Should Hate Speech Be Protected As Free Speech?

What exactly is covered under free speech?
TEACHERS: Get your students in the discussion on KQED Learn, a safe place for middle and high school students to investigate controversial topics and share their voices. learn.kqed.org/topics/1
College campuses across the United States have found themselves at the center of a raging free speech debate. As controversial figures, like white nationalists, book gigs at universities-- many are calling for limits to provocative speech on campuses, while others advocate free speech for all, including the haters. So what exactly is covered under free speech? And can college campuses ban speakers?
ABOVE THE NOISE is a show that cuts through the hype and investigates the research behind controversial and trending topics in the news. Hosted by Shirin Ghaffary.
NEW VIDEOS EVERY OTHER WEDNESDAY
SUBSCRIBE by clicking the RED BUTTON above.
Follow us on Instagram @kqedabovethenoise
What is freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is a right protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The government can’t make laws restricting what you say-- which basically means you can’t get arrested for speaking your mind. You’re free to bash whoever or whatever you want. And speech doesn’t just apply to what you say. The supreme court has ruled that free speech also applies to, writings, tv, art, videogames, signs, and even liking something on facebook. They’ve even ruled it applies to symbolic speech-- like burning a flag or when HS students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam war.
How come someone can get fired for what they say? Freedom of speech only applies to government and government entities-- places that are funded by your tax dollars. And public universities fall into this category-- so they can’t ban a speaker based on speakers views. But private companies can make rules that limit what you can say, you just can’t get arrested for breaking those private company rules. This is also why neighborhood associations or apartment buildings can make rules about posting signs in your yard or in your window.
Are there limits to free speech? Yes, the supreme court has ruled that certain things are not protected, like blackmail, making a threat, soliciting a crime, inciting violence, lying under oath, and violations of copyright are some of the things that are not protected. For example, “fighting words” is also not protected, but it only applies to direct confrontation with a single person that is likely to incite violence-- it doesn’t apply to when speech is directed at a crowd.
Is hate speech protected under free speech? Yes, for the most part when it comes to speaking to a crowd hate speech is protected. It’s really hard to get punished when speaking to a crowd. The speech basically has to immediately and intentionally provoke a crowd to act violently-- like if a speaker ordered a crowd to commit an act of violence-- then that would not be protected.
SOURCES:
1st Amendment: Freedom of Speech (CIVICS 101 Podcast):
nhpr.org/post/episode-56-1st-a...
Speech on Campus (ACLU):
www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus
6 Major US Supreme Court Hate Speech Cases (Thought Co)
www.thoughtco.com/hate-speech...
Hate Speech is protected speech (VOX):
www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017...
There is no 1st amendment right to speak on a college campus (VOX)
www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017...
FOR EDUCATORS
KQED Learn learn.kqed.org
KQED Teach teach.kqed.org
KQED Education ww2.kqed.org/education
/ kqededucation
/ kqededspace
/ kqededucation
About KQED
KQED, an NPR and PBS affiliate in San Francisco, CA, serves Northern California and beyond with a public-supported alternative to commercial TV, Radio, and web media. Funding for Above the Noise is provided in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Silver Giving Foundation, Stuart Foundation, and William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

[@lawyerrock9488]

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” ~ George R. R. Martin

[@gewgulkansuhckitt9086]

I'm guessing "Game of Thrones" has at least one person getting their tongue torn/cut out of their mouth.

[@thoughtsbeforeactions714]

@USA#1 !! nothing wrong with Sharia

[@videos4mydad]

"Be open minded, but not to the point that your brain falls out". Hateful speech towards a race DOES nothing good in the world. It should not be allowed.

[@shaolongchen]

i don't understand the quote can u explain better

[@athalonARC]

I dont think that quote works every time though. What if I merely hate what somone is saying, and wish foe them to stop? Hate and fear are not the same, and what use is hate speech? All it does is hurt, even lies are like daggers.

[@cristop5]

Good video. The bar for "hate speech" is set so low that you can apply it to anyone you have a disagreement with.

[@whatsyurprob158]

If HATE SPEECH can nullify the Constitution, it never was 'FREE SPEECH', get it???

[@bigbirdmusic8199]

@@whatsyurprob158 never thought of it like that, makes sense

[@whatsyurprob158]

@@bigbirdmusic8199 Most don't, cuz instead of thinking about it for themselves, they listen to others who you're pushing a specific AGENDA -- which they also don't realize -- imagine that, lol! I'll tell ya what most are 'realizing'. That is, how important and POWERFUL free speech is, which is why it's been CENSORED. WE ARE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE!!! WWG1WGA

[@seedplanter7173]

@@whatsyurprob158 Media is controlled to control you..Your brainwashed...kzbin.info/www/bejne/gmLRkGaNgdqdfs0

[@seedplanter7173]

It's not against the law to lie or manipulate public opinion..kzbin.info/www/bejne/gmLRkGaNgdqdfs0

[@mkzhero]

Imagine this a while before "End slavery!" "OMG THAT'S HATE SPEECH AGAINST THE SLAVE OWNERS!!!"

[@rk7912]

Not really. It's speech about a policy that was ended by a bloody war and it was said countless times before that war was over. If said today, it would not be hate speech. It seems you haven't really thought your "joke" through well enough.

[@LapisOverlord]

@@rk7912 a while before as in the 1800s

[@chingchenghanjiyang9161]

@@rk7912 i have to disagree. The government will see the criticism against them as hate speech. As in malaysia, if you criticise the commies you will be incarcerated. Or if you say bad shit against islam you would get locked up for 3 years.

[@fergin4979]

Walter LO but its still not “hate speech”

[@fergin4979]

You dont even seem to understtand what hate speech even is. She defines it for you halfway through the vid ffs. Its not just “i dont like blank” its specifically against certain groups of people not institutions. You big goof

[@doubleaa_02]

The answer to this question is unequivocally, **YES.**

[@certified__woozie]

agreed

[@MohamedElGoharyy]

As someone who'd be considered liberal, I agree. Hate speech is hateful and horrible, but it should not be illegal.

[@MohamedElGoharyy]

@@billybatts9491 LMAO. First of all, I don't self-identify as liberal. Second of all, my comment literally says I'm against criminalizing hate speech. And lastly, what exactly are the rights of yours that you think I want to suppress? 🤔

[@MohamedElGoharyy]

@@billybatts9491 Well, people who think I'm American assume that. But I'm not, and I don't subscribe to these labels. I form my own opinions, and it just happens that a significant amount of them are in agreement with liberal values. I had most of these opinions before I even knew about liberals or anything about American or Western political affiliations.

[@OriginalGamerPr0]

@@billybatts9491 You're talking about Classical Libertarianism vs Neo Libertarianism

[@hatespeechisfreespeech7367]

If you want to know someone’s true character, the freedom to use hateful speech is essential.

[@Caikyyy]

Why ?

[@zonalspore]

Talia Raza because people like you are thick skulled to the fact that censorship of conservatives exists

[@0megazeero]

Well if hate speech is free speech, then maybe freedom ain't that good

[@alexwhiting8215]

@@0megazeero you know trump partly got elected by a large number of republican's who spent all their time on the internet slowly getting radicalised further and further as they couldn't talk about there political beliefs in public.

[@alexandruvlad1309]

yea keep trying to appear intellectual...what are you gonna do when you see his character ?

[@LuisMartinez-ft9or]

Should hate speech be protected as free speech? Yes, yes it should...

[@mathisr.44]

In America, it already is.

[@MeMe-po1ze]

Hate speech is literally subjective. So yes, I agree with you.

[@kamikazesoviet]

America will soon be the only country with anything resembling free speech. In Europe, free speech is being eroded day by day

[@mathisr.44]

@Sam Santana Well Parler is about to be banned soon unfortunately

[@mrj4082]

@@kamikazesoviet are you serious? On twitter any comment against the current president can lock your account and you'll be forced to remove the comment if you want to keep using twitter

[@SoberParty]

Censorship = Death Liberty = Life Grow up children. Take responsibility for yourselves.

[@EuropeanQoheleth]

There's nothing wrong with being a child. Don't lump children in with your political opponents; that's just ignorant.

[@diesela3]

@Los Angeles Man Censorship is a deadly sin. This is moot argument anyway. According to SCOTUS hate speech as a category does not exist. Therefore further discussion is pointless.

[@brentjames6927]

Fake book

[@brainbomb.]

@@EuropeanQoheleth There's a difference between being child-like and child-ish.

[@KingAries85]

@@brainbomb. if they didn’t get it the first time and took it literal I doubt they will get it a second time or 3 even

[@JustinTime978]

I would like to apologize on behalf of my generation. I am genuinely embarrassed that this debate is even taking place after hundreds of years of progress and evolution of human freedom.

[@stephencross1230]

"I disagree with what you say sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Voltaire

[@railroadtrash09]

Civil, intellectual dialogue is always the answer when truth and education is the goal. Good luck finding that on mainstream media.

[@AboveTheNoise]

We agree! Hopefully you check out our channel - we strive to encourage that kind of dialogue here.

[@redshuttleredacted6422]

@@AboveTheNoise Yaay

[@railroadtrash09]

@@hamu_sando Spoken like a true cultist. How do you know something is "hate speech"? Are you afraid of idea's, or afraid of being wrong? Either way, you have no way of reaching consensus.

[@Society.Is.FXcked]

Hate speech is entirely subjective as is humour 🤷‍♂️ no speech should be regulated unless you're inciting physical violence towards someone that's it

[@crabsaresilly8317]

How how hum

[@brentjames6049]

Not on Facebook

[@brentjames6049]

They hate me I'm black voicing my opinion blocked now six days

[@omegahunter9]

Free Speech should remain uncompromised. It isn't "Hate Speech" just because someone 'hates the speech' or its message. Even if a message is hateful, it should still be freely heard. Let's not delude ourselves to think those who threaten violence against people saying hateful things are any better than those saying hateful things (They are worse).

[@DPGrupa]

Did we watch the same video? Review the definition on 2:47. It's definitely not “hates the speech”. For some unknown reason you brought in “those who threaten violence against people saying hateful things”, which were not part of the discussion in the first place.

[@vrolleri]

>> which were not part of the discussion in the first place. of course it wasnt; that wouldnt comport with a liberal pov. and in the context of a discussion on "free speech v. hate speech", it's disingenuous to offer that the same POV is not synthesizing said discussion.

[@DPGrupa]

Vince, I'm not sure what you mean. The problem with comparing “people saying hateful things” with “those who threaten violence against people saying hateful things” is that there is no clear reason to compare them. Why not compare “people saying hateful things” with “baby eating satanists”? If your point is that there exist such people “who threaten violence against people saying hateful things”, then why not compare them with “white supremacist terrorists, who perform mass shootings”, like Breivik or Nikolas Jacob Cruz? Clearly the latter group is worse.

[@vrolleri]

if you fail to see the obvious liaison between “people saying hateful things” and “those who threaten violence against people saying hateful things”, i cant help you. i'm not comparing them (even if omega did), it's that the former were part of this video and the latter were not. i agree they could have been and offered a reason as to why they werent. on a totally unrelated note, can you provide one single shred of evidence that the FL douche was a "white supremacist". i see a very disturbed kid, completely failed by the government, who ended up going full douche nozzle. did he shoot only blacks and jews? i missed that. you do know the jereb claim was quickly and totally debunked, right? but, youre sort of supporting my theory: if he's a white supremacist; and it's ok to punch white supremacists b/c, as you note, "the latter group is worse"; then it's cool to punch him. and here we arrive at the "those who threaten violence against people saying hateful things”, full-circle conclusion.

[@DPGrupa]

Yeah, my bad on FL shooting. Dylann Roof would have been a better example. My guess why “those who threaten violence” crowd was not included was partially because threatening violence is illegal and there is no discussion [mainstream] to make it legal. I just don't see how mentioning them would help the discussion about free speech. It's a red herring.

[@ItsGroundhogDay]

People like Ben Shapiro aren't even controversial, unless controversial means you have an opinion I don't like.

[@vrolleri]

BINGO! when was the last time someone tried to shutdown a speech?

[@migasthepepino]

Vince R although I agree with you I think we shouldn't need to offend others.

[@johnnyjones3362]

Well he does have two sets of standards for immigration. One for America and one for Israel and he should be allowed to freely express this hypocrisy.

[@vegbetle]

that's actually pretty much exactly what controversial means.

[@Tinfoil_Hardhat]

@@migasthepepino Facts don't care about your feelings.

[@LordOfAllusion]

I am pleasantly surprised at the position PBS took on this.

[@fsilveyra6469]

2:52 Gender disability

[@juicyasheru]

Fsilveyra I know this is old, but that sounds like trans people to me.

[@plagueincandglitch776]

@@ormen8769 😂🤣

[@PennyFizz]

@@ormen8769 just... no

[@user-cf3wk9cm3h]

@@ormen8769 it's the transphobia for me🤢

[@mathisr.44]

@@ormen8769 😂😂

[@richardcarson3596]

"should" -- You cannot have free speech if "hate speech" is banned.

[@korruptedbezanji3301]

But why hate tho that's the question

[@okuno54]

So, how does a whatever-ist get a platform to for speech on campus in the first place? It all makes sense that a public university can't stop a speaker, but it's not like anyone who wants to take the podium can just get up there at any time, especially if a large audience is expected.

[@guharse8805]

Connections and money

[@pankystinker]

I know YAF is a conservative student organization. They go through the administration to pay for and secure their venues. They then invite speakers like Ben Shapiro. It's not like these speakers just show up or ask to come; they are invited, often by students.

[@user-rw7xd2mh3d]

I don’t know what “get a platform “ means. Please explain it!

[@uria702]

You just said it yourself. If a large turn out is expected, it means the interest to hear the speaker one way or the other exists.

[@AHSears]

"How should universities handle controversial speakers?" By presenting them with a platform to present their views. Universities used to be the one place where you were *supposed* to be challenged to think outside the box you've put yourself in.

[@rajashashankgutta4334]

Free speech gives you right to say whatever you want without the fear of government censorship. It doesn't mean that universities (or any institution) have to provide a stage for your views.

[@stephencross1230]

@@rajashashankgutta4334 universities are public institutions which means they have a duty to protect free speech

[@jasonv6319]

@@rajashashankgutta4334 yes it does smh

[@jasonv6319]

@@rajashashankgutta4334 whats crazy is how blatantly you want people like me to just control your every movement in life, As someone whos at the forefront of this im suffering through human interaction and seeing how many people are willing to essentially sell their souls so i can maximize my profits

[@jasonv6319]

@@rajashashankgutta4334 why am i saying this, because I’m on an alt and you will never know who i am

[@crispysaxon1568]

I just want whoever can see this to know that my essay wouldn’t have been completed without this video

[@AboveTheNoise]

Saxon Carlton we are glad we could help you out! You should share your essay! :)

[@DanielFoland]

Kudos to the production team! Great job handling dicey topics and presenting ideas in a fun and flowey way. Graphics, sound, camera, edit, writing and presentation all amazingly good.

[@AboveTheNoise]

Thanks for the positive feedback! We really appreciate it.

[@wickedgaming9807]

And it wasn’t biased either

[@jamesclark468]

Liberals have forgotten that free speech protects unpopular and offensive speech.

[@zombies4evadude24]

But it also protects the right of inclusive speech that discourages offensive speech. Censoring constructive criticism only radicalizes a base, like a giant echo chamber. And I assure you it’s definitely not just progressives that are hostile to free speech. Just take a look at how ideas and facts Republicans disagree with are being censored from classrooms, libraries and street sidewalks in GOP led states!

[@kuenyotsou8401]

hate speech is very difficult to define, and that is the main problem. One person's idea of hate speech was maybe very different from the other person's perspective, so how do you regulate that unless all parties come together and really discuss it?

[@zrich1585]

In the UK we are close behind China we get police raids at home or work for saying the wrong thing online or liking the wrong tweet. Think long and hard before swapping freedom for politeness.

[@SanSan-lt3li]

Thank you! I was democrat years ago, but I totally changed my point of view when I started to do some researches on KZbin. This video explained to me why free speech should be allowed.

[@ethangilbert7305]

i believe the most intelligent democrats are the ones who used to be republicans and the most intelligent republicans are the ones who used to be democrats because they are the ones who challenged their own belief and changed from it. Kudos to you dude

[@thedarkenigma3834]

I thought one of the few things that both Democrats and Republicans can both agree on, is that the Bill of Rights shouldn't be touched, especially the first amendment.

[@hellonhead5905]

Yes it should be protected. Im an atheist and I would fight for a theists right to free speech.

[@brentjames6049]

I'm banned six days Facebook going against a white person

[@amandawright9108]

I would proudly die to protect my fellow countrymen's first right of freedom. I will gladly fight for others to have the same right! Yes free speech!

[@Mathieu140297]

As a Canadian, when she said « Do you really want the government to decide what *they* consider hateful? » I shivered because this is where we are headed

[@jdavidbaxter]

Good for you for standing on the side of free speech and giving great reasons for your position!

[@bdizzle1006]

Yes it should be protected!

[@sheloveshead3174]

Laws against “hate speech” are pretty ridiculous I mean it’s a pretty abstract concept.

[@crabsaresilly8317]

Losina

[@innernetfunhouse1161]

Students should bear the cost of security that their actions require.

[@austinbyrd4164]

Not through law. Not through the arbitrary, subjective, easily corrupting, coercive state.

[@1divmstr]

“There can be no right of speech where any man, however, lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments”

[@isaacaguirreescarcega9799]

Short answer: YES

[@kellyewatson1985]

There's no such thing as hate speech. Says the Supreme court.

[@SPQR7117]

The Supreme Court? You mean a group of unelected judges that get to decide for all of us? Think about that for a second...do you really want *them* to be making the laws?

[@stephenhargrave7922]

You would think they grow these trolls in test tubes somewhere? " so you believe in appointed laws over media sensationalism!?!?!" YES! In fact most of us do

[@stephenhargrave7922]

What you think in your socialist deluded consumer packaged daydream that you personally will get to make the laws? Jesus you people defy the imagination with the buckets of stupid you garble down wholesale from people who actually literally hate you I.e politicians. And on a public forum too. I would be embarrassed. Highlighting THEM. As opposed to what? The guy on the internet? From here in out this guy on the internet will be deciding which rights we will be entitled to. Because socialism is like totally the future. A govt run by the media and the fools gullible enough to buy AND EAT the steaming crap sandwich

[@JOHNSmith-hn1tj]

Hate speech is fake

[@ethanwilkins662]

Hate speech is as real as Santa Claus

[@dianedong1062]

Even though some people might express ideas which I find objectionable or even disturbing, I think it's better to know what other people truly think rather than trying to force everyone to pretend to be something they're not!

[@christianamericandominican2470]

Thank you so much! This was well balanced and well presented.

[@limabravo6065]

I May disagree with what you say but I’ll defend your right to say it

[@ovenmittboy3671]

I give this chanel props for replying to different arguments 👏

[@ccwnoob4393]

Is hate speech against right wing folks hate speech? You know, like saying how much you hate Trump?

[@Victoryoverourdarkness]

well your hate speech on hate speech is okay hate speech then?

[@crystallinemushroom4803]

how about use hate speech against hate speech

[@adherentofladycolumbia725]

Free speech absolutist here, good vid

[@mavaniansh]

Can I interview you further Q&A kinda thing on this issue ? ?

[@laurieberry4814]

Why do people feel like they have something important to say? I don’t believe that a person should be listened to if they are verbally abusive and yell a lot. I never yelled at a child because children are vulnerable.

[@CravenTHC85]

Considering the kind of political bent I'm conditioned to expect from PBS affiliated enterprises, this take is particularly nuanced. I came expecting to witness Free Speech get sacrificed on the altar of social justice yet again, but I've got the video paused at 6:16 and I'm surprised at how much of this I agree with. If nothing else can be said about this video, at least I feel confident saying that this video lives up to the channel name. Whether it's pseudo-militaristic racists over exaggerating, or the autistic screeching of the latest "victim" of the internet, I'm glad to see that someone out there still just wants to present reality as it is.

[@Ghennesph]

I've noticed, as the alt left gets more and more heated, more and more typically left leaning outlets are taking notice and drawing a line, usually defining it with sensibility, historical precedent, research, ect.

[@johngalt5604]

no such thing as hate speech, either you have free speech or you do not. if you do not have the right to offend then you do not have free speech!

[@hatredcel]

Free speech IS Free speech you cant choose sides

[@PunishedBriggs]

The founding fathers never mentioned "Democracy" in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

[@TheRageCommenter]

How about the right for all citizens to vote, bear arms, speak freely, and not be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process by law”?

[@EduardoRodriguez-rk8iw]

HATE SPEECH LAW - THE CURE THAT’S FAR WORSE THAN THE DISEASE In the debate between free speech supporters and advocates of hate speech law, free speech supporters argue that, yes unfortunately in society there is a terrible disease called hate speech. However, despite this, the ONLY speech that should be criminally penalised is threatening speech and speech that incites violence. We do have to think about things that can be done to lessen hate speech in society (about which see later), but making hate speech laws is not the answer. Why? - because the proposed cure for hate speech, hate speech law, IS FAR WORSE THAN THE DISEASE of hate speech. Of course there is a price that we have to pay for this allowance of freedom of speech, and that price is the possibility of being badly offended or upset by what others say, but this is a far lesser evil and price to pay than the negative outcomes that hate speech laws produce in a society or have on an individual. What are the negative outcomes of hate speech laws for a society or for an individual? • The only way to discover truth is through fully free and open debate. Without free speech an individual and society loses the ability to discover truth. This very fundamental and valuable knowledge is lost. A terrible outcome. • Hate speech laws stop people from saying what they really think, because everyone starts worrying that what they say will get them into serious legal trouble or make them lose their job. This means that totally free debate and the free flow of ideas are stopped. The positive outcomes that could have arisen from this free flowing debate and totally honest dialogue are all lost to society. Totalitarian states are always less creative and productive than free states. • The fully free market place of ideas can flush out bad ideas. By exposing bad ideas to the disinfecting light of free speech we can improve society. • With hate speech laws society becomes an Orwellian nightmare where everyone is afraid that other people will report on them. In addition some people will make false hate speech claims for revenge or other purposes. This would be a terrible society to live in. • Hate speech laws can be used in a political way to further a political agenda by preventing political opponents from putting their case forward - a terrible outcome for society. • In denying someone else’s speech you are denying yourself (and society) the right to learn something that might change your life (or society) for the better. That is, free speech is not only about the other person’s right to speak, it is also about your right/need to hear and be exposed to ideas different from your own. • To paraphrase George Orwell, if free speech means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear. If this freedom is lost, society loses the ability to improve. • The person who says something outrageous, in your eyes, may have put a lot of thought into what they have said and, even if outrageous to you, there may be a grain of truth in what they have to say that both you and the rest of society may learn a lot from. • Other people’s outrageous views, in your eyes, may force you to look again at what you believe and why you believe it, making you go back to first principles and improving your understanding of why you believe what you believe and your understanding of the issues involved. A very valuable outcome. • If you and society in general are shielded from different ideas and perspectives you (and society) will not reach your (and societies) maximum potential. • If people can’t say what they truly feel, they may become frustrated and take more aggressive or violent routes to vent the issues that they feel strongly about. • It is particularly important to defend the speech of the person who thinks differently. That person may be you one day. • The FIrst Amendment of the USA was particularly passed in order to allow a minority to say what the majority may find offensive. You may find yourself in that minority one day. • By curtailing the free speech of others, you may in future find that you yourself are prevented from speaking, that is, you are in potentia creating a rod for your own back. • In the USA you have no right to be free from being offended. If you don’t like what you hear it is up to you to debate and counter what you disagree with. In addition we have to ask these questions • Who would you want to entrust to decide, for you, what hate speech is? • What individual on earth is uniquely qualified to make this critical decision for you? • Who is to decide, for you, where the line is to be drawn between speech and hate speech? • Do you want to be ruled by what is in effect a “Thought Police”? • Once we as a society lose critical thought and freedom of speech what is left between us and totalitarianism? In Conclusion • Nobody should be in fear for their liberty for speech, unless it is threatening speech or speech inciting violence. Apart from these two exceptions it should never be “you can have free speech, BUT”. There should be NO BUTS. • Hate speech laws produce far more pernicious results for societies and for individuals than beneficial results. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. What CAN be done to reduce hate speech in society? Of course some groups are more vulnerable to hate speech than others, so what CAN be done to protect these groups and reduce hate speech in a society? Civility and respect codes can be used instead of implementing hate speech laws. People tasked with drawing up such speech codes should be chosen from across the political spectrum with equal numbers from the left and right. What these codes should be can be controversial, so they need to be thought about carefully before coming to a final consensus. The “policing” of these hate speech codes should also be carried out by people chosen from across the political spectrum and all hearings and rulings should be fully open to public scrutiny. Within an institution such as a university a very high burden of proof would be required for people making hate speech complaints. If the proof was deemed good enough, the person deemed as making hateful comments could be given a lot of warnings before they are temporarily suspended. There would never be any legal prosecution for hate speech. They would be allowed to return to their job after a reasonable period of time and given more chances to resolve the situation. A faculty member would only lose their a job for example or a student would only be expelled from a university after a lot of repeated transgressions of this code. That is, the people in institutions would be secure in knowing that they could speak freely. They would know that if anything they said was deemed as offensive by someone, the person complaining would have to have a very well proven complaint. They would also know that the civility codes had been decided upon by a group of people chosen from across the political spectrum. They would also know that they would not be in fear for their job except under extreme circumstances and would never face legal action. They would have plenty of time and chances to turn the situation around. Outside of institutions eg in public spaces, civility and respect rules could also be in place, again with high levels of evidence required for reporting to police. The police could be required to give for example four or more warnings to someone and only after this could they ban that person from a public space. This would be temporary, for a specified period of time, but no legal action would be taken and there would be no fines. On social media people could be temporarily suspended for repeated transgressions of hate speech rules but would never be banned or penalised legally or fined. This much more lenient civility code system would mean that the vital free flow of ideas in institutions, on social media and in society generally, would not be restricted by fear.

[@ericavery3054]

I am impressed, this was actually ok.

[@coopersmith9748]

How can you consider something hate speech?

[@khaos5085]

There's no such thing as hate speech.

[@khaos5085]

@MR. Right See that's the thing words are just words and even saying you would kill someone is protected by the first Amendment.

[@khaos5085]

@MR. Right There's a huge difference between words and actions you can just talk and not do what you say you are going to do.

[@beemer9108]

I appreciate this channel's unbiased look at different topics, especially in a video like this that is very controversial nowadays. There is a reason that hate speech is free speech, and that is because, simply put, hate speech can be broadly defined. As described in the video, a liberal campus could ban Ben Shapiro from talking, and a conservative campus could ban Colin Kapernick from talking; additionally, I wanted to expand on this idea. Since hate speech is so broadly defined, it could be perpetuated as different minority groups try to speak up. Imagine if it were "hateful," as least defined by the government, to talk about certain issues like gay or transgender rights. I don't agree with a lot of transgender ideas, but that doesn't mean they should be barred from talking because they are a minority. It's just the same as the KKK. It's jusy the same as African Americans. Each a minority; each potentially being barred from speaking because the government defines their speech as hateful. I also want to clarify what "hateful" means because, although we should have an unbiased government, we do not. So each person defines "hate" differently. This could go as far as specifying "hate" as saying something that somebody doesn't want to hear. And that's the danger of allowing the government to ban hate speech. That's the reason our founding fathers decided to make that the first amendment.

[@vrolleri]

well said. i would only argue that contrasting shapiro to kaepernick is a bit of a stretch in this context: one is a well-read, harvard-educated lawyer with years of focus on politics. the other is a football player. agree or not with their perspectives, if politics is the topic, shapiro is relevant. if how to throw a football is the topic, kaepernick is relevant. this is not about throwing footballs.

[@ekki1993]

Vince R The comparison is appropriate. Calling out one's formal education when talking about freedom of opinion is: A) Ad hominem. You should attack the arguments, not the speaker, which in turn makes it: B) Contradictory with a position that says that hate speech shouldn't be banned. You can't easily say an argument is better or worse than other for the same reason you can't easily call out a speaker for incurring to a certain degree of hateful speech.

[@migasthepepino]

Ekki for what I understood it's not really what he is trying to say. Its about the relevance of what they talk about. Indeed they can have an opinion but for the general public it is like having a plumber telling you about how quantum physics works, he may know about it enough to explain it of course but for the most part there wont exist many plumbers that know about it at all.

[@ekki1993]

DoseOfAwesome Except politics is not an exact science. It doesn't need to follow the scientific method (because most of the time, it can't) and most "experts" just have a vast array of anecdotal evidence (to a scientist, that essentially reads as "manipulated data"), which means you can't draw a line in the same way you can do for science or other subjects where a line is explicitly drawn. Even the most experienced political commenter isn't fundamentally different from someone commenting on politics by their own experience, because there isn't a proper "degree" or qualification that makes your arguments fundamentally better than someone else's as opposed to degrees that ensure you have knowledge of a science or the inner workings of law.

[@vrolleri]

Ekki: you're an idiot if you're unable to distinguish ability to say something with the value in what is said. kap and shap can both speak. when the former is talking about throwing balls, i might listen. but if you think there is no difference in their political insight , you're an obtuse troll.

[@tylercarrell68]

Free speech should never be regulated unless it can cause direct harm. Hurt feelings isn’t harm.

[@doctorsartorius]

Tyler Carrell I disagree with your argument that free speech should be prohibited if it threatens. I disagree because it opens a legal loophole whereby almost anything can be construed as threatening. This is the "backdoor" to banning freedom of speech.

[@nrm3247]

Abc Def anything short of calling for or threatening violence should be tolerated. Also screaming fire in a crowded movie theater isn’t free speech. That’s inciting mayhem.

[@puffcatco]

agreed.

[@crabsaresilly8317]

How how hum.. di.. How how hum..

[@Kraed3]

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” - George Orwell

[@JayBenjamin9214]

Another argument for maintaining (all) free speech is that it is actually better to keep people's ignorant views out in the open. It makes it easier to challenge controversial topics in this way. If we aim to censor all controversial views, all we do it drive them out of public view - they will still exist.

[@molotovmafia2406]

I think hate speech is discriminating someone because of their - race - gender - sexuality/identity - disease or disability - etnicity - nationality - religion and so on.

[@brendanswords4659]

That is the definition yes. Obviously its a huge gray area in individual cases though so the first amendment is a great idea.

[@alexblack534]

But it's still free speech.

[@joaodasilva4174]

You mean than it's OK If someone discriminate me about my mental condition right??? You support this??? You want to be arrested??

[@___E]

Someone must be able to say that without getting their life destroyed. If they can't, then the country is a tyranny.

[@amazinkay4512]

The US should never have allowed Defamation to be used to silence others. All speech should be protected.

[@kugajackson4955]

In my opinion yes it's okay to have hate speech, but like all things there's a line where it can be too much. Eventhough you can you shouldn't say it. It's like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, words have power and people can get hurt.

[@ValerioRhys]

I don't think lying is a form of speech. We already have laws against deception and fraud.

[@Adventurer-te8fl]

@@ValerioRhys It is a form of speech tho, because lying consists of words, and words are speech.

[@ValerioRhys]

@@Adventurer-te8fl You can also lie through action by hiding, pretending or feigning certain behavior or actions. Deception and lying isnt just verbal or words.

[@sidesswipe009]

How should colleges handle protests? Easy. Actually hold people accountable. If you want to protest, fine. You get out of line, break equipment, or get violent, you get punished to the full extent of the law, just like non-students would.

[@ELIOTKEMPER]

I think that if the free speech incurs costs for the platform, by security or some such that the platform does not provide by default, then the speaker should cover those costs. Because otherwise, the speech is coercive of the platform that can't say "no" to hosting it.

[@vrolleri]

that is a good case for supporting the hecklers veto. how about the people responsible for the need to have security pay the security fee? i dont fear someone like shapiro: words are pretty harmless. i carry a gun because of people like antifa and alt-right loons: their 'sticks' can be quite painful.

[@acvarthered]

The cost of security is not caused by the speaker. It is caused by the violent illegal protesters! Why would you charge the peaceful speaker for the unlawful actions of those that oppose them? To put it plainly: The problem is not with speakers, but with violent mobs of protesters. Don't blame the victim.

[@user-th9ix7vn8k]

Just because you dont like what someone says doesnt mean it is hate speech...You cant just add a meaning when it suits you

[@ViolentAurora]

Hey, very good points, good job guys

[@LUKAS0000000000000]

People express their energy and feelings through words. We spread information through our language as well. You have brain damage if you think humans should be banned from saying certain words to express their ideas(unless you work for special interests and intentionally hide the light from the public)

[@DTL9164]

HATE SPEECH SHOULD NOT BE RESPECTED+

[@puffcatco]

Free Speech is something that contradicts itself. If someone has an opinion I'm allowed to attack them for their opinion, as it is Free Speech.

[@gondoravalon7540]

@@puffcatco"attack" means a lot of things, attack their opinion, speech yes - which isn't contradictory since they still have the speech. Assault them, otoh, no - that wouldn't be a kind of attack protected.

[@brainbomb.]

Getting offended is a part of life, nothing will change that.

[@brian7224]

As long as you don't threaten direct harm to someone...."hate speech" is perfectly fine...if somebody "hate speeches" me I just ignore them. Soon enough you wont be able to SPEAK FREELY anymore.

[@brian7224]

@@rookerman please explain.....democrat

[@vrolleri]

there is free speech in the US. there is no such thing as "hate speech". that is a useful jargon term for those that dont like free speech, to characterize the speech they dislike. too bad.

[@catluva74]

It could be argued that saying all white people are devils is hate speech. But as a white person I believe people should be allowed to say it.

[@gsogymrat]

Good job. The consequences of restricting speech are much worse than the consequences of hurt feelings or political propaganda.

[@khemkaslehrling3840]

There is a very big gap between "consequences" and being physically attacked.

[@Holobrine]

You have the right to say what you want on a campus. You do not have the right to a stage and an audience.

[@guharse8805]

Holobrine fuck off please. If you can afford the stage then you get the stage. Capitalist life is money. Government is money. Too bad if you dont like it. change it america

[@guharse8805]

Holobrine sorry for the rude intro... uncalled for

[@Holobrine]

Guh arse The stage is a college's property to rent, and they choose who can rent it.

[@ConservativePressClub]

Free speech is free speech.. does not matter what you SJW snowflakes think. #MAGA

[@Holobrine]

International Ministry News Free speech means Trump can't arrest me for insulting him. And frankly I think he's an authoritarian racist sexist selfish man-child. We've dealt with the sexist and racist and selfish, but we've never before had a president that says we should copy China and remove term limits. He wants to be dictator-for-life.

[@MAGApepe]

there is no such thing as hate speech,,, its all protected speech under the 1 st amendment and supported by the supreme court

[@guharse8805]

MISTER MALABAR youre a wrong think

[@DPGrupa]

Try watching the video again. Pause and contemplate two segments - 2:47 (definition of hate speech), consider, whether such speech is possible; and 2:08 (illegal speech) and consider, whether really “ all protected speech under the 1 st amendment and supported by the supreme court”. The centre piece of the discussion is whether the “hate speech” should be moved into the “illegal speech” category. If you don't believe that either of those two things exist, you are in denial.

[@vrolleri]

do people say "mean things" (according to some arbitrary standard)? sure. this is subjective. is there speech that can have legal ramifications? sure. this is objective. are these in any way related? no. are you conflating them? yes.

[@scottaseigel5715]

Well done! How refreshing that a UC Berkeley grad presented such a balanced and thoughtful approach to this topic. Too bad it’s basically ignored on UC campuses. Nevertheless, thank you from this deeply concerned UC Santa Cruz grad (who is worried western society may be destined to repeat some quite atrocious history more from a lack of intellectual honesty than from historical illiteracy.)

[@AboveTheNoise]

Thanks for watching and leaving this comment!

[@eyesofibad2461]

I wish europe had a 1st amendment like this

[@secondarytrollaccount]

All speech everywhere that doesn't specifically call for violence should be protected.

[@marc416]

Students are taught by professors to commit violence against speakers they disagree with. Universities typically invite these speakers and should be liable for their protection. Look at what happened to Riley Gaines. Pitiful university response and should be sued.

[@rathernot6587]

They do understand the reason they can even debate this is because of free speech?

[@annamitford3452]

Just what I needed xxx

[@stevenkeller452]

Even if you dont like what someone says doesnt mean it's not protected,all speech is protected unless you can prove its evidence its attached to a crime but a college is considered a private business that can choose to bar one from the campus

[@jetlorider]

There is no "BUTS" in freedom of speech...Judge ye for what they do, not what they say.

[@user-ei6gl1gl1r]

the dogs bark but the caravan moves on

[@slicklizardchamp]

The Supreme Court made it clear that a public institution cannot prohibit anybody’s first amendment right on campus because the school is a government institution. Unless that speech is disruptive to learning…the school cannot censor your speech.

[@shedrickwallace9363]

Yes. You just have to be willing to accept “reasonable’ consequences. Emphasis on reasonable.

[@fastfoxblox]

you should be willing to accept social, but not legal, consequences, as with any speech

[@Shin_FTW]

According to Supreme Court rulings and other legislature, there is no such thing as hate speech, and I absolutely agree. Hatred is an emotion, and emotions are subjective. Words are not. People can derive different emotions from the same string of words. The concept of hate speech is vague BECAUSE it's based on a subjective emotion, and allows for people to discriminate and censor ANY speech/idea that they simply don't like, under the guise of "it's hate speech". It's dangerous and, at its core, evil.

[@crabsaresilly8317]

Losiana

[@frankyflowers]

if i get to choose what is hate speech then it should he illegal but only me

[@elijahjns81]

That was good. I don't think Universities should have to flip the bill nor should they ban speakers. Maybe a buyer beware type of thing.

[@JamesSmith-qr7be]

The cost of freedom of speech is hearing someone say something you dont like. The benefits outweigh the costs be thankful. Im sure these college students would change there minds about free soeech oretty quickly if they had a spend a week in north korea

[@jamescastro6640]

whn you allow the government to tell you what to say is the time youve given them all your power and you are t their mercy

[@goldeneagle1762]

Those Westerners are contradictory . You can see them standing with communities in the name of human rights like LGBT when some people speak out against them. While in another time they stand with freedom of speech when a person or some people speak out against someone who said or did something that seems offensive to some communities

[@mobspeak]

oh.. uhm, how do you subscribe again?..

[@ilovemyclay]

I think that really big companies like reddit, facebook, twitter, twitch and others shouldn't have the right to manipulate data and to ban users for unpopular or prohibited speech Because they are platforms, it is like saying I can say whatever I want within my house but once I go outside to meet some1 I have to respect some stupid policy of speech

[@eddyavailable]

just ignore...teach people to ignore hate speech. they eventually get tired.

[@gewgulkansuhckitt9086]

When it comes to controversial speakers at universities, I think protesting should only be allowed outside the venue and only in a non-violent way (obviously) that does not prevent people from accessing the speaker. For example, the protestors wouldn't be allowed to block building entrances. This pretty much requires marking off a "non-protest" area as a path for those seeking to hear the speaker. Otherwise, there's no way to say this person or that person is guilty of blocking access. People who pretend to be coming to hear the speaker only to shout him/her down should be removed and penalized for violating school rules. If they resist removal they should be arrested for trespassing and expelled. The same rules should apply to those seeking to block access to the speech. Protestors should not be allowed to wear masks. This way both groups get their freedom of speech. One group gets to express it's displeasure with the speaker (outside the venue) and the other gets to express themselves without interference.

[@elisebond]

You have a good point.

[@JackSparrow-yl8my]

What is this hate speech they keep going on about

[@thedot3814]

YES! It is the very most important speech we have.

[@GSpotter63]

How long do you suppose a societie can exist when they start calling the truth hate speech?

[@puffcatco]

what truth?

[@crazyforcanada]

No, you have to DEFINE your terms BEFORE you ask questions about them. DEFINE what YOU mean by "HATE SPEECH" and then ask your questions.

[@Adventurer-te8fl]

Yep, that’s facts. Hate speech doesn’t have a set definition yet.

[@6li7ch]

One could argue that a well rounded education requires not only freedom, but fairness. In voting we aim for "free and fair" with the understanding that freedom alone does not assure each party is treated equally when they are put to the ballot; freedom alone does not address issues of whom receives funding and press coverage. These issues applied to speech are arguably ones of fairness, not freedom. If a nation is to have public education, then it has something of a responsibility to establish a framework speakers must meet that falls squarely within the realm of education, so that every speaker is equally held to a system that rewards high standards of evidence and validity, while exposing flaws in the same. To do otherwise is to fund free speech, but not to fund free speech for the purpose of education.

[@johnmaher9462]

SCOTUS has ruled on this. It is protected under the first amendment. Also what is hate speech? Who gets to decide?

[@razvandobos9759]

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words may never hurt. People have forgotten that saying nowadays.