Noam Chomsky - Freedom of Speech: The Origins Podcast

In this highlight, Lawrence Krauss sits down with Noam Chomsky to discuss current attitudes about freedom of speech. See the full episode here.
• Noam Chomsky - The Ori...
To see commercial-free, full HD video episodes, join us at www.patreon.com/originspodcast
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Website: TheOriginsPodcast.com
Twitter: / theoriginspod
Instagram: / theoriginspod
Facebook: / theoriginspod
The Origins Podcast features in-depth conversations with some of the most interesting people in the world about the issues that impact all of us in the 21st century. Host, theoretical physicist, lecturer, and author, Lawrence M. Krauss, will be joined by guests from a wide range of fields, including science, the arts, and journalism. The topics discussed on The Origins Podcast reflect the full range of the human experience - exploring science and culture in a way that seeks to entertain, educate, and inspire.
Thank you for your support!

[@alexbatsis2785]

It warms my heart that there are still rational people around.

[@Hollowsmith]

Noam is sharper at 91 years old than 99% of people are at their peak cognition. Wow. What a legend.

[@BM-is5ei]

Makes you dread the day he will pass away and leave us idiots behind.

[@gammaraygun6576]

Someone said he practices bicycle theory where you just keep going and never slow down, so you can remain sharp, and continue to live longer maybe?

[@Peter_Kropotkin]

May he live another 20 years 🙏

[@Mrnoddingdonkey]

Yea but the other guy won’t shut up.

[@Mrnoddingdonkey]

He’s just yammering on about 3 subjects

[@RONNYMORRISMUSIC]

Such an important talk.

[@billschlafly4107]

In the past, the people had to worry about their government taking away freedom of speech. Now the people act like a mob on twitter and the internet to effectively squash discussion. And for whatever reason, it seems that it's the least thoughtful people who have banded together to shout down anyone with an opposing view point. And yes, I think both sides are guilty of this. The first step is to stop calling each other names and listen.

[@literallyshane4306]

Hell yes! What boom arm are they using? Rode PSA-1? Blue Compass?

[@plusgoodproductions1550]

i want to see chomsky do more podcasts

[@davidhutchinson5233]

We all would....but our old wizard is getting up there. I hope he lives until he's a 150

[@thefakenewsnetwork8072]

Legend

[@ricostynhateixeira1209]

Noam Chomsky is the one person that gives me hope . It is fairly easy to enter a ideology fixed loop hole in the internet where you only engage in the opinions that you previously saw/liked/known . And that causes extremism ,massive extremism. And I was fairly enganging in the ideas of the jordan Peterson,cammile Paglia ,being myself previously an avid adept of a social democracy ,only because the left (nazy feminism , political correctness ,cancel culture etc) are blunt ways to do censorship and for me that is obviously wrong (it is the exact same tool that is used to opress). I am happy to have escaped of this rabbit hole, as Chomsky can have diferent opinions from the "left" also I can feel inclined in some aspects with the 'right'. In fact polorize any debate in left and right is just a simple trick to not have a real discussion , and unfortunatly is the only debate that we have nowadays. Chomsky is a real intelectual.

[@DDogg43777]

I mean I'd definitely polarize the issue of Climate Change into "Left vs Right". Trump's actions and ideas for Climate Change are entirely different than Biden's.

[@DDogg43777]

@kl wies I guess I'd disagree. Biden is an advocate of the Green New Deal, which is the most progressive Climate policy we've ever had, and could be the most progressive policy in the world. But besides that, I'd also argue that "speeding it up" and "slowing it down" are huge differences. Especially when Trump panders to right wingers that don't even believe in Climate Change, let alone whether humans are causing it or not -> again, while one of Biden's main proposals is the Green New Deal.

[@DDogg43777]

@kl wies Just because two entirely opposing viewpoints have similar levels of political power does not mean those two opposing viewpoints are somehow not opposing. Suppose the country was comprised of: 49% Social Democrat, 49% Nazi, and 2% Centrist (Or 49% Communist, 49% Neo-Conservative, and 2% Centrist). Now, each election cycle tipping one way or the other would not be a good argument in showcasing Social Democracy as equivalent to Nazism, or Communism as equivalent to Neo-Conservatism. The fact is: Trump's Climate Denial is almost polar opposite to Biden's Green New Deal.

[@thetruth2640]

The right does not "love" being censored. No one does.

[@bjpargeter466]

No, they love it when people cheer on suppression and censorship because that is the tool they use to suppress the left.

[@spiritualeco-syndicalisthe207]

All they need to do is to show people some upper middle-class students who have never to a concentration camp and don't know what they're saying when they call someone a fascist. Obviously this isn't leftism, but since none of them has ever read a single paragraph of Marx, what will work is right-wing propaganda.

[@jayxavier6208]

06:15 His point on the 1st Amendment is unexpected, but worth pondering. To wit: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech[.]" Chomsky's point is that Congress can block a speech in advance, but government authorities can punish after the fact... however, the Amendment is agnostic on this point, so I'm supposing Noam has some other (legal?, scholarly?) source who's dug into the question? Regardless, it's a topic I wish he'd expand on -- or, at least, provide us with some footnotes...

[@yamishogun6501]

As usual Chomsky doesn't know what he is talking about.

[@satisloop1304]

Can anyone summarise?

[@asahmed1980]

Could someone please explain what Chomsky meant about the first amendment does not protect the freedom of speech part at 6:20?

[@inalavalamp]

I believe Chomsky is saying that with respect to the historical aspect of the United States, not necessarily what's actually written down. That's why he keeps referring to the 60s as different. It reminds me of Ivan Illich's "Overt/Covert Curriculum," or George Carlin's "American Double Standard." Historically the US Government has suppressed free speech if it is against their interest. That's why Chomsky also says in this clip when free speech of the left is targeted it doesn't matter because nobody pays attention, but to attack the right is tactically crazy simply because the right has some basis in power politically and historically ( 4:58 ).

[@asahmed1980]

@@inalavalamp Thank you! 😊

[@tomreeve5876]

@@inalavalamp I don't think it's that. He's saying the wording of the first amendment was never intended to provide the extent of protection that it does today. This is due to how it's been interpreted in the courts.

[@inalavalamp]

@@tomreeve5876 I can see that. You could be right

[@lycanblud]

✨✨✨

[@PiceaSitchensis]

Please have Massimo Pigliucci on! He has made strong criticisms of you accusing you of scientism.

[@omarwaheed9359]

I need translation English not auto _English

[@Mrnoddingdonkey]

How does the US constitution not protect freedom of speech. It seems like it directly says it does.

[@Mrnoddingdonkey]

I’m asking this as an honest question.

[@MikaelOlssonUppsala]

Free speech as described Yes. But intolerant movements with goal to overcome tolerant societies, No. There is no contradiction therein I believe, which is the reason we have to policing the society according to common agreed rules. Am a fan of Chomsky and his theories, but as in the case of all theories One assume an ideal state which is the reason the theories predicted outcome won't come in place without common regulated pragmatism. As Austrian/British philosopher Karl Popper puts it, ”In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant to intolerance!” To put it in another way: If we are accepting of every single ideal and person, the ideals and persons who diminish the rights and freedom of others will have the grounds to take over. So people understand: If you open a space to be tolerant of both foxes and chickens, don’t be surprised when only foxes show up. A safe space for chickens excludes foxes. So, no more Mr Nice Guy that is. Sounds fine to me.

[@junk8746]

So you want to suppress 'dangerous intolerance' such as moderate positions that gender behavior has a biological basis, affirmative action may have unintended consequence, or any other opposition to your established ideas. Disagreeing with you = big bad wolf that must be suppressed

[@VeritableSmorgasbord]

@junk8746 LOL, making it just a tad easy on yourself don’t you think? “When Ben Shapiro or Matt Walsh shows up to a campus they’re only trying to politely inform the students that gender behavior has a basis in biology.” Spare us the comedy routine, please.

[@garnertrulit6105]

Denying free speech benefits on campus helps ‘neo fascists’. The irony

[@dialerproof6188]

Interesting how this showed up my feed.. almost like some group has control....

[@CraigCastanet]

Kind of a stupid comment. Chomsky implies Nazis are not Nazis, that the Left is not the Left, i.e. that they should not curb free speech. But that is who and what they are.

[@thefakenewsnetwork8072]

Im god

[@sydneyhardial2669]

Wish I had 0.1 percent of his interlect.

[@buddinganarchist]

Left always defends free speech. Always.

[@BruthaVIII]

That's not true. It's the Left that is shutting down free speech and the "marketplace of ideas" -- particularly on college campuses (and now K-12), and various online platforms (Twitter, etc.).

[@JJaguar333]

That’s bullshit. Cancel culture and no platform are a good example of a left lost in PC authoritarianism and identity politics.