someone of a crime they never committed and lie in court (perjury) to further push that false claim, and then not receive any legal consequences because those were just "words"?

[@metalgearsolidsnake6978]

@@Adventurer-te8fl No it does not sound fair.

[@Script3dR3ality]

If there are "limits" then it's not free speech.

[@johannesh.9955]

Free means you are free to do something. It doesn't mean that you are free from consequences and there is no freedom without limits. For example, you have the right to say that you hate Jews, but that doesn't give you the right to demand their death.

[@Script3dR3ality]

@@johannesh.9955 Thanks for proving my point.

[@johannesh.9955]

@@Script3dR3ality What was your point?

[@jakeriviera6152]

@@johannesh.9955 I agree, except for when you said "doesn't mean you are free from consequences". I thought that's what's implied from freedom of speech. Could the government arrest you for criticizing his policies, because "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences"? They could justify that the arrest is merely a consequence, but that you are still free to exercise your speech while locked behind bars. So I kinda disagree on that.

[@biglen2466]

What are you calling limits?

[@cyberhermit1222]

Truth fears no investigation. Whats the one event in history you're not allowed to question?

[@ANIME2020X]

lol people disliking a 21min video after being uploaded for no more than 5 min

[@fedea82]

I know right? Why would people dislike a retarded premise instead of watching the 20 minute justification?

[@varun1595]

Idk...2 times speed? It's still ridiculous tho Where do these people live?

[@varun1595]

@@fedea82 sarcasm much?

[@bdslade]

@Savickas Because they're reactionaries.

[@Smokedouttasian]

@Cheerio Box lol its not just Trump supporters but both sides

[@mrensayne]

Thanks for putting together this video. It's much needed in these times.

[@beetlebeeper4794]

Aside from being who makes every statement with the clearest intent, any limitations thereafter would lie with unquestioned clarity in addition to parameters of sensibility however they maybe.

[@Yamaazaka]

I'm so glad their taking this side. Free Speech! No directly inciting violence or slander yatta yatta

[@dreamguest3597]

A truly intriguing topic

[@9usuck0]

Not very intriguing. Freedom to speak is one of the only true freedoms we have. What is the limit of speech? Speech is either allowed or not. Censoring speech leads to oppression. Once you allow certain speech to be illegal, then who determines what isn't? The fact that this is a subject that is considered an important subject just let's us know how ignorant we've let people get on what freedoms, rights and feelings.

[@dreamguest3597]

@@9usuck0 I am a freedom of speech absolutist, but it's important to discuss the topic with other opposing sides. If I'm right then it reaffirms my stance and might persuade others

[@joshuataylor3550]

@@9usuck0 but what if that freedom creates violence? Should radical Islamists be allowed to gather terrorists with their speech simply because it's their right to do so?

[@joetheperformer]

@@joshuataylor3550 freedom of speech is paramount. Everything could spark violence. A pencil could spark violence. Doesn’t mean you should ban pencils. It is better to suffer the consequences of people speaking freely than it is to suffer the repression of human expression. We must deal with the consequences of freedom of speech like the mature, complex societies that we are.

[@joshuataylor3550]

@@joetheperformer the pencil argument is the most ridiculous false equivalence I've ever heard. So we should just deal with terrorism instead of cutting it off at source and saving lives?

[@Vesalempinen]

Freedom of speech and expression may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle. "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

[@jacobzaranyika9334]

It is important to hear both sides of the story. That is why watch stuff from everywhere worldwide and decide from there.

[@proffezur]

In all this time, I didn't hear them define what "hate speech" was. Saying the "n word" is not hate speech. Targetting it against someone is harassment, and advocating for violence against that person is hate speech. I welcome an argument that suggests we should protect language that incites violence outside of calling for war.

[@Robert-yc9ql]

Go to 10:18

[@barnettmcgowan8978]

I agree with the many great things that were said on the value of free speech, but nothing was said on the free speech issue of our day: the falsehood that the remedy for false speech is more speech. These eminent speakers basically ignored the violence, avoidable deaths and general degredation of our social fabric that have arisen from intentionally false speech spread through social media. I noticed a passing comment about social media coporations being bad arbiters of truth, but that was it. There were hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths due to the infodemic of lies and conspiracies about Covid-19 and masks spread through social media. Tens of millions of Americans wrongfully believe that the last election was fraudulent, resulting in a general loss of faith in the democratic system and a violent insurrection at the Capitol. These crises are the direct result of false speech blasted through social media. In each case there was plenty of counter speech exposing the lies and even labels put on false speech. None of it did any good for reasons that are well documented. Ultimately society is measureably worse off for this free speech. Neither libel laws, nor more speech prevented these crises. The value of free speech is that it is supposed to ultimately make society better, even if it ruffles some feathers and hurts some feelings in the process. As a general principle, I agree with this. Where speech actually makes society demonstrably worse off, we have some serious soul searching to do. The only thing that has made a dent in these grave crises of misinformation has been the prohibition of speech by social media companies. In each instance, the prohibition of speech measureably improved the situation. However, in each instance prohibition of speech was delayed because the arbiters of truth had a profit motive that benefited from the misinformation.This is the burnning issue of our day on free speech, not whether we should ban Nazi's from campus. New communication technology is fundamentally challenging the heretofore sacrosanct value of free speech. If the great thinkers of our age can't arrive at a principled way to determine where and how to limit speech in this new age, then Governments will be compelled by their citizens to step in and do so. We're seeing this process begin right now. If this happens, then we can reasonably foresee that Governments will limit speech in self-serving ways that make the situation even worse. Solving this problem starts with our acknowledging that free speech is no longer the sacrosanct value we've long thought it to be. We need a more critical and nuanced analysis of free speech that contains some sort of qualitative component determining the value of a given instance of speech. Failure means that future generations will look back at the year 2020 in the United States as the good times.

[@Robert-yc9ql]

Though I disagree with your falsehood, I do believe that the platforms for social media are directly responsible for both the Covid problems and the insurrection. Why they waited so long to enforce their own rules I do not know. I suspect the profit motive, but cannot say for certain.

[@barnettmcgowan8978]

@@Robert-yc9ql I used to believe that more speech was the remedy for speech that was false or bigoted. In more traditional human interractions, I still think there is some truth to the belief, though not as much as I once believed, due to our innate lack of rationality. Where I have lost faith specifically is with the power of contemporary social media technology when combined with the general state of our collective ability to discern information. The self-reinforcing echo chambers and data driven psychological manipulation we call analytics, seem to be devistatingly effective at shaping belief. I'm fairly confident government is not the answer. I'm unsure of what other goups can do (journalism, academia, chruches/social organizations). I find myself deeply concerned, and I'm not prone to feeling concerned.

[@joetheperformer]

We cannot start to tamper with it because we think we’re in some new age. We remain human, no matter what platform/medium our voices are delivered from/through. Freedom of speech solves its own faults by having same people come forward to exercise their freedom to speak. The discussion should arise from that and the population would decide what path to take. Prohibiting any speech only serves to hide the true motive of the speakers and muddy the discussion with censorship.

[@barnettmcgowan8978]

@@joetheperformer With what do you justify the belief that "freedom of speech solves it's own faults"? That sounds more like a religious belief then an argument. It sounds like something you are taking on faith. We have before us two clear examples where freedom of speech clearly did not solve it's own problems. That's my point. Both problems were solved by limiting speech. Responding with platitudes is not an answer. As a society we've tampered with freedom of speech since the founding of the nation. The case law on inciting riots is a timely example. Courts have created limits on speech, while erring on the side of protecting speech, even when real harm has occurred as the result of that speech. New technologies create new problems and call for new solutions. For example cell phone cameras and social media called for new laws on revenge porn to protect people. I'm suggesting that this is a similar situation, and then asking what does a responsible solution look like.

[@StankFernatra]

Good stuff. Complex, powerful & challenging. Thank you.

[@FernandoVazquez-ro1nw]

Then, following the emergency principle, is the limit physical harm with the potential of death? Then someone accusing someone saying that their bullying is making them think about self-harm or suicide should be punished?

[@vualeks]

The amount of freedom of speech one thinks should be allowed is proportional to the amount of self-agency one assumes humans have.

[@tristanscott4118]

Last guy was excellent. Very spicy topic!

[@kekero540]

Credible threats of violence, false alarms, and Libel and slander. That’s it.

[@BlackSailPass_GuitarCovers]

Somebody was just arrested in the UK for posting a tweet mocking the death of war hero Captain Tom Moore. I object to what they said on every conceivable level. But I'm also uneasy about the ability to arrest someone for a social media post. What do you think? Is this the limit to free speech, or should it be absolute? I'm open to all perspectives.

[@Raz0rking]

If you even think there should be limits to speech, you aint for free speech.

[@dare_challenge_a_god1536]

Wrong

[@Raz0rking]

@@dare_challenge_a_god1536 Well, looks like you are not for free speech then. There is no inbetween. Or you are, or you are not.

[@EmotionalParaquat714]

@@Raz0rkingthere is

[@sadrakeyhany7477]

Unless you're literally following people yelling at them, I agree on everything else

[@whitflores8160]

Wonderfully complex analysis of a complex question. I appreciated the efforts to clarify that free speech means protection from the government and large corporations NOT protection from other peoples free speech and their right to disagree and respond to you. Important issue, great work.

[@FernandoVazquez-ro1nw]

Who mentioned large corporations?

[@HaidenG39]

You can say whatever you like, so long as you do not promote violence etc. With that out of the way, the freedom to speak your mind is not taken away from you because you insult someone, or a group, and are ostracized by a community. For example, if you insult someone on social media and get banned, your right to free speech is being violated (Unless you live in, say, the UK, js.) If you say things people disagree with, they are going to use their right to disagree. If you are banned from social media sites because of this, it is not a violation. If you are fired for speaking your mind, it is not a violation. Government cannot dictate , within reason, what you are allowed to say. That is what that right is about.

[@talljohn5350]

Free speech allows bad ideas to be dominated by good ideas and prevents good ideas from being stifled.

[@johannesh.9955]

Donald Trump got President with bad ideas and lying. Ideas do not become dominant because they are true or good, but because there are enough people who want to believe in them. Give people an enemy and they will believe any lie about them if they believe they are on the right side. Racism is the simplest means: "You belong to the better race and can therefore do everything you want to the other" or "If you do nothing against them they will destroy your culture, which is much better than theirs."

[@sparkeypoos]

It`s not about free speech, it`s about control! control the speech you control the person. No limits beyond literally inciting violence. If you even think there should be limits to speech, you aint for free speech. XxX

[@phunkyphresh3799]

So I can spam one star review your business and lie about quality with no civil suits allowed? Or can I enter into a contract to promote your product, get paid, then refuse to promote based on my free speech? NDA’s are no longer enforceable either? And on the criminal side can I threaten to murder someone if there’s no one else who can be incited to violence around me as long as I don’t do anything? Your limits don’t make sense.

[@phunkyphresh3799]

@No Ma'am I gave clear examples where there should be limits beyond inciting violence. OP literally stated no limits beyond inciting violence.

[@johannesh.9955]

@@phunkyphresh3799 If I say "I will murder you!" I'm not inciting violence. I say what "I" want to do. I don't incite others to do the same. So it should be free speech under the given definition.

[@jakeriviera6152]

So you ain't for free speech. You said inciting violence is not allowed, so aren't u limiting free speech?

[@redraids5394]

Excellent and important video. Another reason why listening to experts and history is so important. We so often think we are special because we had a thought outside the box, when so many before us have done that same thought exercise and went much further.

[@lazarusblackwell6988]

That's why i love America passionately. Its the only place in the world where you are allowed to say what you want (most of the time) (sure haters are everywhere,even in US)

[@MrBr1ghsid3]

Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences. So long as the rules of the engagement are clear, everyone should be able to freely partake in this so fundamental of human capabilities.

[@karenness5588]

As long as the fundamental rules are absence of coercion and deceit, the rules can be clear. The moment arbitrary coercion, which includes threats, or deceit are tolerated, any rules are like loaded dice. The initiation of coercion or deceit, with someone who has never initiated it, is a declaration of war and, then, the use of coercion and deceit as defense is justified.

[@MrBr1ghsid3]

🤔

[@Adventurer-te8fl]

It does imply freedom from government consequences tho, since it was meant to protect you from for example, a government arresting you because of what you said.

[@lazarusblackwell6988]

GOD BLESS AMERICA AS LONG AS THERE IS FREEDOM IN AMERICA, I WILL LOVE IT WITH ALL MY HEART

[@jerryjones7293]

The missing factor is real time fact checking.

[@andreijikh8046]

C.o.n.t.a.c.t. M.e. O.n W.h.a.t.s.a.p *+1..2..1..3..2..9...7..4...3...9...0* Sorry for late response I was very busy Do well to respond thanks

[@tw1705]

Agreed, freedom of speech is literally the bedrock of everything. I don't even think free thought is really possible without free speech because you can't fully put your ideas out for criticism which often leads to improvement and revision. Innovation is also greatly restricted in a censorship environment

[@widsof7862]

Also the impact of the First Amendment on the development of other countires was vital to the reform of those systems and that enabled cross pollination of ideas. So for eg in the UK, people were jailed for satirising the monarchy, which was vital for eventual reform into a Parliamentary democracy. Some of those people chose to become US citizens, and this led to both impact in the US and change towards their position in the UK, because of the ability to share those ideas freely in the US.

[@Veriox22]

Free speech is limitless. I should be able to say whatever the hell i want no matter if it hurts your feelings or not.

[@starboi_6]

Middle Eastern countries be like : You guys have freedom of speech

[@TheBighatter]

Um... wiki/Media_Censorship_in_the_Middle_East

[@joejoey7272]

Gee I wonder who installed the leaders of those countries

[@joejoey7272]

If it wasn’t for the Middle East and North Africa The renaissance will have never happened

[@erickferret4238]

@@TheBighatter I think he’s joke was saying only men have free speech? 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@user-hh2is9kg9j]

The most taboo topic in the Middle East is religion. But you guys have your own religion without even realizing it. Race, feminism, global warming, the holocaust...etc. Just like you are not allowed to draw Mohamad in the Middle East you are not allowed to talk about inherent characteristics in races. Maybe talking about races is bad, maybe drawing Mohamed is bad but they are both free speech.

[@JonathanKajanga]

I'm a Center to Center Right Liberal, the combination of a Centrist Liberal and a Classical Liberal and I'm glad that there are still some people out there that still believe in the supremacy of free speech and freedom of expression. I'm not saying that people who get offended should not have the right to disagree, I'm not condoning violent speech or hateful speech in any way. I know it sucks to be verbally abused I know a thing or two about verbal abused. I've bullied my whole life and I still face it today😥. But none of my methods of tackling it have worked😒. But the only method that worked is ignoring it. I just love how unbiased Big Think is. Keep up the good work🤙🤘✌👌😉

[@silentfart5941]

Ignoring the bully doesn't work, you are full of bs regarding that part.

[@1p6t1gms]

This all seems to hinge on that the progression that the ego will evolve over time to what is best for the individual, which it will eventually, within circumstances and without causing death and injury along the way to anyone. However, this will not happen in our lifetime, because of the protection of these wrong thoughts among the masses. Free speech causes suffering, as thoughts are unborn actions and the more they are nurtured, sooner or later these thoughts become realized in a physical manifestation, by one or by millions of wrong thinking people who gather regularly to support their fantasies of life and death... and realize these fantasies as well under protection of law sooner or later.

[@lazarusblackwell6988]

There are a lot of people that would BAN your right to free speech simply because they are "hurt" by what you said A lot of people want to participate in society in a very NARROW and EGOISTICAL way They want society to be THEIR EXTENSION AND MIRROR OF THEIR EGO Thats NOT society Society is a mix of beliefs and in a true society we all respect each others right to SAY it. (Even if we dont agree)

[@Ondrix]

The correct answer? Like everything.... it depends.

[@QuietExplorations]

Man, the last guy not only hit the nail, he slammed it into the wall.

[@PlaydatePuppets]

What are peoples views on what Neil Young did in connection with Joe Rogan? According to this you can disassociate yourself from a venue that hosts someone you disagree with, but the moment you say “cancel him or me” you are advocating for censorship.

[@nickDvised]

most important video of the year

[@jacobhuff3748]

Unfortunately, This is hard discussion since there are those who abuse freedom of speech or intentionally misframe what others say and neither the left or right are innocent. Given the the turbulent time that we live in, it should be no surprise that there are those who exploit the rules for personal gain or denial of others opinions.

[@thaigerstyle]

Government control of speech is disgusting and anyone should be able to say anything they want in any public forum. However, if I create a forum, a social media site, a theater hall, or a school campus, it's my house my rules.

[@thaigerstyle]

@No Ma'am You are absolutely correct but I didn't say publicly funded.

[@majav15mg]

Freedom of speech is a principle though. If you create a public forum, you proclaim it to be politically impartial, and yet you ban people who disagree with you, sure, it’s your right and you’re not doing anything illegal. But it’s still very anti-free speech and profoundly cowardly.

[@thaigerstyle]

@@majav15mgYou are also correct that a public forum should be politically impartial but I didn't say I created a public forum. My personal creations would make them privately owned which would allow me to moderate the forum how I see fit.

[@majav15mg]

@@thaigerstyle Sure, but let’s say you created a public platform. Like KZbin. Which has always claimed political impartiality. Yet whenever KZbin unfairly bans someone, a lot of people quickly point out that it’s a private company and they can do whatever they want. And it’s true they can and should do whatever they want. But it still doesn’t change the fact that it’s a massive slap against the principle, not the amendment, but the principle of free speech and a very cowardly thing to do. I’m not saying you do this but many other people casually ignore this and don’t care at all because the people being censored are their political rivals.

[@thaigerstyle]

@@majav15mg Good job. Your comment on political rivals is spot on.

[@raceafc17]

Free speech needs to be protected and promoted throughout the world. What can not be expressed will go unnoticed what can not be said will go unpunished.

[@marcusmoonstein242]

12:10 "I'm not defending Nazis, I'm defending freedom of speech." If only more people understood the difference...

[@endloesung_der_braunen_frage]

Freedom of speach must only be given to those that believe in IT AS a Principle. If your Worldview IS apriori that is to say AS a Matter of Principle opposed to freedom of speach then IT must be banned or Else we lose freedom in its entirity. Here is my Argument Argument for the Restriction of free speach for the Sake of freespeach Argument from Logic P1: To be logical and necessairly by Extension to have logical consistency are fundamentally good and desirable Things. C1: We ought to be logical and consistent. P2: If ought to be logical, Then we ought to create societal Systems that are based on Logic and consistency. C2: Therefore all rights that such a logical societal System would Grant, must also be Logical and consistent in their application. P3: Within a liberal Democracy free speach IS a right. C3: Thusly free speach must be logical and consistent in its application. P4: Free speach can only be logical and consistent in its application If those that demand IT remain Logically consistent within the internal Logic of their Ideology while demanding it. P5: If the apriori structure of an Ideology is a contradiction to freedom of speach then one cannot be logically consistent in demanding IT. C4: Thusly one must not by reason of this contradiction be given freedom speach. C5: Free speach thusly ought to only be granted to such people whose ideologies internal Logic are themselves a positive Affirmation of free speach. C6: Free Speach must only be granted to those Who believe in IT AS Principle, NEVER Just as a means.

[@dmann4683]

“Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.” - G.O. 1984. Are you really willing to give power to controllers arbitrating what is true or not? THINK!!!

[@jimlitterick4957]

Were you willing to leave it in the hands of one on Jan 20?

[@ericjohnson6665]

Freedom of Speech is essential in the pursuit of truth. Yes, there are folks who abuse it. A lot lately. The challenge that it presents us with, is 1) knowing enough about a subject to be able to articulate one's position, & b) having the emotional maturity to master one's own tongue, especially when confronted with shamelessness. Not everyone is articulate. Their brains just don't work that way... so they latch onto sayings that approximate how they feel, and then regurgitate those sayings whenever the opportunity arises. Not everyone possesses critical thinking skills. Madison Avenue is highly dependent on there being lots of people like that. We don't ban advertisers for lying about their product, although there are sometimes consequences for false advertising. But it does take as many of us who are willing, to advance truth and knowledge as much as possible, to counter all the misinformation out there. But ultimately, it's up to each person to decide what to believe and what to discard. Each of us is responsible for our own growth.

[@robertskolimowski7049]

3:17 3:23 "NO MATTER how hateful something is"?? This guy is so full of it, it's not about 'making hate go away', it's about not propagating it, not spewing evil, many horrible things in history have started with 'just' 'innocent' hate speech.

[@xavierlauzac5922]

Then let’s repeal the first amendment.

[@marciwilliams8654]

Free Speech does not mean "freedom from consequences". If a person were to say, "this restaurant uses rat poison in their food" and causes the restaurant to suffer loss, there will be a consequence. Yes, a person can say this - but they can also get sued.

[@lucasart328]

Thats like restricting freedom of speech and saying the consequences of saying it wil be jail.time

[@DiyEcoProjects]

Good point Marci

[@singularitybound]

This is always used immediately by people who have a boxed view of Freedom of speech, its small, ignorant, and cheap manipulation. Its no where near that simple.. What you say is in the same line of tactics that lead to words are violence, and you're probably the same kind of person.. But its not fair to assume, but I will say that its the intentional word war in the first places thats made it so people see this pov more and more.. for example Narratives never really effected us; you could argue after the fact of X thing, but now its used to entrap us all in a mess.. Rather then it being as simple as A. B. Narratives they use the concept itself to confuse, overwhelm and entrap us all in a world of Narratives, using "Narrative" itself you could say rather then Narratives as the enemy people cant see. We are not a country of rules, its of laws, FoS is very clearly laid out - it was never meant to be tampered with because any tampering would lead to far worse then FoS itself ever could. And people who say things like you are using a crowbar.

[@marciwilliams8654]

@@lucasart328 - you can say what you want, but that doesn't mean there will not be a reaction.

[@lucasart328]

@@marciwilliams8654 so just like a tyrannical goverment using violence as an reaction to what you say

[@plerpplerp5599]

“When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross” Unknown

[@oxskillxo]

I love it when rich old white people tell me I need to be nicer to the people who want me dead😆😆😆

[@inofmotion]

As it's been pointed out, that quote that is slightly different in the original, is by Reagan.

[@plerpplerp5599]

@@Me-go3vs Thanks. I didn't know that.

[@ToadstedCroaks]

@@Me-go3vs The irony here is that it makes people even more unaware of fascism, because it's entire premise is starting off with a fascist tactic of ostracizing political opponents as the enemy.

[@alitlweird]

@@oxskillxo *RICH LIBERALS OF ANY COLOR

[@SOMAnxg]

It shouldn't matter who is expressing an opinion. What does matter is the preponderance of evidence is presented. And as far as free speech on social media platforms, keep in mind this social media platforms are privately held. Legally they have little to no requirement to promote 'truth'/facts anymore than a newspaper has an obligation to print a letter to the editor. Free speech only applies to 'public' spaces, the spaces owned by the public such as a sidewalk or public Park, etc. It seems to me some of these 'experts' don't understand where and under what conditions free speech actually applies to.

[@matthewlobato9624]

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that "Freedom of Speech" is NOT absolute. To say otherwise is simply naive and incorrect. And in many key decisions, both at the Federal and State level, where competing rights and interests clash, compromises to protect basic rights for both sides have been ruled. What is often overlooked in FOS arguments is the implicit (and I say most critical with respect to modern media) is "Equality of Speech."

[@SagaciousEagle]

If one gets the feelings hurt merely by speech, it shows how underdeveloped their control is over the mind.

[@joaovictorhasse1630]

How else would someone get their feelings hurt if not through some sort of speech then?

[@SagaciousEagle]

@@joaovictorhasse1630 Through speech. But when a person's feelings get hurt, does he or she have the rights to retaliate through other means other than speech (eg. physical contact)? That's the actual million dollar question.

[@vualeks]

I didn't expect this clip to be this way. KZbin won't like this.

[@groundfloorguthrie]

14:52 notice the speaker didn't mention Susan Wikiwiki by name...

[@vualeks]

@@groundfloorguthrie ouch, we wouldn't need that kind of trouble, now would we

[@groundfloorguthrie]

@@vualeks No, indeed...

[@paradigmbuster]

There seems to be the belief that people don't have there own will. Therefore there is a sensitivity to what one would say. Public figures think they can change the world by merely speaking. Therefore it becomes a moral narrative only to affirm certain things and to deny certain things.

[@prototype9904]

"You can say anything at least once..." ~ me

[@OrlandoVidali]

The point of free speech is it’s just that : free. This stupid idea that we can “safely” put limits should be ridiculed endlessly. If you try and punish something said in a certain way, it will just take another form. People need to grow up. You don’t like something you hear? Deal with it.

[@bdslade]

As long as you can be deal with being ridiculed for spreading fake news or bad information!

[@OrlandoVidali]

@@bdslade that’s the point. Rather than people whining about their hurt feels - address shut you don’t like direct or just ignore. Grow thicker skin. Nothing wrong with that.

[@metalgearsolidsnake6978]

@@bdslade Who define what is "FAKE news" people right? So your problem is?

[@bdslade]

@@metalgearsolidsnake6978 fake news and bad information is pretty easy to define: any information that’s demonstrably false.

[@metalgearsolidsnake6978]

@@bdslade Yes but some information is hard to verify, unless you in the real spot. Wars are hard to verify, politicians always run away from hard questions. .

[@TheWorptal]

I am fine with people having free speech, but promoting hate or not expecting consequences to our words is just absurd...

[@TheWorptal]

@Doran Krotan I hear what you are saying, but “hate speech” in those context you said did lead to the deaths of people and I agree with you saying harassment and violence should have consequences. When is speech just “hate” for a whole group of people considered harassment and moving people towards violence?

[@amarok5048]

"Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami." A difficult precept to observe in it's broadest sense

[@avijitkabiraj2187]

Read comedy of coffin on kindle written by Avijit Kabiraj. Introduction : Two unemployed boys were employed by a mafia boss, their job is to bury a dead chef in the criminal's cemetery. The chef is the pasta maker whom the boss accidentally shot dead. The boys were chased by the police, shot by a sniper, rested in a church, kidnapped by an evil doctor, electrocuted, freezed, roasted, couple of ladies didn't spare them, survived the strange graveyard but when they returned after burying the dead chef, found the boss in a coffin.........

[@sandman.s]

India: What is this freedom of speech and press you speak of?

[@ZeroKami86]

So why aren't anti-vaxxers censored? Spreading dangerous false information that can directly impact the health of others. Also I think a lot of people think the 1st Amendment applies to private companies when it only applies to government.

[@majav15mg]

Freedom of speech isn’t just the first amendment though. It’s a principle that supersedes the constitution.

[@24killsequalMOAB]

Freedom of speech means to train your mind to be free from the ideas of others and that your mind is capable of disseminating truth from fiction. Take away that and you take away the mind's power.

[@ZeroKami86]

@@24killsequalMOAB Agree to disagree, that seems more like freedom of thought. Which can't easily be taken away, though some give it away very easily.

[@24killsequalMOAB]

@@ZeroKami86 how are the two any different?

[@Script3dR3ality]

If you're vaccinated then why the hell does it matter if others aren't?

[@daniloventura112]

I will speak my truth and/or talk my shit till a brave soul punches me in the mouth... I'll whip my ass with a "shadow ban".

[@fredsmith-kingofthelunatic7810]

This isn't even a question anymore. Yes speach should be restricted. The question is only, at what lines? As societies that's the discussion that needs to be had that isn't being

[@jessicareutercastrogiovann5796]

I agree with the vast majority of this, but what about purposely spreading information that has been objectively proven to be false or misleading? Allowing this erodes trust in objective fact and has been the root of many human atrocities. And let's not forget the paradox of tolerance: tolerating everything makes society as a whole more intolerant. Context is important.

[@jakeriviera6152]

Yep, that's called defamation and I hope that when ppl claim all speech is free, that they consider defamation (not just hurting someone's reputation, but doing so such that you can file a fake lawsuit against them and unfairly gain money off them).

[@ramewsonyo3977]

I love the different views. Or the fact that I thought they had different views. IDK I'm high.

[@yaWacm]

Great video! Big thanks!

[@dianehong1217]

I am an Asian American female I am sick and tired of disparaging racist speech hurled at me. I have a right not to be verbally harassed by racists. Not all speech is protected.

[@ellenfisher3792]

The speakers in this video, like me, have the privilege of being white. I’m truly sorry you go through that. This is the thing about not censoring hate speech that is challenging for me to take a position on.

[@joshuataylor3550]

Can we have a European view on this please. I'm sick of hearing about their special piece of paper.

[@andreijikh8046]

C.o.n.t.a.c.t. M.e. O.n W.h.a.t.s.a.p *+1..2..1..3..2..9...7..4...3...9...0* Sorry for late response I was very busy Do well to respond thanks ✔️

[@24killsequalMOAB]

Why? Freedom of speech is pretty universal of a value

[@johannesh.9955]

@@24killsequalMOAB I'm from Germany and denying the Holocaust, showing swastikas or making the Hitler salute can put you in jail or at least cost you a lot of money here.

[@24killsequalMOAB]

@@johannesh.9955 And how is that relevant to this discussion?

[@nmmeswey3584]

@@24killsequalMOAB understand that the germans sold out their freedom of speech long ago, so they're jealous. It is literally illegal for them to criticize their public officials.

[@yankeeboy82496]

I don’t understand fighting for the right of a Holocaust denier. What they are saying is not a matter of opinion it's something that goes completely against facts about the world. I understand defending people's right to an opinion but denying historical facts is not an opinion

[@Newstory737]

You are wrong and the perfect example of why censorship is bad. You have your truth and they have theirs. What makes your truth better than theirs? Because one is more widely accepted than the other? Who are you to decide what is the truth and what is ok to say and what is not?

[@yankeeboy82496]

@@Newstory737 just to clarify, i believing in defending a person's right to be antisemitic, for example, and defending the right for them stand on their soapbox and say why they dont like jews. but once you cross over from the realm of opinion to the realm of fact, like denying the holocaust, that is just lying about matters of fact. which no good can come from.

[@lifeis_strange]

Opinions are just what people believe to be the facts. Holocaust denial is an objectively wrong opinion, so is the belief that someone doesn't deserve a moral standing just because of their ethnicy. As for defending their right to do so, I think free speech has nothing to do with respecting an opinion, and more about the consequences on shutting people up forcefully instead of refuting them etc (which is what is up to debate in the video)

[@oskarngo9138]

So even outside a crowded theatre; free speech is restricted!

[@Robert-yc9ql]

Freedom of speech is imperative. It is the last stronghold against fascism and totalitarianism. 8:35 The burden lies with those outside of the erroneous ideas to step up and say "Wait a minute... that's not right/fair/correct and let me tell you why..." Censorship only drives free speech underground... and evil free speech thrives in the dark. Only by shining a light on those ideas which are morally questionable can we identify them and make the case for the opposite.

[@DGAirbrushing]

It’s hilarious that people say this is a difficult subject. Ummm no it’s not freedom of speech is to say whatever one wants- with the exception of slander etc ...It’s pretty simple- not difficult at all. Freedom of speech is freedom to say whatever you want how simple of a concept. “Inciting violence” “hate speech” blah blah blah is ridiculous. Criminalizing speech is a slippery slope and will cause more problems than solutions.

[@Kiwipai]

It's staggering how many of these people are claiming to be free speech absolutists and then go "well, expect...". Most of them are just posturing as absolutist because it's so hard to defend having the line EXACTLY where they set it without giving away that it's all subjective.

[@hanj31]

speech that calls for violence, or false calls to action. blackmailing and harassment. also copyrighted stuff. That's it

[@karenness5588]

My stance on free speech: I would only add to that amazing run up of ethical people something about freedom, fear, hate, and harm. Freedom is indivisible; it is the absence of coercion, which includes the credible and explicit intent to do physical harm, and the absence of deceit. Government's primary job is to shore up to the utmost possible a common space safe from coercion and deceit where everyone can be without having to fear either. Without this safe space, civil society is impossible (as opposed to the normal relationships in nature that are mediated by sheer power, of individual or group might) and so is the economy, ideally the quantifiable aspects of non-coercive and non-deceitful reciprocity. Fear, hate, and harm are, unfortunately, not very precise words whose meaning we all agree with. Some people would equate emotional pain/discomfort with harm. The level of emotional discomfort created by apparent danger is very different for different people and the lower the threshold, the more discomfort is experienced. That threshold is not fixed, though it could render a person with a very low emotional threshold of pain tolerance psychologically unable to function. However, that threshold of emotional pain is under the control of the individual that has it and not somebody else's unless the person decides to collaborate with an aggressor and respond to the stimuli (talking about words, of course, not even volume levels of sound, which can be physiologically harmful.) The emotional weight given to a word or any situation before harm is actually caused, or not, is generated inside a person's brain; the physiological reactions to it are the result of a person's values and fears, unlike a very loud volume of sound which can reach the inner ear and cause the tympanic membrane to vibrate in excess or rupture. One of the first things I had to learn when I first went to school as a child in the United States, recently arrived from Guatemala was: "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me." I haven't become completely immune to the power of words and threats, but the threshold of discomfort has definitely been ratcheted up. That, in a person that was too often accused of "being too sensitive."

[@jamaicancoder6278]

hey

[@djn1822]

Responsible speech is never discussed in this “debate”. And now money and funds through corporations are “free speech” Irresponsible and a very disingenuous guise of a literal constitutional interpretation by a “conservative” justice of the Supreme Court. Completely ridiculous. And irresponsible.

[@dennis-qu7bs]

Freedom of speech is not freedom to hurt others.

[@markkravitz4678]

👋 To solve the human equation, we need to add love, subtract hate, multiply good, and divide between truth and error. A top businessman @evenkingsfall (his insta) has always said you have to THINK BIG to WIN BIG! Always keep that mindframe! Onwards and upwards ☝️

[@BlackSailPass_GuitarCovers]

14:45 This. This 100%.

[@blurglide]

Direct and specific threats of violence is the only limit. You can’t enact force against someone because you don’t like their opinion. That makes YOU the bad guy

[@GundamWarrior1]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” So piss off. The End.

[@prkzoomin6994]

A Great Quote, Go Hard or Go Home