Awesome to see a clear and rational explanation of this online. This video truly makes RUclips, the country, and perhaps the world a better place. This needs a sequel with Greg Lukianoff. ❤🔥
Just wanna say that Greg Lukianoff's and Jonathan Haidt's work in the last 20+ years has been nothing short of a blessing for reason, critical thinking, and common sense. I encourage everyone to read their books and check out their talks. Incredibly insightful stuff :O
I appreciate his stance on free speech and it truly is a messy topic. I think my biggest challenge with whole-heartedly accepting this POV is that, to me, this assumes there is a foundation that many people are willing and able to take the time and energy to fully assess, digest and reflect on the bombardment of information and arrive at rational & logical conclusions. It seems to me that the speed and ferocity that emotional opinions can catch fire and cause action far outpaces people's capacity for complex cognitive assessment.
1000% agree -- the very people who could benefit the most from approaching information the way Greg is describing here do not have this frame of mind, let alone consume this kind of content. *sigh*
Nah. All speech even hate speech needs to be protected. Actions like violence should always be banned. But words? Nah fam. Thicken your skin bruh. You know how many times a day I get hate lobbed at me for being a white Man?
@@engine_erinbecause everyone is going to have a different definition of hate speech. So if hate speech isn't protected then no speech is. People have the right to hurt your feelings.
@engine_erin I think the problem is in defining the boundary of "hate speech" and legitimate criticism. It seems like the woke in particular conflate criticism of an individual's or group's actions or ideas with actual bigotry against their immutable characteristics. For example, I have no problem with Trans people who have made that decision as an adult, however I think activism in pushing "gender affirming care" on confused and still developing minors is harmful, misguided, if not downright evil.
Having gone to Columbia in the late 1990s, I can tell you that free speech was already a controversial idea at the turn of the millennium. It just took longer for the ideas of repressive tolerance to be instituted throughout the culture and college systems.
THANK YOU!!! Just because someone disagrees with a point of view , does not mean you can BAN IT, even if you find it hurtful, NOT EVERYONE DOES !!!! you cant ban it from platforms, just have a dialog to change the view
No, platforms can ban anything. That's not my opinion, that's a legal fact. They own the servers. I do agree with everything else you said. Platforms have terms of service, and they can decide what's appropriate or not. Twitter/X, Facebook, Twitch, etc. can determine what speech is acceptable or not.
I am Irish (which is in Europe). I wish we had a first ammendment! Here in Ireland censorship is being legislated in stealth under the guise of preventing hate speech. Never was it more important since some groups as well as the political ilk are trying to claim a monopoly on what constitutes acceptable/permitted speech. The new EU DSA will be used as a weapon.
@Dontdoit_ so you and your group wanna be in control and dictate exactly what others feel or how they choose to express themselves.🤔 You want feelings to get bottled up in others so one day they'll turn out as violence. You basically want to be a dictator and force everyone to say only exactly what you want to hear.
If speech you hate isn't free, then you don't have free speech. And who gets to define hate speech? I think that someone saying that Ireland should be multicultural and no longer Irish is committing hate speech against Ireland and the Irish. Others might say that the opposite is hateful speech. Fair enough. Some might say that the Catholic Church being involved in society is hateful. Others would look at history of Ireland and say that driving the Catholic Church out of the public sphere is not only hateful but one of the reasons why the Irish revolted and wanted their independence. @@Dontdoit_
I think you're wrongly assuming that there was free speech in Europe prior to World War II and this is what led to the Holocaust. There was free speech in England, not in Germany in the 1920s.@@beng4647
Back in the late 1970s, each spring a man in a three-piece suit, preaching fundamentalist Christianity, would come to the center green of my state college. Many students would gather around and listen, and some would even engage in debate with the speaker. Although his views were widely rejected by students, neither they nor the administration made any attempt to remove or censor the speaker. What happened to young people? How did they became fearful of different ideas?
The cultural peak in Western free speech in the intellectual sphere was right at the Renaissance, and with Erasmus and his followers. We might never enjoy a period where the ability of expressing one's opinion was so highly regarded as one of the driving forces of progress. Yes, that was more than half a millenium ago.
Greg is a treasure. Free speech pins together our other freedoms, without which tyranny lies. Given that the university is our premium rationality institution, FIRE is one of the most significant groups I can think of
To be honest all evil starts with a speech but also good. Its best to just be careful with what you say, i think most people use the Internet to express things they cant in real life now.
The first amendment is to protect the citizens, from government suppression of free speech. Any disscussion of this constitutional right, needs to include this.
I agree. Too many people think that free speech is about protecting themselves from criticism and backlash for the bigoted things they say. Free speech was enshrined in the Constitution to allow the citizens to openly criticize the government.
@@TheRealJman87 It is important to understand the premise, to understand the issue. I'm thankful when people like yourself recognize the proper framing. Too much false framing, amd false dichotomies...etc.. It is tragic that there are people who believe that they have the right to never be offended. I'm not a constitutional scholar by any stretch, however it's not going to improve, when so much ignorance is flaunted. Be well.
@@TheRealJman87 not just the government, other people's ideas too, basic right to have a healthy society without echo chambers because people can't listen to any criticism (like right now).
News websites lost even more readers by eliminating comments. In the late 2000s, I ran a newspaper website. At the time, having comment sections below news stories and opinion was standard. It was my job, however, to police the comments and keep them relatively “civil.” Those whose comments were removed complained that we were trampling on their free speech rights. My answer was, if you want unfettered ability to comment then you can start your own website because a news organization is a private business and has no obligation to provide freedom of speech to its readers. Unfortunately, news organizations were stuck between a rock and a hard place as commenting became more popular. Not only did it require more people to supervise, we also had to give that unsatisfactory answer that free speech rights belonged to the paper but not the reader. Today, it’s almost impossible to find a news organization that has a commenting platform. By getting rid of the community’s ability to virtually gather to debate the local issues of the day, out of expediency, they got rid of one of their most popular features. Now, local news organizations are dying or dead.
They deserve it, so many news media promoting lies from the left or right, instead of providing facts and letting people decide if it's good or bad by themselves.
I'm American and remember when the ACLU defended the KS right to march in Ill. That was a difficult position to defend. But they stood up. What I've noticed is speeches getting shut down because of security issues. I think there's an implied freedom to listen.
Whew. I’m 44 now. I fear for the future. The young aren’t being left with a livable world or a just society, it’s all being stripped away. Consumption. We have the consumption. If humanity survives its own ignorance, I predict a return to tribal lifestyles like the Native Americans. The young are much more immune to the consumption, it seems. Hopefully they survive the rest of us.
You can say any word in any language at any time. But you can still be fired for it. And You may be asked to leave a venue, private property. And you can be arrested and imprisoned if you incite a riot, violence, or defraud or worse to someone.
The challenge is when the speech is protected by the First Amendment, and your employer or institution is a public university. That's the government; thus, they can't easily fire you for personal opinions, even hateful ones. And it's even more true for a student who is not subject to employment standards.
It's important to consider the change in the ways we are able to communicate. When this amendment was devised, it wasn't possible to speak to millions of people at once. With the advent of easily streamable videos, millions upon millions can hear the same speaker present their opinion over a short amount of time, and then that video can still be viewed for decades until it's taken down. This complicates this discussion and shouldn't be ignored. Millions of people believe that a school somewhere put out a litter box for a child who thought they were a cat - this was made up and is not true, but the damage has been done. Whether someone believes the story is true or not is now moot, because the "sentiment" of the accusation, some believe, speaks to something that rings true for them. This lie still exists and can be found all over the internet, and is only one small example of the viral potential of lies, rumors, and misconceptions that shape the way we each view each other. It seems irresponsible to think that mass communication isn't stressing the boundaries of what we consider acceptable practice. It's another challenge to have a nuanced conversation about this without being accused of being "the thought police," so it's important to know that it's not any one individual's opinion that is the issue, it's that any one individual can now broadcast that opinion indefinitely, and with algorithms deciding what we are shown online, those videos can be delivered to people who aren't even seeking it out. We also share spaces online with people of all ages, an intergenerational mingling that has never happened before, from children on tablets to the elderly and everywhere in between. Children wouldn't choose to attend a political rally, but they can access those speeches, or can be delivered those speeches by an almighty algorithm without seeking it out. This should give us pause and encourage reflection at the very least.
The USA doesn't have any laws banning hate speech. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right protecting your freedom to criticize the government without fear of retaliation from said government. What you are framing as an "attack on free speech" is actually just public backlash for spewing bigotry on social media. You have the right to express your views and opinions (however distasteful they may be), but that also means that people have the right to openly criticize you for it. Free speech was never intended to shield people from criticism. Quite the opposite.
It’s not about criticism. You actually get people fired bec you don’t like their opinion. You destroy their career. The other place I know of that destroyed massive number of people bec of their beliefs or speech is China during the Cultural Revolution 1966-1976. In Stalinist USSR they sent you to the Gulag in Siberia.
The problem is not "thinking" a way out because that's either giving excuses ("action A would be great, but...") or engaging in "theorism" ("if A, then B, C, .... XXA and what if XXB?"). Our problem is stepping out because that means hard work, that means changing yourself, that means accepting you were wrong and it means getting a lot of heat and scrutiny and hate and name-calling because others simply won't agree with that. First, they will ridicule you for trying. Then they will get angry because your "stepping out" gives a real option to "being content with living in a box" and transforms their option to "being content with living in a fucked up box". Lastly, they will do everything to bring you down because the majority shifts behind you making their life wrong - never prove people wrong. They will hate you for eternity for it, even if you save them by making it impossible to drink the kool aid. /s/s off: There is only one real problem to everything. Our unwillingness to change and do hard work. Because the solutions are already there. To everything. We just have to change. Simple. And yet so, so hard.
You possess the right to express your thoughts freely, but you must understand that this does not guarantee you will be taken seriously. The merit of your words, the evidence supporting your claims, and the coherence of your arguments will ultimately determine the respect and attention they receive. Freedom of speech allows for the expression of all ideas, but it is critical thinking and reasoned discourse that elevate certain ideas above others. 😉
"Cancel culture" seems to used for two scenarios: On one hand it's about forcibly preventing others from listening to a speech or preventing someone else from speaking. On the other hand, the term is also used for an individual's ability to voice their opinion, choose to boycott and bash an individual or company online to a point that it impacts an individual or company financially. The distinction is very important. The former is a clear violation of the 1st amendment while the latter is also freedom of speach and right to protest.
You really think life ruination, defamation and ideological puritanism is protected by 1A? On a somewhat related not: Do you think government outsourcing tyranny to other nations or private corporations is a violation of civil liberties as stated in section 1983?
You grossly underestimate cancel culture, which is based on triggering. A triggered lib who is exposed to an unpleasant idea cannot counter the idea; rather, zee needs to be protected from the idea by going to have safe space and having the speaker of the idea removed from polite society forever. This is a truly pathological condition.
@@Shiro_Amada you can criticize openly anyone you don't agree with, because that's what freedom of speech is about, not a group of people deciding what's "good" for everyone, the law already dictates what's acceptable behavior and what isn't. "Outsourcing tyranny" isn't related to freedom of speech.
“Social media at this stage can tear down any idea, person, or institution”…”but what social media hasn’t been able to do yet is build anything” The times I do see building is when people go against their filter bubble. Therefore, his quote rings true when I replace the phrase “social media” with “filter bubble” or “echo chambers”. The more extreme one goes in either political direction, the more rigidly one has to adhere to a small box of permissible thoughts and actions.
When people say that there is a line beyond which speech is unacceptable, ask them WHERE they think this line is and more importantly, WHO they think should get to decide where it is? It usually doesn't take very long to establish that this supposed line of acceptable speech is precisely where THEY think it should be.
The issue I see is that we're trying to limit the dross, rather than educating people to recognize and subsequently discard it. It doesn't matter one bit if a professor or politician asserts that women are less capable or intelligent, etc. Because I know how to fact-check, recognize rhetorical tactics, and call out opinion with evidence. The real solution is to universally arm people with critical thinking skills. Also, a return to journalistic standards for "news." When I was in broadcasting, anything beyond the facts would be struck by your editor. I had pieces sent back to me because I had chosen words that were "evocative." We had to allow time for stories, and be 360 about what happened. Anything with opinions or emotions was consigned to a specific print space or the end of the broadcast, and was CLEARLY marked "Editorial." I cannot find a single network, station, channel or anchor who offers that kind of reporting today.
I think it is because they have embraced the neo-fascist control model now. Thus, they don't want people to be capable of independent critical thinking or media broadcasting that provides "just the facts."
The easiest way to learn if a country is becoming a dictatorship, is asking their citizens if they stablished forbidden words. That's the first sign that totalitarianism is taking over.
"Woke anti-free speech universities" is just a right-wing talking point. Right-wingers want to discourage people from seeking a good education, because educated people tend not to be conservatives. That's why they are trying to eliminate public schools and replace them with charter schools which have absolutely no standards or oversight.
This, above all else, is the crux of all our ills today. People in the education system do not understand basic freedoms. They use a very rudimentary and almost childlike view to understand their world. This privilege and not "white" privilege. It is having the best system in the world, the best military, the best police and then not knowing where that came from. Thank you, and bless you for bringing this conversation to us all.
It really hurts my brain how this new generation seemingly doesn't value freedom of speech and/or thinks it's a right wing position. While I do think "freedom of speech absolutists" tend to end up hypocritical when there's one topic that hits a nerve, I think drawing the line at direct enticement of violence makes the most sense. Other than that, speech is speech. Words can hurt but they can also defend and no one should have the power to silence you. I really hope there is some way to teach the new and future generations how important it is but it seems like most favor hate speech laws not understanding that those in power at that given time will define what "hate" is. It's absurd and narrow-minded.
How hate speech is defined can vary widely and is subject to change at the whims of whatever political group or societal group is in power. Think about that? Do you want to live in that future?
I'm amazed this one got through. Great talk! The Trusted News Initiative (TNI) and the governments on their trying to ban misinformation really must hate this guy.
Why must the organisations and governments (that try to ban misinformation) hate this guy? He is not misinforming (much less disinforming) anyone is he?
@@florensdewit Read the laws and rules they are putting in. They are much more about controlling speech. It doesn't even have to be provably false to be banned or blocked. The very idea that they can ban any speech to prevent me access to it was one of the key points he mentioned from the start.
@@cybersekkin I get your point. Note that I have a non-US prespective; what does not help is the knee-jerk reaction to use legal means to solve an inter-human conflict. In my experience neither governments nor administrators are excessively putting up laws and regulations that limit freedom of speech (or rather the right to voice your opinion in any form you like without limitations). I mostly see "be nice be respectful" being made more explicit, and more specific with respect to some minority groups; i.e. creating awareness rather than limiting your rights to voice your opinion. I do worry that the demand for "trigger warnings" (or, conversely, the unwillingness to consider that some people might feel disconfort, stress and/or even fear) might stiffle discussion of the very issues that underly that demand. Especially in a higher educational context sometimes it is necessary to experience discomfort or frustration to learn someting valuable, but on the other hand, forcing people to experience extreme stress or fear just because you want to discuss a certain subject or issue (and you have no negative experience with it), is not justified either. All in all, it is complicated, and it appears that in the US context things are more easily turned into a bipartisan conflict, rather than a conversation between humans.
Governments don't really have a problem with misinformation or disinformation. I mean they "say" they do. But they use their war on misinformation and disinformation as a proxy war against the type of information they really don't like - MALINFORMATION. Information that is TRUE but it's inconvenient to a government or bureaucratic agenda or narrative. Misinformation and disinformation usually gets figured out - usually pretty quickly. But malinformation is really dangerous to governments and regimes with authoritarian inclinations and it must be suppressed.
@@florensdewit so, you're saying that people should be silenced because some people, who didn't learn to deal with ideas opposite to theirs, are getting negative emotional responses? You're totally wrong then. People should learn ideas outside their ideological bubbles, you can't live in a healthy society if everyone only hears their side of the argument without listening to anyone else take on the same topics.
Everyone watching should look up who these people are and where they get their funding. There's a reason this guy is framing the conversation the way he is. Koch money.
You can say whatever you want, but you're not entitled to people agreeing with you or being immune to any backlash, especially if it's contrafactual bs, racism, etc.
freedom of speech: the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION. Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level. In private, freedom to speak one’s mind is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question. Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. To give example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example. So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma is unethical and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
Also, the right to speak is not the right to be platformed. You should not be able to force a newspaper to publish your article, however you are free to publish it yourself.
"You can say whatever you want, but be aware if my side doesn't like it we will attack you and ruin your professionalism and personal life. But go ahead, say whatever you like" As you load your gun.
@@RBrown-uk4xt oh, so only approved ideas of a few are allowed? I'm ok with allowing ideas that are against the law to be public but other than that, everyone should be allowed. And your example of racism is debatable, nowadays that word is used so loosely that I don't know if you're talking about real racism or not anymore, and as a Latina knowing you're really referring to real racism is important.
I have no problem with people shouting down the speech of those who work to destroy the democratic freedoms that they use to spread their message. We had a war about this. We do not have to tolerate the destruction of tolerance.
I think it's important to recognise that people who have destructive ideas don't always have the power to destroy things. Additionally if we force these people to stay silent they become more dangerous since we don't know these ideas are floating around peoples heads and they may begin to organise under the radar
He talks about constructive "messiness" (a.k.a. debate and/or consensus-building, actual critical thinking and strong argumentation) but doesn't talk about doing anything to help ensure the "messiness" is constructive. But reducing it to "messiness" conveniently lumps together the good and the bad to make people just accept the whole thing without digging into details.
But that's how it always has been. People like to pretend that common people were more sophisticated in past generations, but what really happened was they didn't have a voice at all. In today's world, they have a voice, as does everyone. It is going to be incredibly messy.
@@Erin-Thoreach individual human, as is their natural right to express their beliefs and ideas and to challenge snd criticize the beliefs of others, including the powerful
In Sweden, things are not banned just because they're offensive. It's mostly things like hate speech against a group of people like based on ethnicity or religion.
That's literally banning a type of speech because it's offensive. As a minority it's patronizing and insulting to make a law saying it's illegal to call me a "filthy dirty Filipino who should be deported." I'm not a fucking child, I'm a well adjusted human who isn't so pathetic I need to be "protected from mean words." The mere concept of "hate speech" is infantilizing and intellectually regressive - The government making laws enforcing politeness?? It will also only be a matter of time before the government expands the definition of hate speech to make discussion or criticism of more and more ideas illegal. I'm curious, is it illegal to make racist hateful comments against "white" people illegal in your Sweden?
I remember the same "people" trying to kill a person for burning the Quran. Centuries ago people burnt the Bible as a protest trying to bring enlightenment to western society and the Quran is the same now, nobody and their fundamentalist ideas should be allowed to dominate any western society that already fought against the same evil centuries ago and thanks to that we now have the separation of church and State. You're supposed "hate speech" or "offensive acts" like burning religious symbols in protest, is a western right fought for centuries by our ancestors.
Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, China and Russia are authoritarian with speech, that's the left leaning regimes, it's no surprise the right is now criticizing the left for authoritarian limitations on speech, they have clear examples to take from.
Any hard-heads that don't want to hear what they don't want to hear don't realize that growing up (becoming mature) includes the ability to not be so damn sensitive and triggered by verbal sound. Not being able to control one's own meaning making machine makes one's life self-inflicted misery. Use your 'free will' to set yourself psychologically free (unless you 'enjoy' being miserable). Good luck.
Excellent conversation! 😊 on the topic of the amount of information we are creating, I’d like to point out that on RUclips alone there is about a lifetime supply of content shared every day; e.g. 650,000 - 750,000 hours
I generally agree with what he's saying, but there's one thing he gets wrong that most people get wrong, and I'm so surprised someone in his position would get this wrong. People certainly have the First Amendment right to shout down speakers and shut down events, as a matter of fact, that is protected by the First Amendment. The idea that the government has to protect speakers or events is absolutely false. The first amendment does not protect citizens from citizens in that scenario, it protects citizens from the government. Them protesting is exactly what the First Amendment protects, it is part of freedom of speech. If people can protest and get the institution or the company to cancel the event, that's that.
I didn't think FIRE's survey was valid. They asked students whether they thought they were free to speak and free from oppression, rather than measuring actual incidents of suppression. I've gone to meetings of Jewish organizations, like the Zionist Organization of America, where speakers told their audience that the media was biased against Israel, that academia was biased against them, that they had to be afraid to speak out in classrooms, etc. Then when somebody asks them in a survey question, "Are you ever afraid to speak out in class because you're Jewish," they would tend to answer yes. Surveys are subject to that bias. If the health care insurance industry launches a nationwide ad campaign saying, "Government health care will take away your freedom of choice," and then you run a survey asking, "Do you think government health care will take away your freedom of choice," people will tend to answer yes. That's not because they believe that. I think they see the survey as a test, and they think yes is the right answer -- "That's what I keep hearing on TV".
The bottom line is Those Who Want To Express Fanatical Religious Racism, And Hatred Don't Want Consequences For Their FREE SPEECH. *You have free speech, but not freedom of speech on all platforms.* Free Speech doesn't absolve you of wrong doing!
The reason you have to be careful with ideas like this is because who defines "Fanatical Religious Racism" and "Hatred"? It's why hate speech laws are very dangerous tools for statists and elites, for it is they will get to decide what you can and can't say if you give them the legal power to do so.
@@arguescreamholler Fair enough about religion. But that's not my point. The point is that you can't regulate speech through centralized government (religion or otherwise) without an extreme risk of authoritarians manipulating that power to regulate what you say or believe down the road. History is rife with examples of that. With enough social pressure and propaganda, language can be manipulated to mean virtually anything. You see that with the labels terrorist, racist, or antisemitic right now. That is why it is better to allow as much free speech as possible, even for ideas and things that are deemed "hateful" or "racist." Sure, there are limits regarding direct threats and public safety, but the people of a free and just society should be cautious about regulating speech beyond that. Speech is the basis for civil rights and social justice.
@@scratchpenny Somehow you think there's no self control to prevent the extreme evil from being projected onto the citizens. WHY ARE YOU NOT IN THE STREETS DOING WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT GOOD AND BAD? What you're saying is very stupid. You don't have the freedom from consequences for what you say. Say whatever you want. Then be prepared to get your ass kicked. You confuse consequences for censorship. NOBODY'S STOPPING YOUR SAYING ANYTHING. You can't say it anytime, and anywhere you want WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES! I hope you can comprehend the difference.
People not wanting to hear your shit, or don't think you're funny, that is not an infringement on freedom of speech. If someone offends someone with their speech that person can tell the other to fuck off, in fact a group can tell the person to fuck off, and on both sides that's freedom of speech.
It’s not that I disagree with his stance on free speech or the data he used to back up his assessment, but it feels like this topic is often used as a Trojan horse for hate and the forfeiture of other constitutionally protected rights. I fear that the hyper focus on this topic by default aligns you with potentially bad actors which compels you to make nuance. Ore to your argument. There is still not enough in his free speech positions imo. Lastly, I’m only halfway through, but the 1st amendment is intended to protect us from government infringement on rights to free speech and I’ve heard no discussion of this fact so far. Not advocating for censorship but this needs to be considered if you are going to make a constitutional argument.
@@hsmd4533 There are no laws against hate speech in the USA. What you call an attack on free speech is just criticism and public backlash against unpopular opinions. Free speech doesn't shield people from criticism and the consequences of their words and actions.
@@TheRealJman87 oh, come on, you can be leftist but take your bias out before commenting, I've seen too many new laws cataloguing right wing parties as "a threat to democracy", and an increase in asking to deplatform right wingers. And the fact that Nicolas Maduro calls the opposition (who won the elections but Maduro made fraud) "fascists", just makes it more obvious how the left calls anything they don't agree with "fascist" nowadays.
Seeing some supportive posts in this but also a lot of other people who seem to not understand why freedom of speech is so important, if you have it. They are more than happy to see people they don't like stripped of it but fail to consider - what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? Would they be okay with having their speech quashed? To be forced into silence? Of course not. So why then would you choose to do that to others? Worse yet, why would you trust a *Government* with the power to determine whose voice is allowed to be heard? For pities sake there are countless works of fiction and philosophy who speak to that very danger! I don't like what a lot of people have to say. I will still fight to my death to protect their right to say it on the provision that their opinions are declared as such and that their statements are *true*. Not subjectively true but 2 + 2 = 4 type of true. A person should be allowed to be an ass, though as free individuals you need not invite them to social gatherings. But to forbid a persons opinion just because you don't like them? Foolishness. To strip away their right to a livelihood? Monstrous or evil if you would prefer. For the record when I say statement, I mean a concrete phrase that is not opinion but scientific or real world instance true. Like the UK bombing Berlin during world war 2. Opinions don't have to be true because they are based on a persons own lived and very heavily biased experiences. Cavate being that opinions would require the structure of "In my opinion...", "It is my opinion..." or "... in my opinion." Some clear indication that it is an opinion, not tied to factual reality. Again, I reiterate. I don't like the climate denialists views. But in my mind they have a right to them. I don't like the opinions that demonize homosexuals and other non-standard orientations. But people are still welcome to their opinions. At the same time, I don't like the opinions expressed by more than a few who comprise the non-standard orientations who demonize heteros because past history has not been kind to non-standards. As with all things, two wrongs do not make a right. Tit for tat only encourages the gap between humans to widen and for civil society to deteriorate. I'm not special. Surely most people can see what is at risk if humanity continues down this course? Any way. I'm done. Later folks.
I personally believe cancel culture has done more damage than good,people abuse this culture more than they use it for any good in my opinion so the benefits are minimal with lots of harm to innocent people,a few can ruin a good thing for the rest for sure.
Legalize Dueling, imo. I may not agree with what a person does but if they are willing to have skin in the game; I at least believe they believe what they say.
Here is your free engagement comment: Please stop changing the thumbnail picture, so that people can recognize in their feed which videos have already been watched.
Just look for the little red line at the bottom of the thumbnails. It is very common to change thumbnails to increase engagement as some people react differently to certain stimuli, many channels employ people full time just to create and change thumbnails to better take advantage of the algorithm, this won't change for the majority of channels which have the resources and desire to grow.
@@Cody_Istre I'm aware of the algorithm. The point of my comment was about not treating their viewers as lab animals who "react differently to certain stimuli", but deciding what they want to communicate/be and then do that.
@@VikiSilYou understand that running a RUclips channel is a business and not a charity right? It is in their best interest (and the interest of their audience) to do everything they can to increase viewership, statistically, trying different thumbnails has a tremendously positive effect on ensuring this outcome. If it didn't then it wouldn't be such a common practice in the industry. The rationale you provided in your first comment was simply that "people can recognize in their feed which videos have already been watched". Which is a silly argument as RUclips already provides several much more accurate methods of accomplishing this, most obviously as mentioned, the red bar at the bottom of the thumbnail. It wasn't until I used scientifically accurate language referring to how individuals respond to advertisement that you changed your argument. The reality is that at the global scale of the internet humans are essentially comparable to "lab animals" as you put it and there is nothing wrong with that. We are animals whose actions are largely predictable due to evolutionary mechanisms which can be rather easily understood (often through controlled laboratory experiments) and exploited, it's the basis of modern advertising and isn't necessarily a bad thing (although, like anything, can be used for what many would consider nefarious purposes). It seems like you just generally have issues with organizations utilizing statistical analyses to make more informed decisions regarding the content they produce, which if true, means the internet (and nearly all modern media) is probably not for you (and that's fine).
@AIMageX Nice troll account, if you have ever engaged with any content that has appeared on your home page you are also contributing. This is the world we live in now, you can either use it to your advantage, allow it to use you, or recuse yourself from the technology which drives the modern world. Personally, I much prefer targeted advertisements, the sheer amount of content which exists almost necessitates it if you have any desire to be exposed to remotely relevant products and media. You are going to be advertised to regardless, why not increase your chances of seeing something useful?
Freedom of speech So where it would not cause harm. It means you can't convince someone to go and kill someone by voice. In so far as making the listener think you are they're voice of reason. Trying to make someone believe they should do something to harm our cause harm to themselves or others.
Love the talk. You should have Dennis Prager on because everything that is being said today he was saying 20 years ago that it’s coming. The horse is long out of the barn… Talk to people who see the gate being unlocked before it happens.
Holy smokes, all credibility was lost when he called the enforcement of the Sedition Act “a grave sin against the First Amendment” without context. A traitorous sect that wanted to maintain slavery within our country with war lost their protections to any amendment. Tbf, I understand education is not well appreciated in this country (US), but if you lack basic historical facts in your arguments, you’re not being “canceled” or “censored.” You’re displaying Dunning-Krueger traits and experiencing cognitive biases once challenged, and it leads to platforming persons like Greg, which further perpetuates ignorance.
A very good interview. For me, the US freedom of speech exception really boils down to are you knowingly lying? All of the preemptive stuff is going to come down to a judge's decision as to what is inciting such that what happened is the responsibility of the speaker versus the people doing actual/physical harm/wrong. We've had prior-restraint decisions that prevent censoring speech based on what _might_ happen. But, to knowning lie...that has consistently been held as non-protected (e.g. perjury). The oft poorly used example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre refers to someone that does not see fire yet yells it to clear the theatre and harm the business, if not the people inside. Fire alarms are perfectly legal and required in theatres and their jobs is to "scream fire" in theatres (and other people spaces) if they "think" there is a fire. A bad trend of today, that is equivalent...is to "SWATTING."
Yes, we have norms and laws about perjury. However, libel laws have also been diminished with respect to public figures. I mean look at the absolute lunacy of a woman claiming to have been raped by Trump at some point but she doesn't remember when and then a jury finding Trump guilty of a crime in a civil trial that was never actually alleged. And then Trump is sued for defaming the character of the woman but her claim isn't considered defamation of Trump. Now I don't particularly care for Trump but this is utterly bonkers. So no, we can't expect perjury and libel laws to be properly upheld by mobs pretending to be juries. Likewise, who gets to define what is true? We have the so-called fact checkers in the media openly lying or colluding to prevent people from learning actual facts. And they're colluding with the social media companies.
It is only perjury if you lie in court or before Congress. Otherwise we are free to lie all we want. Up to the listener to believe or not believe what we say.
I really appreciate rhe points made on the lomitations of frwe apeach. It helps me put some perspective around my issues with hate speech. And the potential violence it might lead to.
If you don't conform to the consensus you will not speak. You will obey the Collective. That is LAW on all American colleges(at least the elite schools).
I love how college students and administration deciding who they do and don't want speaking at their college is somehow an censorship of free speech rather than, you know, them simply deciding who they do and don't want speaking at THEIR college. As the students learning there, and the faculty teaching there, sorry but it is entirely their purview to decide who they invite as speakers. Cancel culture does not exist. Plan and simple. Sorry but you people complain non stop about cancel culture are pathetic. IT DOES NOT EXIST. You know what cancel culture is? Ten years ago when we didn't like an actor, or comedian, or author, or any public figure - whatever work they were producing, we would stop consuming it. That means you stop watching that actor's movies, stop buying that author's book, stop listing to that public figure's speeches. That IS LITERALLY what has now been defined as cancel culture. When it came out that J.K. Rowling was super transphobic, and people stopped buying her books and boycotted the Harry Potter game, all of a sudden the situation is defined as "people are trying to cancel her." No. People don't like her anymore, so they stopped buying her shit. THAT'S HOW IT WORKS! That is how it has ALWAYS worked. Just because students and faculty don't want fucking Ben Shapiro giving a talk at their college, in no way shape or form means they are "canceling him" or "censoring" his freedom of speech. His product is his words. They don't like him, they have no interest in his product. They should not be forced into subjecting themselves to it just because you people wanna cry free speech. It's pathetic. And the most remarkable thing about this whole conversation is that the majority of people who cry about free speech, ie conservatives, are the same people who religiously believe in the idea of the free market. Guess what? One of the main tenets of the free market is that you get to hold a producer of goods and services accountable - by not buying or consuming their product or service. So ill say again, especially in this society, it is ABSOLUTELY the purview of faculty and students, of consumers of films, music, television, video games, and online media - to refuse and cease consumption of products or services from individuals they don't like and it has NOTHING to do with cancel culture. You people are legitimately psychotic. The worst part is that if Hitler were alive today and college students didn't want him coming to their school to talk about his "Final Solution" you fucking people would be outraged and professing just how egregious it is that he's being "cancelled." Again, absolutely psychotic. College kids arent "terrified." Millennials and Gen Z simply recognize when certain ideas, like slavery are objectively morally wrong, and thus do not have the right to a platform to be argued over. Arguments and discourse are for things that have yet to be determined. If you actually paid attention to the people that college students dont want at their campuses, it's the people who try to argue in favor of slavery, in favor of a reduction in women's rights, gay rights, trans rights, trying to say that trans people dont exist even though they literally walk around every corner of the earth every fucking day. These are things that society has already determined objectively whether they are right or wrong and im sorry, someone who tries to suggest that maybe slavery had positives does not have the right, nor do they deserve a platform on which to circulate that opinion. If you think they should, you are a literal psychopath. This is not about the "marketplace of ideas." Some ideas are wrong. Period.
However, most colleges and universities are government entities, and thus, they cannot be regulated to the same degree as a private company. That's why professors and students don't have the right to collectively stop unpopular speech events on those campuses. It's against the law because the institution is a government entity.
@@scratchpenny A college is not the same thing as its constituents. A college is an institution. Staff and students are their own private individuals, not institutions. The government cant mandate, on behalf of the college, that certain people be not allowed to attend beyond any reasonable matter like breaking the rules, being physically dangerous, putting other students in harm's way, etc. Beyond that, though, the staff and students at a college can have their say about anything that goes on, on that campus. Provided the government continues to fund them and their actions are within the bounds of the federal and state laws, they can create and engage in whatever kinds of classes or activities they want. Staff at a college are not classified as government employees either, and because they and students are their own private citizens, actually yes, it is absolutely well within their right, to all come up with their own opinion, and make a decision as to whether or not allow certain speakers at their campus. In no way shape or form is that against the law. You have no clue what you are talking about.
@@BadassRaiden You are wrong on these points. I work at a public university right now. I am considered a state government employee. We are funded by the state government and receive federal monies through research grants and student loans. The First Amendment applies to our institution because of that. Public American colleges and universities have to generally allow First Amendment speech on campus. That's well-established US Supreme Court law. When colleges attempt to restrict specific speakers or activism initiated by even a single student, they are at risk of losing lawsuits. That's what FIRE does - they file lawsuits against schools that try to violate this standard. This law is how Ben Shapiro and other so-called "right-wing" speakers and activists were able to get on college campuses for events despite many (even staff and student body majorities) being against them speaking there. And while it may be true that universal student consensus against them might prevent them from speaking, that never happens in reality. There are always those students/staff who invite controversial speakers or conduct controversial events. The way these institutions try to get around this is with claims about student or campus safety. But they can't make the case you are making because public colleges and universities are considered part of the government for the First Amendment legal arguments.
@@scratchpenny Then you don't understand your own job. University staff are not considered government employees. Period. It's one of the easiest things to look up. The government funding you does not automatically make you government employees. Either you don't know what you are talking about or you're just a shit stirrer. You and the rest of the staff are not an institution. The school is the institution. You all still have the capacity to come to your own individual conclusions and then independently all decide the same thing. If that decision happens to be you don't want Steven Crowder talking at your college, in no way shape or form does that impede on his freedom of speech. Again, you either fundamentally don't understand what it is you are talking about, or you do and you're just being a shit stirrer. Either way, you are factually incorrect. If you work at a public university and can't understand that you are absolutely not a government employee, that's kinda pathetic.
freedom of speech: the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION. Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level. In private, freedom to speak one’s mind is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question. Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. To give example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example. So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma is unethical and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
Some people claim that money is speech, and that corporations are individual people who speak with words made of money. So yes, people will say just about anything, for whatever reason. It's pretty easy to see people's motivations, when you don't have any bets on the race. But all it takes is the smallest bet, and at that point you've picked a side, and then you get caught up in it, defending and attacking stories, and eventually, people. And it's sooo easy to tip people towards one side or the other... it must be very tempting, to those who have that in them.
Question: is the reason you do not, is because all of the people escaping Europe, the one lucky enough to go to the US, took it upon themselves to protect them selfs not to implement what they want did not like for a free country. Not to bring into the country what was restrictive in England and or Ireland, even though you did have these freedoms within your Magna Carter, sadly the UK and Irish Governments are now in the throws of trying to implement what they were originally were against, Fascism and Communism. Removing your rights and freedoms, the funny thing is Ireland voted for this when they decided to stay in the EU, as the EU are trying to implement the WEF program, (you will own nothing and be happy. All under the guise of mass migration, Ireland while the Irish are still the majority what ever religion, you need to show your government, you are not going along with their mission guided assumption that you will simply roll over and do nothing.
Not what he said. There are rules. You can’t shout fire in a theater when there is no fire. You can’t lie to a judge unless you are a police officer testifying under oath, you can’t incite a riot or any violent act, but anything else goes! 😂
there is NO hate speech or LOVE speech, its just speech!! just because some people find it hateful, that doesnt mean it is , some people may agree with it, EVERYONE gets to hear it and make the choice
Intifada should have been protected bc it attempted to show solidarity with anti-colonalists movments. That's err not as good as free speach, but still a resonable argument.
This dude says "we defend everyone equally" and then down plays every single instance of leftists losing their jobs. I agree with a lot of his rhetoric but as soon as he has to speak on a real life example, he contradicts himself. Really makes him seem like he has a more specific agenda.
Being a leftist or even a liberal is dangerous in southern states. I have to keep my opinions to myself out of fear of being fired or having my property vandalized, while trumpers fly their flags everywhere and talk politics openly at work. But yea it's the "left" that's cancelling ppl and against free speech according to his guy
This free speech thing would never be an issue if boundaries were respected on all sides. Unfortunately, this is not the case, especially because of the internet/social media. Too much brain energy goes into discussing this stupid issue when really, it is easily solved with a little cooperation 🙄 These topics convince me everyday that we are doomed.
Awesome to see a clear and rational explanation of this online. This video truly makes RUclips, the country, and perhaps the world a better place. This needs a sequel with Greg Lukianoff. ❤🔥
Just wanna say that Greg Lukianoff's and Jonathan Haidt's work in the last 20+ years has been nothing short of a blessing for reason, critical thinking, and common sense.
I encourage everyone to read their books and check out their talks. Incredibly insightful stuff :O
I appreciate his stance on free speech and it truly is a messy topic. I think my biggest challenge with whole-heartedly accepting this POV is that, to me, this assumes there is a foundation that many people are willing and able to take the time and energy to fully assess, digest and reflect on the bombardment of information and arrive at rational & logical conclusions.
It seems to me that the speed and ferocity that emotional opinions can catch fire and cause action far outpaces people's capacity for complex cognitive assessment.
1000% agree -- the very people who could benefit the most from approaching information the way Greg is describing here do not have this frame of mind, let alone consume this kind of content. *sigh*
Nah. All speech even hate speech needs to be protected. Actions like violence should always be banned. But words? Nah fam. Thicken your skin bruh.
You know how many times a day I get hate lobbed at me for being a white
Man?
@@jackroyaltea5034why do you think hate speech deserves protection? Genuinely curious.
@@engine_erinbecause everyone is going to have a different definition of hate speech. So if hate speech isn't protected then no speech is. People have the right to hurt your feelings.
@engine_erin I think the problem is in defining the boundary of "hate speech" and legitimate criticism. It seems like the woke in particular conflate criticism of an individual's or group's actions or ideas with actual bigotry against their immutable characteristics. For example, I have no problem with Trans people who have made that decision as an adult, however I think activism in pushing "gender affirming care" on confused and still developing minors is harmful, misguided, if not downright evil.
I like the way questions were framed by the host. Very crisp and helps getting in more information on the table for viewers
Agreed. He did a great job
This video did more for my understanding of free speech in the US than anything I've seen in the past 20 years.
Having gone to Columbia in the late 1990s, I can tell you that free speech was already a controversial idea at the turn of the millennium. It just took longer for the ideas of repressive tolerance to be instituted throughout the culture and college systems.
THANK YOU!!! Just because someone disagrees with a point of view , does not mean you can BAN IT, even if you find it hurtful, NOT EVERYONE DOES !!!! you cant ban it from platforms, just have a dialog to change the view
No, platforms can ban anything. That's not my opinion, that's a legal fact. They own the servers. I do agree with everything else you said. Platforms have terms of service, and they can decide what's appropriate or not. Twitter/X, Facebook, Twitch, etc. can determine what speech is acceptable or not.
Tell that to a Nazi.
@@PoppaCYSeh
I am Irish (which is in Europe). I wish we had a first ammendment! Here in Ireland censorship is being legislated in stealth under the guise of preventing hate speech. Never was it more important since some groups as well as the political ilk are trying to claim a monopoly on what constitutes acceptable/permitted speech. The new EU DSA will be used as a weapon.
Hate speech isn’t free speech tho
@Dontdoit_ so you and your group wanna be in control and dictate exactly what others feel or how they choose to express themselves.🤔 You want feelings to get bottled up in others so one day they'll turn out as violence. You basically want to be a dictator and force everyone to say only exactly what you want to hear.
If speech you hate isn't free, then you don't have free speech.
And who gets to define hate speech? I think that someone saying that Ireland should be multicultural and no longer Irish is committing hate speech against Ireland and the Irish. Others might say that the opposite is hateful speech. Fair enough.
Some might say that the Catholic Church being involved in society is hateful. Others would look at history of Ireland and say that driving the Catholic Church out of the public sphere is not only hateful but one of the reasons why the Irish revolted and wanted their independence.
@@Dontdoit_
Do you think Europe should just run it back? I mean WW2
I think you're wrongly assuming that there was free speech in Europe prior to World War II and this is what led to the Holocaust. There was free speech in England, not in Germany in the 1920s.@@beng4647
Back in the late 1970s, each spring a man in a three-piece suit, preaching fundamentalist Christianity, would come to the center green of my state college. Many students would gather around and listen, and some would even engage in debate with the speaker. Although his views were widely rejected by students, neither they nor the administration made any attempt to remove or censor the speaker. What happened to young people? How did they became fearful of different ideas?
Fear is being pushed constantly by institutions, elders, and the media. Just look at the culture change.
The cultural peak in Western free speech in the intellectual sphere was right at the Renaissance, and with Erasmus and his followers. We might never enjoy a period where the ability of expressing one's opinion was so highly regarded as one of the driving forces of progress. Yes, that was more than half a millenium ago.
Greg is a treasure. Free speech pins together our other freedoms, without which tyranny lies. Given that the university is our premium rationality institution, FIRE is one of the most significant groups I can think of
To be honest all evil starts with a speech but also good. Its best to just be careful with what you say, i think most people use the Internet to express things they cant in real life now.
The first amendment is to protect the citizens, from government suppression of free speech. Any disscussion of this constitutional right, needs to include this.
I agree. Too many people think that free speech is about protecting themselves from criticism and backlash for the bigoted things they say. Free speech was enshrined in the Constitution to allow the citizens to openly criticize the government.
@@TheRealJman87
It is important to understand the premise, to understand the issue. I'm thankful when people like yourself recognize the proper framing.
Too much false framing, amd false dichotomies...etc..
It is tragic that there are people who believe that they have the right to never be offended. I'm not a constitutional scholar by any stretch, however it's not going to improve, when so much ignorance is flaunted. Be well.
@@TheRealJman87 not just the government, other people's ideas too, basic right to have a healthy society without echo chambers because people can't listen to any criticism (like right now).
The printing press backlash analogy comparing social media was perfect
Yes, it was very good point. The observation that the printing press led to a hundred-odd years of European war is sobering.
News websites lost even more readers by eliminating comments. In the late 2000s, I ran a newspaper website. At the time, having comment sections below news stories and opinion was standard. It was my job, however, to police the comments and keep them relatively “civil.” Those whose comments were removed complained that we were trampling on their free speech rights. My answer was, if you want unfettered ability to comment then you can start your own website because a news organization is a private business and has no obligation to provide freedom of speech to its readers. Unfortunately, news organizations were stuck between a rock and a hard place as commenting became more popular. Not only did it require more people to supervise, we also had to give that unsatisfactory answer that free speech rights belonged to the paper but not the reader. Today, it’s almost impossible to find a news organization that has a commenting platform. By getting rid of the community’s ability to virtually gather to debate the local issues of the day, out of expediency, they got rid of one of their most popular features. Now, local news organizations are dying or dead.
Damn
They deserve it, so many news media promoting lies from the left or right, instead of providing facts and letting people decide if it's good or bad by themselves.
What isn't discussed is stochastic terrorism and the weight of collective speech.
How does collective speech work?
That sounds like some graduate school 💩
I'm American and remember when the ACLU defended the KS right to march in Ill. That was a difficult position to defend. But they stood up. What I've noticed is speeches getting shut down because of security issues. I think there's an implied freedom to listen.
Whew. I’m 44 now. I fear for the future. The young aren’t being left with a livable world or a just society, it’s all being stripped away. Consumption. We have the consumption. If humanity survives its own ignorance, I predict a return to tribal lifestyles like the Native Americans. The young are much more immune to the consumption, it seems. Hopefully they survive the rest of us.
You can say any word in any language at any time.
But you can still be fired for it.
And You may be asked to leave a venue, private property.
And you can be arrested and imprisoned if you incite a riot, violence, or defraud or worse to someone.
The challenge is when the speech is protected by the First Amendment, and your employer or institution is a public university. That's the government; thus, they can't easily fire you for personal opinions, even hateful ones. And it's even more true for a student who is not subject to employment standards.
So it isn't FREE speech then, thank you for confirming your idiocy for all to see.
It's important to consider the change in the ways we are able to communicate. When this amendment was devised, it wasn't possible to speak to millions of people at once. With the advent of easily streamable videos, millions upon millions can hear the same speaker present their opinion over a short amount of time, and then that video can still be viewed for decades until it's taken down. This complicates this discussion and shouldn't be ignored. Millions of people believe that a school somewhere put out a litter box for a child who thought they were a cat - this was made up and is not true, but the damage has been done. Whether someone believes the story is true or not is now moot, because the "sentiment" of the accusation, some believe, speaks to something that rings true for them. This lie still exists and can be found all over the internet, and is only one small example of the viral potential of lies, rumors, and misconceptions that shape the way we each view each other. It seems irresponsible to think that mass communication isn't stressing the boundaries of what we consider acceptable practice. It's another challenge to have a nuanced conversation about this without being accused of being "the thought police," so it's important to know that it's not any one individual's opinion that is the issue, it's that any one individual can now broadcast that opinion indefinitely, and with algorithms deciding what we are shown online, those videos can be delivered to people who aren't even seeking it out. We also share spaces online with people of all ages, an intergenerational mingling that has never happened before, from children on tablets to the elderly and everywhere in between. Children wouldn't choose to attend a political rally, but they can access those speeches, or can be delivered those speeches by an almighty algorithm without seeking it out. This should give us pause and encourage reflection at the very least.
yes !!!
The USA doesn't have any laws banning hate speech. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right protecting your freedom to criticize the government without fear of retaliation from said government. What you are framing as an "attack on free speech" is actually just public backlash for spewing bigotry on social media. You have the right to express your views and opinions (however distasteful they may be), but that also means that people have the right to openly criticize you for it. Free speech was never intended to shield people from criticism. Quite the opposite.
People also have the right to ignore the guy with the offensive ideas but that option is seldom chosen.
College campuses are a traditional public forums paid for by taxpayers.
(Obviously I’m not talking about private colleges.)
That's just a narrow legal interpretation of the term
Then how come Everytime I comment on RUclips and they don’t like it it gets deleted..And they call china..? It doesn’t exist it’s a miff
It’s not about criticism. You actually get people fired bec you don’t like their opinion. You destroy their career. The other place I know of that destroyed massive number of people bec of their beliefs or speech is China during the Cultural Revolution 1966-1976. In Stalinist USSR they sent you to the Gulag in Siberia.
I feel like this is the biggest problem we face as a species. We've thought ourselves into a box, I hope we can think of a way out. ❤
The problem is not "thinking" a way out because that's either giving excuses ("action A would be great, but...") or engaging in "theorism" ("if A, then B, C, .... XXA and what if XXB?").
Our problem is stepping out because that means hard work, that means changing yourself, that means accepting you were wrong and it means getting a lot of heat and scrutiny and hate and name-calling because others simply won't agree with that. First, they will ridicule you for trying. Then they will get angry because your "stepping out" gives a real option to "being content with living in a box" and transforms their option to "being content with living in a fucked up box". Lastly, they will do everything to bring you down because the majority shifts behind you making their life wrong - never prove people wrong. They will hate you for eternity for it, even if you save them by making it impossible to drink the kool aid.
/s/s off: There is only one real problem to everything. Our unwillingness to change and do hard work. Because the solutions are already there. To everything. We just have to change. Simple. And yet so, so hard.
Very good questions from the host. Love it
You possess the right to express your thoughts freely, but you must understand that this does not guarantee you will be taken seriously. The merit of your words, the evidence supporting your claims, and the coherence of your arguments will ultimately determine the respect and attention they receive. Freedom of speech allows for the expression of all ideas, but it is critical thinking and reasoned discourse that elevate certain ideas above others. 😉
"Cancel culture" seems to used for two scenarios: On one hand it's about forcibly preventing others from listening to a speech or preventing someone else from speaking. On the other hand, the term is also used for an individual's ability to voice their opinion, choose to boycott and bash an individual or company online to a point that it impacts an individual or company financially. The distinction is very important. The former is a clear violation of the 1st amendment while the latter is also freedom of speach and right to protest.
You really think life ruination, defamation and ideological puritanism is protected by 1A?
On a somewhat related not: Do you think government outsourcing tyranny to other nations or private corporations is a violation of civil liberties as stated in section 1983?
You grossly underestimate cancel culture, which is based on triggering. A triggered lib who is exposed to an unpleasant idea cannot counter the idea; rather, zee needs to be protected from the idea by going to have safe space and having the speaker of the idea removed from polite society forever. This is a truly pathological condition.
@@Shiro_Amada you can criticize openly anyone you don't agree with, because that's what freedom of speech is about, not a group of people deciding what's "good" for everyone, the law already dictates what's acceptable behavior and what isn't.
"Outsourcing tyranny" isn't related to freedom of speech.
@@Valentina.Montano Section 1983 "State actors".
I feel that this should be a required video to watch before any human joins the Social Media Realm.
Unfortunately you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
A "free speech" warrior wanting to impose their beliefs on others rather than just letting them make their own decisions. What a surprise
Thanks!
“Social media at this stage can tear down any idea, person, or institution”…”but what social media hasn’t been able to do yet is build anything”
The times I do see building is when people go against their filter bubble. Therefore, his quote rings true when I replace the phrase “social media” with “filter bubble” or “echo chambers”.
The more extreme one goes in either political direction, the more rigidly one has to adhere to a small box of permissible thoughts and actions.
This was such a great watch! Thank you
When people say that there is a line beyond which speech is unacceptable, ask them WHERE they think this line is and more importantly, WHO they think should get to decide where it is? It usually doesn't take very long to establish that this supposed line of acceptable speech is precisely where THEY think it should be.
The issue I see is that we're trying to limit the dross, rather than educating people to recognize and subsequently discard it.
It doesn't matter one bit if a professor or politician asserts that women are less capable or intelligent, etc. Because I know how to fact-check, recognize rhetorical tactics, and call out opinion with evidence.
The real solution is to universally arm people with critical thinking skills. Also, a return to journalistic standards for "news." When I was in broadcasting, anything beyond the facts would be struck by your editor. I had pieces sent back to me because I had chosen words that were "evocative." We had to allow time for stories, and be 360 about what happened.
Anything with opinions or emotions was consigned to a specific print space or the end of the broadcast, and was CLEARLY marked "Editorial."
I cannot find a single network, station, channel or anchor who offers that kind of reporting today.
I think it is because they have embraced the neo-fascist control model now. Thus, they don't want people to be capable of independent critical thinking or media broadcasting that provides "just the facts."
The easiest way to learn if a country is becoming a dictatorship, is asking their citizens if they stablished forbidden words. That's the first sign that totalitarianism is taking over.
So weird and problematic to think of this problem as contained within universities in any meaningful sense, especially in the age of social media...
"Woke anti-free speech universities" is just a right-wing talking point. Right-wingers want to discourage people from seeking a good education, because educated people tend not to be conservatives. That's why they are trying to eliminate public schools and replace them with charter schools which have absolutely no standards or oversight.
This, above all else, is the crux of all our ills today. People in the education system do not understand basic freedoms. They use a very rudimentary and almost childlike view to understand their world. This privilege and not "white" privilege. It is having the best system in the world, the best military, the best police and then not knowing where that came from.
Thank you, and bless you for bringing this conversation to us all.
It really hurts my brain how this new generation seemingly doesn't value freedom of speech and/or thinks it's a right wing position. While I do think "freedom of speech absolutists" tend to end up hypocritical when there's one topic that hits a nerve, I think drawing the line at direct enticement of violence makes the most sense. Other than that, speech is speech. Words can hurt but they can also defend and no one should have the power to silence you. I really hope there is some way to teach the new and future generations how important it is but it seems like most favor hate speech laws not understanding that those in power at that given time will define what "hate" is. It's absurd and narrow-minded.
Exactly
How hate speech is defined can vary widely and is subject to change at the whims of whatever political group or societal group is in power. Think about that? Do you want to live in that future?
One of the best Big Think vids I've seen.
Can we make this video mandatory viewing for all Americans?
I don't think you understand how freedom works 😑
I'm amazed this one got through. Great talk! The Trusted News Initiative (TNI) and the governments on their trying to ban misinformation really must hate this guy.
Why must the organisations and governments (that try to ban misinformation) hate this guy?
He is not misinforming (much less disinforming) anyone is he?
@@florensdewit Read the laws and rules they are putting in. They are much more about controlling speech. It doesn't even have to be provably false to be banned or blocked. The very idea that they can ban any speech to prevent me access to it was one of the key points he mentioned from the start.
@@cybersekkin I get your point.
Note that I have a non-US prespective; what does not help is the knee-jerk reaction to use legal means to solve an inter-human conflict.
In my experience neither governments nor administrators are excessively putting up laws and regulations that limit freedom of speech (or rather the right to voice your opinion in any form you like without limitations).
I mostly see "be nice be respectful" being made more explicit, and more specific with respect to some minority groups; i.e. creating awareness rather than limiting your rights to voice your opinion.
I do worry that the demand for "trigger warnings" (or, conversely, the unwillingness to consider that some people might feel disconfort, stress and/or even fear) might stiffle discussion of the very issues that underly that demand.
Especially in a higher educational context sometimes it is necessary to experience discomfort or frustration to learn someting valuable, but on the other hand, forcing people to experience extreme stress or fear just because you want to discuss a certain subject or issue (and you have no negative experience with it), is not justified either.
All in all, it is complicated, and it appears that in the US context things are more easily turned into a bipartisan conflict, rather than a conversation between humans.
Governments don't really have a problem with misinformation or disinformation. I mean they "say" they do. But they use their war on misinformation and disinformation as a proxy war against the type of information they really don't like - MALINFORMATION. Information that is TRUE but it's inconvenient to a government or bureaucratic agenda or narrative. Misinformation and disinformation usually gets figured out - usually pretty quickly. But malinformation is really dangerous to governments and regimes with authoritarian inclinations and it must be suppressed.
@@florensdewit so, you're saying that people should be silenced because some people, who didn't learn to deal with ideas opposite to theirs, are getting negative emotional responses? You're totally wrong then. People should learn ideas outside their ideological bubbles, you can't live in a healthy society if everyone only hears their side of the argument without listening to anyone else take on the same topics.
Freedom and free speech requires responsibility/accountability and a moral foundation.....these don't exist broadly in our society anymore.
Everyone watching should look up who these people are and where they get their funding. There's a reason this guy is framing the conversation the way he is.
Koch money.
Yes, but aren't the Koch brothers libertarians? And what is the actual criticism of the ideas he's presenting?
Thank all that is good in the world that people like Lukianoff are here to protect these ideas.
As an non US citizen I really enjoyed listening to Greg. Someone try teaching this to politicians. Greg?
Well done! So well done.
"incitement to imminent lawless action is not protected"... somebody tag Trump on this video. Also, Tesla, somebody show this to Tesla.
They really need to change "free speech" to sanctioned expression
Great work Keep at it😊
You can say whatever you want, but you're not entitled to people agreeing with you or being immune to any backlash, especially if it's contrafactual bs, racism, etc.
But, but, but ... that's cancel culture whaaaaaa 😭
freedom of speech:
the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION.
Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level.
In private, freedom to speak one’s mind is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question.
Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. To give example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example.
So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma is unethical and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
Also, the right to speak is not the right to be platformed. You should not be able to force a newspaper to publish your article, however you are free to publish it yourself.
"You can say whatever you want, but be aware if my side doesn't like it we will attack you and ruin your professionalism and personal life. But go ahead, say whatever you like"
As you load your gun.
@@RBrown-uk4xt oh, so only approved ideas of a few are allowed? I'm ok with allowing ideas that are against the law to be public but other than that, everyone should be allowed. And your example of racism is debatable, nowadays that word is used so loosely that I don't know if you're talking about real racism or not anymore, and as a Latina knowing you're really referring to real racism is important.
I have no problem with people shouting down the speech of those who work to destroy the democratic freedoms that they use to spread their message. We had a war about this. We do not have to tolerate the destruction of tolerance.
I think it's important to recognise that people who have destructive ideas don't always have the power to destroy things. Additionally if we force these people to stay silent they become more dangerous since we don't know these ideas are floating around peoples heads and they may begin to organise under the radar
Then you don't have freedom. The idea is more important than any one entity or government.
He talks about constructive "messiness" (a.k.a. debate and/or consensus-building, actual critical thinking and strong argumentation) but doesn't talk about doing anything to help ensure the "messiness" is constructive.
But reducing it to "messiness" conveniently lumps together the good and the bad to make people just accept the whole thing without digging into details.
But that's how it always has been. People like to pretend that common people were more sophisticated in past generations, but what really happened was they didn't have a voice at all. In today's world, they have a voice, as does everyone. It is going to be incredibly messy.
You should hear good and bad ideas, not just what you want to hear, living in a bubble will create radical thinkers.
Free speech gives us the power not to misconstrue existing narratives, rather give our own proper takes on them.
Proper? Who determines proper?
This aint it.
@@Erin-Thoreach individual human, as is their natural right to express their beliefs and ideas and to challenge snd criticize the beliefs of others, including the powerful
In Sweden, things are not banned just because they're offensive. It's mostly things like hate speech against a group of people like based on ethnicity or religion.
That's literally banning a type of speech because it's offensive.
As a minority it's patronizing and insulting to make a law saying it's illegal to call me a "filthy dirty Filipino who should be deported."
I'm not a fucking child, I'm a well adjusted human who isn't so pathetic I need to be "protected from mean words."
The mere concept of "hate speech" is infantilizing and intellectually regressive - The government making laws enforcing politeness??
It will also only be a matter of time before the government expands the definition of hate speech to make discussion or criticism of more and more ideas illegal.
I'm curious, is it illegal to make racist hateful comments against "white" people illegal in your Sweden?
I remember the same "people" trying to kill a person for burning the Quran. Centuries ago people burnt the Bible as a protest trying to bring enlightenment to western society and the Quran is the same now, nobody and their fundamentalist ideas should be allowed to dominate any western society that already fought against the same evil centuries ago and thanks to that we now have the separation of church and State. You're supposed "hate speech" or "offensive acts" like burning religious symbols in protest, is a western right fought for centuries by our ancestors.
I remember free speech and anti war used to be left wing pillars. Crazy how political parties seem to flip every so often.
Which party is left? Haha
Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, China and Russia are authoritarian with speech, that's the left leaning regimes, it's no surprise the right is now criticizing the left for authoritarian limitations on speech, they have clear examples to take from.
Great interview.
Any hard-heads that don't want to hear what they don't want to hear don't realize that growing up (becoming mature) includes the ability to not be so damn sensitive and triggered by verbal sound. Not being able to control one's own meaning making machine makes one's life self-inflicted misery. Use your 'free will' to set yourself psychologically free (unless you 'enjoy' being miserable). Good luck.
you should never judge, whether you feel you've "walked a mile" in their shoes or not
Excellent conversation! 😊 on the topic of the amount of information we are creating, I’d like to point out that on RUclips alone there is about a lifetime supply of content shared every day; e.g. 650,000 - 750,000 hours
Everything is free speech
I generally agree with what he's saying, but there's one thing he gets wrong that most people get wrong, and I'm so surprised someone in his position would get this wrong.
People certainly have the First Amendment right to shout down speakers and shut down events, as a matter of fact, that is protected by the First Amendment. The idea that the government has to protect speakers or events is absolutely false. The first amendment does not protect citizens from citizens in that scenario, it protects citizens from the government. Them protesting is exactly what the First Amendment protects, it is part of freedom of speech. If people can protest and get the institution or the company to cancel the event, that's that.
Good questions. Please educate other interviewers.
11:30 The Communists/Socialists/Marxists. That's what happened.
Are there correlations with classism, organized ideologies or superiority/elitist thinking & assumed justifiable freedoms of speech?
I didn't think FIRE's survey was valid. They asked students whether they thought they were free to speak and free from oppression, rather than measuring actual incidents of suppression. I've gone to meetings of Jewish organizations, like the Zionist Organization of America, where speakers told their audience that the media was biased against Israel, that academia was biased against them, that they had to be afraid to speak out in classrooms, etc. Then when somebody asks them in a survey question, "Are you ever afraid to speak out in class because you're Jewish," they would tend to answer yes. Surveys are subject to that bias. If the health care insurance industry launches a nationwide ad campaign saying, "Government health care will take away your freedom of choice," and then you run a survey asking, "Do you think government health care will take away your freedom of choice," people will tend to answer yes. That's not because they believe that. I think they see the survey as a test, and they think yes is the right answer -- "That's what I keep hearing on TV".
29:49 wheelsbarrows cus senates are pluralistic, pools but costco positive
The bottom line is Those Who Want To Express Fanatical Religious Racism, And Hatred Don't Want Consequences For Their FREE SPEECH.
*You have free speech, but not freedom of speech on all platforms.*
Free Speech doesn't absolve you of wrong doing!
The reason you have to be careful with ideas like this is because who defines "Fanatical Religious Racism" and "Hatred"? It's why hate speech laws are very dangerous tools for statists and elites, for it is they will get to decide what you can and can't say if you give them the legal power to do so.
@@scratchpenny
Who's giving them the power?
Anyone who believes in any religion are fanatics.
THEY BELIEVE IN FANTASY!
What a fanatic is.
@@arguescreamholler Fair enough about religion. But that's not my point. The point is that you can't regulate speech through centralized government (religion or otherwise) without an extreme risk of authoritarians manipulating that power to regulate what you say or believe down the road. History is rife with examples of that. With enough social pressure and propaganda, language can be manipulated to mean virtually anything. You see that with the labels terrorist, racist, or antisemitic right now. That is why it is better to allow as much free speech as possible, even for ideas and things that are deemed "hateful" or "racist." Sure, there are limits regarding direct threats and public safety, but the people of a free and just society should be cautious about regulating speech beyond that. Speech is the basis for civil rights and social justice.
@@scratchpenny
Somehow you think there's no self control to prevent the extreme evil from being projected onto the citizens.
WHY ARE YOU NOT IN THE STREETS DOING WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT GOOD AND BAD?
What you're saying is very stupid.
You don't have the freedom from consequences for what you say.
Say whatever you want.
Then be prepared to get your ass kicked.
You confuse consequences for censorship.
NOBODY'S STOPPING YOUR SAYING ANYTHING.
You can't say it anytime, and anywhere you want WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES!
I hope you can comprehend the difference.
What “FIRE” does? Lol. If this company was founded in 1999 then they are a giant failure. I hope he’s not getting paid…
What do you mean? He's the founder.
All speech is free
Perhaps we shouldn't try to get rid of cancel mobs - their foolishness provides alot of entertainment.
With cold beer 🍻
My issue is who decides what is “hate speech”? Seems like something nebulous and vague is ripe for abuse.
If you agree with Nazis, you are probably supporting hte speech.
Social media lol
People not wanting to hear your shit, or don't think you're funny, that is not an infringement on freedom of speech. If someone offends someone with their speech that person can tell the other to fuck off, in fact a group can tell the person to fuck off, and on both sides that's freedom of speech.
Aww. Footloose! 😊
It’s not that I disagree with his stance on free speech or the data he used to back up his assessment, but it feels like this topic is often used as a Trojan horse for hate and the forfeiture of other constitutionally protected rights. I fear that the hyper focus on this topic by default aligns you with potentially bad actors which compels you to make nuance. Ore to your argument. There is still not enough in his free speech positions imo. Lastly, I’m only halfway through, but the 1st amendment is intended to protect us from government infringement on rights to free speech and I’ve heard no discussion of this fact so far. Not advocating for censorship but this needs to be considered if you are going to make a constitutional argument.
So called hate speech is protected if we are to live in a free speech society.
@@hsmd4533 There are no laws against hate speech in the USA. What you call an attack on free speech is just criticism and public backlash against unpopular opinions. Free speech doesn't shield people from criticism and the consequences of their words and actions.
@@TheRealJman87 oh, come on, you can be leftist but take your bias out before commenting, I've seen too many new laws cataloguing right wing parties as "a threat to democracy", and an increase in asking to deplatform right wingers. And the fact that Nicolas Maduro calls the opposition (who won the elections but Maduro made fraud) "fascists", just makes it more obvious how the left calls anything they don't agree with "fascist" nowadays.
Great interview with Greg here as he handles questions from ChatGPT well
Seeing some supportive posts in this but also a lot of other people who seem to not understand why freedom of speech is so important, if you have it. They are more than happy to see people they don't like stripped of it but fail to consider - what happens when the shoe is on the other foot?
Would they be okay with having their speech quashed? To be forced into silence? Of course not. So why then would you choose to do that to others? Worse yet, why would you trust a *Government* with the power to determine whose voice is allowed to be heard? For pities sake there are countless works of fiction and philosophy who speak to that very danger!
I don't like what a lot of people have to say. I will still fight to my death to protect their right to say it on the provision that their opinions are declared as such and that their statements are *true*. Not subjectively true but 2 + 2 = 4 type of true. A person should be allowed to be an ass, though as free individuals you need not invite them to social gatherings. But to forbid a persons opinion just because you don't like them? Foolishness. To strip away their right to a livelihood? Monstrous or evil if you would prefer.
For the record when I say statement, I mean a concrete phrase that is not opinion but scientific or real world instance true. Like the UK bombing Berlin during world war 2. Opinions don't have to be true because they are based on a persons own lived and very heavily biased experiences. Cavate being that opinions would require the structure of "In my opinion...", "It is my opinion..." or "... in my opinion." Some clear indication that it is an opinion, not tied to factual reality.
Again, I reiterate. I don't like the climate denialists views. But in my mind they have a right to them. I don't like the opinions that demonize homosexuals and other non-standard orientations. But people are still welcome to their opinions. At the same time, I don't like the opinions expressed by more than a few who comprise the non-standard orientations who demonize heteros because past history has not been kind to non-standards. As with all things, two wrongs do not make a right. Tit for tat only encourages the gap between humans to widen and for civil society to deteriorate.
I'm not special. Surely most people can see what is at risk if humanity continues down this course? Any way. I'm done. Later folks.
They want to be kim jun
I agree that it is a "balancing act!"
I personally believe cancel culture has done more damage than good,people abuse this culture more than they use it for any good in my opinion so the benefits are minimal with lots of harm to innocent people,a few can ruin a good thing for the rest for sure.
Legalize Dueling, imo. I may not agree with what a person does but if they are willing to have skin in the game; I at least believe they believe what they say.
So you're basically calling for people to kill those they disagree with
Here is your free engagement comment: Please stop changing the thumbnail picture, so that people can recognize in their feed which videos have already been watched.
Just look for the little red line at the bottom of the thumbnails. It is very common to change thumbnails to increase engagement as some people react differently to certain stimuli, many channels employ people full time just to create and change thumbnails to better take advantage of the algorithm, this won't change for the majority of channels which have the resources and desire to grow.
@@Cody_Istre I'm aware of the algorithm. The point of my comment was about not treating their viewers as lab animals who "react differently to certain stimuli", but deciding what they want to communicate/be and then do that.
@@VikiSilYou understand that running a RUclips channel is a business and not a charity right? It is in their best interest (and the interest of their audience) to do everything they can to increase viewership, statistically, trying different thumbnails has a tremendously positive effect on ensuring this outcome. If it didn't then it wouldn't be such a common practice in the industry.
The rationale you provided in your first comment was simply that "people can recognize in their feed which videos have already been watched". Which is a silly argument as RUclips already provides several much more accurate methods of accomplishing this, most obviously as mentioned, the red bar at the bottom of the thumbnail.
It wasn't until I used scientifically accurate language referring to how individuals respond to advertisement that you changed your argument. The reality is that at the global scale of the internet humans are essentially comparable to "lab animals" as you put it and there is nothing wrong with that. We are animals whose actions are largely predictable due to evolutionary mechanisms which can be rather easily understood (often through controlled laboratory experiments) and exploited, it's the basis of modern advertising and isn't necessarily a bad thing (although, like anything, can be used for what many would consider nefarious purposes).
It seems like you just generally have issues with organizations utilizing statistical analyses to make more informed decisions regarding the content they produce, which if true, means the internet (and nearly all modern media) is probably not for you (and that's fine).
@AIMageX Nice troll account, if you have ever engaged with any content that has appeared on your home page you are also contributing. This is the world we live in now, you can either use it to your advantage, allow it to use you, or recuse yourself from the technology which drives the modern world.
Personally, I much prefer targeted advertisements, the sheer amount of content which exists almost necessitates it if you have any desire to be exposed to remotely relevant products and media. You are going to be advertised to regardless, why not increase your chances of seeing something useful?
Freedom of speech
So where it would not cause harm.
It means you can't convince someone to go and kill someone by voice. In so far as making the listener think you are they're voice of reason. Trying to make someone believe they should do something to harm our cause harm to themselves or others.
Love the talk. You should have Dennis Prager on because everything that is being said today he was saying 20 years ago that it’s coming. The horse is long out of the barn… Talk to people who see the gate being unlocked before it happens.
Holy smokes, all credibility was lost when he called the enforcement of the Sedition Act “a grave sin against the First Amendment” without context. A traitorous sect that wanted to maintain slavery within our country with war lost their protections to any amendment. Tbf, I understand education is not well appreciated in this country (US), but if you lack basic historical facts in your arguments, you’re not being “canceled” or “censored.” You’re displaying Dunning-Krueger traits and experiencing cognitive biases once challenged, and it leads to platforming persons like Greg, which further perpetuates ignorance.
A very good interview. For me, the US freedom of speech exception really boils down to are you knowingly lying? All of the preemptive stuff is going to come down to a judge's decision as to what is inciting such that what happened is the responsibility of the speaker versus the people doing actual/physical harm/wrong. We've had prior-restraint decisions that prevent censoring speech based on what _might_ happen.
But, to knowning lie...that has consistently been held as non-protected (e.g. perjury). The oft poorly used example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre refers to someone that does not see fire yet yells it to clear the theatre and harm the business, if not the people inside. Fire alarms are perfectly legal and required in theatres and their jobs is to "scream fire" in theatres (and other people spaces) if they "think" there is a fire. A bad trend of today, that is equivalent...is to "SWATTING."
Yes, we have norms and laws about perjury. However, libel laws have also been diminished with respect to public figures. I mean look at the absolute lunacy of a woman claiming to have been raped by Trump at some point but she doesn't remember when and then a jury finding Trump guilty of a crime in a civil trial that was never actually alleged. And then Trump is sued for defaming the character of the woman but her claim isn't considered defamation of Trump. Now I don't particularly care for Trump but this is utterly bonkers.
So no, we can't expect perjury and libel laws to be properly upheld by mobs pretending to be juries.
Likewise, who gets to define what is true? We have the so-called fact checkers in the media openly lying or colluding to prevent people from learning actual facts. And they're colluding with the social media companies.
It is only perjury if you lie in court or before Congress. Otherwise we are free to lie all we want. Up to the listener to believe or not believe what we say.
I really appreciate rhe points made on the lomitations of frwe apeach. It helps me put some perspective around my issues with hate speech. And the potential violence it might lead to.
Kinley 23:23
will show the world what free speech is.
Wow! Excellent interview! Somebody send it to Elon Musk!
Another skunk
If you don't conform to the consensus you will not speak. You will obey the Collective. That is LAW on all American colleges(at least the elite schools).
I love how college students and administration deciding who they do and don't want speaking at their college is somehow an censorship of free speech rather than, you know, them simply deciding who they do and don't want speaking at THEIR college. As the students learning there, and the faculty teaching there, sorry but it is entirely their purview to decide who they invite as speakers. Cancel culture does not exist. Plan and simple. Sorry but you people complain non stop about cancel culture are pathetic. IT DOES NOT EXIST. You know what cancel culture is? Ten years ago when we didn't like an actor, or comedian, or author, or any public figure - whatever work they were producing, we would stop consuming it. That means you stop watching that actor's movies, stop buying that author's book, stop listing to that public figure's speeches. That IS LITERALLY what has now been defined as cancel culture. When it came out that J.K. Rowling was super transphobic, and people stopped buying her books and boycotted the Harry Potter game, all of a sudden the situation is defined as "people are trying to cancel her." No. People don't like her anymore, so they stopped buying her shit. THAT'S HOW IT WORKS! That is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Just because students and faculty don't want fucking Ben Shapiro giving a talk at their college, in no way shape or form means they are "canceling him" or "censoring" his freedom of speech. His product is his words. They don't like him, they have no interest in his product. They should not be forced into subjecting themselves to it just because you people wanna cry free speech. It's pathetic. And the most remarkable thing about this whole conversation is that the majority of people who cry about free speech, ie conservatives, are the same people who religiously believe in the idea of the free market. Guess what? One of the main tenets of the free market is that you get to hold a producer of goods and services accountable - by not buying or consuming their product or service. So ill say again, especially in this society, it is ABSOLUTELY the purview of faculty and students, of consumers of films, music, television, video games, and online media - to refuse and cease consumption of products or services from individuals they don't like and it has NOTHING to do with cancel culture. You people are legitimately psychotic.
The worst part is that if Hitler were alive today and college students didn't want him coming to their school to talk about his "Final Solution" you fucking people would be outraged and professing just how egregious it is that he's being "cancelled." Again, absolutely psychotic. College kids arent "terrified." Millennials and Gen Z simply recognize when certain ideas, like slavery are objectively morally wrong, and thus do not have the right to a platform to be argued over. Arguments and discourse are for things that have yet to be determined. If you actually paid attention to the people that college students dont want at their campuses, it's the people who try to argue in favor of slavery, in favor of a reduction in women's rights, gay rights, trans rights, trying to say that trans people dont exist even though they literally walk around every corner of the earth every fucking day. These are things that society has already determined objectively whether they are right or wrong and im sorry, someone who tries to suggest that maybe slavery had positives does not have the right, nor do they deserve a platform on which to circulate that opinion. If you think they should, you are a literal psychopath. This is not about the "marketplace of ideas." Some ideas are wrong. Period.
However, most colleges and universities are government entities, and thus, they cannot be regulated to the same degree as a private company. That's why professors and students don't have the right to collectively stop unpopular speech events on those campuses. It's against the law because the institution is a government entity.
But of course, they can protest those events.
@@scratchpenny A college is not the same thing as its constituents. A college is an institution. Staff and students are their own private individuals, not institutions. The government cant mandate, on behalf of the college, that certain people be not allowed to attend beyond any reasonable matter like breaking the rules, being physically dangerous, putting other students in harm's way, etc. Beyond that, though, the staff and students at a college can have their say about anything that goes on, on that campus. Provided the government continues to fund them and their actions are within the bounds of the federal and state laws, they can create and engage in whatever kinds of classes or activities they want. Staff at a college are not classified as government employees either, and because they and students are their own private citizens, actually yes, it is absolutely well within their right, to all come up with their own opinion, and make a decision as to whether or not allow certain speakers at their campus. In no way shape or form is that against the law. You have no clue what you are talking about.
@@BadassRaiden You are wrong on these points. I work at a public university right now. I am considered a state government employee. We are funded by the state government and receive federal monies through research grants and student loans. The First Amendment applies to our institution because of that.
Public American colleges and universities have to generally allow First Amendment speech on campus. That's well-established US Supreme Court law. When colleges attempt to restrict specific speakers or activism initiated by even a single student, they are at risk of losing lawsuits. That's what FIRE does - they file lawsuits against schools that try to violate this standard. This law is how Ben Shapiro and other so-called "right-wing" speakers and activists were able to get on college campuses for events despite many (even staff and student body majorities) being against them speaking there. And while it may be true that universal student consensus against them might prevent them from speaking, that never happens in reality. There are always those students/staff who invite controversial speakers or conduct controversial events. The way these institutions try to get around this is with claims about student or campus safety. But they can't make the case you are making because public colleges and universities are considered part of the government for the First Amendment legal arguments.
@@scratchpenny Then you don't understand your own job. University staff are not considered government employees. Period. It's one of the easiest things to look up. The government funding you does not automatically make you government employees. Either you don't know what you are talking about or you're just a shit stirrer. You and the rest of the staff are not an institution. The school is the institution. You all still have the capacity to come to your own individual conclusions and then independently all decide the same thing. If that decision happens to be you don't want Steven Crowder talking at your college, in no way shape or form does that impede on his freedom of speech. Again, you either fundamentally don't understand what it is you are talking about, or you do and you're just being a shit stirrer. Either way, you are factually incorrect. If you work at a public university and can't understand that you are absolutely not a government employee, that's kinda pathetic.
Twitter people should see this
twitter is a joke. be more concerned about conservatives banning books in public schools.
And so fb , Twitter , reddit
I was hoping this wasn't just a verbose version of the tired ass "you can't say anything anymore" argument.
That's what I get for hoping 🤦🏾♂️.
Free Speech is a subjective thing that is, if you ask 100 people about it, you'll get 100 different answers.
freedom of speech:
the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION.
Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level.
In private, freedom to speak one’s mind is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question.
Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. To give example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example.
So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma is unethical and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
Some people claim that money is speech, and that corporations are individual people who speak with words made of money. So yes, people will say just about anything, for whatever reason. It's pretty easy to see people's motivations, when you don't have any bets on the race. But all it takes is the smallest bet, and at that point you've picked a side, and then you get caught up in it, defending and attacking stories, and eventually, people. And it's sooo easy to tip people towards one side or the other... it must be very tempting, to those who have that in them.
Yet there is a PERFECTLY-OBJECTIVE solution, and Filipina provided it. ☝️☝️
Thank you for your work FIRE but you've been slacking off lately. Get back to it!
Question: is the reason you do not, is because all of the people escaping Europe, the one lucky enough to go to the US, took it upon themselves to protect them selfs not to implement what they want did not like for a free country. Not to bring into the country what was restrictive in England and or Ireland, even though you did have these freedoms within your Magna Carter, sadly the UK and Irish Governments are now in the throws of trying to implement what they were originally were against, Fascism and Communism. Removing your rights and freedoms, the funny thing is Ireland voted for this when they decided to stay in the EU, as the EU are trying to implement the WEF program, (you will own nothing and be happy. All under the guise of mass migration, Ireland while the Irish are still the majority what ever religion, you need to show your government, you are not going along with their mission guided assumption that you will simply roll over and do nothing.
So I can say whatever I want ?
Not what he said. There are rules. You can’t shout fire in a theater when there is no fire. You can’t lie to a judge unless you are a police officer testifying under oath, you can’t incite a riot or any violent act, but anything else goes! 😂
This is answered in the video above.
there is NO hate speech or LOVE speech, its just speech!! just because some people find it hateful, that doesnt mean it is , some people may agree with it, EVERYONE gets to hear it and make the choice
😂 are you a radical postmodernist or something?
You people are funny.
Intifada should have been protected bc it attempted to show solidarity with anti-colonalists movments.
That's err not as good as free speach, but still a resonable argument.
This dude says "we defend everyone equally" and then down plays every single instance of leftists losing their jobs. I agree with a lot of his rhetoric but as soon as he has to speak on a real life example, he contradicts himself. Really makes him seem like he has a more specific agenda.
Being a leftist or even a liberal is dangerous in southern states. I have to keep my opinions to myself out of fear of being fired or having my property vandalized, while trumpers fly their flags everywhere and talk politics openly at work. But yea it's the "left" that's cancelling ppl and against free speech according to his guy
To much too
This free speech thing would never be an issue if boundaries were respected on all sides. Unfortunately, this is not the case, especially because of the internet/social media. Too much brain energy goes into discussing this stupid issue when really, it is easily solved with a little cooperation 🙄
These topics convince me everyday that we are doomed.
Sadly Greece is no more.
Why
No, Greece is still there.
I seen it on a map just the other day😂
@@robertd9850not how was in ancient times
@@Moodboard39 Thank goodness.
10:07, eminent domain scholars only 4stat(e