Does the First Amendment Protect Hate Speech?

[@rogerwelsh2335]

Free speech should always be defended. It is an absolute necessity for freedom.

[@United_States_Of_America_1776]

Yes. Yes it does.

[@thucydides7849]

57:59 he doesn’t realize it, but this point actually hurts his case. In the same way that Facebook wrongly saw his picture as pornographic, they would likewise see many instances of hate speech which aren’t actually hate speech.

[@theundead1600]

Dangerous liberty is better then safe slavery.

[@brentjames6927]

Facebook can't sensor people with opinion I am because I'm Black

[@jennifermarrs754]

Excellent debate!!! Thank you for doing this.

[@MrSmith-jj9te]

Yes, the 1st amendment does protect hate speech because the whole purpose of the constitution and the first 10 amendments, is too protect OUR NATURAL RIGHTS that all men receive the moment they’re born into this world! These are natural rights, not government given privileges. Rights being turned into government given privileges, are the very thing that the constitution’s against. People, the whole purpose of the constitution, is to limit the governments control. The first 10 rights listed on the constitution, are natural rights that are bestowed upon us by god and these rights, are above any form of government. A government that goes against the constitution, is no longer a government of the people, but an enemy to the people. The government, is not our creator, it cannot take what it don’t own and didn’t give. Freedom, is a two way street and people, are allowed to hate whatever the hell they want to hate, free from government persecution. Libenazi’s are a diseased group of childish people that only want freedom and equality when it’s on their side of the street. Our government, is the country’s own greatest enemy. We have failed to uphold and defend our natural rights, in the face of a government that started to believe in it’s own make believe to control and pimp things it does not own. A government with a god complex, is a very very dangerous thing, for society and country living under it. America, is letting its newfound euro-social stupidity, pimp the nation into a society of brothelized socialism whores. When a free country tries to enslave itself by sucking off socialism, it’s obvious that the government and public, are both drowning under a river of their own stupidity.

[@thedankatheist3466]

The constitution mentions freedom of speech. There is no if ands or buts in there. No modifiers no nothing. Just speech. To make exceptions is fundamentally unconstitutional.

[@eyesofibad2461]

Supported

[@anthonyarkadia9760]

That's the problem, the constitution is written very simple.. And anyone whom tried to silver tongue it knows that they are wrong.-!

[@thedankatheist3466]

@@anthonyarkadia9760 how self righteous of you. It is very simple. Say whatever the fuck you want. Unless you are actively harming someone or people it’s legal.

[@xx-er7se]

Constitutions and laws evolve just like humans. We shouldn't blindly obey laws without questioning them just because they're 'official'

[@tammyl.9254]

What if I wanted to call a black man a n*gg*r

[@hafsalinda]

Lets quote the full section from the court case, as the speaker left out the most important part, dealing with official opinion If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or *other matters of opinion,* Or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.[n19] 19 military service Or other matters of opinion is important enough to include in the quoted section.

[@agreetodisagree4751]

Crazy that there are so few views of this very important and enlightening debate. Shannon's linking of the 14th Ammendment to the 1st made a very compelling argument. But in the end, I can see that the 1st Ammendment must prevail everywhere and in all cases. There exist laws to protect people from imminent danger. A group of men taunting a woman walking by are innocent until the stalking or physical assault begins, ie., acting on the speech. People need not be arrested for their lewd thoughts and words. Likewise, laws are in place to give recourse for job discrimination, sexual harrassment, etc. And how did these laws come about except by both sides being heard. Any person can find a subgroup that they belong to. I happen to have a very large nose and I am marginalized very frequently; however, I am happy to know immediately what quality of person I am dealing with. I have a gay friend who was holding a rally for BLM, yet when people came around yelling that ALL lives matter, he was outraged and called them fascists.

[@Dr_JSH]

Pushing back against white people insisting "All Lives Matter" is fine. Even necessary. What we have is a power differential. To the powerful, equity feels like oppression. "Black Lives Matter" does not mean white lives don't matter, but that's how white people who've convinced themselves that they and the nation they founded are being replaced see it. This is an old, dirty trick of the intolerant. They appropriate "outsiders'" rallying calls to render those groups silent or too divisive to succeed. The focus shifted from the obvious double standard of the criminal justice system to Republicans squawking about the nebulous #CRT and claims that white schoolchildren were being told to hate themselves because of the color of their skin. All this from resenting the slogan "Black Lives Matter." The same happens with gays. Every June #TheReligiousWhite gripe about Gay Pride Month. The reality that gays and their allies have clawed out sufficient power to be recognized as African Americans, Asians et al. are drives them nuts because they realize they are losing the right to take away gays' rights. Inevitably, "Straight Pride" parades get held, as if heteros need an opportunity to come together and enjoy the diversity heteros represent in US society.

[@sayhitosteve2785]

England didn't like Patrick Henry's "hate" speech against them. The current US govt. doesn't like the "hate" speech against them either.

[@larrymick7287]

Freedom of speech is the bed rock for a nation to remain free. Your opinions may seem extreme and offend me---and then again my opinions may seem extreme and offend you. Call it hate speech if you wish. That's what a free nation of citizens is all about. Politically correct or government limited speech is not free speech. The younger man on this panel does not seem to have a rational perspective---as I listen, his arguments become more and more in line with the victimhood mentally which has become prolific in America. I firmly believe in free will, advancement based on merit, and equal opportunity---not equal outcome. The greatest threat to the black race comes from within the black community and those who claim to be the voice of their community.As a paying spectator at a football game, you can take a knee, but remember if you do, I can take a pass on purchasing tickets. I don't go to a football game to be subjected to a misdirected and ill mannered and rude political expression----I go to watch football and nothing else.

[@brentjames6927]

You can't go against Trump supporters you'll be blocked o. A witness as s black Man on social media net neutrality

[@xx-er7se]

Both these guys made really good points

[@jkonior1]

Great debate! I'm still firmly on David French's side, but Shannon Gilreath did in fact help me to understand the other side better.

[@seal869]

I honestly can’t say the same. When he led off with “there is a right to free speech but there is also a right to be free from speech that dehumanizes…” he pretty much lost me. The whole issue is that those two “rights” aren’t really compatible, and we’ve chosen which we will prioritize.

[@xx-er7se]

Really good debate, I literally agreed with most points on both sides.. such a tricky subject.

[@stevenwendellnelson5228]

🙏🙏🙏Religious freedom was about encouraging the worship of the one and only GOD by not favoring one religion over another, it was not about encouraging the worship of any idol. And freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble, etc, the founders had something kind of noble in mind. 🙏🙏🙏

[@notthefather3919]

It does. Next question.

[@xx-er7se]

Deep thinker here

[@billbillerton6122]

@@xx-er7se No deep thought required. The answer is and always has been yes.

[@Sxlientz]

Agree

[@klein2042]

It protects ALL SPEECH. ALL OF IT. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

[@thedankatheist3466]

A frightening amount of things aparently

[@timewarpdrive77]

@@thedankatheist3466 Whats frightening about allowing everyone to speak on an even playing field?

[@thedankatheist3466]

@@timewarpdrive77 I mean there’s a frightening amount of things people don’t understand about the constitution. That being one of them

[@anthonyarkadia9760]

People who DON'T like FREE speech-... Like the debater said..your affecting their control of trying to gain power!

[@xx-er7se]

Life isn't that simple. Life is hard to understand if you can think a bit deeper and see more than black and white. Speech is also telling someone to kill someone else for example. Both guys make good points.

[@williekellerwhitaker1531]

Thanks

[@victorbergman9169]

Yes

[@suarezguy]

Shannon seemed to really continually ignore David's points that censorship is much more often used by the powerful for the status quo, against increasing equality and against speech that is just disliked, and to pretty much ignore that anti-gay vitriol correlated with overall increasingly pro-gay views and policies.

[@suarezguy]

And that suppressing free speech does not, cannot just end intolerant views, it just channels them to intolerant and extreme actions.

[@thomasdwyer1690]

It's the whole point of the first amendment actually. Popular speech doesn't need protection, no one will throw you in jail or kill you for saying soemthing popular. It's only unpopular or hateful speech that will get you in trouble, and thus only unpopular and hateful speech that needs to be protected. Bottom line, if you think hate speech should be criminalized, you are anti first amendment and anti free speech.

[@OfficialAshLynx]

Well written and on point!

[@righteousbyfaithinChrist]

I do not believe defamation of character to be protected.

[@ThePROFESS10NAL]

Interesting Shannon (spelling?) cites FBI statistics but doesn’t see the pattern on table 43. To him I presume, facts are racist.

[@Lmr6973]

21:25 Must be understood "properly". Here is the problem. If you don't don't see the issue at hand the way I do and are in agreement with me then you don't understand. If you are not capable of understanding the issue what possibly could you offer anything related to it. Without free speach you are not free.

[@xx-er7se]

Complete freedom is an illusion. I'm not pro censorship but are you gonna defend death threats or death orders for example? I feel like I agree with both these guys..

[@Lmr6973]

@@xx-er7se I've been threatened with death more than once and I'm sure most people have been at some point in their life. I don't quite understand what you mean by death orde but it is already illegal to scream fire in a building full of people. You are correct no one has absolute freedom buy GOD if you believe therebis a GOD.

[@xx-er7se]

@@Lmr6973 I'd be surprised if most people had been threatened with death. Unless they live in Afghanistan or somewhere dangerous or full of cpnflict. I'm sorry you have. So there are.limits to what we can utter. I don't believe in god since I was young. A good god wouldn't stand by and watch people get slaughtered right? But that's another topic..

[@doolittlegeorge]

Does the Constitution or any other law label *"speech"* as of any type? Either way the 1st Amendment is about *FAR* more than just some choice words *AS RELATES TO AUTHORITY IN THEIR EMPLOY* although certainly there is that ("failure of the MBS product is a matter of free speech!")

[@Lone432345]

1:30:00 Equality is a noble goal. But its also an intangible one. Some people are going have some advantages over others. Throwing people in prison because there views isn't going to change that.

[@spartanqs117]

Their

[@garyhall5397]

@@spartanqs117 The "their" in question identifies as "there".

[@greglewis3903]

Here we have a hour and a half discussion on whether the freedom of expression is absolute. The answer, the easy answer, of course, if you're not a leftist, is that yes, freedom of speech is absolute. You don't have the right to be unoffended. If what I say offends you, then that's too bad for you.

[@billbillerton6122]

Bingo! We have a winner. This whole debate is pointless because the answer is yes.

[@hanj31]

of course it does. only thing it doesn't protect is something that directly calls for violence or false action like yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre when there is no fire.

[@anthonyarkadia9760]

That little millennial up there is a perfect example of what's happening in America, they want to take your FREE speach away, tell you how to think, and feel, and if you disagree with any of their rhetoric, then your this, or that.. People don't need others to tell them what is right, or wrong, they can make that decision for themselves, whether it is right, or rong.. #FREEDOM OF SPEECH

[@cyrusblackwood33]

Hate speech doesn't exist.

[@anthonyarkadia9760]

It sure does, anyone who doesn't appreciate your opinion, then it's hate speech!

[@cyrusblackwood33]

@@anthonyarkadia9760you got me there

[@cobybryson6668]

WHAT QUALIFIES AS HATE SPEECH ?

[@mr.pickle6744]

90% seems a little out of balance to start🤔.

[@Curtis5241]

Yeah i have a honor code to protect my comments and remarks and statements and opinions and expressions

[@Robert-nu4vc]

There is no such thing as hate speech. Free speech means all speech. Don't like it? Too fucking bad.

[@javierruiz1710]

yes

[@jessicastrat9376]

I’m an atheist, and can’t agree with the theist on the left more.

[@shawnnbramwell8773]

This kid can spew out rhetoric ( i.e. 1:41:25), like a kid playing "eruption" solo on guitar note for note; along with 100 other songs/solos, but can't improv blues in any key.

[@anthonyarkadia9760]

36.15 somes it up very simple..

[@suarezguy]

Banning burning of the Quran would very much be in line with Shannon's philosophy as Muslims are in the US very much a historically marginalized minority group without power and burning a Quran, from the idea that Muslims are violent, can increase discrimination and violence against them, but he think that's not about anti-equality speech apparently as they're a minority group he has little interest in or sympathy to or he doesn't think the link to discrimination, disenfranchisement is direct enough or he just feels it would still be going too far for the government to make their religious book sacrosanct.

[@suarezguy]

He doesn't even admit the inconsistency and tension, being asked about burning the Quran and he does say that should be allowed but because if the Bible is burned most people are Christian and in power.

[@sher1864]

Murdering people is not ok no matter. That's why most Religions in America don't go into the military. Govt fooled many by fear. People/citizens just need to actually study history and not just listen to news.

[@hafsalinda]

God gives rights to his creation [ you control what you create operates here] govrrnments hi jack gods rights and detetmine the scope and restriction on these mutable privledges they offer the " citizen " the seek to control. What has government created that they can controll? Nothing that god hasnt created first? God is first in line, first in time. Imlo.

[@matilda5823]

Harlem Crow - Clarence Thomas's boyfriend (sugar daddy)

[@onesmoothstone5680]

Who invited the shemale? The shemale is arguing emotions, the other guy is arguing law. Emotions have no place within law.

[@saturnz7sonz813]

One Smooth Stone - "FAAAAGGOT!!!!!!!" 1ST AMENDMENT🇺🇸✊😁

[@xx-er7se]

Humans are emotional animals so laws that govern us are inextricably linked to emotion right? We're not robots

[@hcwcars1]

Does the First Amendment Protect Hate Speech? What a silly question

[@saturnz7sonz813]

Maria Schick - Agreed. But why does this still happen - kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZKZaZx7eK6JqdE, kzbin.info/www/bejne/eqbImYWcbc2gjqs

[@brentjames6927]

Not according to Facebook community standards bs I'm blocked one month because I would not surrender my free speech rights to Trump supporters so Zuckerberg blocked me five times this year I feel violated because I'm Black

[@Trid3nt861]

Leftist, SJW's,Marxists, Democrats,Liberals,Progressives,etc: "We want to criminalize free speech as its hate speech" Skeptic: "So you want big government and a tyrant to put guns against your heads and have you executed or thrown in concentration camps or made to disappear, you want that type of censorship, you do know that you will be on the chopping block too under that utopia.... Don't think for a second that you will be excluded from it. Do you want your speech to be censored?" Leftist,SJW's,Marxists,Democrats,Liberals,Progressives,etc: "Umm........ *brain melts* "

[@anthonyarkadia9760]

Hitler, Stealing, Castro, just to name a few, what did they do first? They took your guns! What did they do second? They took your speech... Americans better wake up because this is what is trying to take place in America!

[@nas0ng]

Yes