The 3 Rules of Hate Speech: Free Speech Rules (Episode 2)

Here are three rules you should know about "Hate Speech" and the First Amendment:
1. The First Amendment protects all ideas, loving, hateful, or in between.
In the United States, “hate speech” is just a political label, like “un-American speech” or “rude speech.” Some people use the phrase broadly, some more narrowly - but there’s no legal definition, because there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment..
As the Supreme Court held in 1974, “Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas."
Or, in 2017:
“...the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.'"
That’s from Matal v. Tam, in which the government denied a trademark to an Asian-American band, because the band’s name was seen by some as a racial slur. The government wasn’t even trying to ban the name; it was just denying trademark registration to people who used the name.
But even that, the Court concluded, was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, and violated the First Amendment.
2. Some speech is not protected by the First Amendment, regardless of whether it’s bigoted or hateful
Threats of violence are constitutionally unprotected. That includes all threats--racist threats, threats to police officers, business owners, the President, anyone.
Likewise, intentionally inciting immediate violence is sometimes punishable. Classic example: Giving a speech to a mob outside a building, urging them to burn it down.
Personal insults said to someone’s face might also be punishable, as so-called “fighting words.” That’s true regardless of whether the insults stem from personal hostility or group hatred related to race, religion, and the like.
Indeed, in 1992, the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance that specially targeted bigoted fighting words.
3. Hate crime laws are constitutional, so long as when they punish violence or vandalism, not speech
The classic example is Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the 1993 case in which the Supreme Court unanimously upheld hate crimes laws. Todd Mitchell, a young black man, urged some friends to beat up a white boy because the boy was white.
Wisconsin law made the beating into a more serious crime because the boy was targeted based on his race. The Court said this is fine, because “a physical assault is not by any stretch of the imagination expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.”
And while the law increased the punishment because of the defendant’s intent, the law often punishes people more because of why they did what they did.
Killing someone for money will get you a harsher punishment than killing them out of momentary anger. Likewise, firing an employee because of his race will get you a civil lawsuit; firing an employee for most other reasons won’t.
None of this covers the mere expression of hateful ideas, or the use of words that some see as hateful. Those are generally protected by the First Amendment.
But why? The Justices generally agree that racist ideas, for instances, are wrong and dangerous. Why would the Justices say hate speech is constitutionally protected?
Because they don’t trust government officials to decide which ideas are wrong and dangerous.
They worry that if government officials had the power to ban evil ideas, that power would quickly stretch to punishing a wide range of debate and dissent. And they see the First Amendment as requiring that distrust.
In the words of Justice Black, echoed by the Supreme Court in 1972, “The freedoms ...guaranteed by the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish.”
Written by Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment law professor at UCLA.
Produced and edited by Austin Bragg, who is not.
This is the second episode of Free Speech Rules, a video series on free speech and the law. Volokh is the co-founder of the Volokh Conspiracy, which is hosted at Reason.com.
This is not legal advice.
If this were legal advice, it would be followed by a bill.
Please use responsibly.
Music: "Lobby Time" by Kevin MacLeod, Incompetech.com
Music: "You Make Me Alive" by The Slants
Wookie Icon by Jory Raphael, symbolicons.com
For full text visit reason.com/reasontv/2019/02/1...

[@chetopuffs]

Hate isn’t a crime! If you can’t tell me what I can love; you can’t tell me what I can hate.

[@redredred8408]

fizzickle or a.. 🔁kimmickoll!!😬

[@DonNuBreed]

I am amazed at the number of people around me who don't understand this concept.

[@recoveringnewyorker2243]

Really? With today’s US educational system? Really?

[@davidcisco4036]

Remember ? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Strong character, common sense and thick skin are scarce these days.

[@johngalt6752]

These kids have no idea of what "character" is. The don't understand morals, values nor ethics. They can't earn their own way through life and have to blame everyone else for their failures. AND they have more access to all the knowledge in the world than we ever had... Total losers.

[@hopelovegood8131]

@@johngalt6752 who are 'these kids', we're not all indoctrinated.

[@Alisha120058]

I remember and I still agree with that! People should be allowed to say/think whatever they want it's their right to say it.. Now days you can't say whatever you want well you can but get these whiny people saying, "You can say what you want but your not free of the consequences." I don't think the punishments fit the crime though.. Someone shouldn't lose their job/only source of income and be blacklisted for life over something you may have said that offends people. Losing friends over an belief? Sure that's an fair consequence to your actions people after all pick n choose their friends based on their values. But to lose your job/be evicted from your home/being forced into being homeless over something you said that people don't like is plain stupid. I have met others who want to imprison people who say things they don't like. Also to hold it against them for years and years is horrifying. They do realize people are capable of change? Also treating them so badly can reinforce whatever negative thing they believe that don't like. Today's generation scares me..

[@billbillerton6122]

@@Alisha120058 Because they're all mindless drones that'll ruin someone's life at the drop of a hat.

[@gwho]

The exact opposite of SJW/BLM/Marxists

[@joevartanian4246]

Explaining the actual law huh? Countdown to KZbin demonetization. . .

[@cheerdiver]

Not quite, it was an arts degree holder expressing his perverse opinion. In their 'world' everything is subjective. IE they want you subject to their opinion. It's the BAR's objective to make perception nine tenths the 'law'. Which means they can persecute you for legal actions, even though someone else's perception lead them to a different conclusion. It's about finding excuses to screw people out of monies, as arts degree holders tend to be counter productive to society.

[@Yatukih_001]

If the US government forces social media companies which do not honor the 1st Amendment to leave Sacramento, I will support that.

[@thunderthighs8269]

“If this were legal advice, it would be followed by a bill.” Truer words were never spoken

[@koala10ish]

Hello, Let say someone constantly disseminates a speech by saying we will wipe you out and then take your land to a community who legally own the land; and then one day he/she says on the face of one of the community members, and this member gets outraged and beats the person disseminating the speech; so, does the community member have the legal right to react that way spontaneously? Thank you for your clarification.

[@The4cp]

There is no such thing as hate speech and no speech should be banned. It doesn't matter who is offended or how offensive it is . It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

[@zealord9399]

but it doesn't mean freedom of consequence

[@Axolotl720]

I will find your home address and post it everywhere on the internet

[@hello-sz7hp]

Banning hate speech risks banning nearly all speech

[@Axolotl720]

@@hello-sz7hp fine by me, most people don’t deserve a voice tbh

[@hello-sz7hp]

@@Axolotl720 so you agree with hate speech laws? Or laws banning the word fire at the theater?

[@braticuss]

1'st rule of hate speech, there's no such thing as hate speech.

[@CabanaBoss]

I hated Speech class, does that count?

[@flazzorb]

@@CabanaBoss Verb vs Noun, but we all hated speech.

[@italktoomuch6442]

I mean, there is such a thing, and it's still pretty nasty, it's just not illegal.

[@flazzorb]

@@italktoomuch6442 Then define it without using the word "hate".

[@arlaghdoth4434]

Niall Walsh So it's not hate speech it's just "Being a dick"

[@United_States_Of_America_1776]

I am the United States of America, and I approve this message.

[@sparkedits500]

Nobody likes You, We Only Like California.

[@brandonpeterson8834]

Threats of violence and incitement to violence should also be protected speech. Our founding fathers would agree with me as many of the things they advocated for would land them in jail if they incitement or threats were punishable forms of speech.

[@koala10ish]

Hello, Let say someone constantly disseminates a speech by saying we will wipe you out and then take your land to a community who legally own the land; and then one day he/she says on the face of one of the community members, and this member gets outraged and beats the person disseminating the speech; so, does the community member have the legal right to react that way spontaneously? Thank you for your clarification.

[@raydawgms]

@@brandonpeterson8834 Dude you've just explained terrorism at its core. Congrats on the self admission 👍

[@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.

[@erikkovacs3097]

Recycling center = Nickelback recording studio. Ha!

[@stvargas69]

Or Maroon 5

[@RetroMMA]

@@stvargas69 Yeah, but Nickelback is actually pretty good if you don't buy into the mob mentality of the meme internet...

[@CaptainCocaine]

@@RetroMMA They're talented, but their music is uninspired and formulaic.

[@RetroMMA]

@@CaptainCocaine Much like other bands, what you hear on the radio rotation gets over played but if you dig into some of their other works, they're quite good. That said, formulaic isn't necessarily 'bad' - it's like comfort food or watching the same TV series over and over.

[@CaptainCocaine]

@@RetroMMA I don't mean formulaic as in they tend to follow the same types of patterns. I'm saying they write music specifically to formulas that are determined to be marketable.

[@jeffersonianideal]

A "hate" crime may not result in punishment by government for speech but it essentially punishes thought. This type of authoritarian edict is also ludicrous.

[@TheObsesedAnimeFreaks]

Like they said as tyrannical as it might be, "hate crimes" do reflect a justifiable reason to increase a punishment for any action, however it would be better suited if we just bake in the "hate crimes" by modifying existing law and take the "hate" reasoning and rephrase it to be "complete malice" or no rational reason for the act outside complete and utter unjustified malice towards another individual.

[@beardoggin8963]

jeffersonianideal exactly. “Hate” is an opinion. It was just used to help put down lynch mobs and the Klan in the south faster

[@jeffersonianideal]

@@beardoggin8963 Thanks for the reply. Judicious punishment is administered based upon whether a defendant is guilty of the crime he/she is accused of. The reasons behind the crime may help to establish motive but do not solely provide concrete evidence leading to a guilty verdict. Murder is murder, no matter why the criminal act was committed. If possible, government would eagerly control the thoughts of its serfs. The leviathan State is continually making an effort to do so.

[@jeffersonianideal]

@@TheObsesedAnimeFreaks Can someone hold a "hate" thought without committing a hate crime?

[@TheObsesedAnimeFreaks]

@@jeffersonianideal hate crimes don't exist, but especially malicious crimes do. that's what "hate crimes" try to target. crimes where the offender has no reason but malice for theier reason to commit the crime. That is what you can define as a "hate crime." modifying existing laws to account for malice and hold criminals accountable based on that malice, is a better solution then implementing a "hate crime" that just targets thought more so than the actual crime and reasons for the crime.

[@SusanBaileyAmazingEstate]

The three rules of hate speech: The first amendment. The first amendment. The first amendment.

[@havanadaurcy1321]

OK let's see you do it at work.

[@theyedmeister6981]

@@havanadaurcy1321 That's private property, not public areas

[@redredred8408]

@@theyedmeister6981 private picture frames*

[@hello-sz7hp]

@@theyedmeister6981 Kells and windmills and shay mccay dark wood cabinets while there's oil and grease on the chemistry lab tables while there's lots of complaints about that in the new room you go in one day. Next Andover trip in 2 days when you're on the bus and when you hear the noise, it reminds you of compounds

[@dolliesdieyes5590]

Hate itself is not punishable, or wrong. Just as there is no _right_ to love, there is no _obligation_ to punish hate. People nowadays seem to forget that hate, in all it's forms, and the expression of one's hate, is a right of every human being. There are exeptions, of course, but everyone just sitting on his couch or walking the city has a damn right to hate and to communicate his hate.

[@Cdogg-hd7pt]

"They worry"- in the UK their worrys are reality

[@CaptainCocaine]

"No one's coming for your guns" "No one's coming for your knives" "No one's going to be arrested for a racist joke" ... "No one's... uh... left..."

[@bloomball356]

Sadpants McGee wait I don’t get the joke

[@nikonerf8410]

In germany it is even worse then in then UK. Some people here get several years in prison for "hate speech".

[@frzstat]

Great video! Very entertaining and makes us think. Thanks Prof. Volokh :)

[@EveryoneKnowsItsWendy]

Thanks JPR... Very enlightening

[@WillStrong7]

Eugene Volokh is fantastic, more videos with him please!

[@KOLODNY95]

He announces at Volokh Conspiracy there will be a total of ten of the 1A messages.

[@HuntingTarg]

This is freaking digital gold. Bravo Zulu (that's Navalese for 'outstanding job').

[@zxjim]

Even if such laws existed, would burning down the Nickelback recording studio be considered a hate crime? Or would it be considered a public service?

[@AmericanWithTheTruth]

Tell this to Facebook who literally banned my account again for calling someone ignorant. The term ignorant or foolish or arrogant or even an idiot does not hate speech they are real definitions of cognitive dissonance and decline. I am floored that the oligopoly of companies out there are literally rewriting the dictionary as we know it.

[@TouristGuy]

I doubt that. I need more context on what you wrote on Facebook which led to the termination of your account. I wouldn't be surprised if you used incendiary, inflammatory rhetoric.

[@DR---]

@@TouristGuy You have been living under a rock having you? Pay more attention to the world around you.

[@timothypopik2288]

Definition. Speech you disagree with and hate to hear is now "hate speech".

[@Yatukih_001]

Thanks for the upload!

[@stringX90]

Great video that I can feel comfortable sharing with my progressive friends. Would love to see more like it.

[@koala10ish]

Hello, Let say someone constantly disseminates a speech by saying we will wipe you out and then take your land to a community who legally own the land; and then one day he/she says on the face of one of the community members, and this member gets outraged and beats the person disseminating the speech; so, does the community member have the legal right to react that way spontaneously? Thank you for your clarification.

[@WeAreWafc]

Great quote from the Supreme Court

[@hameggs4837]

Great.

[@blueknight5754]

Great video..too bad not enough people will hear it!

[@voronOsphere]

Excellent Presentation!

[@NittyGritty420]

Hate speech is free speech. Say whatever you want as long as you aren’t inciting violence or making threats you have that right. Don’t let anyone tell you any different.

[@NittyGritty420]

@@jjw00dw-gt9xs a true threat is not protected by the first amendment. So it would be considered a hate crime not hate speech.

[@stephendavis7112]

You lifted this design format from CPG Grey

[@thisisnotmyname1469]

It's good this video exists. I think that the term first amendment is kinda thrown around alot, without people knowing about it's limitations and it's protections.

[@eyesofibad2461]

I am from Portugal and i wish Europe had a 1st amendment equivalent. it makes so much sense to me.

[@VideoCesar07]

Problem today is people confuse "you said something that hurt my feelers" with hate speech.

[@Mr._Moderate]

Or you just want to normalize racist language? 🤔

[@DarthSion6987]

@@Mr._Moderate That's clearly not what this person is saying. Try to keep up.

[@Mr._Moderate]

@@DarthSion6987 or you can shut shut? 🤔

[@hello-sz7hp]

@@Mr._Moderate you probably support forced sterilization for the "unfit" too

[@thew-heat5525]

No such thing as hate speech! Not now not ever.

[@vaibhavgupta20]

Great video.

[@tobyschmel5408]

Great vid.

[@k-techpl7222]

Great video

[@sweetcara14]

All "hate crimes" laws should be abolished, since they were always unconstitutional and it's not even possible for them to be evenly applied. Who cares what someone's "reason" is for killing, raping, maiming, etc? The consequences are still the same.

[@AestheticEtiquette276]

This is factually incorrect. Intent matters. Hence the differentiated sentencing for various similar crimes i.e. Involuntary Manslaughter vs. Aggravated Murder; we would not punish an 18 year old who got drunk at a party and accidentaly killed someone in a car accident the same as we would punish Buffalo Bill for forcing a girl to put the lotion in the basket. We have a long judicial precedent of differentiating between intent and we have always punished accordingly. This isnt an abberant insertion into the legal system, this is a natural evolution. P.s. I am ardently anti-thought crime, I want Nazi's, Antifa, Ocasio-Cortez fans, MAGA hat wearers, Trotskyists, Trotskyites and Pinochet supporters to be able to march, tweet, gab, and chat on stormfront forums to their heart's content. I despise any restrictions on free speech.

[@GinEric84]

Were you not paying attention?

[@ImNotJoshPotter]

@@AestheticEtiquette276 Accidental crime seems different than purposeful crimes done with different intents.

[@AestheticEtiquette276]

@@ImNotJoshPotter Absolutely, I was responding to the OP's assertion that "Who cares....the consequences are still the same" hence my statement "this is factually incorrect." Sometimes people unfamiliar with a particular concept need to hear it reiterated a couple of times. Which I totally get.

[@ImNotJoshPotter]

@@AestheticEtiquette276 But outside of accidents why does intent matter? If a crime was done intentionally "who cares" why they did it?

[@dd7694]

The truth is hate when you hate the truth! It is imperative we protect the fundamental right to speak hate speech. We don't want to end up like EU countries where free speech is a crime.

[@hello-sz7hp]

Banning hate speech for even saying fire in a theater risks banning nearly all speech

[@BaldwinVoice]

Hate speech laws are in direct conflict with freedom of speech.

[@Loathomar]

Great video. Another exemption is, the classic "Yelling fire in a crowd" when there is not a fire, though it is part of the "inciting violence" exemption in that you created a "clear and present danger" with your words. Even though, here, you are not telling people to do anything illegal, like when people are "inciting violence", you are still creating real harm to people with words. And in civil law the 1st amendment is no where near as strong. Defamation and other things, like firing someone based on race or sex, can cause a lawsuit.

[@johngalt6752]

Firing someone on the basis of race, religion, etc. Is not a First Amendment violation. That would be discrimination unless you were operating a Religious Institution.

[@thomashealey8967]

Anyone know when Mostly Weekly comes back? (If at all...)

[@colinhiggins4779]

States can get around the hate speech issue by charging someone with a minor, or even frivolous crime, and then appending a felony hate crime charge on top of it, according to the speech. For instance: a guy in IL was arrested and charged with a felony hate-crime for giving a Nazi salute and shouting “white power” from behind the wheel of his car. The cops charged him with disorderly conduct, and then a felony, based on the content of his speech.

[@FWRWARD]

Very good point, they can limit free speech on the grounds of disorderly conduct. disorderly conduct laws are very vague anyways, they dropped the hate crime in a plea deal thou. the police and courts shouldn't act like a school principle

[@MontrealLather]

Can you send this video to The Canadian parliament please.

[@koala10ish]

Hello, Let say someone constantly disseminates a speech by saying we will wipe you out and then take your land to a community who legally own the land; and then one day he/she says on the face of one of the community members, and this member gets outraged and beats the person disseminating the speech; so, does the community member have the legal right to react that way spontaneously? Thank you for your clarification.

[@hello-sz7hp]

Kells and moomoo windmills and shay mccay dark wood cabinets while there's oil and grease on the chemistry lab tables while there's lots some complaints from classmates about that in the new room you go in and sit down one day. Next, Andover trip in 2 days but then when you're on the bus and you hear the noise while going fast, it reminds you of compounds of the oil and orangish red grease, ;,

[@deathlis]

Tell that to Seattle.

[@notrelatedtoleeharvey5284]

Bhahahahaha! 1:25 Such a subtle burn!

[@scottkaiser6462]

3:10 PERFECT sadly not many people, closest generation to our ruling workforce, know how to think and act alone with that method if u know or cognition let's say. PERFECT

[@sinistar99]

Is violating Disney's copyright on Chewbacca's image protected under the First Amendment?

[@hello-sz7hp]

Kells and moomoo windmills and shay mccay dark wood cabinets while there's oil and grease on the chemistry lab tables while there's lots some complaints from classmates about that in the new room you go in and sit down one day. Next, Andover trip in 2 days but then when you're on the bus and you hear the noise while going fast, it reminds you of compounds of the oil and orangish red grease

[@greengreengreen5132]

Banning hate speech RISKS banning nearly all speech..

[@erwinrommel7008]

Nice. We aall need a reality ✔

[@espada9]

And a spell check.....

[@OutSideTheBoxFormat]

Reality checks not welfare checks.

[@timothypopik2288]

KZbin disagrees with the content of this video.

[@drlobomalo]

2:18 "killing someone for money will get you a harsher punishment than killing them out of momentary anger" Wait a second, doesn't killing "out of momentary anger" describe the most negative interpretation of the action of the driver at Cville? His GPS indicated he was trying to get home and the two passengers he dropped off several minutes earlier said he was calm, not agitated. Maybe it depends on the definition of "momentary." IIRC, he sped up for about five seconds and reached 25-28 mph at point of impact.

[@LizardLeliel]

It should say "out of momentary anger at someone", which would describe cases like finding your wife cheating and acting on the moment. The driver wasn't driving into the crowd because there this one guy he wanted to kill in particular.

[@bob-km4uq]

Where is episode 1?

[@guitarloser07]

"7 Things You Should Know About Free Speech in Schools: Free Speech Rules (Episode 1)" watch?v=NOlNvaCS4VE

[@rjones9579]

Freedom of speech is a much bigger concept than, and precedes, the First Amendment. This video should have been entitled "First Amendment Rules", not "Free Speech Rules".

[@zoo2you]

Share this with the Google top brass.

[@OutSideTheBoxFormat]

No doubt.

[@dzhonnikihirin4006]

I may not agree with what you say but i will defend your right to say it

[@kcthinker]

The term, "extra illegal," bothers me. It is seems the definition is not controllable.

[@WouterCloetens]

As a nerd, I approve of this video. I chuckled at Chewbacca telling Spock that the Star Trek fanbase sucks, and at the #ffffff sign.

[@bug5654]

I mean, they're both accurate enough. Star Trek: Discovery sucks ever so slightly much more than Episode VIII (which is an accomplishment), and some people's skin is closer to white than black.

[@Thegingerbreadm4n]

Can I sue over half the people I’ve ever met now?

[@kenp3L]

Here's the problem: Say hateful ideas, speech, and/or expressive conduct = H. The penalty for H in the absence of any criminal conduct is X. As per the concept described in the first part of the video, X = 0. Now, The penalty for some specific _bone fide_ crime, in the absence of H is Y. The penalty for the same crime when accompanied by H is Z. Y + H = Z. As the video explains, Z > Y. That is, Y + H > Y. Subtracting Y from both sides of the inequality gives, H > 0. Therefore, the idea expressed in the second part of the video is a violation of the ideal of the first part. Enhanced penalties for H is a form of viewpoint discrimination.

[@tylerchambers6246]

Yeah, except applying rudimentary propositional modal logic to complex socio-political theory doesn't work, making your entire meandering pseudo-thought a big waste of space.

[@kenp3L]

@@tylerchambers6246 It’s 122 words long. Hardly meandering in a subject that you describe as complex. I’m sensitive to wordiness and I believe I’ve avoided it here. Your point, though, is that “applying rudimentary propositional modal logic to complex socio-political theory doesn't work,” but you offer no evidence to support this.

[@tylerchambers6246]

​@@kenp3L Sure I do, provide evidence that is. The evidence is: it doesn't work. And I didn't say your post had too many words- I said it was meandering and purposeless. It was purposeless, not for its verbosity, but because applying rudimentary propositional logic to fields of discourse which exist beyond the scope of rudimentary propositional logic and require their own unique 'language games' is a pointless exercise. Human beings aren't PLNs. We're not probabilistic logic networks. Accordingly, analyzing a socio-political structure, aggregated dynamically out of the interactions of multiple human beings, is even more so outside the range of rudimentary logic. X=0 doesn't work because you're talking about things, about an 'X', that can be more than one thing at one time; things that are more nebulous than the purely logical constructs with which propositional logic is equipped to deal. X might = 0,1, and 175 all at once. You can't 'add' and 'subtract' things like constitutional rights, penalties, etc. from one another. It doesn't make sense. I invite you to read the paper: John Corcoran & Susan B Wood, "The Switches Paradox and the Limits of Propositional Logic."; Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 34. No. 1; 1973. Check out Rieger-Nishimura lattices too when you have the time. It's about how the misuse of sentential logic can produce false paradoxes, like the one you indicated in your comment, which prompted me to respond.

[@kenp3L]

@@tylerchambers6246 To summarize, you start with some circular-logic throat clearing, then offer an assertion of the existence of free will. Then you conflate the unpredictability of human behavior with the law. Then you give me some books to read. Judges add and subtract things all the time in the sentencing phase of a criminal trials. Surely you have heard of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. As the video states, a disfavored viewpoint or “hate,” in and of itself, cannot be criminalized. My point is that the basic punishment for the criminal act (we should hope) is matching to the gravity of the act itself. Additive punishment for “hate” is punishment for the convicted individual’s viewpoint. Again, basic punishment if for the criminal act itself; sentence enhancement for “hate” is viewpoint discrimination. As much as we dislike criminality and correctly believe that it should be punished, we should not practice viewpoint discrimination against criminals any more than we should practice it against non-criminals.

[@FWRWARD]

@kenp3L I think both your takes are right..yours is very interesting and kind of simplifies it in terms that highlights a moral incosistensy when put that way, but my reservation is that you have equated X=0 but logically how can you point out to something that doesn't exist if there is no penalty for H to begin with? therefore H ≠ X because X = ϕ (because X it doesn't exist) so H > ϕ is alright because H exists. idk lol

[@daetslovactmandcarry6999]

... ¿Vandalism isn't protected? Huh. ... ¿Oops?

[@ChornyiKot]

Quick!! Send this to Google, KZbin, Facebook, Twitter, Patreon, Pintrest...... not that it would change anything but I like the idea Silicon Valley techno-censors will reconsider their censorous ways if only shown the light!

[@CarterM2008]

Excuse me about your 2nd yr old comment, do you think that Tech Giants are Government Agencies? 1st Amendment ONLY prevents the GOVERNMENT from controlling your speech.

[@Peter-ns6jg]

ITS TIME TO CUT DOWN THE TALL TREES!

[@bug5654]

I don't even know what to say...RAARGHHH! WAAARK!

[@justinferguson3192]

What you mean?

[@nb4749]

I hate pumpkin soup.

[@jinchoung]

fuck. yes!

[@savagedove1599]

You should not be jailed if someone willing does something harmful because of what you said. They have complete control over your self, though i dont like that kind of behavior.

[@namaste_ui]

KZbin is changing day by day as it needs to adapt to the social and cultural terms of 2019. And while it’s no surprise that the video-sharing platform becomes more and more prone to censorship, however, the question is if all these changes are really needed or not. Before we address that point, let’s note that compared to recent changes in how ads are displayed, these new regulations should come with a positive outcome. Anyways, read the below. This might help. www.namasteui.com/things-you-should-know-about-hate-speech-in-any-youtube-video/ -- Regards, Sourav Basak Namaste UI

[@ameennasar2583]

If you express your hatred honestly, it's free speech. But if you use illogical arguments and lies to purposely spreas hate, it is defamation(a crime)

[@Bozar069]

Fucking a right buddy.

[@wk3820]

Strictly speaking, any hate-crimes law is immoral simply because it punishes based on beliefs, which everyone has a human right to express. If a crime is committed because of the beliefs, the crime must be punished, but not the belief behind it. This was Civics 101 when I was a kid. sixth-grade stuff. What the hell happened to my country? We're now flunking sixth-grade civics en masse!

[@Hitmankingjay313]

It's part of our great country and help build it

[@hello-sz7hp]

Kells and moomoo windmills and shay mccay dark wood cabinets while there's oil and grease on the chemistry lab tables while there's lots some complaints from classmates about that in the new room you go in and sit down one day. Next, Andover trip in 2 days but then when you're on the bus and you hear the noise while going fast, it reminds you of compounds of the oil and orangish red grease., ;

[@wannamonslo9626]

*Ray Epps

[@hello-sz7hp]

Kells and moomoo windmills and shay mccay dark wood cabinets while there's oil and grease on the chemistry lab tables while there's lots some complaints from classmates about that in the new room you go in and sit down one day. Next, Andover trip in 2 days but then when you're on the bus and you hear the noise while going fast, it reminds you of compounds of the oil and orangish red grease..

[@EasytheGoon]

Chewbacca isn't a ewok...

[@marilyncoyne4034]

Says who? SJC says NO SUCH THING

[@macsnafu]

Legal or not, you'll still get called out on social media and in real life for various and sundry perceived politically-incorrect speech.

[@2ndAmendmentMF]

😂

[@terry_willis]

The policy will change in the future when freedom is returned to the people.

[@hello-sz7hp]

Kells and moomoo windmills and shay mccay dark wood cabinets while there's oil and grease on the chemistry lab tables while there's lots some complaints from classmates about that in the new room you go in and sit down one day. Next, Andover trip in 2 days but then when you're on the bus and you hear the noise while going fast, it reminds you of compounds of the oil and orangish red grease -//

[@ghooghkirkhighlife8279]

Please stop saying hate speech exist. It doesn't

[@ruthlesssavagehatred6428]

Unpopular opinion: threats of violence should be protected under the first amendment

[@freethebirds3578]

Simply making statements that SJWs don't like is considered by them to be violent, so I can see why your statement makes some sense. But where do we draw the line between threat and incitement?

[@coreyihler]

Well this is over

[@redredred8408]

Rollover.. Rollover..

[@hello-sz7hp]

Kells and moomoo windmills and shay mccay dark wood cabinets while there's oil and grease on the chemistry lab tables while there's lots some complaints from classmates about that in the new room you go in and sit down one day. Next, Andover trip in 2 days but then when you're on the bus and you hear the noise while going fast, it reminds you of compounds of the oil and orangish red grease

[@aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa790]

He looks like he got punched in the eye for his freedom of speech. I like the law but I can’t help but laugh!

[@theclamhammer4447]

11 CNN reporters viewed this video.

[@johngalt6752]

And they couldn't follow it...

[@redredred8408]

Buzz light year

[@laurabee8259]

Sorry but i’m more confused than before

[@laurabee8259]

@Ba'ako Durron that’s right, thanks

[@hello-sz7hp]

@@laurabee8259 Kells and moomoo windmills and shay mccay dark wood cabinets while there's oil and grease on the chemistry lab tables while there's lots some complaints from classmates about that in the new room you go in and sit down one day. Next, Andover trip in 2 days but then when you're on the bus and you hear the noise while going fast, it reminds you of compounds of the oil and orangish red grease

[@recoveringnewyorker2243]

1:13 Yet Madonna can say she has thought of blowing up the White House! Can you say double standard? I knew you could.

[@roryscott2941]

As a Trekkie I protest the treatment of my Star Wars fan counterparts. To compare that bold space epic to harry potter, even hypothetically, is a low blow. Haven't they suffered enough during the prequels?

[@NeanderthalDogma]

Iz real

[@88Expert]

please let's change the bill of rights... is soo outdated

[@TheVideomaker2341]

Rule #4: It doesn't apply for minorities or women.

[@themanhimself1229]

Crawling in my skin

[@muchoed5119]

Why is that?

[@themanhimself1229]

@@sliver170 Sure kiddo

[@wanttogetfood]

let me give you a hateful hug

[@LizardLeliel]

I think most people are worried about speech being used to incite violence. Unite the Right rally, they were chanting "What do we want? Race war!" at one point, and the proud boys regularly encourage their members to be violent. Yet people are being more afraid of freely speaking against radical violence-inciting speech out of fear of being labelled "anti free-speech".

[@DarthSion6987]

You could make the same argument against BLM and Antifa. Let's not pretend there aren't bad actors on both sides.

[@LizardLeliel]

@@DarthSion6987 Did you think I was pretending?

[@hello-sz7hp]

@@LizardLeliel Kells and moomoo windmills and shay mccay dark wood cabinets while there's oil and grease on the chemistry lab tables while there's lots some complaints from classmates about that in the new room you go in and sit down one day. Next, Andover trip in 2 days but then when you're on the bus and you hear the noise while going fast, it reminds you of compounds of the oil and orangish red grease

[@SurajGrewal]

Nickleback recording studio = recycling center.

[@bug5654]

Well, if you...Look at this photograph...

[@deniseallisonstout1901]

Yes burn nickel back please

[@Spencerianism]

I hate speech.

[@Charles-pf7zy]

1:19 haha that aged well 1/6

[@TheCossack]

No it didnt..Nothing was burned on J6 the only burning done was 2 billion worth of damage by blm neanderthals

[@pimperish666]

Bout to say if view point discrimination is illegal. Good to know. Interesting how cnn says civil rights laws are to protect a small group being in danger when in fact that’s false, the civil rights laws go both ways and are in place to protect a persons constitutional rights, not because they’re inferior. Last I checked the Supreme Court recently ruled hate speech isn’t hate speech its just speech someone else doesn’t agree with but if it’s speech which calls to danger to others like yelling there’s a fire in a movie theater then yes that is illegal.

[@LilfoxTheHybridHylian5967]

They don't care

[@TreDogOfficial]

All speech ought to be legal. How can you honestly punish a citizen for expressing violent words? What if it's just two people who are rambunctious and just kidding around? Are you gonna step in as a third party and call the police? That's incredibly stupid. All speech ought to be free speech, even violent speech. Once someone actually makes good on their threats, only then should punishment come into the equation... And even then, there ought to be increments in the severity of the punishment, corresponding to the level of violence perpetrated. Like, if two guys are joking around and a buddy puts the other one in a pretend chokehold, that shouldn't be prosecuted. But if that chokehold results in injury, death, or even just unwanted contact, then punishment ought to come back into the equation. But as a general rule, we ought to side with less governance over human interaction. Laws and punishment should only be used to deter the worst excesses of human malevolence...and even then, we can't really expect to eradicate all of it. "He who governs least, governs best."

[@Loathomar]

Violent speech is 100% legal, no amount of "two people who are rambunctious and just kidding around" is illegal. The only time speech becomes illegal is then the speech cause or is intended to cause real violent. You can joke around about kill X people as much as you look and it is 100% legal, but you say the same thing to an angry mob who are reasonable likely to follow your directions, then it is illegal. Violent speech = legal, Speech that incites Violence = illegal. Even threats are 100% legal, if they are not consider viable. Ei, you friend does something to upset you and you say "I will kill you for that shit", but neither you nor your friend believe you have any intention to live up to that threat, it is not illegal. The legal bar for free speech in the US is extremely high, and your issues with it are not remotely based in reality.

[@d2k82]

Wookies are not Ewoks

[@bullrun2772]

Goddam this KZbinalso has a big ego and is offended damn your really funny

[@alexanderjones84]

talk slower please. also comment #300 here.

[@bullrun2772]

Seriously all your points you skim over it just speak to fast