The Limits of Free Speech | Intellections

[@Midironica]

"Harm" is too subjective. People have and are bending the limitations of free speech in order to justify the denial of people's freedom of speech. If "harm" extends to things that might be "triggering", "sensitive" or "problematic" then I say let people "harm" others with their speech, as long as said speech isn't making direct threats or advocating violence directly.

[@JoahTheThread5ive]

Harm is physical injury

[@Midironica]

I am aware of legal precedent. I don't know why you are mentioning it though, considering you fail to bring up any legal precedent concerning the exact definition of harm.

[@ayekantspeylgud]

Midironica - I think the problem is when they try to make the stretch to say that one is inciting violence if they use what they define as "hate speech". I think for modern society that lacks in common sense, we now have to define our terms even more narrowly to be a direct call to physical violence against an individual (i.e hiring a hit man, asking someone to beat up someone else, or threatening physical assault. By the actual definition for limited speech, there should be a lot of lefties going through the court system by now.

[@bobthornton8282]

I don’t see why even a threat should be illegal. It should warrant investigation perhaps, to see if the person is actually taking steps toward carrying out the threat, but should not be illegal in and of itself.

[@boyplusminecraft]

Ages ago, my old social studies teacher showed us this video and preceded to tell us that free speech did not include hate speech. I had to correct her. (Even though hurtful things... hurt, if you don't allow speech that hurts feelings, the people who decide what counts as that kind of speech have the control)

[@nycheeseburger1011]

I have to disagree, the only real limit to freedom of speech is a direct call to violent action. It's not meant to protect peoples feelings.

[@anonymoustopsecret5995]

The real limit to freedom of speech should be an insult. People should have the right to speak their minds, even if it makes someone FEEL offended, when it's not really meant to be offensive, but they should have no right to insult.

[@cincinnatislider]

Anonymous Top Secret I wonder, if your assessment was true, aren’t people sensitive to insults to varying degrees? Example: My son points out that I’m fat. I look down, can’t reasonably disagree, and start a diet within a month. I’m not offended, and I appreciate the nudge to fix myself. So, telling someone they’re fat could be harmful, but to me it is helpful. Where do you draw the line in your scenario? Does everyone have a bio printed on their shirt that states what words offend them? Or do you 100% ban any talk about fat, despite being helpful for some?

[@davidmusser7927]

NY Cheeseburger How about the call to protect from harm WITH violence? If I saw that pussy cold-cocking that Conservative Student, I would not only jump in to protect the student, but be calling out to others to kick the socialist ass.

[@HaydenLau.]

@Never Gonnatell It doesn't apply because the injured party did not pursue a claim in court. Had he done so the law would have been applied equally.

[@devonhughes3805]

​@@anonymoustopsecret5995 And what if the president of your country was someone who was an egomaniac who was an overly-sensitive baby who was easily insulted? Well, into jail you go.

[@freespeechfreespeech8725]

The definition of irony, The entrance to the bbc in london, stands a statue of George Orwell, Next to it is an orwell Quote : If liberty means anything at all, It means the right to tell people what they dont want to hear. Free speech will offend ,but that is the price of freedom.

[@lapizcata6930]

Yeah, you can offend people and have opinions that hurt people, but you can’t commit fraud, or threaten somebody.

[@willparkinson633]

'Freedom of Speech' does not guarantee that you will be immune to the effects of that speech. People can still boycott you, petition to get you taken off the airwaves, refuse to listen to you, etc. You can say it, but don't think that you're not going to have to deal with the repercussions.

[@jefrreyjeffery2192]

But that's against intellectual thought. We should always engage in discussions and debate!

[@rexshepard9434]

"As long as you don't intentionally misrepresent the truth to people, you have the freedom to share whatever is on your mind" - Famous Last Words

[@applesewer2684]

Good point, could argue that this video itself is misrepresenting the truth and therefore should be censored by it's own standards

[@danielreardon6453]

One mans truth is another mans lie

[@theparadigm8149]

I guess he means businesses are not legally allowed to lie to consumers, but individuals can legally lie to each other (as long as they’re not under oath)

[@jacobford3816]

That's funny I don't remember this part of the first amendment.

[@TrueThanny]

00:51 Completely incorrect. There is no restriction on "abuse" in free speech. You can verbally abuse whomever you please. You can't knowingly tell a falsehood that damages their reputation, or call for violence against them. Insults are completely fair game, so long as they aren't repeated to the point of harassment. Hurt feelings do not constitute harm.

[@XiaoYueMao]

they are referring to extreme things like saying someone raped someone without evidence, as this can get them murdered

[@Dante45p]

You can sorry your feelings got hurt

[@Silithid120]

Correct. Hurt feelings don't mean anything. Actions mean things. What you do, not what you say, is important. Someone can insult me, say anything they want, threaten me, he can do that all day, he/she may be insane, the moment they take any sort of harmful action is when the law should be involved. Short of that, no. Sure, in this case it might be "harassment" if they don't cease their repeated behavior. But again, not because of the words they speak, but because of their repeated actions, that cause me physical distress. You could be saying hullabaloo but if you are standing menacingly outside my house doing it, its harassment. Which is another thing and is valid, especially if proven. But not words. Freedom of speech is absolute, it either is or it isn't.

[@ozymandias8523]

Yeah i like your point, people call insults at each other even friends and family not necessarily to be offensive, unless they do it repeatedly which could be harassment or bullying.

[@anonymoustopsecret5995]

To those who disagree with this video, I'm here to state facts. Just like this guy said, everyone has the right to voice their opinions and speak their minds, as long as they are not meant to offend anyone. However, even when you say something which is not meant to be offensive some people still get offended. Does that mean you don't have the right to say it? No, of course not! If what you say is not meant to be offensive then you're free to say it. There is a difference between intentionally saying something offensive and making someone FEEL offended. People might feel offended for no reason and it's not your fault. We all have different views on what's offensive and what's not, but if someone calls you ''stupid'' you know that there is no way it's not meant to be offensive. So yeah, no one has the right to say something which is really meant to be offensive. If you think it's right, sorry, but it's actually not. Again, I'm just stating facts.

[@FernandoVazquez-ro1nw]

Some funny people here. - It is NOT about getting offended. It is about protecting the individual rights, which at the same time are protected by all of the other laws. The right to Free Speech is NOT the only law in the land. There are many others, ans the limitations of Fredom of Speech reach as far as the other laws allow. You cannot, for example, lie under oath ans cite it as Freedom of Speech. Or you cannot disrupt peace in an airport by having fun and yelling that there is a threat and cite yours as Freedom of Speech. Your speech may have legal consequences. Of course you are free to say whatever; however, you are not free to choose the consequences.

[@Max-jn7gz]

Not fair at all

[@gabestegmaier6421]

You can't hurt someone physically with Speech.

[@ghostofsilence2697]

well sometimes you can. depends on the scenario. like for example someone is very virtuous and funny and famous and has a lot of loyal followers. someone out of the blue says "he is a rapist and a murderer who tortures kidnapped orphans" or some bullshit like that even if its not true. for whatever reason people buy into it and turn against this person, he looses his friends, his family hates him, his wife or girlfriend leaves him and he is subject to police investigation which in turn may potentially causes serious psychological damage potentially leading to MDD or something just as serious. the guy finds no hope in his life and kills himself because no one helped him. indirectly someone lead someone else to their death. hypothetically of course but you get the gist. now if you meant you cant break a persons bones or splatter their brains with your words directly on the spot no one can do that... well unless of course you are a fuckin dragonborn but come on, what are the odds of that happening?

[@gabestegmaier6421]

+Thomas Mercure See I Don't care about a person's mental state and neither should the government. The Scenario you gave me is completely in the sphere of someone's personal life which again the government should not get involved. The way any man handles any Social interactions is up to that man not the government.

[@Nin10do0014]

You can still hurt people economically. If I run a pizzeria, and some conspiracy theorist writes an article accusing me of running a child sex slave ring when I do not, that is libel. This false information can cut demand for my goods and services and would substantially hurt my business. In this case, I can sue for libel. Now let's say I work at some generic office. One of my coworkers says to my boss that I have been spiking the coffee with crystal meth. My boss tries to fire me for this, but I can sue my coworker because he is hurting my reputation with false information.

[@gabestegmaier6421]

+Nin10do0014 again all of those scenarios are a person handling something socially. The Government should not get involved. Plus Americans are too SUE happy it's insane. Yes and you also hurt people economically by choosing where to buy products from. I don't want the government telling me where to buy my pizza from.

[@nilsonsls]

Instigating suicide is a clear example of how you can physically hurt someone with speech.

[@businesscat2895]

"However, the limits on free speech are rooted in the principle that we’re not allowed to harm others to get what we want." Oh, really? But then WHO gets to enforce Hate Speech laws? WHO decides what is Hate Speech or Free Speech? Big Central Collectivist Government with unlimited powers of course.

[@doc2850]

legally speaking hate speech does not harm someone. defamation harms people such as saying someone raped someone when you have no proof that they did. if you do have proof its no longer defamation. their are limits to free speech as mention in the video however hate speech is not one of those limits.

[@Dilbert1999]

This video didn't say anything about hate speech. They're talking about slander, libel, threats of violence, and fraud.

[@blocksatjoe]

Hate speech is anything that is a direct threat towards someone in a physical sense.

[@businesscat2895]

...and throwing Molotov cocktails at 'hateful speakers' is a peaceful form of non-violent protest, right comrade?

[@ghostofsilence2697]

such as a threat to murder someone

[@XiaoYueMao]

Can people also please learn that "freedom of speech" doesn't translate into "freedom from being criticized for saying stupid things", or "everyone has to always be super-nice to me because I have the right to say whatever I want"? A lot of people seem to get these mixed up.

[@MaxxxWellz]

It's Freedom OF Speech NOT Freedom from Speech.

[@blangh]

I take exception to this post's failure to differentiate between a constitutional prohibition and one that might arise from civil litigation. If you tell a falsehood, the matter is civil in that the other party can sue for defamation. The government has no business silencing someone because a bureaucrat thinks you are lying.

[@sal2417]

a wise man once said if we're going to have an argument whether we should still have the second amendment then why don't we just get rid of the 1st and the whole bill of right while we're at it and even suggesting such a thing is violations of their oath to serve and protect the Constitution at all cost!

[@stevepro9078]

This video should mention things like: what you say can actually be held against you. That is the simple answer

[@sythersight]

I love how both Pro-Free Speechers and Anti-Free Speechers (neither of which are specifically identifying themselves as such) view this video as bad, because they see the argument they want to hate in it, not what it actually says. Human ability to be foolish never ceased to amaze.

[@Profligateslayer]

Non-Authority you have to be one or the other, dude.

[@coolguy-qb7kg]

Free Speech is like Shrek, people want it to be a reality but sadly it just isn't.

[@NeonGen2000]

Sticks and stones might break my bones but words will >>>> *NEVER*

[@NeonGen2000]

That's not words hurting me. That's people hurting me. The words themselves did not compel those people to hurt me. They have agency over their own actions, not my words. There are no limits to free speech. I shouldn't have to adjust my speech because I live in a world where people are willing to commit murder because of hearsay.... Otherwise you could just as easily justify rape and put limits on sexual freedom....

[@XiaoYueMao]

*There are no limits to free speech.* except there are

[@NeonGen2000]

The example you gave doesn't warrant a limit on free speech. If people resort to mob justice, free speech is the last of my worries. If someone commits murder because of hearsay/gossip. It is the act of murder that makes it wrong. Now if you were to say someone was directly threatening. Then you are no longer talking about free speech. Speech is only free if it is free for everyone. If someone threatens to end my life and shows intent to kill me. It's not their words that makes them a danger. It's the person putting the knife to my throat. The act of posting someone's home address on the internet is not akin to ordering someone murdered. Different countries have different ways of dealing with that but ultimately you can't keep your house secret forever in the modern world when we have Google Maps and smart-phones taking pictures all around you.

[@XiaoYueMao]

Except it does, sure, those words didn't physically kill you, but they are the DIRECT and SOLE cause of your death

[@jakeriviera6152]

@@NeonGen2000 What about libel? A person makes a false claim about you that ruins your reputation, then your boss fires you from your job. What, are you going to blame your boss? Or are you going to blame the air as being the medium for which sounds travel? You should prob go for the person that ruined your reputation, not find some excuse to avoid admitting that speech was the cause of the detrimental consequences. Also what if someone tells others to participate in a raid, but they themselves don't. You can argue, "it's the raiding that makes it wrong". But the person themself didn't participate in the raid, they just told others to do so. So now who's fault is it? Following your logic, that person didn't commit any wrong and thus should just be set free. "Now if you were to say someone was directly threatening. Then you are no longer talking about free speech." But threatening is a form of speech. You can't just deny that. The fact that you stated it's not free speech shows that you are placing a restriction.

[@amenthegreat3761]

Freedom of Speech does not begin or end with politeness.

[@Michael-mh2tw]

'Intentionally misrepresent the truth' is covered by free speech unless you are advertising a product.

[@Adventurer-te8fl]

Libel, which is also misrepresenting the truth is not covered by free speech either

[@goforgold8248]

This video is true for the most part. The limits of your free speech are only met when you threaten harm on another human being or falsely advertise information to make a profit however this is called false advertising.

[@Shiro_Amada]

"You're not allowed to threaten, either verbally or non-verbally" A lack of definition for the word "threat" allows for anything to be defined as a threat. If a corporation decides that any competitors expression of a sale is a "threat" to their business you could easily argue against that competitors free speech to promote a sale or even to hold a sale event. This subjective definition would give overwhelming power to corporations to abuse the law for financial gain at the expense of not only their competition but the consumer and worker. Say this corporation declared any former employee openly taking about their abusive inhumane working conditions possess a "threat". They could charge these individuals with violating their corporations "free speech". Clearly define your terms.

[@yudhiadhyatmikos603]

The problem is that who is going to define hate?

[@applesewer2684]

But then who gets to decide what is and isn't "harmful" speech?

[@AizakkuAdoman]

the minorities apparently... even though I'm not exactly for it

[@jakeriviera6152]

They never explicitly stated that the constitution outlawed "harmful" speech. They stated that laws that limit speech ROOT from the idea that you cannot do harm to others. An example was libel.

[@barhoomob]

The good thing about free speech is its ability to filter out good ideas and arguments from bad or poorly formulated ones. In a beautiful irony, a perfect example of this manifesting is your argument itself, which clearly shows in the like-to-dislike ratio that it's an indicator it might have clear flaws. It is just like "putting your competition out of business" in the market because you provide more value, the one with the better ideas will prevail. Sure it might "hurt your feelings" that this is the case, but that doesn't deny the fact that this is the best system out there to know the truth and figure out the quality of arguments.

[@Soulsphere001]

Good ideas don't always "filter out" bad ideas, but hopefully it will continue to be usually true.

[@Error633]

I like how everyone here is just saying "that's not how it is" and going on about how totally wrong the video is without evidence. The video is describing free speech law in the US. Most of these are legal precedent set forth by the Supreme Court (Shenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio for example). Fraud, slander, and libel are all crimes under US law (although slander and libel for celebrities and politicians isn't taken as seriously). The US government guarantees the protection to political speech (as long as it doesn't incite illegal activity) but not to things like obscene speech (Jacobellis v. Ohio gave birth to that famous saying "I know it when I see it").

[@jamesbizs]

That’s not free speech law in the US. And free speech doesn’t mean no legal Repercussions due to the damage you caused someone else

[@jakeriviera6152]

@@jamesbizsFree speech does mean no legal repercussions. That’s the whole point behind it, that you can share a controversial opinion without the government locking you in jail.

[@evilgrin07]

It is freedom of speech truly because the courts can say words of action that hurt, defame, duress and deceive We The People. So is there really a limit or are the people just the ones limited outside the court system?

[@jakeriviera6152]

yea, I believe it's more freedom of CERTAIN types of speech.

[@beavis5691]

Send this vid to antifa

[@philipphoehn3883]

Olecarnivorous 4chan

[@NeonGen2000]

How about the united states government whenever they selectively allow pictures of dead children from war zones on TV to seduce the public in to another war they don't want. But disallow the pictures of dead children from American ghettos on TV to protect the privacy of their families. Even though the rate of death in ghettos are equivalent to that of war zones. The FCC for limiting what can be said/shown on broadcast media and attempting to gain similar control over the internet. CNN for claiming only they are allowed to look at leaked emails from government officials.

[@loupark5286]

Good luck arresting our Overlords. Many minions will protect and speak highly of them.

[@davidmusser7927]

beavis Amen

[@stwgoodbyecya]

my dude you should see the problems we have today. Im doing research for my political science class lol.

[@AGrayPhantom]

I don't understand why this video has so many dislikes. Does everyone think that lying and threatening should be protected under free speech?

[@XiaoYueMao]

apparently so

[@ghostofsilence2697]

apparently so

[@Max-jn7gz]

Yes, lol It's freedom of speech

[@CoolDudeProducts]

Ok, this is horrible on so many levels. That's not what freedom of speech is. It's not what was taught and it was not the intent when of its creation. First, yes we can say anything we want. How can say something truly harm someone? Yes, I don't dispute that there is verbal abuse and that its real, but harming someone physically vs emotionally and psychologically are actually inherently different. People can grow as individuals to learn how to better deal with and even debate what they consider harmful. Also, whats is the definition of harmful? If I state that I don't like green shoes and some other person takes that as harmful to them what do I do? What if I say that I think green shoes should not be sold? Who is making the rules? With this logic, you CANT, and I mean can't, "proclaim your beliefs and passions, argue your opinions, and speak out what you consider injustices" without someone saying it's hate speech. As a 24-year-old African American, I am terrified living in a country where its individuals need to blame others for injustices that don't exist as widespread as they want you to believe. In doing so these individuals keep on trying to redefine America itself withthe goal of making extinct others from society. You can't just silence whomever you disagree with. Fascists also found their own citizens to be dangerous and the first step was always telling them what not to say because it was "harmful". Whatever you think you are fighting for in this video, you're not setting a good example of working together and understanding. what your doing is the exact opposite.

[@GlossyCandle]

I don't think they are contradicting themselves; they seem to just be elaborating. On this video, they say that free speech lets you "proclaim your beliefs and passions, argue your opinions, and speak out on what you consider to be injustices", so I think that the other video was just elaborating more on those points.

[@CoolDudeProducts]

Wait, so what? What's this have to do with free speech. Most likely that wouldn't happen? Your scenario is slim. What if it did? Well, the person who lied has to live with the murder of an innocent person and the gang is looking at life in prison for murder. My point is what happens when (Let's throw out more "if's") You can't state what you believe int because its looked at as untrue, but you believe it. You're passionate about it, but you're not allowed to talk to anyone else about it because of its false. You can't back up your statement. What if this was applied to all religions? What if that was applied to small things. See right now the minimal limitations we have on free speech are being aspirated as well as taken out of context to cause a bigger problem for free speech as a whole. Here's something, I don't care if someone lies about me o is misinformed. I can fight my side of this fictional rape story on social media and let the public decide. A gang has nothing to do with this argument. My fear is when no one can fight their side when it comes to freedom of speech.

[@XiaoYueMao]

you really don't get it? you said free speech isn't limited, and I gave an example of where it is indeed limited, and why you should be thankful it is, but go ahead, ignore it

[@anonymoustopsecret5995]

I think you misunderstood. You have no right to say something which is meant to be offensive, but you have the right to say something which is not meant to be offensive, even if it makes someone FEEL offended.

[@jakeriviera6152]

What about defamation like libel and slander? Because by definition, that is speech, but should that be protected under 1st amendment? If you say no, then you admit there should be limits. "What's the definition of harmful?". They elaborate on it later in the video by saying it includes fraud, defamation, incitement of violence, etc.

[@XiaoYueMao]

Remember, free speech is not the right to be given a platform to speak upon, not the right to force others to listen to you, not the right to have people agree with you and most certainly not the right to not have people hold what you say or do against you. Free speech is not something to unburden yourselves from the responsibility of what you say and what you do. Too often people who bitch about "political correctness" are just complaining that they're being held responsible for things that they say and do, something those complainers do to other people. Its the hypocritical crying of somebody who hasn't the backbone to stand up for what they believe in or the maturity to be responsible for their own actions.

[@wildturkey3776]

You told us what free speech isn't tell me what it IS then ?

[@jakeriviera6152]

@@wildturkey3776 It's easier to say what is isn't, rather than what it is. There are a wide range of speech that needs to be accounted for, if you want to see what it IS, you'll prob need to read like a 10000 page essay for that.

[@bernie8571]

The fact that freedom of speech is still a debate in this country baffles me.

[@jacobblack6707]

Why call it Freespech if it not? Is it like 1984?

[@apalis2473]

I love these videos. People need to realize what free speech really is, and how you can't limit it just because you are offended.

[@anonymoustopsecret5995]

The real limit to freedom of speech should be insulting. People should have the right to speak their minds, even if it makes someone FEEL offended, because some people will still feel offended by something which is not really meant to be offensive, but they should have no right to insult.

[@1973Washu]

Political speech should be a protected category of speech , because the political process can not happen if only one parties followers are allowed to speak or are not afraid of physical or financial harm when they speak. If a mainstream political party is banned from a discussion or their followers are too afraid to speak then there is not free speech.

[@Soulsphere001]

Can you give me an example where the government of the United States failed to protect that speech? Or are you talking about something a bit different?

[@ashercroft820]

Uhm...sorry to say, but this is where you're wrong. Speech is NOT limited here in the U.S unless you are under federal obligation to assist in a governmental function. Even then you have the right to exercise whether you talk or not. This video is politically driven to silence free-thinking radical ideas for the betterment of change. This is a major slippery slope. Because you talk about "you're not allowed to hurt people with words." Well that's a simple way of saying "if you're offended enough, speech can be shut down no matter the context." This is the same Antifa bullshit we have to deal with and I'm sick of it now when I'm trying to watch a video game playthrough.

[@ashercroft820]

Sir, this a rhetorical exclamation. An opinion of sorts. If you thing I'm a liar because I put forward the dangers of closing the opinions of others because people are "offended." Then perhaps you ought to look at yourself. I disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. That is something America used to stand for. Now it's this. This petty excuse of a childish temper tantrum to silence opposing opinions. You call me a liar but you never considered a word of what I said. So in this instance I concur you challenge my thinking without calling me a liar.

[@panix6]

Speech is indeed limited, it's repercussions are just not always legally enforced because most times it's too tedious of a situation

[@ashercroft820]

Well, allow me to draw you to a similar situation that happened in America that caused almost as many suicides and incidents than the Jonestown Cult. "Drink the Kool-Aid" as it were. This was back when Radio was prominent and I can't give an exact date. But there was a commercial that was aired live for all families to hear. It was commentary that was told in first person perspective that aliens and the super natural were coming within this plane of existence. Now I wasn't around back then but apparently the portrayal of this movie was so realistic people mistook it for real live invasion of humanity. It wasn't meant to be as such. The Government allowed it because it was viewed as harmless. If it was aired today, most likely it would be. But people were unaware of the culture radio inspired. Some people didn't grow into it as quickly. People killed themselves over matters they didn't understand. They feared something that needn't be scared about. And yet if we looked back we would view it as preposterous. The same thing can be said here regarding free speech. Should we have some worry about the words we say? Absolutely and no one should be responsible for the words they say, than the authors themselves. But to tell me the Government must oversee all that must be said simply because we fear the harm it might cause? I suppose one must not have a pool in their yard for someone will inevitably drown in it. Electrical outlets must be removed for fear of surges. If we do all we can to prevent the impossible, the worst outcome always comes. Better to grit your teeth and deal with it than just pretend the alternative could NEVER be worse.

[@digitgidgit8222]

goldfang The radio program you are refering to is The Mercury Theatre on the Air. It was performed as a Halloween episode of the series on Sunday, October 30, 1938, and aired over the Columbia Broadcasting System radio network. Directed and narrated by actor and future filmmaker Orson Welles, the episode was an adaptation of H. G. Wells' novel The War of the Worlds (1898). It became famous for allegedly causing mass panic, although the scale of the panic is disputed as the program had relatively few listeners.[3]

[@dagda16]

wrong. the supreme court ruled that you can't falsely yell FIRE in a crowded theater b/c of potential harm caused to people. there are some things you CAN say, and others that you CAN'T say.

[@Michael-mh2tw]

If the first amendment meant any of this, it would be written in the amendment.

[@Soulsphere001]

What part(s) did they get wrong?

[@btxpsimeme5949]

The left wants no differing opinions, The right wants extreme free speech. Can't we all just chill the fuck out, not incite violence, yet state any opinions we want?

[@btxpsimeme5949]

Huh, I was expecting to get a lot more trolls than I got. Nice to see someone else who actually takes the KZbin comments seriously. XD

[@jennahcunningham8621]

im studying for a test and im tryna find the limits. thought this video was alright until I saw that all the comments were disagreeing. back to square 1

[@snowdropsonsaturn3717]

You can make your own opinions.

[@mrhorsepower1526]

Any Freedom isn't Freedom unless you can use it freely..

[@MoeSzyslak2001]

A limited free speech is no longer free speech, no matter how controversial or offensive your opinions are.

[@ATLSportsUpdate]

Where in this made up pamphlet, “Freedom of Speech 101” does it say that: “you are not allowed to harm others to get what you want” as others have pointed out, that’s quite subjective and should be more elaborated on to make any kind of sense “You’re not allowed to hurt someone either verbally or non-verbally” Again, this is only half baked. Violence, sure, defamation in some particular well-thought out legal cases, yes, but insults aren’t violent. Some like to claim that mere disagreement is violence too. If this was truly a limit on free speech then celebrities or entities like corporations could sue and actually win in court against the creators of South Park or Family Guy because their satire harms the lives of a famous person or company. 0:30 that little cartoon character there yelling at his competition: so what if he’s yelling at his competitors? Is this illegal? If Pizza Hut makes a commercial talking about how Dominos cheese is lame then is Dominos being “harmed” by the “insults.”

[@jakeriviera6152]

"Where in this made up pamphlet, “Freedom of Speech 101” does it say that: “you are not allowed to harm others to get what you want”" Where in the video did they say that that phrase was written in the constitution or in the pamphlet? (Provide timestamp plz). They said it was ROOTED FROM THE PRINCIPLE. So nowhere did the explicitly state that harmful speech is outlawed, they are explaining the principles that led to the emergence of these laws on libel and fraud. "but insults aren’t violent" Nowhere in the video did they say insults were outlawed. The fact that you admitted defamation in "some particular well-thought out legal cases" is a reasonable limitation already means you agree that there are limits on speech. Aka, defamation is not allowed. If there were no limits, that implies that defamation is legal. At 0:30, did you even watch the video? That person wasn't just yelling something random or making some small insult. They were making something like a death threat or violent threat as stated in the video. 'If Pizza Hut makes a commercial talking about how Dominos cheese is lame then is Dominos being “harmed” by the “insults.”" The video would agree this is fine, as it doesn't fall under any thing that they stated was outlawed.

[@majestic._]

If a worker got fired for cussing of a customer could he plead the First?

[@davidmusser7927]

Brandon no

[@jakeriviera6152]

It protects you from government sanction, but not consequences from others

[@infectionsman]

There are no limits on free speech! Other laws apply to protect individuals and groups from incitement of violence.

[@jeremyunbound]

If you say your gonna shoot up a school, you will be arrested. It’s called terroristic threats.

[@ozymandias8523]

@@jeremyunbound i thought to be something be terrorism it should be related to politics

[@jakeriviera6152]

There are. Defamation (ruining someone's reputation) is not allowed and not protected by 1st amendment. Plus, the fact that other laws ban incitement of violence shows how these laws limit free speech. So pretty sure bringing that example up just provides more evidence for that.

[@nate000088]

Just let free speech be free speech and take threats VERY seriously, and act on them accordingly. Though at the same time, I'd agree, at least with how concluded our legal system can be, knowingly making a false claim that someone broke the law, or rather bringing them to court knowing they are innocent, should be punished under the law as it is a call to action against an innocent party, and a call to the government to enforce its laws where it is unwarranted or even unjust.

[@GlossyCandle]

To all the people who think this video is against free speech, watch their other video kzbin.info/www/bejne/oofaqJenh9GZg8k

[@peterpao567]

Why call it free speech?Might as well be limit speech!

[@cheesygoodness55]

How come the Alt-Right and Trump supporters are so offended by this video? Aren't they the ones who attend *free* speech rallies, but not *hate* speech rallies, and who advocate for the principles of free speech? Honestly, this video describes things in a rational and logical manner. Just because this one video has some ideas which sound liberal, when you initially thought this was a conservative channel, doesn't necessarily mean you should be perpetually outraged when the principles discussed don't match up with your own political leanings. Maybe you could learn something new for once instead of being outraged.

[@quasimoto7662]

David Hanson maybe you could realize that hate speech isn’t real and shouldn’t be regulated. Conservative and liberal voices dislike this video to tell the creator “I don’t agree with you” not because they think he’s a racist.

[@Slatelovesfilm]

The phrase "You are allowed to say anything you want as long as you don't harm anybody" sounds vauge to me. I understand what that means but it doesn't really tell me where exactly the limits lay. What about racist views for example. As much as I disagree with them, I think they should be allowed as long as threats aren't involved. But you have to take into consideration that even without threats these views might harm peoples feelings or egos or maybe even business. If thats the case, does it go past the boundaries or is it still within them?

[@davidmusser7927]

That doesn’t sound like free speech to me. If my words hurt someone else, that’s too bad. Just because you’re subjective view of reality cause you pain, doesn’t mean it’s my fault. Could it be you have thin skin?

[@lavenderblue5143]

How can you be so sure that what you have to say is more objective than their views on reality? Will you also accept what they have to say if they do the same to you?

[@lavenderblue5143]

Would you rather they just listened to you all the time? Where is the sense of fairness in that attitude, sir?

[@jakeriviera6152]

They never explicitly stated that hurtful speech is outlawed. And they define "hurtful" as defamation, fraud, threats, etc. So they have specific definitions.

[@jacobblack6707]

No is it writing in the frist amendment there a limit no then there is none.

[@bigtobacco1098]

words hurt... ask the guy who attacked the comedian....

[@sebas8225]

Thats not Freedom of speech thats Cost of Speech, pls start being honest about things, politicians.

[@jakeriviera6152]

Libel isn’t cost of speech. Libel is speech, that is outlawed. It can cause damages, but libel itself is “unprotected speech”.

[@Documenting_Life_8619]

If you sing a copyrighted song or say words from it not allowed duh 🙄

[@tcraigh1]

Expression and opinion should have no limits nor should publishing be censored. There SHOULD however be limits on what we can to each other individually, particularly what strangers can say to one another. Also this should apply to the workplace. Basically I think to be able to ‘banter’ with someone, especially if they are a stranger, you MUST have their permission, the same applies to so-called ‘brutal honesty’, in terms of talking to strangers a traffic light system should apply. I don’t consider any of what I say censorship or a limit to free speech.

[@Michael-mh2tw]

The analogy to a market of products is absolutely terrible. Speech isn't analogous to wealth, therefore, the 'free market' of ideas is not analogous to the 'free market' of an economy. No opinion can give you more power in society, while wealth can give you such power. Same with the 'misrepresenting the truth' - you are not selling an idea, no one is losing their property if you lie to them. It's not the same as fraud, where there is something for the other person to lose. This is why lying to people is not illegal, while false advertising is.

[@jakeriviera6152]

Timestamp? Nowhere do I see the video comparing free market of products to the idea of speech. In the first half of the video, they simply list things that are allowed, not making an analogy of comparison.

[@jesterlefae3940]

Soooooooo, I _could have_ raged (verbally) at my AP English teacher, that most of my fellow students hated btw, and not gotten in trouble? If so I missed an opportunity to voice our displeasure.

[@bigtobacco1098]

no... children do not have the same rights as adults... as ell rights are even further curtailed in school or at work

[@jacobmclemore6599]

Was there any asterisks on freedom of speech can you bend those

[@brucew.2805]

Often wonder if law enforcement officers will try to challenge free speech if someone said "F* the police." Probably have to judge the context at the time of delivery of the phrase. Cohen v. California.

[@D2017_]

There is no such thing as half free.

[@supremoluminary]

This video is totally confused from the first sentence. The first amendment of the United States Constitution does not define free speech; it limits what the government can do

[@305sergii]

If there are limits to freedom of speech, then it shouldn’t be called freedom of speech. Were not free to speak a lot of things now a days

[@Soulsphere001]

There are always certain limits to everything. We might as well give up on language if people are going to be 100% absolutists about words. But that would also be a limitation on free speech.

[@jakeriviera6152]

Ye, it technically shouldn't be called that. It's freedom of MOST speech.

[@jakeriviera6152]

@@Soulsphere001 I get that word precision might be annoying for some, but when it comes to law, every word matters in court so that’s why people do kinda look at the wording of things.

[@TheStewieOne]

There is no limit on free speech.

[@jakeriviera6152]

What about defamation?

[@PhilipposACosta]

If you are not allowed to fraud or incite violence, is not freedom of speech.

[@terrificpage347]

If you don't like it you can leave the country

[@jojack56]

this seems to be something that sjw's talk about a lot yet they've got people fired and seems like thats perfectly ok to them.

[@MHawkins1985]

Free speech doesn't have limitations. You've merely identified some things (in a sloppy way) which are not part of the definition of free speech in the first place. I mean, how can you actually argue that a right is limited while still calling it a right? Is the illegality of murder a limitation on the right to liberty? The answer is, of course it isn't. Murder is outside the definition of liberty in the first place. Just the same, the illegality of incitement or true threats is not somehow a limitation on free speech.

[@jakeriviera6152]

What about defamation and threats?

[@jakeriviera6152]

I think we are a bit confused on what “free speech” means. The free speech they were referring to was the idea of absolute free speech, so that’s why there were restrictions. The “free speech” you are referring to is the current free speech of the 1st amendment, which is already “filtered” with limitations that choose specific speech forms to still be outlawed. So if your version of “free speech” was already filtered with limitations, then yes, it wouldn’t need more limitations (unless we find out more crime-related speech that should be limited). But they were talking about the version without any limitations, so limitations would need to be put on it.

[@peterpao567]

The heading should be Free Speech Of Limits!

[@SalimOfShadow]

So true...

[@Seehart]

Making the issue about offending people is a distraction. I'm most definitely in favor of the right to offend (and I expect this reply to offend some people). But speech is very often a call to action, so while the potential to offend is irrelevant, the nature of the action is highly relevant. The line is and should be about actual harm, e.g. "I want to kill you, but I'll need some help. Anyone out there willing to chip in?" Here's a good hypothetical edge case: Can I post a time and location for a peaceful gathering to discuss the best early targets of genocide, the benefits of mass euthanasia, how to end the United States and divide up the country along racial lines, and how to raise an army to meet these objectives? Grey area? Is the best policy to wait for the army to be raised before taking action? Of course the poster of such content will see it as nothing more than an unpopular political opinion protected as free speech. On the other side, what about a call to action to protect the constitution from its foreign and domestic enemies? Does free speech protect the right to simply be against fascism? Does the appeal to symmetry even make sense (i.e. "antifa and alt-right are two equally valid groups on opposite sides of a political spectrum who happen to disagree on some issues")? Hardly. One of the groups vehemently opposes equality, while the other fights for it. One group wants to prevent actual genocide, while other redefines genocide to mean the end of their historic domination. One group seeks the violent end of our nation, while the other seeks peace, equality, and justice. Is Antifa a "hate group" too? That's an interesting question: Does hating oppression count? Does hating genocide count? I'm a strong supporter of free speech. But if the primary objective of a group is illegal (e.g. commit genocide and/or destroy the country) then membership in that group is illegal, as that is the basic definition of conspiracy. If you call yourself a member of the alt-right, you need to be locked up, and if you and your buddies try to resist arrest by force, that is justified legal grounds for military action against you. And then there's the "slippery slope" argument. My answer to that is that each case must be taken on its own merits, with mindfulness about creeping into grey area. We don't say "Set Jeffrey Dahmer free because if we lock someone up just for killing and eating some people, pretty soon we'll be locking people up for eating the wrong flavor of ice cream." Alt-right is pretty far away from slippery slope territory, even though the name tries to suggest that the group is defined by their position on the political spectrum.

[@DZLM]

we should have free opinions.

[@vrooomvrooom230]

There shouldn't be any in the first place.

[@jakeriviera6152]

What about libel and slander?

[@jakeriviera6152]

To elaborate, libel and slander that results in some form of damages such as the victim losing their job.

[@dpapaioannow]

i believe in a different kind of freedom of speech....freedom of speech should be the propagating of views and ideas that have already been approved by a revolutionary party that draws its power from the proletariat.....until then....as long as reactionary/counter-revolutionary ideas still exist within the society....there should be a limitation on freedom of speech....if none at all in some cases

[@realityisnteasy6723]

Fraud is allowed. Just watch Infomercials. Fraud is more specific than the dumbed down version here. This isn’t accurate at all.

[@haydencase7886]

@Reality Isn't easy. I thought fraud is against the law?

[@ryanblabla0909]

“Or abuse people” is abuse legislated against

[@Michael-mh2tw]

This video is extremely vague and innacurate.

[@user-ix3yh8yt7r]

Cats are awesome!

[@FoxMcLoud-pt5ho]

Limited free speech is not free speech

[@terrificpage347]

Ok you can leave the country

[@solareclipsedudefinale9026]

Well u know that the US free speech is limited right? And it's reasonable that there are limitations because there's always special cases and exceptions where someone can use speech in a criminal manner. One example is defamation that is used for financial gain.

[@mamadeebuildsahouse]

I did a better job explaining this in my channel where I talk about this white woman who is being sent to jail for abusing a black cop.

[@ChrustyVT]

Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the UDHR and the ICCPR. so everyone is free to their own opinion and identify as what they want. but im also free to call a toaster a toaster and a man a man. sue me

[@ozymandias8523]

I think I Canada they can sue you lol

[@familystuff2873]

I don't agree with Your channel. Now i can't sleep. Therefore it is harmful to me. Therefore it should be removed and you sued. Thank you for removing free speech.

[@jakeriviera6152]

Where in the video did they say harmful speech is outlawed? If you say, 0:17, then notice they said "the limits on free speech COME FROM THE BASIC PRINCIPLE that you are not allowed to harm others to get what you want". So did they say the limits of free speech ARE that you are not allowed to harm others to get what you want? Notice the wording is different. They never used the word "are". They said "come from the basic principle", which means that principle does not necessarily define the limits of free speech.

[@panzerkamphwaggenlll5247]

KZbin: say sike right now

[@munounom8991]

Nope, you are entirely wrong. Freedom of speech are there to protect speech you dont like, not the speech we all agree on. Offcourse threats and frauds are more then just speech though, same with a call to action. However disliked speech or even speech that makes you extremly uncomfortable are fully allowed under freedom of speech.

[@jakeriviera6152]

That's what the video said? They said fraud, threats, and calls to action are not allowed, but said disliked speech (such as disagreements in opinion) are allowed.

[@TheTca211]

um most of these pertain to a business mindset.. and they arnt illegal.. but business will still probably fire you if you get caught... unless of course they are doing it them selfs... im not sure about threats i think its handled differently based on the state... but this video is bs.. if i went out and lied to the world about someone i wouldn't go to jail. if caught i might get shund.. but thats it.

[@ShiddyTimelineClubMember]

Thank you for using advertisement for educating. Ads I'm willing to watch.

[@sneakpower6112]

So you mean limited speech.

[@mrupert22]

Free speech much be free speech

[@tungtungsoe6244]

anyone from EB

[@bloodrunsclear]

Which is why Steven Colbert is still on the air... Wait

[@panix6]

Idk Colbert's situation but whatever he did/said I'm certain they didn't take his show off the air due to complications regarding free speech. Much more likely he was in breach of contract or the show lost funding. Both completely legal things that don't call into question the freedom of speech

[@bloodrunsclear]

Steven has deliberately falsified statements and demanded violence against people he doesn't like. Britney Spears literally said she wanted to blow up the white house and others have called for assassinations and coups. Apparently though it's fine as long as you belong to one political party.

[@panix6]

bloodrunsclear that's the thing, you can easily get out of those situations as a comedy personality just because your words are not your own, necessarily, and can be covered by contract from legal reprocussion. as far as Britney is concerned, she's just a trainwreck in general, I feel like after a while people don't sue her out of shear pity lol

[@bloodrunsclear]

They CAN and they HAVE. The weird thing is when a republican is elected we have Bush's head on a spike in Game of Thrones and people calling for the assassination of Trump in national TV. There's a movie called Death of a President which is basically a fantasy about if Bush was killed and in the TV show Last Man on Earth there's an extended joke about the entire cabinet of Trump dying of a virus. But when Obama was elected I seem to remember people actively curbing their language and declaring anyone who attacked his record as 'racist'.

[@ZeeGee__]

Thanks for this, so many people think it means you can just say what you want and no one can do anything back.

[@KamiGemaGaming]

its freedom of speech...where you think we are? Russia? Cuba?

[@Thatonedude917]

More distressing to me is when I see people that think that attacking someone's livelihood to silence them is consistent with the principles of free speech

[@jasonv6319]

This video triggers me i want this video taken down because it’s offensive

[@jakeriviera6152]

The video never stated that “offensive” is a threshold for limiting free speech

[@gratian2577]

That video made me say WTF, wrong.

[@truthdoesmatter1471]

there is no limit on free speech... wtf???

[@jakeriviera6152]

Defamation is not allowed.

[@MaxxxWellz]

This video is ridiculous are you kidding me. Free Speech means what it says not everyone talk nice to each other now.

[@MaxxxWellz]

Алина Старковa (Alina Starkova) 2nd Account Not sure where you are getting at here

[@XiaoYueMao]

This video doesn't say anything about Hate Speech, it only references Slander and Defamation, which is indeed illegal as they can cause physical harm and even death

[@jakeriviera6152]

The video never said free speech meant "everyone talk nice to each other now" nor did it even give off that idea. In fact, it said voicing your opinions which others may disagree is allowed (which normally would not be associated with "nice"). If anything, I think you're just misrepresenting what the video said to make it look ridiculous.

[@kindsadism2735]

This is a demonstration of someone making up rules to pander to the feelings of the utter most sensitive of people. Freedom of speech means absolute liberation of speech. Anyone can say anything, and chances are that person knows, and is willing, to face the consequences of whatever they just said.

[@tokisuke1]

Spoiler Alert: There are no limits

[@Soulsphere001]

There are always limits on everything.

[@MeiHeart1]

No.

[@nicklespale22]

yeah first limitation: there are none. Disliked

[@XiaoYueMao]

except there are, Slander, Libel and Defamation is illegal, you cant yell "Bomb!" in crowded theater, and you cant say someone raped someone without evidence, both can get you a fine of small jail time

[@anonymoustopsecret5995]

If there were no limits to free speach, there would be chaos.

[@jakeriviera6152]

@Nickle Spale What about defamation and threats? If there were no limitations, that means anyone can commit libel, slander, make threats, yell "bomb" in public when no threat is present, etc with no consequence.

[@ShamoKwok]

If something have a limit is not free

[@Soulsphere001]

That's kinda like saying you're not free if you can't do whatever you want, such as killing other people without repercussion.

[@jakeriviera6152]

@@Soulsphere001 But it is accurate to say that people are not “free”. People are close to being “free”, but it is inaccurate to say they are “absolutely free”.

[@jackthegod9988]

So subjective and stupid , what is considered harm to other ? What is not ? It’s all depend on the individuals ans how sensitive people are

[@Adventurer-te8fl]

Or maybe u didn’t care to watch the video. The video never said “harm” was a limit. They said it was based on the principle of that. There were numerous examples that listed limits, like fraud. You clearly didn’t watch the video and assumed that the matter is just about hate speech, and not other forms of speech like libel, slander, incitement of violence that are the actual things focused in the video.

[@EnigmacTheFirst]

"The first amendment guarentees freedom of speech, **but**" Stop there. There are no buts.

[@JoeDirtisawsome]

yes there are. defamation and liable is illegal. you cant incite violence.