me too. This is one of my first encounters with Hitch. We have our differences, being somewhat leftwing, but I will always admire his journalism and his determination throught his progresses of thought
I suppose if we all got drunk as we spoke sipping and sipping and sipping anything woud make sense as you thought this did, but not everyone listening to thisis in the same state of drunken mind as you were in this speech. GOD BLESS YOU!! lol!
Even those speaking the observable truth should not be protected (if you mean protection by law) from ridicule. Ridicule is often a powerful tool OF criticism. The entire point of subscribing to ideas formulated using reason and observable evidence is that you believe something based on how well it stands upon its own merits. No idea should be protected from criticism and ridicule, but ALL must be protected from censorship so that people may be shown the failure or immoral nature of an idea.
This Hickey speech affirms the fact that it's normal to think differently. Pertinently, for us not to take refuge in consensus is consistent with the anonymous quote that reverberates always in the tip of tongue: SOMETIMES A MAJORITY MEANS ALL THE FOOLS ARE ON THE SAME SIDE.
That implies that those who are speaking the observable truth to determine some kind of protection, and that's half of Hitchens' point: NO ONE deserves the right to have their views protected from criticism, and everyone should expect their views to be critically analysed.
I keep coming back to this speech and thinking that long after he's gone, this might be Hitch's most important contribution to the world. Let us hope that we are not looking back at it from a time when all speech is limited and the idea of its freedom has become an obscure point of philosophical history.
"Does anyone know when this was?" November, 2006. If you watch the other parts of the video (part 2, and on religion), the date and conference show up briefly.
No one said that freedom of speech is dangerous. The man called for "hatred, intolerance, and contempt" to be shown for religion. Hate speech is dangerous and the one who says such things is responsible for the consequences.
Does anyone know where we can get the other side of the argument. The irony is overwhelming that we don't have the right to listen to the other side, and a slap in the face to Hitchens and this amazing video?
This is the single most important speech this man ever made and one of my favorites of all time by anyone. The self-evident nature of religion's stupidity is obvious. Religion is most assuredly on the wane. Attacks on freedom of speech however, are just as common and obnoxious as they've ever been and in my opinion at least, increasingly prevalent from those who claim to be progressive. We ignore this man's sage wisdom at our peril. Goodbye Christopher, you will not soon be forgotten.
But you must make some definite conclusions before you can proceed. You won't advance to the next step without eliminating skepticism because you can't build upon it!
Hitch has long been one of my heroes, right up there with Chomsky. I think his video on Mother Teresa is even more informative though. Hard to single out just a few-so many were true gems.
I think that's typical in Europe. I've seen swastikas in Dutch movies. But I think it's only allowed to display it in a historical context. The U.S. is one of the few countries where speech cannot be resticted by the government. In Canada you can get summoned to a "human rights tribunal" for criticizing religion.
I didn't say speech was a movement. I said that the supression of speech in this case was a result of a reactionary movement against Nazism. It was NOT a result--in this case--of that government's desire to suppress true information (which is what I thought your implication was.) I removed my comment because I thought I didn't give the benefit of the doubt, as perhaps you were suggesting that Austria wanted to limit discussion of their own involvement in the horror of Nazi ascension to power.
Well, I'm Austrian and unfortunate for me I have to agree with Hitchens point on austria. But to be fair, we not only imprison British historians but also politicians who insult the "holy" Koran. It's nice to life in a country with fredom of speech...
i am austrian and i was a little upset by this :D austria has forbidden by law to publicly praise or belittle the crimes of the nazis. irving was imprisoned because he publicly denied the existence of gas chambers. now given austria's historic responsibilities i don't see anything wrong with that. waldheim was an embarrassment and so was haider, but explaining why many were voting for them would lead to an essay about austria's political landscape and her entire history after the war.
well, you can talk about the nazi crimes openly, but under the prohibition act of 1947 it is not allowed to praise or belittle them. what irving did was publicly saying that the holocaust never happened and that it was just a myth. i would say that the prohibition act, in fact, IS dealing with nazism accordingly to our historic experiences and our constitution. i also want to add that even canada has a law prohibiting "spreading false news" under which another nazi, ernst zündel, was sentenced.
"Then the conclusion is obvious: you're the simpleton for thinking wishful thinking on a subject makes it reality." Agreed. By that token, I have gnomes in my ass. I can't show them to you, (they're invisible) but I assure you that they exist. OO! Feels like they're starting construction on that bathhouse they were talking about.
"Hitchens arguement boiled down to the position that "You can't show me God, so he doesn't exist."" And you somehow find yourself agreeing with D'Souza over this? Then the conclusion is obvious: you're the simpleton for thinking wishful thinking on a subject makes it reality.
He's not imaginary - He came to earth and lots of people saw Him! And He left it up to them whether to believe in Him or not! But He did say that without Him we could do nothing! Now we have proof - with the demographic death and Islamisation of the Christ-free West looming!! Oh dear!! CATHOLIC STATE forever - cos only the good survive!
I'm tired of the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy. Listen, if you think the potential for dangerous behaviour mandates censorship, do me this favour will you? Don't go to your government and protest for free speech limits: go to your government and protest for the banning of fire drills. Lets see how fucking committed you are to this premise. Anyone seen The Simpsons episode where everyone in the Nuclear Plant goes crazy over Mr Burns' fire drill? We all know what the point of that gag was.
If you can't talk about it openly, then how will your country's populace remember what actually happened? As an American, we talk about slavery often. It helps us keep the tragic memory of what happened in the forefront. I feel that the Germans and Austrians, by banning speech about Nazism, are doing more to foster its existence than dealing with it.
The most articulate defence of free speech I've ever heard.
RIP Christopher Hitchens. RIP free speech in reddit.
Hitchens' argument against belief by consensus is one of the most brilliant bits of rhetoric I've ever heard. Bravissimo, Hitch.
me too. This is one of my first encounters with Hitch. We have our differences, being somewhat leftwing, but I will always admire his journalism and his determination throught his progresses of thought
I quote that line all the time to friends and adversaries while debating.
It seems this speech will continue to be relevant for a long time.
I suppose if we all got drunk as we spoke sipping and sipping and sipping anything woud make sense as you thought this did, but not everyone listening to thisis in the same state of drunken mind as you were in this speech. GOD BLESS YOU!! lol!
Even those speaking the observable truth should not be protected (if you mean protection by law) from ridicule.
Ridicule is often a powerful tool OF criticism. The entire point of subscribing to ideas formulated using reason and observable evidence is that you believe something based on how well it stands upon its own merits.
No idea should be protected from criticism and ridicule, but ALL must be protected from censorship so that people may be shown the failure or immoral nature of an idea.
This Hickey speech affirms the fact that it's normal to think differently. Pertinently, for us not to take refuge in consensus is consistent with the anonymous quote that reverberates always in the tip of tongue:
SOMETIMES A MAJORITY MEANS ALL THE FOOLS ARE ON THE SAME SIDE.
Here from 2021.
Still relevant.
This is getting harder to find and is being buried by YT. Most important defense of free speech in the 21st century. "Shame on you while you do this."
Free Speech is not a virtue. Great civilisations are built on virtues. Freedom of speech is a human construct. But telling the truth IS a virtue.
Best speech I've ever seen on any topic.
That implies that those who are speaking the observable truth to determine some kind of protection, and that's half of Hitchens' point: NO ONE deserves the right to have their views protected from criticism, and everyone should expect their views to be critically analysed.
I keep coming back to this speech and thinking that long after he's gone, this might be Hitch's most important contribution to the world.
Let us hope that we are not looking back at it from a time when all speech is limited and the idea of its freedom has become an obscure point of philosophical history.
I agree. The solution to offensive speech is MORE speech, not less speech.
"Does anyone know when this was?"
November, 2006. If you watch the other parts of the video (part 2, and on religion), the date and conference show up briefly.
No one said that freedom of speech is dangerous. The man called for "hatred, intolerance, and contempt" to be shown for religion. Hate speech is dangerous and the one who says such things is responsible for the consequences.
this is excellent and very poignant and so needed for people to understand and watch.
Lets hope we aren't watching it on bootlegs, hiding it from the governemt in fear of arrest and imprisonment.
RIP Hitchens.
Probably my favorite Hitch speech. You will be missed.
Does anyone know where we can get the other side of the argument. The irony is overwhelming that we don't have the right to listen to the other side, and a slap in the face to Hitchens and this amazing video?
well put
This is the single most important speech this man ever made and one of my favorites of all time by anyone. The self-evident nature of religion's stupidity is obvious. Religion is most assuredly on the wane. Attacks on freedom of speech however, are just as common and obnoxious as they've ever been and in my opinion at least, increasingly prevalent from those who claim to be progressive. We ignore this man's sage wisdom at our peril.
Goodbye Christopher, you will not soon be forgotten.
But you must make some definite conclusions before you can proceed. You won't advance to the next step without eliminating skepticism because you can't build upon it!
Hitch has long been one of my heroes, right up there with Chomsky. I think his video on Mother Teresa is even more informative though. Hard to single out just a few-so many were true gems.
It does indeed. And it gets ever more difficult to do so in secular countries!
I think that's typical in Europe. I've seen swastikas in Dutch movies. But I think it's only allowed to display it in a historical context.
The U.S. is one of the few countries where speech cannot be resticted by the government.
In Canada you can get summoned to a "human rights tribunal" for criticizing religion.
I didn't say speech was a movement. I said that the supression of speech in this case was a result of a reactionary movement against Nazism. It was NOT a result--in this case--of that government's desire to suppress true information (which is what I thought your implication was.)
I removed my comment because I thought I didn't give the benefit of the doubt, as perhaps you were suggesting that Austria wanted to limit discussion of their own involvement in the horror of Nazi ascension to power.
I may be boring but this guy is dangerous.
this is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo true
Hitchens on the ball as usual
Canada hasn't seen this much conflict since World War 2.
Pure genius
Well, I'm Austrian and unfortunate for me I have to agree with Hitchens point on austria. But to be fair, we not only imprison British historians but also politicians who insult the "holy" Koran. It's nice to life in a country with fredom of speech...
@SarahB360 I have no idea whether or not he knew that, but I think it's an important distinction to make.
where is the full version of this? about 20 minutes, was on youtube in 2010?
RIP
i am austrian and i was a little upset by this :D austria has forbidden by law to publicly praise or belittle the crimes of the nazis. irving was imprisoned because he publicly denied the existence of gas chambers. now given austria's historic responsibilities i don't see anything wrong with that. waldheim was an embarrassment and so was haider, but explaining why many were voting for them would lead to an essay about austria's political landscape and her entire history after the war.
For the love of irony.[ we are watching a video about free speech] there is stuff edited out just after 5mins ?
Canada has no reppealed these laws.
well, you can talk about the nazi crimes openly, but under the prohibition act of 1947 it is not allowed to praise or belittle them. what irving did was publicly saying that the holocaust never happened and that it was just a myth. i would say that the prohibition act, in fact, IS dealing with nazism accordingly to our historic experiences and our constitution. i also want to add that even canada has a law prohibiting "spreading false news" under which another nazi, ernst zündel, was sentenced.
"Then the conclusion is obvious: you're the simpleton for thinking wishful thinking on a subject makes it reality."
Agreed. By that token, I have gnomes in my ass. I can't show them to you, (they're invisible) but I assure you that they exist. OO! Feels like they're starting construction on that bathhouse they were talking about.
@Catcrumbs You really think he didn't know that?
chatGPT anyone?
"Hitchens arguement boiled down to the position that "You can't show me God, so he doesn't exist.""
And you somehow find yourself agreeing with D'Souza over this?
Then the conclusion is obvious: you're the simpleton for thinking wishful thinking on a subject makes it reality.
@OhmgrownCron no - this country has been never really been free when you look at its history
The new atheist movement today resembles the early stages of the atheist movement in the Soviet Union in the 20th century.
Haha, he comes across as one eh? But he's married right? Shame, I'd have him.
That's ridicolous.
He's not imaginary - He came to earth and lots of people saw Him! And He left it up to them whether to believe in Him or not! But He did say that without Him we could do nothing! Now we have proof - with the demographic death and Islamisation of the Christ-free West looming!! Oh dear!!
CATHOLIC STATE forever - cos only the good survive!
anti-semite!!! Naw, i'm just kidding..i love this guy!!! I don't like his views on Christianity and religion in general, but he's hilarious.
He is Jewish
I'm tired of the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy. Listen, if you think the potential for dangerous behaviour mandates censorship, do me this favour will you? Don't go to your government and protest for free speech limits: go to your government and protest for the banning of fire drills.
Lets see how fucking committed you are to this premise.
Anyone seen The Simpsons episode where everyone in the Nuclear Plant goes crazy over Mr Burns' fire drill? We all know what the point of that gag was.
HItchens makes a mistake here. The judge was talking about "FALSELY shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
@villeppi Lerl
No - His followers did! Without us you would still be in mud huts!
CATHOLIC STATE forever - cos only the good survive!
What is this "nonsense" you are speaking of?
If you can't talk about it openly, then how will your country's populace remember what actually happened?
As an American, we talk about slavery often. It helps us keep the tragic memory of what happened in the forefront. I feel that the Germans and Austrians, by banning speech about Nazism, are doing more to foster its existence than dealing with it.