you prolly dont care but does any of you know of a trick to get back into an instagram account..? I was stupid forgot my login password. I would love any tricks you can give me.
"If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech. There's two positions you can have on freedom of speech. Now you can decide which position you want."
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" What if somebody says you and your entire nation should be killed or enslaved?
@@suurmestari7457 It's not that simple. Every genocide starts with somebody saying there should be genocide. Freedom of speech does not include violating other's rights.
@@suurmestari7457 Please explain why do you think that absolute freedom of speech is a good thing. Why is a right of Nazis to declare Jews as lower race that should be exterminated (or whatever similar nation that claims it's superior to it's neighbors) more important than Jews' right to live?
A true Leftist and Progressive should be on Chomsky's side on this issue. We should never employ the tools of oppressors to silence those with whom we do not agree with no matter how much we may disagree with there views
I blame parents of left in late 1800's demanding with guard down, the state to bring public education. Nationalism, White Supremacy propaganda of progressive to have color blind Jim Crow, NeoLiberal Globalism, and CIA all is core of issue starting and worsened by corporate person right and climate change. Don't have education taught with educated parents who depend on education system to move toward progress then parents overworked with news of CNN blinding them to have education, Media and News (CNN in 1980 to modern era with Fox worse as Internet is out of right wing normal) as education system, civil rights used by power to destroy democracy, media, consumerism growing from Marketing and AD industry,
So historically and scientifically proven facts are open for debate and multiple "views"? The Holocaust happened and was orchestrated by Nazis with the intent of murdering millions of people, specifically Jews. Climate change is a proven scientific phenomenon and mankind needs to curb their greenhouse house emissions to reduce the effects. The number two is the number two. Alphabets exist in written language. All of these are well-established facts. Stating otherwise is irresponsible and attention-seeking behavior. I don't know. I'm open to other thoughts an rebuttals, of course, but that is how I see it right now.
@Twenty Faces The Things is, there were hate speech laws in place in Germany before Hitler came to power. The only way to defeat bad ideas is with better ideas. American have understood this since 1776.
@@michaelwright8896 he didn't. A guy called Hall wrote it as an illustration of Voltaire's ideals so to speak, in his biography of Voltaire. From my memory, Voltaire wrote, ' I detest what you write but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write' something like that
He's actually adressed this in particular. He talked about it with Krauss. I'm sure it's easy to find the video on RUclips. He is adamant against speaking in persuasive fashion as he feels it's a form of manipulation, to stir one's senses into agreeing with a certain viewpoint. Instead, he rather approach things calmly and allow the facts to speak for themselves. Another thing he as addressed is that he isn't trying to convince others to think like him but rather have conversations so that both may come to the conclude what is true, as he himself is not convinced of his own arguments. I think it's an extremely ethical approach to have because he realizes and understands that reality is much bigger than him and he realizes that he can be wrong about certain things. To quote Hawkings, all we have to do is keep talking.
This clip is from an absolutely tremendous documentary film on Noam Chomsky called "Manufacturing Consent." It's incredibly well done and a 'must-see' if there ever was one. It originally came out in 1994 so it's slightly dated but not too badly, don't miss it.
What is so difficult to understand about Mr. Chomsky's position? "I do not agree with your words Sir, but I would die for your right to express them"!!
Yeah but Chomsky happened to disagree with his dismissal on those grounds. Whatever the case, you can't say people on the left don't stand for free speech.
You're using words like "oppressive" and "authoritarian" very loosely. An employer/employee relationship is not authoritarian. It is voluntary, to mutual benefit. If either party perceives that the relationship is no longer serving its interests, the relationship ends. That is not "oppression". It is freedom of association, an expression of liberty. Government is the only entity that can legally force behavior under threat of imprisonment or death. No other institution has that power. The recent riot at Berkeley (over the planned Milo Yiannopoulos speech), highlights this difference. It's one thing to withdraw from, or argue against, a viewpoint you don't like. It's quite another to engage in violence to prevent someone from being heard. And government, by its nature, is an instrument of physical violence, which is why it is not permitted to act against you in any way for speaking your mind.
Just because it's voluntary doesn't mean it's not authoritarian. You voluntarily submit to government as well, or else you would be dead. Same goes for having a boss for the vast majority of people.
You don't voluntarily submit to government. You don't "sign up" to be under the jurisdiction of the state; you just are and you have no choice about it. And while you might choose to be cooperative when they compel you, you do that knowing that if you don't cooperate, they will at some point physically force your compliance by having policemen show up at your door with guns and a piece of paper, place hands on you, force you into a vehicle and take you to be incarcerated. An employer can't take your freedom away. He can only take your job away. And your job isn't yours by inherent right, it's yours by virtue of the employment agreement you made. It has terms that both sides have to live up to. Not the same thing at all as obedience to the state. As for having to work, yes, most people need to have some sort of job in order to feed themselves. But that doesn't come from an authority, it comes from nature. It's inherent in being a living organism that you have to act to sustain yourself. In a free society, you have many options as to how you will do that. And only in the most abject poverty would you face a circumstance where there is one particular job you must take or you will starve to death. Let's please not pretend that Faurisson faced that kind of circumstance.
Policemen will eventually come to your house if you don't submit to paying taxes or whatever, because you are stealing. Just like how they'll come to your door if you steal from your workplace or from a store or anything like that. No, nearly everybody has to work for somebody, that is just the reality. Not some fantasy world where everybody can and will start their own business. Does not make it authoritarian. The protestors at Milo's speech weren't authoritarian. The government gives you the right to free speech, and we don't need to hear it on our campuses if we don't want. Especially given Milo is an especially inflammatory speaker who has outed trans kids in the middle of his speeches. That means his speech is actually a threat to safety. So it was entirely justified what they did. (Which was really nothing. What happened? A few windows broken, a few bottle rockets sent off)
Sadly, the Earth seems to be populated by non-thinking creatures who are more than happy to accept authority rather than think through difficult issues themselves. It shouldn't be this hard to convince people *WHY* this is such a dangerous practice.
Dreaptomaniac I understand where you are coming from if you haven't already I recommend you read some of his books, there he expands on his views a lot more. :)
@@daniel-fd9ih I think it's quite clear that Chomsky supports freedom of speech in the sense that you can't be prosecuted by the state for your speech alone. Institutions like Universities should have no obligation to uphold freedom of speech, but they certainly lose all credibility if they choose to suppress speech beyond a reasonable boundary. Showing extreme BDSM in times square would be a severe public nuisance, and so it is reasonable for the police to intervene while upholding freedom of expression. If you cannot say something to an audience in any context without the state prosecuting you for nothing but the speech alone, then freedom of speech has failed.
He lost his way during the lockdown. He called for forced medical tyranny. Perhaps he's lost it in his old age to have made such an overt and obvious foul.
@@drott150 This lie again. Let me tell you mutt: why don't you talk about Israel and their contribution of Pfizer. No you won't, Mr.JIDF. As or anyone else reading this comment: All he said was that anti-vaxx should be refused to allowed to dine outside and stopped form social gathering.
It's frightening how biased and unwilling to understand him those people were. Chomsky explained himself as clearly as possible and yet they all jump at him barking, not listening what he's saying. Shows how the empty can rattles the most.
I think a lot of Anarchists and anti-authoritarian socialists have forgotten what it means to be anti-authoritarian these days and I'm quite disillusioned by it all. Preemptive use of violence is not a legitimate use of authority, if it is than that means the wests' preemptive attack on Iraq is justified if we're going to adopt such principles. But such principles are in conflict with Anarchism and being anti-free speech is highly undemocratic.
Not only do I agree with your general position, but I've also drawn the particular comparison between censorship of hate speech and the doctrine of preventive war as it was used in the case of Iraq.
Chomsky and and these people arnt even talking about the same thing, just like Twitter they just don't get it and won't until it's too late. We need now more than ever Chomsky!!!!
6:53+ "If you're in favor of freedom of speech that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise, otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech. It's two positions you can have on freedom of speech. Now you can decide which position you want."
@@nathanmarsh3172 I have several psychologist friends, all of them say a monotoned vocal speech pattern is a classic sociopath trait. After 50+++ years, listening to CHUMPsky, he only changes the names of his villians over the decades. In addition, most of his books have a massive preponderance to quote himself from his previous books. If you want the definitive assessment of CHUMPsky just listen to Thomas Sowell's assessment of Noam Chomsky. Someone he has knowledge of because they are the same age and era of 1960's radical semi Faustian Marxist Revisionist and Malthusian history and politics.
As a french person, i have to say : the state of confusion and ensuing generalised hatred is getting unbearable as a result of generations of half-baked intellectual and political discourse of the sort. It’s like the population has given up on essential ideas of truth as a whole and we’ve descended into tribal hell, unconsciousness.
Not really. It concentrates them and others into more obscure and extremist platforms, and within these platforms they may feel stronger and more popular, but their broader influence is significantly lower.
I will now attempt to place the issue within a context that even French academia may understand it: Chomsky - “I dislike Roquefort cheese with every fibre of my being, but I will defend your right to eat it if you so choose”.
OK I tried to make this comment before, but it got deleted, probably for containing the wrong combinations of words, so I'll have to be a bit more generic this time [speaking of free speech...]. I admire Chomsky, but the video did make me wonder if there should be a distinction between expressing an opinion or stating an outright lie. I am not familiar with Faurisson's work, but considering the fact that he denied that a historic event happened, it can only be based on falsified research. And we do, in our 2021 society, understand the dangers of spreading lies. If someone says: 'This very tragic historic event [generic!] was a good thing', that is an opinion. It's an opinion you will despise, but it falls within free speech. However, if someone says 'this very tragic historic event never happened - here is the proof' then, to me, they are doing something completely different. Is this person really expressing a 'view' when he is just lying? I'm not saying that lying should be outlawed. I don't have a solution, I just admire the problem. I'm saying that I believe that expressing an opinion and spreading a lie are two very distinct things and I wonder if they should be treated as if they are subject to the same law. It would have been nice to see that discussion in the video (or in the comments), and if anyone has an opinion on it, please respond.
I don't care if it's chomsky, after ww2 you just cannot defend freedom of speech as an absolute above all other values. If you think that we should kill nazis (which is the reasonable position) you can't also be in favor of them talking, as they would be dead. As far as holocaust deniers are concerned they also shouldn't be able to hold public lectures. You don't need a state to stop that, you just take direct action and stop him from speaking.
@@anarchistpoops161 Well... I do believe you can still defend freedom of speech as an absolute. Genocide or no. I definitely think it's possible that I COULD think that we should kill nazi's AND be in favor or them talking, precisely because there is a difference between SAYING nazi's should be dead and actually DOING it. Chomsky seems to say that 'making false claims = free speech', and I just can't get on board with that part. If a repairman tells me 'if you give me 100 bucks I'll fix your car', and then takes the 100 bucks and does nothing, according to Chomsky, I can't touch him because he was exercising his right to free speech. I call bs.
@@cyprel when you sue the repairman, you don’t win a judgement against them for lying. You win for breach of contract. It’s not the speech that is punished, it’s the theft.
This is a fundamental tension with expression! There is no method to separate dissident opinions from lies, in a meaningful legal way. Proscribing areas that are open to challenge and areas that are not, is the rationale of heresy and religious authority. Medieval Catholic Europe allowed discussion of fine intellectual points about say, transubstantiation or the sequence of actions in performance of miracles, but offering alternative models of celestial motion were deemed lies, dangerous speech, and punished. We “knew” the Ptolemaic model was accurate, and challenging it was illegal. Setting a barrier of “truth” to be met before speech is allowed means dogma will rule, not because it’s correct, but because it will censor all differing opinion.
Chomsky's point is this: who do we entrust with the power to decide what is true or false, and therefore what it is permitted to say? As with the death penalty, it's a nice idea, but there is no way to give the state that power without giving the state the ability to abuse that power, and if history has taught us one thing, it's that any power that can be abused, will be abused.
Conservative here. Though I vehemently disagree with Chomsky on socialism, I agree completely with his support of freedom of speech. No-one should be silenced.
When a Conservative claims to be in favor of free speech I am forced to give a skeptical glare. Conservatism has always been an opponent of free speech historically. And that is because it has to be. The preservation of oppressive systems, which is whole-sail what virtually every Conservative position aims to do since the origin of the term, is best served by limiting speech. Now, in recent years - and I emphasize recent - there has been a narrative shift in the US where the Conservative Right has claimed the mantle of free speech. But this is not the first time The Right has done so. The Far Right in the late Weimar did the same thing. Not because they ever actually believed in free speech, but because it was a useful tool in the moment to obtain the power necessary to subvert it. And my skepticism is further enforced by the fact that Conservatives were - in my lifetime - aiming to ban or censor just about everything. The Satanic Panic was not that long ago. Additionally, my skepticism is also reinforced every time Conservatives let the mask slip and try to get something silenced. Which is actually quite frequent.
Firstname Lastname Every single one. That’s the purpose of Conservatism. To drag our feet or go back. Save for a couple of positions, which they share with Leftists (for the wrong reasons), every Conservative position is about preserving systems of oppression and control. And this has been true for hundreds of years, not just today.
I will always remember this incident of Chomsky's position on freedom of speech. To hell with the pseudo-free speech those sort of people have. You allow for people to be put on trial because of offense and you scarifice your freedom to say what offense even is.
I mean how hard can it be to understand. Left or right or whatever, how can you not understand this extremely simple distinction. Also hilarious the Tel Aviv guy who of course turns it into 'an obvious campaign against Israel' haha snowflake
"In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. This quotation - which is sometimes misattributed to Voltaire himself - is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech."
"Freedom" of speech means that you can say whatever you like except when it comes to criticising the authorities. Also I find that sometimes I say one thing but people seem to hear something else.
All topics need to be debated otherwise the people doomed to inherit that knowledge are inheriting dogma, and however correct or incorrect that dogma is it is better for people to think and work out for themselves what is right.
Chomsky is CONSTANTLY derided for not following the popular narrative. He's a professor of LINGUISTICS! If I were him, I would make fun of the so-called media also. Our government, "news" media, court system, and corporate advertising structure has taken the English language into the toilet. Words don't mean anything anymore, and Chomsky is trying to be precise in his delivery. Too bad that it bores most people. We're in a "sound byte" world, and it stinks to high Heaven.
You don't know me, just because one agree's with someone on some points doesn't mean he is a fanboy of his. Also just because you disagree with someone on some points, you shouldn't disregard everything he says. ...and btw, I did watch most of that! ^^
what white supremacists? and even if that were true, what does that have to do with my comment? you'd describe those univerities as being part of a regressive left? otherwise you're just rambling incoherently.
"I'm not a free speech absolutist, it seems as though you just do not understand that free speech is an absolute. We have the freedom of speech to discuss the importance of it, what to do about hate, etc. We, you or I, have the freedom of expression to reasonably and peacefully protest in public over an issue you or I find important, but you, my fellow human being within a nation of freedom, you have the freedom of religion as well. Such a freedom to and of religion, also protects no matter how fundamentally wrong you are, from being burned at the stake by the US Government as if you were a witch in the 13-hundreds." - Me
You mean people like this? upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Charlottesville_%27Unite_the_Right%27_Rally_%2835780274914%29_crop.jpg It's not slander if it's true.
@@brucetucker4847,yeah because the War on Drugs worked so well,that banning hate speech won’t create a large underground following,right?🙄 Yep,no druggies nowadays,huh? 🙄
There are two realities with this topic. The first comes with freedom of speech and your right to say things that are unpopular and/or untrue. That right should be protected so long as you're not inciting others to harm or kill other people. The second, is your right to remain at a particular job or take part in (mostly online) debates or social media sites based on what you publicly say. In that instance, you are not the owner of that organization and your rights are limited by what they will allow. You do not have to buy their products, use their services, or attend their institutions. But that doesn't mean that they have the obligation to keep you employed or active within that particular group.
Chomsky's position here is pure traditional constitutional Americanism, born of the practical tolerance adopted by diverse colonists surviving in incredibly harsh conditions cooperatively, as opposed to typical Old World governments' anti-liberalism, despite whatever veneer of modernization they employ resembling the shallowest liberal policies. In defense of Europeans, most members of the human species in general find logical consistency in law and the moderated use of the government apparatus vis-a-vis individual liberties in highly politically contentious contexts to be extremely difficult to understand, much less put into practice, including most Americans. It's a major sadness that Chomsky's kind of intellectual American leftism has been almost completely supplanted by ideological conformism in American academia and big business. Unless youths stage a new movement to reclaim the genuine liberal heritage of the 18th century and in particular its manifestation during the American experience (as opposed to French style centralization and totalitarian, ideologically ethnic-based governance, which generated the conditions of the nationalist revolutions leading up to the Nazi movement and later the Russian, South American, Cambodian, and Han Chinese jingoist coups that derailed internationalist socialism during the 20th century), I'm afraid the world will descend once more into the immediate danger of rapid refeudalization, loss of democracy, and incomprehensible misery.
The idea that freedom of speech means freedom to say what is true, with truth defined as what the government agrees with, was a central doctrine of both Nazism and Bolshevism.
On the one hand, we should not platform views that propegate, or support the propegation of hateful violence, it's legitimisatiom, or justification. However, this is limited to platforming, and in the academic sphere, there should be room to investigate everything. I have not even properly investigated the claims about the nonexistance of these death camps, because I don't really care about the specific details, as the overall actions were still monsterous, and the ideology behing them fails in principle. However, if in theory these claims were true, then it would be vital that we cleared that up, since no matter how much the nazis were wrong regardless, they should still be condemed based on accurate terms, I mean I don't think condeming hitler for eating babies is useful, in fact it removes from the actual atrocities. So if these claims where true (which I am personally not concerned enough with to investigate, due to the consensus elsewhere) we woulf only find out if academians were allowed to freely examine it. If the act of peadophilia is wrong, it is crucial that we have that fiscussion, at least in academic terms, to clarify why, and what that suggests we do about it. (for the record I am convinced the work is done, and it is clearly wrong). Taboos are useful in that they teach us what is to be given platforms, and what is to be strictly kept within the relevant spheres, but nothing should be sacred, or protected from examination within academia. Nazis shouldn't be treated as moderate people having normal views in the news, but we shouldn't burn all their literature, in fact it should exist in public libraries for scrutny and examination. In short, you have the freedom to say annything, but not on a stage. You may speak profanely, but not in the kindergarden, you may lie but not in court, or when making deals. Our freedom of speech should guarantee that we may speak anything, and organize around it, but not in all settings.
It's a shame that a large portion of the left can't understand the basic principle of freedom of speech. I'm pretty left leaning, but I cringe so hard whenever I hear the "I'm pro free speech, but...." excuses. Although I think most people on the left are in favour of free speech, I think the left should have a harder stance on defending free speech. One reason why the right wing has gained more popularity over the years is because they have essentially created a strawman, in which the left is somehow anti-free speech. I feel that if more people on the left would take the issue of free speech and censorship more seriously then less people would be convinced by right wing lies and misinformation. Even if that means opposing hate speech laws or big tech companies.
The right will always be lying propagandists. They are literally censuring every Republican in congress who voted to impeach/convict Trump. They are pushing laws that will restrict millions of people from being able to exercise one of the most important forms of speech, the ability to vote. They are passing laws across different states to criminalize protests. They are pushing anti-bds laws across different states, etc.
I don't disagree at all. And I think that when conservatives say they're in favour of freedom of speech, I think they're being dishonest because whenever leftists are the ones being cancelled and censored, they ignore all their principles and either just act like it isn't happening or are completely for it. Conservatives only want free speech for conservatives. I find it amazing that so many "Free speech advocates" support Donald Trump, considering how anti-free speech and free expression he is. For example he literally proposed a flag burning law so that anyone who burnt the flag would go to prison for a year. However, this isn't an excuse for the left to be in favor of restricting freedom of speech, because if the government can make expressing certain views illegal, then it's only a matter of time before they make certain left wing or anti capitalist views illegal. Which is why I am against hate speech laws, and why I think that my country ( the UK ) should have a law that protects freedom of speech ( so similar to the first ammendment).
@@rhysevans4188 yea I’m against hate speech laws too. Fortunately I live in the USA where that’s not a thing. Though, I think conservatives and right leaning people in other countries aren’t the same as what’s considered conservative in the USA. I’m sure in other countries conservative governments are also pro hate speech laws. But yea speech shouldn’t be criminalized if it’s not direct threats
A good piece, that would be much better had it included Chomsky's statement ("preface") in it's entirety. How can we determine the merits of his statement without seeing it?
I can see from the comments of some of Chomsky French interlocutors that those French persons are simply clueless. Apparently, they can't understand the idea that defending your RIGHT TO SPEAK is not the same thing as AGREEING WHAT YOU SAY.
Chomsky is correct that there are two camps when it comes to freedom of speech. You are either for it or against it. The issue lies in the fact that not everyone who opens their mouths and wags their tongue will be as noble and fair as to how they utilize their freedom of speech. Nor will they be responsible with the aftermath of what their speech births into the world. Words shape thoughts. Most people lack the ability or desire to critically analyze what they hear, believe, do, and say.
But at least, when freedom of speech is encouraged, there will always be opposing words and opposing people willing to speak the truth and make things right. Without it, what you are describing is free of any shackles and any sort of resistance when it falls in the wrong hands. The cure can't be worst than the virus.
How does one refute odious ideas if it is not permitted to discuss those ideas? I think Europe is wrong in its approach to this. Making something forbidden only gives it the allure of the forbidden. It allows awful, hateful people to cast themselves as the real victims, martyrs to their "truth". Let them spew their vile ideas so everyone can see who and what they are. If their ideas are really that awful and their claims that false - which, make no mistake, is 100% true for neo-Nazis and other Holocaust deniers - it should be easy to refute them.
At least Chomsky got one of his takes correct. Hate speech doesn't exist. All speech is free speech. It is confusing how he can hold this to be true but then defend communist systems that have never supported this principle.
When is Chomsky gonna be our president? He would be the best man to incorporate an honest leadership system. I assume he probably doesn’t want to, but he’s SOO fuckin HONEST. Anyone who is honest is a leader in a world of lies.
I wish but unfortunately he's too old and too left wing. If a guy like Bernie is too far left to get elected here (And he would be considered an average leftist politician in Europe) then Chomsky is surely too far left. He's also 91 years old
If to even enter such a discussion indicates the loss of humanity then why would you allow your words to be published alongside that exact discussion? I agree with Noam that we shouldn't let the government dictate what's appropriate and inappropriate to say but I think its normal and right to shut out terrible and harmful ideas like this in other ways. Getting involved in the discussion for the sake of defending free speech just kinda feels like a waste of time and energy when you have a moral opposition to the argument.
As uncomfortable and messy as it might be, I tend to agree, there are only two stances on this. Either you are for free speech, which unfortunately and regrettably does give certain people the right to say and claim completely appalling things that are contrary to evidence, or you think that what the right and wrong speech is should be determined by an authority, which isn’t an issue when you agree with the authority and if the authority is following the evidence, but if you disagree with the authority and the authority isn’t following the evidence then you open yourself up to a world of pain. Both choices are messy. Don’t forget, the law says that you can say what you like, not that you can do what you like. Principles like these are an uneasy compromise where you really only find the safest option by disappointing everybody on all sides. Also as Chomsky has said in other videos and other people have to, shutting people down realistically doesn’t do anything to stop the spread of terrible ideas, for the most part it’s completely counter-productive. Not letting nazis speak might feel good but does it actually in anyway stop them or change their beliefs? Or does it fuel the fire of those who feel infamous or persecuted and just rally more sympathetic people. Just like with Islam, it might feel good to chuck shit at the mosque in your area, but the chances are that you are just radicalising people who otherwise might not have been radicalised. Again, counter-productive
So does the right. The right are literally censuring every Republican in congress who voted to impeach/convict Trump. They are pushing laws that will restrict millions of people from being able to exercise one of the most important forms of speech, the ability to vote. They are passing laws across different states to criminalize protests. They are pushing anti-bds laws across different states, etc.
@@axelmgs5928 oh but being kicked off twitter for violating their terms of service is totally a concern for free speech. You people are so intellectually dishonest it’s disgusting. So criminalizing protests and stripping people’s rights to vote which are both forms of free speech, and forcing people to sign a form that they aren’t pro-BDS or face termination are not examples of free speech and aren’t concerns? lol you’re a 🤡
@@axelmgs5928 lol you are such an idiot. I get it though. You are one of those “free speech for me but not for thee” types. You clearly don’t know what free speech is or what the 1st amendment is. Here’s you, whaaaaaaa Trump got banned from twitter!!! Gina Careno got fired from Star Wars whaaaaa this is 1984!
First and foremost, I don't think it matters too much whether the atrocity against Jews existed. Why? Because man don't learn from the past. Despite the immense suffering of the war, we still carry on the same as before. You may condemn it, memorialize it, but it hasn't changed man they are still divisive, cruel to one another. Even Jews haven't learned the lesson. Has their suffering taught them to be inclusive and brotherly toward their neighbors in the middle East? They still carry on the same way of life. We haven't learned a thing except man are capable of great cruelty.
@@whatever5575 Better than yours? I don't know, what kind of question is that. We have clearly learned from the past, we have for example been resisting(at least in the west to various degrees of success) the idea of socialism and tribalistic politics based on group identity, censorship you name it ever since we have witnessed the horrors it seems to bring with it. What is really confusing is the desire to go back, in my opinion.
Shouldn't Zuckerberg stop speech that has Russian sounding words that contain collusion? If speech is free then only free people have speech. What if unfree people have something to say? What about Fox-News-aphobic comments. Also, do we really need tweets about cats?
"The language you use has meaning!" - addressing arguably history's most influential linguist
Oh the irony
Plus, doesn’t that retort sound familiar?
you prolly dont care but does any of you know of a trick to get back into an instagram account..?
I was stupid forgot my login password. I would love any tricks you can give me.
@@paintedhorse6880 the last two 🕑🕑
"If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech. There's two positions you can have on freedom of speech. Now you can decide which position you want."
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" What if somebody says you and your entire nation should be killed or enslaved?
@@goranmilic442 I'll say: "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."
@@suurmestari7457 It's not that simple. Every genocide starts with somebody saying there should be genocide. Freedom of speech does not include violating other's rights.
@@goranmilic442 Tough luck. Then you can't say you support freedom of speech.
@@suurmestari7457 Please explain why do you think that absolute freedom of speech is a good thing. Why is a right of Nazis to declare Jews as lower race that should be exterminated (or whatever similar nation that claims it's superior to it's neighbors) more important than Jews' right to live?
A true Leftist and Progressive should be on Chomsky's side on this issue. We should never employ the tools of oppressors to silence those with whom we do not agree with no matter how much we may disagree with there views
I blame parents of left in late 1800's demanding with guard down, the state to bring public education. Nationalism, White Supremacy propaganda of progressive to have color blind Jim Crow, NeoLiberal Globalism, and CIA all is core of issue starting and worsened by corporate person right and climate change.
Don't have education taught with educated parents who depend on education system to move toward progress then parents overworked with news of CNN blinding them to have education, Media and News (CNN in 1980 to modern era with Fox worse as Internet is out of right wing normal) as education system, civil rights used by power to destroy democracy, media, consumerism growing from Marketing and AD industry,
@Twenty Faces sounds like Paradox of Tolerance, but ok
@Twenty Faces Nazis and fascists employed and still employ violence to silence those with whom they disagree, do you want to do the same ?
So historically and scientifically proven facts are open for debate and multiple "views"? The Holocaust happened and was orchestrated by Nazis with the intent of murdering millions of people, specifically Jews. Climate change is a proven scientific phenomenon and mankind needs to curb their greenhouse house emissions to reduce the effects. The number two is the number two. Alphabets exist in written language. All of these are well-established facts. Stating otherwise is irresponsible and attention-seeking behavior. I don't know. I'm open to other thoughts an rebuttals, of course, but that is how I see it right now.
@Twenty Faces The Things is, there were hate speech laws in place in Germany before Hitler came to power. The only way to defeat bad ideas is with better ideas. American have understood this since 1776.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it"
Benjamin Pulgar true liberalism. used to respectable.
Voltaire
@@anaghashyam9845 When did Voltaire say that?
@@michaelwright8896 he didn't. A guy called Hall wrote it as an illustration of Voltaire's ideals so to speak, in his biography of Voltaire. From my memory, Voltaire wrote, ' I detest what you write but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write' something like that
@@anaghashyam9845 Hall also wrote “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”
I love how much Chomsky is able to maintain composed, but when he raises his voice, even slightly, it's slightly bloody terrifying
Less is more. I've so rarely lost my temper that, on the few occasions I have, it's stunned into silence people that, even vaguely, know me. :)
He's actually adressed this in particular. He talked about it with Krauss. I'm sure it's easy to find the video on RUclips. He is adamant against speaking in persuasive fashion as he feels it's a form of manipulation, to stir one's senses into agreeing with a certain viewpoint. Instead, he rather approach things calmly and allow the facts to speak for themselves. Another thing he as addressed is that he isn't trying to convince others to think like him but rather have conversations so that both may come to the conclude what is true, as he himself is not convinced of his own arguments.
I think it's an extremely ethical approach to have because he realizes and understands that reality is much bigger than him and he realizes that he can be wrong about certain things.
To quote Hawkings, all we have to do is keep talking.
I read this in JP's voice
@@migol1984 The concept of "conversation" is completely lost in today's world.
@@migol1984 I'd love to see Chomsky arguing with himself some day. Might be funny
First they censor things you don't like, then they censor things you do like.
Quickly
This clip is from an absolutely tremendous documentary film on Noam Chomsky called "Manufacturing Consent." It's incredibly well done and a 'must-see' if there ever was one. It originally came out in 1994 so it's slightly dated but not too badly, don't miss it.
Not dated at all. In fact, was quite prescient
@@stevenjm12 Yes, very prescient indeed.
The book is Chomsky's seminal work and should be required reading for anyone engaging in political discourse. The documentary is a perfect entry.
@@danb3529 Herman actually put as much work into the book as Chomsky. It's a trenchant and must-read if there ever was one.
I saw it. Excellent. L. K
What is so difficult to understand about Mr. Chomsky's position? "I do not agree with your words Sir, but I would die for your right to express them"!!
Yeah but Chomsky happened to disagree with his dismissal on those grounds. Whatever the case, you can't say people on the left don't stand for free speech.
You're using words like "oppressive" and "authoritarian" very loosely. An employer/employee relationship is not authoritarian. It is voluntary, to mutual benefit. If either party perceives that the relationship is no longer serving its interests, the relationship ends. That is not "oppression". It is freedom of association, an expression of liberty. Government is the only entity that can legally force behavior under threat of imprisonment or death. No other institution has that power.
The recent riot at Berkeley (over the planned Milo Yiannopoulos speech), highlights this difference. It's one thing to withdraw from, or argue against, a viewpoint you don't like. It's quite another to engage in violence to prevent someone from being heard. And government, by its nature, is an instrument of physical violence, which is why it is not permitted to act against you in any way for speaking your mind.
Just because it's voluntary doesn't mean it's not authoritarian. You voluntarily submit to government as well, or else you would be dead. Same goes for having a boss for the vast majority of people.
You don't voluntarily submit to government. You don't "sign up" to be under the jurisdiction of the state; you just are and you have no choice about it. And while you might choose to be cooperative when they compel you, you do that knowing that if you don't cooperate, they will at some point physically force your compliance by having policemen show up at your door with guns and a piece of paper, place hands on you, force you into a vehicle and take you to be incarcerated.
An employer can't take your freedom away. He can only take your job away. And your job isn't yours by inherent right, it's yours by virtue of the employment agreement you made. It has terms that both sides have to live up to. Not the same thing at all as obedience to the state.
As for having to work, yes, most people need to have some sort of job in order to feed themselves. But that doesn't come from an authority, it comes from nature. It's inherent in being a living organism that you have to act to sustain yourself. In a free society, you have many options as to how you will do that. And only in the most abject poverty would you face a circumstance where there is one particular job you must take or you will starve to death. Let's please not pretend that Faurisson faced that kind of circumstance.
Policemen will eventually come to your house if you don't submit to paying taxes or whatever, because you are stealing. Just like how they'll come to your door if you steal from your workplace or from a store or anything like that. No, nearly everybody has to work for somebody, that is just the reality. Not some fantasy world where everybody can and will start their own business. Does not make it authoritarian.
The protestors at Milo's speech weren't authoritarian. The government gives you the right to free speech, and we don't need to hear it on our campuses if we don't want. Especially given Milo is an especially inflammatory speaker who has outed trans kids in the middle of his speeches. That means his speech is actually a threat to safety. So it was entirely justified what they did. (Which was really nothing. What happened? A few windows broken, a few bottle rockets sent off)
Freedom of speech is not here to protect the speech you like; it is to protect the speech you cannot stand to hear.
Sadly, the Earth seems to be populated by non-thinking creatures who are more than happy to accept authority rather than think through difficult issues themselves. It shouldn't be this hard to convince people *WHY* this is such a dangerous practice.
At least part of the blame for that lies with organised religion.
@@kiwitrainguy not really.
"Do the facts matter or don't they matter?"
"Well, they do, but-"
"Well, then let me tell you what the facts are."
Brilliant.
In these polarizing times we need the wise words of Chomsky. an amazing man who has contributed so much. :) A truly Great American if you ask me!
Dreaptomaniac I understand where you are coming from if you haven't already I recommend you read some of his books, there he expands on his views a lot more. :)
@@daniel-fd9ih I think it's quite clear that Chomsky supports freedom of speech in the sense that you can't be prosecuted by the state for your speech alone. Institutions like Universities should have no obligation to uphold freedom of speech, but they certainly lose all credibility if they choose to suppress speech beyond a reasonable boundary. Showing extreme BDSM in times square would be a severe public nuisance, and so it is reasonable for the police to intervene while upholding freedom of expression. If you cannot say something to an audience in any context without the state prosecuting you for nothing but the speech alone, then freedom of speech has failed.
He was a good alternative to straight out international Communism controlled by the KGB anyhow ☝️
Noam is such a commendable human being. He stood his ground against the worst accusations. He is a man of principle.
He lost his way during the lockdown. He called for forced medical tyranny. Perhaps he's lost it in his old age to have made such an overt and obvious foul.
@@drott150 This lie again. Let me tell you mutt: why don't you talk about Israel and their contribution of Pfizer. No you won't, Mr.JIDF.
As or anyone else reading this comment: All he said was that anti-vaxx should be refused to allowed to dine outside and stopped form social gathering.
"Intellectuals are very good at lying -- They're professionals at it."
It's frightening how biased and unwilling to understand him those people were.
Chomsky explained himself as clearly as possible and yet they all jump at him barking, not listening what he's saying.
Shows how the empty can rattles the most.
Oh they understand him alright- that's precisely why they are so rattled and then ridiculously smearing of the man.
I think a lot of Anarchists and anti-authoritarian socialists have forgotten what it means to be anti-authoritarian these days and I'm quite disillusioned by it all. Preemptive use of violence is not a legitimate use of authority, if it is than that means the wests' preemptive attack on Iraq is justified if we're going to adopt such principles. But such principles are in conflict with Anarchism and being anti-free speech is highly undemocratic.
Not only do I agree with your general position, but I've also drawn the particular comparison between censorship of hate speech and the doctrine of preventive war as it was used in the case of Iraq.
Lol, most socialists are highly authoritarian.
@@R3tr0v1ru5 so you never understood what OP said? He talked about non-authoritarian socialists.
Freedom of speech is an illusion. It is dictated by the people in power. We should regard it as such if we are to be real.
@@R3tr0v1ru5 Anarchists aren’t
Chomsky is the only adult in the room.
"Lnaguage you has meaning !" he actually said that to the guy who literally founded lisguistics in its current form.
Chomsky and and these people arnt even talking about the same thing, just like Twitter they just don't get it and won't until it's too late. We need now more than ever Chomsky!!!!
Bingo! The scary thing is that the kleptocracy has now completely twisted one of his greatest fears: climate change.
6:53+ "If you're in favor of freedom of speech that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise, otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech. It's two positions you can have on freedom of speech. Now you can decide which position you want."
Spyridon Kaprinis - Damn str8, «πατρίδα».
And right before that, he said "Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin"
Chomsky is the most patriotic American there is because he stands up for things he agrees and does not agree with through the first amendment
Can you imagine a world where everyone spoke as calmly and as thoughtfully as Chomsky?
His hushed monotoned speech where y he repeats himself in his points for the last 50 years is by definition of a classic sociopath.
@@lorenzomcnally6629 nonsense
@@nathanmarsh3172 I have several psychologist friends, all of them say a monotoned vocal speech pattern is a classic sociopath trait. After 50+++ years, listening to CHUMPsky, he only changes the names of his villians over the decades. In addition, most of his books have a massive preponderance to quote himself from his previous books. If you want the definitive assessment of CHUMPsky just
listen to Thomas Sowell's assessment of Noam Chomsky. Someone he has knowledge of because they are the same age and era of 1960's radical semi Faustian Marxist Revisionist and Malthusian history and politics.
@@lorenzomcnally6629 nonsense
We'd probably have a nuclear war.
As a french person, i have to say : the state of confusion and ensuing generalised hatred is getting unbearable as a result of generations of half-baked intellectual and political discourse of the sort. It’s like the population has given up on essential ideas of truth as a whole and we’ve descended into tribal hell, unconsciousness.
You can blame the postmodernists for that to a certain degree.
"The highest American ideal is to defend the soapbox of someone standing on it to disparage your views."- Calvin Coolidge
When Chomsky speaks, others should STFU and listen. He doesn't care whether you believe him or not.
He cares very much. That's why he argues with his opponents.
A courageous and correct position.
The first 25 seconds should be The quote of our times.
Deplatforming people and shouting them down only makes them stronger and more popular.
Give me one example of that happening.
@@rypoelk997 Epic fan fiction, completely ahistorical though.
you can agree with Chomsky but that narrative is kind of bullshit and is not born out anywhere
Stalin disagrees
Not really. It concentrates them and others into more obscure and extremist platforms, and within these platforms they may feel stronger and more popular, but their broader influence is significantly lower.
Waow, Simply genius :- ) Thank you Noam for being the change we want to see.
0:46 "Do the facts matter or don't they matter?" What a great way to preface a conversation.
I will now attempt to place the issue within a context that even French academia may understand it: Chomsky - “I dislike Roquefort cheese with every fibre of my being, but I will defend your right to eat it if you so choose”.
Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai should check out this video.
OK I tried to make this comment before, but it got deleted, probably for containing the wrong combinations of words, so I'll have to be a bit more generic this time [speaking of free speech...].
I admire Chomsky, but the video did make me wonder if there should be a distinction between expressing an opinion or stating an outright lie. I am not familiar with Faurisson's work, but considering the fact that he denied that a historic event happened, it can only be based on falsified research. And we do, in our 2021 society, understand the dangers of spreading lies.
If someone says: 'This very tragic historic event [generic!] was a good thing', that is an opinion. It's an opinion you will despise, but it falls within free speech. However, if someone says 'this very tragic historic event never happened - here is the proof' then, to me, they are doing something completely different. Is this person really expressing a 'view' when he is just lying?
I'm not saying that lying should be outlawed. I don't have a solution, I just admire the problem. I'm saying that I believe that expressing an opinion and spreading a lie are two very distinct things and I wonder if they should be treated as if they are subject to the same law.
It would have been nice to see that discussion in the video (or in the comments), and if anyone has an opinion on it, please respond.
I don't care if it's chomsky, after ww2 you just cannot defend freedom of speech as an absolute above all other values. If you think that we should kill nazis (which is the reasonable position) you can't also be in favor of them talking, as they would be dead. As far as holocaust deniers are concerned they also shouldn't be able to hold public lectures. You don't need a state to stop that, you just take direct action and stop him from speaking.
@@anarchistpoops161 Well... I do believe you can still defend freedom of speech as an absolute. Genocide or no. I definitely think it's possible that I COULD think that we should kill nazi's AND be in favor or them talking, precisely because there is a difference between SAYING nazi's should be dead and actually DOING it.
Chomsky seems to say that 'making false claims = free speech', and I just can't get on board with that part. If a repairman tells me 'if you give me 100 bucks I'll fix your car', and then takes the 100 bucks and does nothing, according to Chomsky, I can't touch him because he was exercising his right to free speech. I call bs.
@@cyprel when you sue the repairman, you don’t win a judgement against them for lying. You win for breach of contract. It’s not the speech that is punished, it’s the theft.
This is a fundamental tension with expression! There is no method to separate dissident opinions from lies, in a meaningful legal way.
Proscribing areas that are open to challenge and areas that are not, is the rationale of heresy and religious authority. Medieval Catholic Europe allowed discussion of fine intellectual points about say, transubstantiation or the sequence of actions in performance of miracles, but offering alternative models of celestial motion were deemed lies, dangerous speech, and punished. We “knew” the Ptolemaic model was accurate, and challenging it was illegal.
Setting a barrier of “truth” to be met before speech is allowed means dogma will rule, not because it’s correct, but because it will censor all differing opinion.
Chomsky's point is this: who do we entrust with the power to decide what is true or false, and therefore what it is permitted to say? As with the death penalty, it's a nice idea, but there is no way to give the state that power without giving the state the ability to abuse that power, and if history has taught us one thing, it's that any power that can be abused, will be abused.
You Either Support Free Speech or You Don’t.
Conservative here. Though I vehemently disagree with Chomsky on socialism, I agree completely with his support of freedom of speech. No-one should be silenced.
Same
Agree, but his silence the last few years has made me lose all respect. He should be speaking out against the Left.
When a Conservative claims to be in favor of free speech I am forced to give a skeptical glare. Conservatism has always been an opponent of free speech historically. And that is because it has to be. The preservation of oppressive systems, which is whole-sail what virtually every Conservative position aims to do since the origin of the term, is best served by limiting speech.
Now, in recent years - and I emphasize recent - there has been a narrative shift in the US where the Conservative Right has claimed the mantle of free speech. But this is not the first time The Right has done so. The Far Right in the late Weimar did the same thing. Not because they ever actually believed in free speech, but because it was a useful tool in the moment to obtain the power necessary to subvert it.
And my skepticism is further enforced by the fact that Conservatives were - in my lifetime - aiming to ban or censor just about everything. The Satanic Panic was not that long ago. Additionally, my skepticism is also reinforced every time Conservatives let the mask slip and try to get something silenced. Which is actually quite frequent.
@@keyow2 "The preservation of oppressive systems"
Which ones in particular?
Firstname Lastname
Every single one.
That’s the purpose of Conservatism. To drag our feet or go back.
Save for a couple of positions, which they share with Leftists (for the wrong reasons), every Conservative position is about preserving systems of oppression and control.
And this has been true for hundreds of years, not just today.
This is from the UK's BBC Radio 3 - "3rd Ear" 11th February 1989.
Jonathan Steinberg talks with Professor Noam Chomsky
Whichever side is trying to silence dissent, that side is the oppressor.
I will always remember this incident of Chomsky's position on freedom of speech. To hell with the pseudo-free speech those sort of people have. You allow for people to be put on trial because of offense and you scarifice your freedom to say what offense even is.
I like this way of putting it
I mean how hard can it be to understand. Left or right or whatever, how can you not understand this extremely simple distinction. Also hilarious the Tel Aviv guy who of course turns it into 'an obvious campaign against Israel' haha snowflake
"In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. This quotation - which is sometimes misattributed to Voltaire himself - is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech."
"Freedom" of speech means that you can say whatever you like except when it comes to criticising the authorities.
Also I find that sometimes I say one thing but people seem to hear something else.
Noam’s one of a kind, for sure.
All topics need to be debated otherwise the people doomed to inherit that knowledge are inheriting dogma, and however correct or incorrect that dogma is it is better for people to think and work out for themselves what is right.
I totally agree with Noam Chomsky. And by the way, no tragedy should originate dogmas similar to those of those who caused it.
Notice how then people arguing with him have no substance to their arguments just words they think sound clever that they bark in an obnoxious tone.
Sincere and honest
Chomsky is CONSTANTLY derided for not following the popular narrative. He's a professor of LINGUISTICS! If I were him, I would make fun of the so-called media also. Our government, "news" media, court system, and corporate advertising structure has taken the English language into the toilet. Words don't mean anything anymore, and Chomsky is trying to be precise in his delivery. Too bad that it bores most people. We're in a "sound byte" world, and it stinks to high Heaven.
It’s charming when some college professor says this, yet in which colleges can you genuinely say exactly what you’re thinking, without punishment?
Nowadays? None.
the definition of spitting gold
Noam Chomsky is a true intellectual. He speaks the truth. He never supports Israel's policy of apartheid towards Palestinians.
the regressive left should watch this
And the new atheists and Harris fanboys should watch this: ruclips.net/p/PLHZGTTZG6HcLl9QnVGhfBMlQhLlrew8b4
DerSektenspinner So should Milo, who thinks gay conversion therapy is valid.
You don't know me, just because one agree's with someone on some points doesn't mean he is a fanboy of his. Also just because you disagree with someone on some points, you shouldn't disregard everything he says. ...and btw, I did watch most of that! ^^
"Liberal" universities are bending over backwards to accommodate white supremacists, so your comment is kind of silly.
what white supremacists? and even if that were true, what does that have to do with my comment? you'd describe those univerities as being part of a regressive left? otherwise you're just rambling incoherently.
"I'm not a free speech absolutist, it seems as though you just do not understand that free speech is an absolute. We have the freedom of speech to discuss the importance of it, what to do about hate, etc. We, you or I, have the freedom of expression to reasonably and peacefully protest in public over an issue you or I find important, but you, my fellow human being within a nation of freedom, you have the freedom of religion as well. Such a freedom to and of religion, also protects no matter how fundamentally wrong you are, from being burned at the stake by the US Government as if you were a witch in the 13-hundreds." - Me
In what context have you written this segment? Very nicely put
"I'm not a racist, but..."
"I support freedom of speech, but..."
It's a shame Chomsky didn't come out strongly to defend people slandered as Nazis from 2016 to now in the US.
I think he talked about that but mostly in general term.
You mean people like this?
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Charlottesville_%27Unite_the_Right%27_Rally_%2835780274914%29_crop.jpg
It's not slander if it's true.
@@brucetucker4847,yeah because the War on Drugs worked so well,that banning hate speech won’t create a large underground following,right?🙄 Yep,no druggies nowadays,huh? 🙄
This must be the "flak" that's mentioned in the Propaganda Model.
Most rightists and leftists have a lot more in common than they do with the leading class.
Would be nice if the left wasn't calling for the eradication of the right constantly
lmfao french intellectuals
Not so much different than modern day American intellectuals.
There's no such thing as "extreme" views on free speech. It's a positive/negative issue. You either have free speech or you don't.
There are two realities with this topic. The first comes with freedom of speech and your right to say things that are unpopular and/or untrue. That right should be protected so long as you're not inciting others to harm or kill other people.
The second, is your right to remain at a particular job or take part in (mostly online) debates or social media sites based on what you publicly say. In that instance, you are not the owner of that organization and your rights are limited by what they will allow.
You do not have to buy their products, use their services, or attend their institutions. But that doesn't mean that they have the obligation to keep you employed or active within that particular group.
Is it just me or does Noam Chomsky look like the guy from the Up movie?
B-but he said something they disagreed with though!
Chomsky's position here is pure traditional constitutional Americanism, born of the practical tolerance adopted by diverse colonists surviving in incredibly harsh conditions cooperatively, as opposed to typical Old World governments' anti-liberalism, despite whatever veneer of modernization they employ resembling the shallowest liberal policies. In defense of Europeans, most members of the human species in general find logical consistency in law and the moderated use of the government apparatus vis-a-vis individual liberties in highly politically contentious contexts to be extremely difficult to understand, much less put into practice, including most Americans.
It's a major sadness that Chomsky's kind of intellectual American leftism has been almost completely supplanted by ideological conformism in American academia and big business. Unless youths stage a new movement to reclaim the genuine liberal heritage of the 18th century and in particular its manifestation during the American experience (as opposed to French style centralization and totalitarian, ideologically ethnic-based governance, which generated the conditions of the nationalist revolutions leading up to the Nazi movement and later the Russian, South American, Cambodian, and Han Chinese jingoist coups that derailed internationalist socialism during the 20th century), I'm afraid the world will descend once more into the immediate danger of rapid refeudalization, loss of democracy, and incomprehensible misery.
@verbadum22 I never have, but nice reference.
Chomsky is such a rhetorician.
What does that last quote mean "to adopt a central doctrine"??
The idea that freedom of speech means freedom to say what is true, with truth defined as what the government agrees with, was a central doctrine of both Nazism and Bolshevism.
At 6:10 - 6:20 - not much has changed with the French intel com.
On the one hand, we should not platform views that propegate, or support the propegation of hateful violence, it's legitimisatiom, or justification. However, this is limited to platforming, and in the academic sphere, there should be room to investigate everything.
I have not even properly investigated the claims about the nonexistance of these death camps, because I don't really care about the specific details, as the overall actions were still monsterous, and the ideology behing them fails in principle. However, if in theory these claims were true, then it would be vital that we cleared that up, since no matter how much the nazis were wrong regardless, they should still be condemed based on accurate terms, I mean I don't think condeming hitler for eating babies is useful, in fact it removes from the actual atrocities.
So if these claims where true (which I am personally not concerned enough with to investigate, due to the consensus elsewhere) we woulf only find out if academians were allowed to freely examine it.
If the act of peadophilia is wrong, it is crucial that we have that fiscussion, at least in academic terms, to clarify why, and what that suggests we do about it. (for the record I am convinced the work is done, and it is clearly wrong). Taboos are useful in that they teach us what is to be given platforms, and what is to be strictly kept within the relevant spheres, but nothing should be sacred, or protected from examination within academia. Nazis shouldn't be treated as moderate people having normal views in the news, but we shouldn't burn all their literature, in fact it should exist in public libraries for scrutny and examination.
In short, you have the freedom to say annything, but not on a stage. You may speak profanely, but not in the kindergarden, you may lie but not in court, or when making deals. Our freedom of speech should guarantee that we may speak anything, and organize around it, but not in all settings.
It's a shame that a large portion of the left can't understand the basic principle of freedom of speech. I'm pretty left leaning, but I cringe so hard whenever I hear the "I'm pro free speech, but...." excuses. Although I think most people on the left are in favour of free speech, I think the left should have a harder stance on defending free speech. One reason why the right wing has gained more popularity over the years is because they have essentially created a strawman, in which the left is somehow anti-free speech. I feel that if more people on the left would take the issue of free speech and censorship more seriously then less people would be convinced by right wing lies and misinformation. Even if that means opposing hate speech laws or big tech companies.
The right will always be lying propagandists. They are literally censuring every Republican in congress who voted to impeach/convict Trump. They are pushing laws that will restrict millions of people from being able to exercise one of the most important forms of speech, the ability to vote. They are passing laws across different states to criminalize protests. They are pushing anti-bds laws across different states, etc.
I don't disagree at all. And I think that when conservatives say they're in favour of freedom of speech, I think they're being dishonest because whenever leftists are the ones being cancelled and censored, they ignore all their principles and either just act like it isn't happening or are completely for it. Conservatives only want free speech for conservatives. I find it amazing that so many "Free speech advocates" support Donald Trump, considering how anti-free speech and free expression he is. For example he literally proposed a flag burning law so that anyone who burnt the flag would go to prison for a year. However, this isn't an excuse for the left to be in favor of restricting freedom of speech, because if the government can make expressing certain views illegal, then it's only a matter of time before they make certain left wing or anti capitalist views illegal. Which is why I am against hate speech laws, and why I think that my country ( the UK ) should have a law that protects freedom of speech ( so similar to the first ammendment).
@@rhysevans4188 yea I’m against hate speech laws too. Fortunately I live in the USA where that’s not a thing. Though, I think conservatives and right leaning people in other countries aren’t the same as what’s considered conservative in the USA. I’m sure in other countries conservative governments are also pro hate speech laws. But yea speech shouldn’t be criminalized if it’s not direct threats
#VOLTAMONARK
A good piece, that would be much better had it included Chomsky's statement ("preface") in it's entirety. How can we determine the merits of his statement without seeing it?
The lesson here is one of association.
6:31
Chomsky mode activated
vart kan man se hela?
Jesus that was painful
WHAT WO NOME CHUNKY SAY ABOUT
THE CURRENT SWAMP 2DAY😖👹😵
I can see from the comments of some of Chomsky French interlocutors that those French persons are simply clueless. Apparently, they can't understand the idea that defending your RIGHT TO SPEAK is not the same thing as AGREEING WHAT YOU SAY.
You'd have to be really fucking stupid to conflate the two.
@Beetlejuice2020 Yeah people on the right never do that stuff...
@Beetlejuice2020 LOL
Noam was just a baby here
Frog detected
Chomsky is correct that there are two camps when it comes to freedom of speech. You are either for it or against it. The issue lies in the fact that not everyone who opens their mouths and wags their tongue will be as noble and fair as to how they utilize their freedom of speech. Nor will they be responsible with the aftermath of what their speech births into the world. Words shape thoughts. Most people lack the ability or desire to critically analyze what they hear, believe, do, and say.
But at least, when freedom of speech is encouraged, there will always be opposing words and opposing people willing to speak the truth and make things right. Without it, what you are describing is free of any shackles and any sort of resistance when it falls in the wrong hands. The cure can't be worst than the virus.
How does one refute odious ideas if it is not permitted to discuss those ideas?
I think Europe is wrong in its approach to this. Making something forbidden only gives it the allure of the forbidden. It allows awful, hateful people to cast themselves as the real victims, martyrs to their "truth". Let them spew their vile ideas so everyone can see who and what they are. If their ideas are really that awful and their claims that false - which, make no mistake, is 100% true for neo-Nazis and other Holocaust deniers - it should be easy to refute them.
Legend
Rinse repeat, still going on today.
This video, for all its good candour and dignity, should at least put up a warning for the graphic scenes at the end.
At least Chomsky got one of his takes correct. Hate speech doesn't exist. All speech is free speech. It is confusing how he can hold this to be true but then defend communist systems that have never supported this principle.
This man obviously needs a media communication training :)
That's what he is
Everyone should like this video!!!! Get the message out there!
When is Chomsky gonna be our president? He would be the best man to incorporate an honest leadership system. I assume he probably doesn’t want to, but he’s SOO fuckin HONEST. Anyone who is honest is a leader in a world of lies.
I wish but unfortunately he's too old and too left wing. If a guy like Bernie is too far left to get elected here (And he would be considered an average leftist politician in Europe) then Chomsky is surely too far left. He's also 91 years old
If to even enter such a discussion indicates the loss of humanity then why would you allow your words to be published alongside that exact discussion? I agree with Noam that we shouldn't let the government dictate what's appropriate and inappropriate to say but I think its normal and right to shut out terrible and harmful ideas like this in other ways. Getting involved in the discussion for the sake of defending free speech just kinda feels like a waste of time and energy when you have a moral opposition to the argument.
Source doesn't exist :(
Jordan Peterson back in the day
peterson is a quack
As uncomfortable and messy as it might be, I tend to agree, there are only two stances on this. Either you are for free speech, which unfortunately and regrettably does give certain people the right to say and claim completely appalling things that are contrary to evidence, or you think that what the right and wrong speech is should be determined by an authority, which isn’t an issue when you agree with the authority and if the authority is following the evidence, but if you disagree with the authority and the authority isn’t following the evidence then you open yourself up to a world of pain. Both choices are messy. Don’t forget, the law says that you can say what you like, not that you can do what you like. Principles like these are an uneasy compromise where you really only find the safest option by disappointing everybody on all sides. Also as Chomsky has said in other videos and other people have to, shutting people down realistically doesn’t do anything to stop the spread of terrible ideas, for the most part it’s completely counter-productive. Not letting nazis speak might feel good but does it actually in anyway stop them or change their beliefs? Or does it fuel the fire of those who feel infamous or persecuted and just rally more sympathetic people. Just like with Islam, it might feel good to chuck shit at the mosque in your area, but the chances are that you are just radicalising people who otherwise might not have been radicalised. Again, counter-productive
It's not uncomfortable at all. You just spelled it out. Don't legislate speech. That's it, end of story.
Gonzalez Helen Brown Daniel Martinez Carol
The Left needs to see this
So does the right. The right are literally censuring every Republican in congress who voted to impeach/convict Trump. They are pushing laws that will restrict millions of people from being able to exercise one of the most important forms of speech, the ability to vote. They are passing laws across different states to criminalize protests. They are pushing anti-bds laws across different states, etc.
@@judealexander8259 None of the cases you gave concern free speech
@@axelmgs5928 oh but being kicked off twitter for violating their terms of service is totally a concern for free speech. You people are so intellectually dishonest it’s disgusting. So criminalizing protests and stripping people’s rights to vote which are both forms of free speech, and forcing people to sign a form that they aren’t pro-BDS or face termination are not examples of free speech and aren’t concerns? lol you’re a 🤡
@@judealexander8259 Nope, they are not
@@axelmgs5928 lol you are such an idiot. I get it though. You are one of those “free speech for me but not for thee” types. You clearly don’t know what free speech is or what the 1st amendment is.
Here’s you, whaaaaaaa Trump got banned from twitter!!! Gina Careno got fired from Star Wars whaaaaa this is 1984!
JRE
Empty intellectual exercise generated by political motivations
What would be his take on speech that calls for direct physical violence incites violence, psychologically brainwashes someone to commit violence
That's a good one. I am against it. What about you ?
Anderson William Young Scott Lee Brian
First and foremost, I don't think it matters too much whether the atrocity against Jews existed. Why? Because man don't learn from the past. Despite the immense suffering of the war, we still carry on the same as before. You may condemn it, memorialize it, but it hasn't changed man they are still divisive, cruel to one another. Even Jews haven't learned the lesson. Has their suffering taught them to be inclusive and brotherly toward their neighbors in the middle East? They still carry on the same way of life. We haven't learned a thing except man are capable of great cruelty.
It was not just against jews.
You have little to no understanding of history if you think we are still as Barbaric and clueless as we used to be.
@@sHmAaa and your understanding of history is?
@@whatever5575 Better than yours? I don't know, what kind of question is that. We have clearly learned from the past, we have for example been resisting(at least in the west to various degrees of success) the idea of socialism and tribalistic politics based on group identity, censorship you name it ever since we have witnessed the horrors it seems to bring with it. What is really confusing is the desire to go back, in my opinion.
I disagree strongly. If we don't know what actually happened in the past, how can we avoid making the same mistakes in the future?
🙏🏻I found what the Latin Is for the American 🇺🇸 drug biggest import for years for your people living 🥺.
Faurisson did speak freely. And was smacked down for it. Toughen up.
Shouldn't Zuckerberg stop speech that has Russian sounding words that contain collusion? If speech is free then only free people have speech. What if unfree people have something to say? What about Fox-News-aphobic comments. Also, do we really need tweets about cats?