Civil War historian on Freedom of Speech: I'm a free speech absolutist
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 окт 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Jeremi Suri: Civil War...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
Eight Sleep: www.eightsleep... to get special savings
BetterHelp: betterhelp.com... to get 10% off
InsideTracker: insidetracker.... to get 20% off
Athletic Greens: athleticgreens... to get 1 month of fish oil
GUEST BIO:
Jeremi Suri is a historian at UT Austin.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com...
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com...
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
Twitter: / lexfridman
LinkedIn: / lexfridman
Facebook: / lexfridman
Instagram: / lexfridman
Medium: / lexfridman
Reddit: / lexfridman
Support on Patreon: / lexfridman
Full podcast episode: ruclips.net/video/GvX-heRWFfA/видео.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: ruclips.net/user/lexfridman
Guest bio: Jeremi Suri is a historian at UT Austin.
The issue with the private enterprise defense for censorship comes when that private enterprise is the dominant platform for speech and information distribution.
Deplatforming someone on Twitter was tantamount to silencing them in a very serious way.
Or when newspapers/news media are increasingly monopolized under bigger corporations, and they all lean a specific way.
What do you do then?
Hard disagree that silencing someone on twitter is serious. Go somewhere else if your opinions are shit enough to get you banned from twitter.
Exactly. And then they'll say "go make your own" which at this point is impossible unless you are obscenely rich -- and even then the tech giant monopolies will oppose you trying to set up another one.
Oh and then you can have a billionaire buy one of the existing ones - and suddenly it's not okay for him to just run it as he sees fit.
If it's truly bad speech, it will be recognized as such by those who hear it. But, everyone has a right to hear it
It's more complex than that, would you include the active encouragement of the rape of children as an example?
@@weignerleigner3037 that's not the issue, an absolutist would say you could advocate for such things without consequences
@@swfcocs1 , could someone talk you into raping a child?
🤣🤣 Really?
@@weignerleigner3037who decides? That is what elected assembly ", court and eventually supreme court is for.ok, what about the classic example-someone going into a crowded theatre and shouting "fire!" There is a panic and 50 people die in the crush and stampede...is that person protected by free speech law, is it your right to shout that and are you free from consequences if 50 people die?
I'm lost on the usage of the word "democracy"
get a dictionary.
“Where critics aren’t silenced, but at the same time whoever has the bigger megaphone is not going to crowd out everybody else”
2:56
Constitutional republic
"Democracy"
"Our democracy"
You'd think a historian would know better.
I think he does.
its easy to incite to violence against others and/or threaten others while being shielded by social media anonymity.
I love your channel, Lex. We all have something to learn.
Shalom Salaam Peace to all
No matter the cynical evil spirits that try and takeover me. I know Lex is good he allows free speech and can hear and process when people use it righteously.
I have faith in God Lex and humanity.
Godbless you Paul. I will endeavor to better understand words you spoke. But I know.... Peace to all. Love you my brother.
Racism has become political, religion has become political. These are things that should be a no brainer. Freedom of religion means all religions are equal under the law, and racism doesn't need a explanation.
Um, is a GTA playthrough a violent video that needs taken down?
What bugs me about this guy is that he’s not a political expert, he’s a historian. He strikes me as someone who confuses his opinions for fact because he has legitimacy in an entirely different field
Depending on what your historical focus is I think it’s valid to say you can be a political expert. You can learn a lot about politics through history.
Does it bother you that he’s not a “political expert” or that he says some things that you don’t like?
He's asked these questions by Lex specifically because he's a historian. Experts on American history (including its politics) have legitimate perspectives on politics. If you asked a biologist what the most marvellous animal was they might say a human, but if you asked a physicist they might say an albatross.
Not all of course, but many historians are like this. But it's not just historians, many experts on one thing imagine they know everything else.
EDIT: I had some outstanding history profs over the years. I can only remember one whose routinely gave their own personal political opinions.
I can't be a free speech absolutist given the existence of mass social media and modern experimental psychology. One shouldn't be allowed to maliciously manipulate others 🤷
Yes, but Twitter isn’t completely it’s on entity. It does have some governmental protection. So in that sense it would be best for it to adhere to free speech laws. Also, assuming certain things like bad speech will just fix themselves is asinine.
I agree with that. Also, it’s basically a public utility. So much like a phone company by law can’t refuse customers, social media companies shouldn’t be able to do so either. Especially not a sitting president. It’s like the phone company refusing the president to make calls.
@@teddybearroosevelt1847 it should be a public utility but it isn’t.
Not just that, when you start making concessions about what free speech means, or who is allowed in their own space to law against that, it's not really free speech anymore.
Twitter for instance are required to have rules of use on their own. They are required to make a good faith effort to police along those guidelines. That's it as far as the government is concerned. Twitter in no way is the government. Only the government can infringe upon your freedom of speech
Twitter makes everyone agree to the same rules. No hate speech is one. Speech that threatens violence. These have been in place for a long time but only recently they were painted as woke because Trump didn't like having to abide by the same rules as everyone else. And he got more chances than friends if mine got who were suspended from Twitter.
I myself am an “almost” absolutist on free speech. The problem with the idea of hate speech is so blatantly obvious…who gets to decide what is hate speech….just you and your team?
There are objective definitions of hate speech and even then we can put them under strict scrutiny in the law.
America needs to start caring about truth. The First Amendment was written because historically the church and monarchs had bitterly oppressed the open discussion of ideas. Now that we achieved an open discussion we're seeing media elements try to destroy the truth. So it's time we insert some backbone to punish media that lies and misinforms.
The issue we face politically is the right wing has jumped off the rails and depends on it's media echo chamber. Because if we let facts reign supreme their politics would crumble. That's why they're attacking education and using CRT as a boogeyman
the platform you try to publish it on.
I forget, what is the other option again?
He's not. But alright...
I wonder why habeas corpus wasn't brought up at all???
Abraham Lincoln was throwing everyone in jail. Entire News Papers where going out of business. And getting there presses smashed up by abes secret police
@@CaleTheNail I guess thats a If you know, you know kinda thing in history now. Not important enough to talk about though.
I'm wondering where you thought it applied to this convo.
@@sleazypolar Lincoln famously suspended it for the first time in American history. So its weird to completely skip over how both sides (The CSA too) limited speech during war time.
What does habeas corpus have to do with free speech?
1:43 Lmao good one Lex 😂
The internet is a world wide web with bad actors.
Free speech is not as complicated as one might think.
The idea is purely the suggestion of influence.
The solution is in the ‘asking of the right question’.
Society demands that we exercise the ‘Social compartmentalisation of rational thought.’
When we lose that ability as a community, we give up the freedom of speech!
P.S .
I’m an il-educated “ bum off the street” and my opinion is therefore invalid.
Well put
1:30 And when JP or Eric Wainstein get shouted and scream in they classroom its ok? No wonder they left tradicionalnol speaking and went to speak their mind of web.
It’s not ok but also not technically against free speech. You don’t have a right to speak in a classroom
Fox News promotes what concepts?
1:20 "critizism, opinion, Interpretation" - so what s about claiming something to be a FACT without proof presented. Should that be forbidden?
If you were confident in your beliefs, other people being wrong wouldn't phase you. Pick better battles to fight, stop worrying about dumb people
@@sczzlbtt I guess, in germany (where I am living) it s a little bit different. Maybe also for historical reasons.
@@sczzlbtt username does not check out
Be forbidden where? The threshold varies depending on who is doing the claiming and where. In a court is obviously different than a comment section.
Free speech absolutist would mean no legal repercussion for slander. Almost nobody that claims they are an "absolutist" on free speech supports this.
I'm not convinced of this. And he says it as nearly, not entirely absolutist. Slander or defaming character loses isnt free speech because it directly infringes on the others character and may cause significant damages. This is a poor analogy I'll admit, but it's like extending the right to bear arms to the right to bear arms and harm with those arms. Free speech is not a catch all for those seeking to slander or deframe or incite violence as it extends consequence out and infringes on anothers right. I would argue that once you step into willful deceit or malice in speech, you have forfeited your rights to free speech because you've attempted to use that leverage to force others to take on the responsibility of allowing it to occur in a manipulative way. So I think it's not entirely off to assert being an absolutist, and describing incitement, defamation and slander as breaches of the right rather than allowing them as unfortunate exceptions.
@@CrispyChristieMAC So if "causing significant damage" is what makes the difference then why are people free to incite riots an insurrection and attacks on minorities?
@@sleazypolar it depends on your definition of incitement. The threshold for incitement is quite vague for laymen use, and if you ask a laymen their interpretation of incitement you will have a vastly different array of opinions and almost always colored by their ideological perspective. The moment incitement can be weaponized legally, it is just as dangerous as the actual incitement itself. That is why the application of the law is limited. For example, what is your threshold for "attacks on minorities". I would be interested to see what you deem to be incitement of violence,, I'm genuinely curious to see if we're even on the same page let alone 360,000,000 people in the US.
I work at a private local bank. I want to wear a tie that says all Jews should die. Can the bank fire me if I do not stop wearing the tie?
@@jacobwatson1818 That's a private organization, not the government punishing you.
If you're defending the practice of social media companies dictating speech then you're not defending free speech
....Until it's something he doesn't like...
🤡 👋
@@bobsawin1920 kek
what are you referencing
Second amendment…? He can’t be absolutist on that.
@@jomalomalwatch the full interview
🤡
Thank you my unknown friend
Easy to pontificate on free speech in theory, but if his theories were tested to their limits, he would surely fold. Everyone does
Considering Lex bans or blocks anyone on Reddit/Twitter that has the mildest form of criticism should be a major red flag that he’s an absolute fraud
Considering Lex bans or blocks anyone on Reddit/Twitter that has the mildest form of criticism should be a major red flag that he’s an absolute fraud
@@kaytrout3836 you're free to speak your opinion, but lex doesn't have to listen to it. it's not anti free speech because he's not listening to it
@@gzpan That's literally what they are calling anti free speech though. Lex has a right to block whatever on his own platform or account, but he needs to admit he's not an "absolutist" when he does.
@@gzpan then he’s not a free speech absolutist. Hence he’s a walking contradiction
Looking forward to this one , Lex!
6:29 Easily one of Lex's worst guests. His assertion that Twitter suspensions have been MORE arbitrary since Elon took over batsh!t loco.
Lmao what? This guy's a bad guest because he said something you didn't like? Jeremy's first convo with Lex was on of the most informative episodes on this channel.
Twitter is gay
no it's not. Elon legit just suspends people that haven't broken the rules because he doesn't like their posts.
@Prithvi B this dude is the embodiment of chomsky/zinns history of the modern era. There is nothing there, same history I learned about in 4th grade but with more progressive bias. Liberation 👍. What's that 25% of the freed slaves turned share cropers died with in 10 years of being liberated? You can't put a price on emancipation.
@@trystdodge6177 what is the point of bringing up the 25% stat? Are you insinuating they'd have been better off remaining slaves? Growing pains are a thing.
Free to tell your truth? Sure. But freedom to lie? Incitement to violence not OK? Then you are not a free speech absolutist. Is money equal to speech so its use should be as free?
Fox News? Why always bring up Left?
Omg 1st ?
hidden is just speculation if ya can't point to specific examples then you are just making it up!! you're still making shit up examples, exacples, examples ,buddy!
Sooo what your saying is tiny hats can dictate what information is allowed to be shared......I think we all know that already
I haven't watched yet. I'm guessing this guy is a neoliberal. 🤣
The professor would not allow free speech on his "imaginary platform" so what does he consider a qualified speaker for his classroom. The bill of rights are numbered for a reason.
Free speech is for a country not for online platforms
@@Colin-ut6cm Thank you for your opinion although I strongly disagree.
@@mikeross3122 Imagine just thinking you can disagree with reality.
@@sleazypolar I disagree with opinions because Im not brainwashed or braindead.
@@mikeross3122 Compelling businesses to have to put speech on their platform is objectively anti free speech. What you support isnt free speech.