Speech acceptable in real life is relative, there are no absolutes. Hate Speech is an invention by governments or future fascists and communists to remove any points of view and do a complete monopoly over the society or the thinking process of individuals for the sake of *absolute power* . Watch or read George Orwell's 1984, or like i would say, the totalitarian's formula.
simply put, if you want "free speech" you have to be able to take an insult. You can`t be all 'I want the freedom to express myself', without being willing to be insulted, your freedom to express, is someone else`s freedom to "Hate".
@Los Angeles Man “The left” and “authoritarian” are not interchangeable. Economically, left is about equality, so Socialism, and the right is about capitalism. You can believe in either and still support absolute freedom of speech. Sincerely, a Libertarian and lover of freedom
@@lifesuckshaveaniceday8951 The left is about equality until you disagree with them about something then they want you silenced. You're not fooling anyone.
@@jimmyjimmy1601 You’re talking about leftists, I’m talking about the principles and values of the left and what they believe. Leftists can absolutely support freedom of speech, like me for example, it’s just that not a lot of them do. I’m a libertarian socialist, speak to any other libertarian leftist and I’ll guarantee you they support freedom of speech.
That is literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever read! That’s like a Murderer and Rapist saying they don’t like being told what to do and how to live life so… by your stupid logic just don’t throw them in prison?! Because you are by definition suppressing their way of life!
Every field of life in a society is more or less regulated by the acceptable norms of that society. You may defend the individual freedom of speech in some measures as it is a necessary condition for pluralism in democracies, but that shouldn't give people the right to defame other people, nor to promote violence, child pornography, crimes etc.
@@YassenJL when you bring up extremes like that to defend censorship, that is exactly why the liberal party is as despised as it is. Nobody is promoting child, pornography, nor inciting violence when they call someone retarded or call someone a jackass. They are expressing frustration with their very existence, being a blight on society, when they are constantly whining about anything and everything. Maybe, instead of trying to censor people who insult them, they should try to stop being so damn annoying on social media to deserve such a hatred spewed at them in the first place. This is why I hate liberals and I will always hate them. I am gay and I regularly use a few of those slurs toward gay people because I personally find effeminate men to be disgusting and annoying and the very definition of the word I’m not going to mention because the wonderful owner of RUclips who is a wonderful, nice lady and doesn’t like any swearing will nuke my comment like the Feminazi she is.
@@shadowpeople89 hm I see your point, but it does not address my argument for the extremes that is widely accepted not only from a classical liberalism point of view but also for the ability to preserve democracy from populism and totalitarian views in general. Are neo-liberals taking the practice too far in Western Europe and in the US? Perhaps they do and it calls for better legal procedures and protections of the freedom of speech. Should people be able to vomit any content in the public sphere however - even if deliberately damaging to the society? Nope and I'd say that the main issue is about the line - meaning where should we draw it. But to deny completely that people must be held accountable for their speech is virtually the same as saying that they should not be held accountable for their actions. And that's just not realistic in societies where we cooperate with each other.
You can not scream "FIRE" in a Crowded area because this could lead to a stampede Freedom of speech is only as good as the people that use it if we where to allow everything it might aswell be a death sentence
@Robin Justice common dude there is no such thing as hate speech because its the free speech you dont like and want to censor because you mentally and emotionally so weak that you cant counter argue that argument and if you cant just dont listen to it just ignore it youself you have ears and just close them if you dont want to hear those words like n word or just spread social awreness about this and counter those no no words with arguing,understanding or love, don't censor.
@Robin Justice The problem is these days many weak minded people qualify any opinion they don't like as "hate speech". Its basically a way for immature children to try and shield themselves from social interaction.
@Robin Justice It's still a really dangerous idea. It would likely become a way for the ruling political party to silence all opposing views. So basically a dictatorship.
Don't get me wrong I think things like racism and sexisism are wrong but I also know very well how skilled politicians are at manipulating laws to their favor. Even if the original intention was good it is inevitable some politicians will bend the rules and definitions of hate speech to silence speech they personally don't like.
Free speech needs rules, it needs someone to decide what's acceptable or unacceptable the same way he or she decides what's right or wrong, that's the truth.
@@jeanclaudejunior censor one thing, you’ll have to censor more things like that former thing. Continue this and you’ll have to censor so many things that it’ll spiral out of control
@@FormerPessitheRobberfan there sould be some rules cuz you cant just yell out fire in a movie theather but there is a law allready for that so hate speech should not be illegal
Hate Speech: "public speech that expresses hate [intense dislike] or encourages violence towards a person or group" 1. Literally all passionate political views can be described by the first part of the definition, making it essentially a 'blank check' to censor anything the ruling party dislikes. 2. Encouraging violence is already illegal in most cases, this part of the definition is just fluff to legitimize the first part.
3. Encouraging violence is still PROTECTED SPEECH!!! What was The Revolution?? Were they encouraging a peaceful transition of power or DEATH TO THE KING???
Came on here to regain my sanity. I was just called a nazi sympathizer on Twitter by an old family friend bc I said that censorship is dangerous. I’m sorry, if you disagree do you want to tell that to my family who luckily escaped the Holocaust?
Imagine a society where a phrase as benevolent as “all lives matter” is considered hate speech. Well, no need to imagine because that is the society we live in.
@GrizzlyTank Just look where we are TODAY, just TEN MONTHS after you made this comment. NOW, apparently, we're incapable of hearing information, processing it and then making our own informed, logical decisions about our own health and well-being. That's exactly what 250 "doctors" and "scientists" said this week in a letter written to a popular online, streaming platform, encouraging them to take action to stop the dissemination of what THEY consider to be "dangerous information". MANY people are actually supporting this and seem to have no clue how dangerous this is.
I've heard and seen far more hate coming from those who want to censor others than those who are falsely accused of hate speech. So absolutely never should these ghouls be in charge of defining what and what isnt "hate speech" let alone enabling them to act on their accusations and shut down the opinions, opportunites and freedoms of the innocent.
Government has NO RIGHT to censor or label ANY SPEECH!!! All speech is FREE SPEECH!!! If all guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment then ALL SPEECH is protected by the 1st!! CONGRESS SHALL NOT MAKE ANY LAW THAT ABRIDGES FREE SPEECH!!!" But look at what this country is coming to..
Well, the left is doing everything it can to chip away at the second amendment so that they can safely go to town on the first. If you'll notice, the only country that doesn't allow guns that still has free speech is Japan. Every other country has outright or de facto banned gun ownership by private citizens and now they all have hate speech and/or blasphemy and/or lese majeste laws. Seriously, the USA and Japan are the only two countries that still respect freedom of expression.
There is no excuse for censorship left or right. When you do it gives government permission to be the clearing house for information. I can tell when I'm being lied to or manipulated. There is no defense to having information withheld; it leaves the public totally vulnerable.
Haven't even watched the video, but my answer is "No" and my answer after watching it will be "No." This is non-negotiable. Either we have free speech or we don't. End of story, period.
@pipper donnie yea I dont understand, why don't these people actually read the amendment? Wtf... ignorant fools. Crying over something thats already been established.
Anyone who says I disagree it's my opinion is wrong and your opinion is also objectively wrong they is no other way Freedom of speech must be protected and I'm willing to kill for it
@pipper donnie Obscenity in that context refers only to sexual material, not to the more common definition of obscenity as being naughty words. You're not allowed to throw porn in people's faces, yeah, that isn't covered by the 1st amendment. Same rationale behind it not being legal to be nude in public. You can however curse at people, you can even curse at a police officer, that IS protected. Fighting words is a vague term and means basically nothing. What's not allowed is an incitement to violence, if that is what you mean by fighting words, sure: but by that definition, an example of something that ARE NOT fighting words would be, oh I don't know, me calling you an idiot.
One of the greatest wakeup calls of the modern era is the realization that "hate speech" to quote Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." We were taught to believe that hate speech is fascist/white supremacist propaganda and ideology. The truth is, thanks to social media censorship, "hate speech" has been exposed as a phrase open to personal interpretation. At the same time its amusing to watch American society slowly becoming everything that they have long claimed to against.
there is no hate speech, there is opinions and they can be aggressive, but that is free speech no matter who what say. censorship is a road to police state fascism. and it is already here.
A bigger question is: what is being done to fight this b.s? I used to think there was a sensible middle ground who would stand up to the extremes, but i'm not sure about that anymore. And because of that, this carry on is going to get so bad that the actions required to bring back sanity are going to be brutal. Reasoned dialogue won't work anymore. I don't want to see that happen, but I think it's heading there.
Stand up to the extremes? Who's standing up to the extremes that the 2nd Amendment has lead to in this country? A 6 year old just shot a teacher! What about those extremes. No. The only thing the government is concerned with is cracking down on our 1st Amendment right and we HAVE TO FIGHT BACK!
@@Str8Maddeness You are completely deluded in my opinion, I used to be anti-2nd amendment but then I read a history book; tiannemen square 1989 hundreds of thousands of young peaceful activists in China shot dead by the ccp, the Great Leap Forward 1958-63 Chinese people forcibly commanded on a mass scale to produce iron and give surplus grain to the military,threatened by weapons to keep going 30 million dead and I could keep going on. I mean if you look at todays examples, the media covers police even perpetrating gun violence on innocent people. So wouldn’t taking away gun leave more of a power vaccum in society, seeing as we’ve been shown even authority will do bad and then if you look in the uk, my country, the highest rates of knife crime in the world and it’s not like you can stop it becuase it’s used in kitchens.minor tragic events like shooting are not enough to limit individual power because of the effects it can have in giving power to a tranical government
@@billbillerton6122 No, the first amendment secures all others. The proof is obvious. When we started communicating with radio, television, and internet, that speech was not protected under the first amendment. The result was the manipulation and fear propagation and a very successful divide and conquer strategy that turned the middle and lower class against each other along social and political lines. Meanwhile, the class war was buried. This led to the exploitation of labor which has caused all the growing wealth inequality and social strife we see today... including gun violence. Then people start fearing the guns because of what was caused by first amendment infringement.
Listen no one likes to see or hear racist and belittling rhetoric, but censoring hate speech creates this problem; if the left considers something hate speech they can have it censored, and if the right considers something hate speech than they can do the same thing. Does anyone know what I'm talking about here with this?
If speech is being censored then there is no freedom of speech and therefore the Constitution and the laws that would enforce the Constitution are null and void. Any group of people that would allow their freedom to be taken away deserves every bit of the sorrow that surely will follow.
I do not support censorship, but for you, what is the solution for real hate speech (for example a call to attack a certain ethinic or religious group)?
@@gesserriahi5459 if it can be proven as a credible threat like, you are actively calling yourself and others to commit violence, there are laws again incitement speech and calling for attacks you can get charged with incitement of terrorism/violence
Nope, hate isn't illegal. If I hate anything, I'll let you know in no uncertain terms.. Saying that it is illegal, is in itself wrong if not illegal in some cases. We are living in a backwards upside down time. The longer we live like this, the longer it becomes the norm. Will we right the ship or not? Only time will tell.
To censor hate speech is useless and only limits personal freedom. There should never be censorship from the truth in the USA. Don't take it in the wrong way. I'm not saying that the hate speech is the truth, but the truth is that there are people who discriminate and spread negative thoughts vocally, and "censoring" their speech only promotes ignorance and does NOT help with the problem.
Unless you are directly threatening someone, no speech should be off limits. If you don't like it, don't listen. If you allow hate speech laws, eventually you will have people going to jail just because someone didn't like them and claimed hate speech. I'll die before I give up my freedom of speech.
I actually disagree with this video, because they are many trolls on the internet who just keep saying hateful nonsense, and no amount of speech can stop them. Trolls also destroy political discussion, instead of contributing to it. For this reason, I think that hate speech should be removed, as long as we have a narrow definition of hate speech.
@Exculpatory Shōgun Actually, the constitution has always dictated that the government should outlaw forms of free speech. This includes threats, defamation, blackmail, perjury (lying in court), child pornography, obscenity, invitation to crime, and calls for insurrection. The American people have consistently voted for people who trample over these rights (patriot act, cointelpro). It is highly hypocritical of you to suggest this.
Twitter doing fact checks, censorship or puting labels to comments for "Hate Speech" and other nonsense is already trying to use George Orwel's 1984 as an Instruction manual. Now, imagine if article 230 is deleted either by democrats or republicans, now the State has total control over the media, welcome to 1984...
Free speech needs rules, it needs someone to decide what's acceptable or unacceptable the same way he or she decides what's right or wrong, that's the truth. "Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Reach" -Sacha Baron Cohen
I’ve come across a lot of opinions and prejudice I’ve disagreed with. But have I ever thought to silence them?? No. Speech is speech, and it should be free.
We have the 1A and 2A and 4A and so many important concepts in the USC/BoR, which has now been trampled by Big Government, Big Tech, Big Media, Big Education, etc. It's sad. Without free speech and the liberty to practice other human rights that must be enshrined as civil rights, we are at risk of massive societal dysfunction.
It is not within the rights of others to decide which ideas the individual is allowed to hear. It is called the FIRST Amendment for a reason. "Censorship is forbidding a man to eat steak because a baby could not chew it." -Mark Twain
@@kathbeck7817 “The government shall make NO law…” It doesn’t matter who is being talked about, the gov’t does not have the right to determine which ideas we are allowed to hear.
If the individual isn't able to see that censorship is dangerous, then they are ignorant. If the individual isn't willing to see that censorship is dangerous, then they are arrogant. If the individual is neither able or willing, the what kind of sentient life are we talking about here? In any case, those circumstances do not reward anyone with knowledge, wisdom, or understanding. The fact that there are some people of public interest, who will say as they please, do as they will without the concern for what it might lead to whether small or large, is in my personal opinion, as it stands right now, reckless. I disrespect the words of a man or woman who seeks to infringe on the liberties and rights of us as humans even before citizenry. I also, disregard those who hate others for opinions that lack substance like logic reason and/or empathy. Even still, they have their right and liberty to behave as such regardless of how I feel about it. So of course I am forced to deal with it. I can't speak for reckless behavior, but I will say this: Until you ask me what I stand for, you'll never know my honest intentions. That being said, I am willing to listen to anyone else's intentions as long as you offer me the same respect. If there is no reciprocity, then there will be no sense of understanding for either of us. If you don't have the "balls" or "boobs" to affirm your point while respecting the points of others, then shut the fuck up! I'm willing to bet these people are so cognitively dissonant that they're not willing to learn the errors of their ways. Also, by 'people' I am referring to the decay of american society who behave recklessly and carelessly towards everyone they come into contact with, as well as those in power who dictate public policy. I'd rather there be an understanding, than misguided agendas or narratives circulating falsities and fallacies that hold no real purpose other than to benefit the ones who make the rules. I'm talking about social conditioning leading to brainwash. As a musician, I want to reflect back to the world what it looks like to me. Ever since I was a child I have only wished for the best of humanity. While my life has had a LOT of curveballs thrown my direction, my wishes remain unscathed and unaltered. For me, my music is the best way I know how to express that. My subjective experience however, is only an experience and should NEVER to be taken as gospel. Never Ever!!! As a producer of my own music, my wish is to expand the thoughts, feelings, and levels of consciousness of the people who listen to my music. My end goal there is to get people to think, act, and feel for themselves in their highest form of self representation without needing BIG BROTHER to knock down the door, to emit draconian policies that do more damage than healing. As a veteran I fought for "your" 1st amendment. Don't you dare step on "mine"!!!
When talking to 10, 100, 1000 people it's IMPSOBILE to not offend not even one person. By that fact, "Hate Speech" will always exist and it's part of our evolution as a society.
@@williamrisbridger60 You're not allowed to make any rude comments toward other kids in any school. That's just common sense. You're training children. You're in a controlled environment with rules that apply to you if you want to be a student. That's not the same as restricting freedom of speech. That's like asking if you can say all words on youtube. RUclips is a private platform with it's own rules. In the many countries that have free speech though, yes you can say almost anything you want as you have that right, as long as it doesn't fall under defamation or a serious threat. You could still say hateful things, just not anything that could be seen as a crime.
@@buddybrax Okay, but as soon as two American school kids walk off the school premises, one could call the other a racial slur and everyone would be cool with that?
@@williamrisbridger60 It doesn't matter what people are cool with. We're talking about laws and censorship. In-person I can call you a retard all I want. You can be upset, but that doesn't make it illegal. Social media doesn't have freedom of speech as they're private platforms, but you get my point. Making words illegal sets a bad precedent.
Free speech needs rules, it needs someone to decide what's acceptable or unacceptable the same way he or she decides what's right or wrong, that's the truth. "Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Reach" -Sacha Baron Cohen
@@jeanclaudejunior Move somewhere else that's more inclined to your desire for draconian limits on speech. There are plenty of authoritarian nations out there, pick one.
One mans truth speech is another mans hate speech. Actions speak louder than words. Ethical responsability is what we need. Just cause it upsets one person does not mean it is hate speech......perhaps if we all had our telepathic ability turned on and can read everyone's intention, maybe we can judge then but for now people are just gonna have to have different viewpoints yet still get along, lol
Removing need for cell towers reduces network vulnerability. Each phone is a transciever with ability to transmit and receive data, you dont need phone bills if your community networks their devices with networking software. Maybe try blockchain encryption for voting, ranking, and propositions for worker owned co-ops instead of supporting corporate dictatorships
A gay guy I know said some awful things about straight people. Was he, the gay guy, committing hate speech? I didn't like his discriminatory speech. It was hateful!
I thought hate speech was a type of propaganda used to convince others to hate someone, so that the hated will be attacked or harmed in some way either through social ostracism, economic harm via job loss, or physical harm.
This would be censorship. Because the government would decide based on their preferences what can be talked about and sometimes you need to be insulting to make people think. If the speech is dangerous, then people will decide to listen to something more productive to their lives.
I’m “young people” but I can’t stand these babies that whine about someone hurting their feelings. Get over it. When did “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” stop being relevant?
Hate speech isn't made up. It means abusive or threatening speech. Just because you are a straight white male who gets called something like an asshole, doesn't mean hate speech isn't a thing. If I walk up to a black guy and just dehumanize him for being black, that is hate speech. It is not an insult. It's not like I'm calling someone fat because they decided to eat a lot of sweets. It's hating on a guy for being something he physically cannot change. So acting like people cannot have emotions is just funny af. Nobody wants to be made fun or for being gay or for being a different race or sex, but it still happens. You cannot just act like those people are just gonna let it go. What I think is that people who have no experience with actual serious hate think it's made up and call people babies and so on. No it should not be censored but you cannot sit here and pretend that it does not exist
How in the world can you govern speech? I can't govern what you say - you can't govern what I say. Ultimately - I choose to be kind, and promote kind words and deeds.
I think that freedom of speech is bad. For example, when a person says something what is true and another person starts to bully him,insult him and swear like a sailor, the second person should be punished. But RUclips let these people get away with everything and polite people are punished. Freedom of speech also leads to spreading conspiration theories and some people believe them and then spreading them, which causes tension in society. I think that comments on social media should be deleted.
Who has the right to limit free speech? The answer: No one. Our Constitution says so. It is the FIRST Amendment for a reason. If you don't like free speech move to another country.
The only limits to free speech should be incitement to violence. If in their speech somebody provides evidence that they are committing some crime, eg posting CP, luring providing material support to a terrorist organization, etc there are other laws that the police can use to arrest these people.
The problem is who gets to decide what hate speech is. If I say that I am a male and that biological sex differences exist, then what if the government claims I am transphobic and I am committing hate speech.
The other problematic thing is misinformation, the government has been agressively trying to and succeeding to censor content that they think is misinformation. COVID-19 is a good example. We were told that the lab leak theory is misinformation but it turned out that the NIH funded the Wuhan Institute if Virology's experiments of injecting spike proteins into a SARS virus. We were also told that retrovirals and other chemicals are misinformation because Trump said it but it has been proven over and over again that the are effective against covid-19 patients who are very sick. In conclusion, it shouldn't be the elitists and globalists who decide what content is good or not good for us, it should be the individual end user. Once free speech is limited for reasons other than incitement to violence it is no longer free.
Every painful truth and well measured critique is hate speech to someone, its impossible to have any difficult conversation if "hate speech" can be prosecuted. It should never be illegal to express a human emotion
Freedom of speech is only one. You have rights to say anything and other people have right to agree with you, disagree with you, ignore you or tell you to gtfo. Therefore Freedom of speech shouldbe be only absolute.
But if someone is infront of a cop and starts saying that a group of people are stupid the cop arrests him because he believes that that is offensive but what if it isnt lets say that that group thinks that stupid is good
1:40 So, no one else is going to talk about how crush videos are somehow protected even though it's literally people killing and maiming animals? Like, what is going on right now? Am I understanding this wrong, having a stroke, or is this just complete bs?
The legal status of crush videos in the United States is indeed a complex and concerning issue. While the acts depicted in these videos are extremely cruel and inhumane, there are some legal protections that have made it difficult to completely ban or suppress this content. Here's a brief overview of the legal situation around crush videos: First Amendment Considerations: In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of United States v. Stevens that a federal law banning the creation, sale, or possession of "crush videos" was unconstitutional. The Court found that the law was overly broad and violated the First Amendment's free speech protections, even for speech that many would find abhorrent. Animal Cruelty Statutes: While the federal law banning crush videos was struck down, some states have passed their own laws prohibiting the production and distribution of these types of videos. However, enforcement and prosecution under these state-level animal cruelty laws has proven challenging. Obscenity Laws: Prosecutors have attempted to use obscenity laws to target crush videos, but the legal definition of obscenity is very narrow and difficult to apply in these cases. The Supreme Court has set a high bar for what qualifies as legally obscene material not protected by the First Amendment. Challenges in Identification and Enforcement: The anonymity of the internet and the difficulty in tracing the origins of crush videos have hampered law enforcement efforts to identify and prosecute the perpetrators. So in essence, while the content of crush videos is universally seen as abhorrent and inhumane, the legal system has struggled to find effective ways to ban or suppress this material due to the strong free speech protections in the US. Efforts to address this issue continue, but it remains a complex and troubling legal challenge.
I still use it but I talk to logical people most the time. I drive for uber and I talk to quite a bit off people and most actually have my same views. They just don't go out and say it to just anybody because they do worry about who is against them. I gave about 4500 rides so far. I have seen crazy cat lady widows. Who watch CNN and you can't really talk to them because they live under a rock. They only think one view is real. I mean I can fake it just to hear them but it's crystal clear really quick. I still say what I believe. I don't give a crap. I have a 4.98 ratings almost perfect. I saw it will a 😃.
The way I see it threatening people is illegal because it leads to violence and death in most situations. Hate speech or bigoted speech to be more specific falls under that same category because it always leads to violence and death. I think the distinction between normal free-speech and heat speeds should be defined in law. I find it prejudicial this video never mentions that the EU practices hate speech censorship for decades and has not had this slippery slope problem this video advocates. that’s imagine on the point of hate speech is not a direct threat to people is pretty ridiculous considering we find a world war because of it. Frankly there are so many hate crimes in the United States on a daily basis I fail to see the distinction anymore. Hate speech is different from normal speech because it provides zero positive aspects.
No. Because hate speech is as subjective as “kill all [insert group of people here]” to “i don’t like this politician”. Both are deemed hateful by certain people and therefore would be removed for the sake of “removing hate speech”.
To me, I think that the definition for hate speech should be that whoever hates someone or a group of people to the point that they want to harm them should definitely be censored on social media and for the greater good to save others from worrying about what that someone would do to them constantly.
The real question is who decides what speech is acceptable to say?
Whoever has the most clout
Whiny liberals that want everything they don’t like to be banned
*The State or the government* , with badly written laws or abuse of power.
Speech acceptable in real life is relative, there are no absolutes.
Hate Speech is an invention by governments or future fascists and communists to remove any points of view and do a complete monopoly over the society or the thinking process of individuals for the sake of *absolute power* .
Watch or read George Orwell's 1984, or like i would say, the totalitarian's formula.
@@rustyshackleford1069 It's the fault of the republicans too, because both belong to the State which is extremely dangerous.
simply put, if you want "free speech" you have to be able to take an insult. You can`t be all 'I want the freedom to express myself', without being willing to be insulted, your freedom to express, is someone else`s freedom to "Hate".
Ayeee nice pfp
Correct
@pipper donnie not sure how child pornography is speech but Igu
That's exactly what i like
@pipper donnie what the hell are "fighting words"?
I don’t use the term “hate speech.” I’m not an idiot.
Yes you are.
@Los Angeles Man
“The left” and “authoritarian” are not interchangeable. Economically, left is about equality, so Socialism, and the right is about capitalism. You can believe in either and still support absolute freedom of speech.
Sincerely, a Libertarian and lover of freedom
@@yeshuaredeemed1806 everyone is an idiot. The most dangerous ones think they aren’t.
@@lifesuckshaveaniceday8951 The left is about equality until you disagree with them about something then they want you silenced. You're not fooling anyone.
@@jimmyjimmy1601
You’re talking about leftists, I’m talking about the principles and values of the left and what they believe. Leftists can absolutely support freedom of speech, like me for example, it’s just that not a lot of them do. I’m a libertarian socialist, speak to any other libertarian leftist and I’ll guarantee you they support freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is something as valuable as life itself
For what good is life when others dictate how your live it.
Yeah I'd be willing to kill just to have freedom of speech
That is literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever read! That’s like a Murderer and Rapist saying they don’t like being told what to do and how to live life so… by your stupid logic just don’t throw them in prison?! Because you are by definition suppressing their way of life!
Every field of life in a society is more or less regulated by the acceptable norms of that society. You may defend the individual freedom of speech in some measures as it is a necessary condition for pluralism in democracies, but that shouldn't give people the right to defame other people, nor to promote violence, child pornography, crimes etc.
@@YassenJL when you bring up extremes like that to defend censorship, that is exactly why the liberal party is as despised as it is. Nobody is promoting child, pornography, nor inciting violence when they call someone retarded or call someone a jackass. They are expressing frustration with their very existence, being a blight on society, when they are constantly whining about anything and everything. Maybe, instead of trying to censor people who insult them, they should try to stop being so damn annoying on social media to deserve such a hatred spewed at them in the first place. This is why I hate liberals and I will always hate them. I am gay and I regularly use a few of those slurs toward gay people because I personally find effeminate men to be disgusting and annoying and the very definition of the word I’m not going to mention because the wonderful owner of RUclips who is a wonderful, nice lady and doesn’t like any swearing will nuke my comment like the Feminazi she is.
@@shadowpeople89 hm I see your point, but it does not address my argument for the extremes that is widely accepted not only from a classical liberalism point of view but also for the ability to preserve democracy from populism and totalitarian views in general. Are neo-liberals taking the practice too far in Western Europe and in the US? Perhaps they do and it calls for better legal procedures and protections of the freedom of speech. Should people be able to vomit any content in the public sphere however - even if deliberately damaging to the society? Nope and I'd say that the main issue is about the line - meaning where should we draw it. But to deny completely that people must be held accountable for their speech is virtually the same as saying that they should not be held accountable for their actions. And that's just not realistic in societies where we cooperate with each other.
Freedom of speech above all else.
2nd
@@twocandles1108 first
OwO
you're probably the same kind of person that thinks the man of the house doing the kitchen work is okay
You can not scream "FIRE" in a Crowded area because this could lead to a stampede
Freedom of speech is only as good as the people that use it
if we where to allow everything it might aswell be a death sentence
censorship is like repressing your own traumatic experience, it may be hidden but not healed.
@Robin Justice Censuring "hate speech" starts with someone else and ends with you.
@Robin Justice common dude there is no such thing as hate speech because its the free speech you dont like and want to censor because you mentally and emotionally so weak that you cant counter argue that argument and if you cant just dont listen to it just ignore it youself you have ears and just close them if you dont want to hear those words like n word or just spread social awreness about this and counter those no no words with arguing,understanding or love, don't censor.
@Robin Justice The problem is these days many weak minded people qualify any opinion they don't like as "hate speech". Its basically a way for immature children to try and shield themselves from social interaction.
@Robin Justice It's still a really dangerous idea. It would likely become a way for the ruling political party to silence all opposing views. So basically a dictatorship.
Don't get me wrong I think things like racism and sexisism are wrong but I also know very well how skilled politicians are at manipulating laws to their favor. Even if the original intention was good it is inevitable some politicians will bend the rules and definitions of hate speech to silence speech they personally don't like.
No speech should be censored!!!
Free speech needs rules, it needs someone to decide what's acceptable or unacceptable the same way he or she decides what's right or wrong, that's the truth.
@@jeanclaudejunior no. Free speech needs no rules. What an idiotic take
@@FormerPessitheRobberfan tu sei un pazzo. Ma certo la libertà di parola ha bisogno di regole.
@@jeanclaudejunior censor one thing, you’ll have to censor more things like that former thing. Continue this and you’ll have to censor so many things that it’ll spiral out of control
@@FormerPessitheRobberfan there sould be some rules cuz you cant just yell out fire in a movie theather but there is a law allready for that so hate speech should not be illegal
It’s sad how this is a problem in the first place
What ever happened to “sticks and stones”?
Indubitably
Hate Speech: "public speech that expresses hate [intense dislike] or encourages violence towards a person or group"
1. Literally all passionate political views can be described by the first part of the definition, making it essentially a 'blank check' to censor anything the ruling party dislikes.
2. Encouraging violence is already illegal in most cases, this part of the definition is just fluff to legitimize the first part.
Solid take. Thanks for the insight.
3. Encouraging violence is still PROTECTED SPEECH!!! What was The Revolution?? Were they encouraging a peaceful transition of power or DEATH TO THE KING???
Hate speech isn't real as per the U.S. Constitution.
Came on here to regain my sanity. I was just called a nazi sympathizer on Twitter by an old family friend bc I said that censorship is dangerous. I’m sorry, if you disagree do you want to tell that to my family who luckily escaped the Holocaust?
These days if you're for free speech you're labeled a racist terrorist. It's a communistic way of bullying people into submission.
That’s why I deleted all my main social media accounts cuz what’s the point nowadays.
The irony
😂 that’s the most ironic thing the nazis censored anyone who disagreed with them
@@daveidduha Holy shit not everything is communistic
Imagine a society where a phrase as benevolent as “all lives matter” is considered hate speech. Well, no need to imagine because that is the society we live in.
Yes
its not hate speech and i have never heard anybody say it is. its just stupid
@@shslsomething8195 Why is it stupid? Do you disagree with the statement?
@GrizzlyTank
Just look where we are TODAY, just TEN MONTHS after you made this comment. NOW, apparently, we're incapable of hearing information, processing it and then making our own informed, logical decisions about our own health and well-being. That's exactly what 250 "doctors" and "scientists" said this week in a letter written to a popular online, streaming platform, encouraging them to take action to stop the dissemination of what THEY consider to be "dangerous information". MANY people are actually supporting this and seem to have no clue how dangerous this is.
@@GabrielV65 No, it doesn't.
I've heard and seen far more hate coming from those who want to censor others than those who are falsely accused of hate speech.
So absolutely never should these ghouls be in charge of defining what and what isnt "hate speech" let alone enabling them to act on their accusations and shut down the opinions, opportunites and freedoms of the innocent.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Yeah
Voltaire
Government has NO RIGHT to censor or label ANY SPEECH!!! All speech is FREE SPEECH!!! If all guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment then ALL SPEECH is protected by the 1st!! CONGRESS SHALL NOT MAKE ANY LAW THAT ABRIDGES FREE SPEECH!!!" But look at what this country is coming to..
Well, the left is doing everything it can to chip away at the second amendment so that they can safely go to town on the first. If you'll notice, the only country that doesn't allow guns that still has free speech is Japan. Every other country has outright or de facto banned gun ownership by private citizens and now they all have hate speech and/or blasphemy and/or lese majeste laws. Seriously, the USA and Japan are the only two countries that still respect freedom of expression.
There is no excuse for censorship left or right. When you do it gives government permission to be the clearing house for information. I can tell when I'm being lied to or manipulated. There is no defense to having information withheld; it leaves the public totally vulnerable.
Haven't even watched the video, but my answer is "No" and my answer after watching it will be "No." This is non-negotiable. Either we have free speech or we don't. End of story, period.
@pipper donnie yea I dont understand, why don't these people actually read the amendment? Wtf... ignorant fools. Crying over something thats already been established.
Anyone who says I disagree it's my opinion is wrong and your opinion is also objectively wrong they is no other way
Freedom of speech must be protected and I'm willing to kill for it
@pipper donnie repeat irrelevant spam
@pipper donnie Obscenity in that context refers only to sexual material, not to the more common definition of obscenity as being naughty words. You're not allowed to throw porn in people's faces, yeah, that isn't covered by the 1st amendment. Same rationale behind it not being legal to be nude in public. You can however curse at people, you can even curse at a police officer, that IS protected. Fighting words is a vague term and means basically nothing. What's not allowed is an incitement to violence, if that is what you mean by fighting words, sure: but by that definition, an example of something that ARE NOT fighting words would be, oh I don't know, me calling you an idiot.
@@bigtobacco1098 relevant and accurate
One of the greatest wakeup calls of the modern era is the realization that "hate speech" to quote Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." We were taught to believe that hate speech is fascist/white supremacist propaganda and ideology. The truth is, thanks to social media censorship, "hate speech" has been exposed as a phrase open to personal interpretation. At the same time its amusing to watch American society slowly becoming everything that they have long claimed to against.
So going on a Racist or sexist rant should be protected as free speech?
there is no hate speech, there is opinions and they can be aggressive, but that is free speech no matter who what say. censorship is a road to police state fascism. and it is already here.
If it isn’t directly inciting violence then there is nothing wrong with it.
A bigger question is: what is being done to fight this b.s? I used to think there was a sensible middle ground who would stand up to the extremes, but i'm not sure about that anymore. And because of that, this carry on is going to get so bad that the actions required to bring back sanity are going to be brutal. Reasoned dialogue won't work anymore. I don't want to see that happen, but I think it's heading there.
Stand up to the extremes? Who's standing up to the extremes that the 2nd Amendment has lead to in this country? A 6 year old just shot a teacher! What about those extremes. No. The only thing the government is concerned with is cracking down on our 1st Amendment right and we HAVE TO FIGHT BACK!
@@Str8Maddeness You are completely deluded in my opinion, I used to be anti-2nd amendment but then I read a history book; tiannemen square 1989 hundreds of thousands of young peaceful activists in China shot dead by the ccp, the Great Leap Forward 1958-63 Chinese people forcibly commanded on a mass scale to produce iron and give surplus grain to the military,threatened by weapons to keep going 30 million dead and I could keep going on.
I mean if you look at todays examples, the media covers police even perpetrating gun violence on innocent people. So wouldn’t taking away gun leave more of a power vaccum in society, seeing as we’ve been shown even authority will do bad and then if you look in the uk, my country, the highest rates of knife crime in the world and it’s not like you can stop it becuase it’s used in kitchens.minor tragic events like shooting are not enough to limit individual power because of the effects it can have in giving power to a tranical government
@@Str8Maddeness The 2nd amendment secures all others.
@@billbillerton6122 No, the first amendment secures all others. The proof is obvious. When we started communicating with radio, television, and internet, that speech was not protected under the first amendment. The result was the manipulation and fear propagation and a very successful divide and conquer strategy that turned the middle and lower class against each other along social and political lines. Meanwhile, the class war was buried. This led to the exploitation of labor which has caused all the growing wealth inequality and social strife we see today... including gun violence. Then people start fearing the guns because of what was caused by first amendment infringement.
@@Str8MaddenessYou don't understand the 1st or 2nd amendment... or the constitution/bill of rights
Listen no one likes to see or hear racist and belittling rhetoric, but censoring hate speech creates this problem; if the left considers something hate speech they can have it censored, and if the right considers something hate speech than they can do the same thing. Does anyone know what I'm talking about here with this?
Any kind of censorship over speech is infringement
A better question is "Is censorship based on a subjective term a good idea?"
No such a thing as hate speech or a hate crime. It's free speech and a crime is just a crime.
If speech is being censored then there is no freedom of speech and therefore the Constitution and the laws that would enforce the Constitution are null and void. Any group of people that would allow their freedom to be taken away deserves every bit of the sorrow that surely will follow.
I do not support censorship, but for you, what is the solution for real hate speech (for example a call to attack a certain ethinic or religious group)?
@@gesserriahi5459 if it can be proven as a credible threat like, you are actively calling yourself and others to commit violence, there are laws again incitement speech and calling for attacks you can get charged with incitement of terrorism/violence
@@gesserriahi5459 Hate speech be said without violence. You can you don't' like a certain race. It doesn't mean you go incite violence.
Nope, hate isn't illegal. If I hate anything, I'll let you know in no uncertain terms.. Saying that it is illegal, is in itself wrong if not illegal in some cases.
We are living in a backwards upside down time. The longer we live like this, the longer it becomes the norm. Will we right the ship or not? Only time will tell.
To censor hate speech is useless and only limits personal freedom. There should never be censorship from the truth in the USA. Don't take it in the wrong way. I'm not saying that the hate speech is the truth, but the truth is that there are people who discriminate and spread negative thoughts vocally, and "censoring" their speech only promotes ignorance and does NOT help with the problem.
There shouldn't be censorship anywhere. Censorship is a medieval dogma, and biased.
@@PiroKUSS hmm
The problem being who gets to decide what is hate speech?
Democrats think they do.
@@usaveteran1813 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Try watching the video to se how the term is defined.
NO censorship.. for the love of God,,
Censoring hate means an explosion in the future. Hate should be neutralized with love.
Unless you are directly threatening someone, no speech should be off limits. If you don't like it, don't listen. If you allow hate speech laws, eventually you will have people going to jail just because someone didn't like them and claimed hate speech. I'll die before I give up my freedom of speech.
eaaa
they basically saying ' u have no right to say it'
Can't make it illegal if it doesn't exist
Sticks and stones may break my bones but WORDS will never hurt me.
i learned this on the playground in 1st grade.
You are probably the same kind of person also who thinks young adults still using bounce houses is okay too
My answer to the title is no. I dont support censorship at all whatsoever
I actually disagree with this video, because they are many trolls on the internet who just keep saying hateful nonsense, and no amount of speech can stop them. Trolls also destroy political discussion, instead of contributing to it. For this reason, I think that hate speech should be removed, as long as we have a narrow definition of hate speech.
@Exculpatory Shōgun Actually, the constitution has always dictated that the government should outlaw forms of free speech. This includes threats, defamation, blackmail, perjury (lying in court), child pornography, obscenity, invitation to crime, and calls for insurrection. The American people have consistently voted for people who trample over these rights (patriot act, cointelpro). It is highly hypocritical of you to suggest this.
And for the reason and description you've provided, I think you're a m0r0n.
dont care, i say whatever the fk i want to say... is my right
No, speech should be censored. I’ve seen those movies and read those books.
What movies and what books?
@Jose Martinez DeJesus We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Twitter doing fact checks, censorship or puting labels to comments for "Hate Speech" and other nonsense is already trying to use George Orwel's 1984 as an Instruction manual.
Now, imagine if article 230 is deleted either by democrats or republicans, now the State has total control over the media, welcome to 1984...
@@myalt3019 Big Brother is watching you
Free speech needs rules, it needs someone to decide what's acceptable or unacceptable the same way he or she decides what's right or wrong, that's the truth.
"Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Reach"
-Sacha Baron Cohen
No
"Hate speech" = "Things I dont want to hear"
Complete bs
I’ve come across a lot of opinions and prejudice I’ve disagreed with. But have I ever thought to silence them?? No. Speech is speech, and it should be free.
@riiker and everyone has different opinions on what “bullying” is. The limit of some speech is the limit of all speech.
We have the 1A and 2A and 4A and so many important concepts in the USC/BoR, which has now been trampled by Big Government, Big Tech, Big Media, Big Education, etc. It's sad. Without free speech and the liberty to practice other human rights that must be enshrined as civil rights, we are at risk of massive societal dysfunction.
It is not within the rights of others to decide which ideas the individual is allowed to hear. It is called the FIRST Amendment for a reason.
"Censorship is forbidding a man to eat steak because a baby could not chew it." -Mark Twain
If you READ IT it says only against the government, not anyone else
@@kathbeck7817 “The government shall make NO law…” It doesn’t matter who is being talked about, the gov’t does not have the right to determine which ideas we are allowed to hear.
It's a fundamental right to be able to have free speech even is some think it's "hate"
Hate speech or maybe just speech you hate..
We are running towards 1984..
No hate speech (speech you don’t like should not be censored).
If the individual isn't able to see that censorship is dangerous, then they are ignorant.
If the individual isn't willing to see that censorship is dangerous, then they are arrogant.
If the individual is neither able or willing, the what kind of sentient life are we talking about here?
In any case, those circumstances do not reward anyone with knowledge, wisdom, or understanding.
The fact that there are some people of public interest, who will say as they please, do as they will without the concern for what it might lead to whether small or large, is in my personal opinion, as it stands right now, reckless. I disrespect the words of a man or woman who seeks to infringe on the liberties and rights of us as humans even before citizenry. I also, disregard those who hate others for opinions that lack substance like logic reason and/or empathy. Even still, they have their right and liberty to behave as such regardless of how I feel about it. So of course I am forced to deal with it. I can't speak for reckless behavior, but I will say this:
Until you ask me what I stand for, you'll never know my honest intentions.
That being said, I am willing to listen to anyone else's intentions as long as you offer me the same respect. If there is no reciprocity, then there will be no sense of understanding for either of us. If you don't have the "balls" or "boobs" to affirm your point while respecting the points of others, then shut the fuck up!
I'm willing to bet these people are so cognitively dissonant that they're not willing to learn the errors of their ways. Also, by 'people' I am referring to the decay of american society who behave recklessly and carelessly towards everyone they come into contact with, as well as those in power who dictate public policy. I'd rather there be an understanding, than misguided agendas or narratives circulating falsities and fallacies that hold no real purpose other than to benefit the ones who make the rules. I'm talking about social conditioning leading to brainwash.
As a musician, I want to reflect back to the world what it looks like to me. Ever since I was a child I have only wished for the best of humanity. While my life has had a LOT of curveballs thrown my direction, my wishes remain unscathed and unaltered. For me, my music is the best way I know how to express that. My subjective experience however, is only an experience and should NEVER to be taken as gospel. Never Ever!!!
As a producer of my own music, my wish is to expand the thoughts, feelings, and levels of consciousness of the people who listen to my music. My end goal there is to get people to think, act, and feel for themselves in their highest form of self representation without needing BIG BROTHER to knock down the door, to emit draconian policies that do more damage than healing.
As a veteran I fought for "your" 1st amendment. Don't you dare step on "mine"!!!
AYEEEEEEEEE thank you for your service sir.
Bro just made a fucking essay that im not gonna read
@@ramarne578 than dont
Short answer is No. long answer is NO it should not be.
When talking to 10, 100, 1000 people it's IMPSOBILE to not offend not even one person. By that fact, "Hate Speech" will always exist and it's part of our evolution as a society.
Hate speech isn't real.
This oversensitivity just makes me want to vomit, its sickening, people can say what they want and if it offends you then its your fucking problem
NO!!!! and why does the USA support European countries that limit free speech??????????
Are American school kids allowed to make racist comments towards other school kids? I’m just curious how it works.
It’s an American issue. Just leave it to the Americans
@@buddybrax I am allowed to ask questions.
@@williamrisbridger60 You're not allowed to make any rude comments toward other kids in any school.
That's just common sense. You're training children. You're in a controlled environment with rules that apply to you if you want to be a student. That's not the same as restricting freedom of speech.
That's like asking if you can say all words on youtube. RUclips is a private platform with it's own rules.
In the many countries that have free speech though, yes you can say almost anything you want as you have that right, as long as it doesn't fall under defamation or a serious threat. You could still say hateful things, just not anything that could be seen as a crime.
@@buddybrax Okay, but as soon as two American school kids walk off the school premises, one could call the other a racial slur and everyone would be cool with that?
@@williamrisbridger60 It doesn't matter what people are cool with. We're talking about laws and censorship.
In-person I can call you a retard all I want. You can be upset, but that doesn't make it illegal.
Social media doesn't have freedom of speech as they're private platforms, but you get my point.
Making words illegal sets a bad precedent.
It's called free speech
Free speech needs rules, it needs someone to decide what's acceptable or unacceptable the same way he or she decides what's right or wrong, that's the truth.
"Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Reach"
-Sacha Baron Cohen
@@jeanclaudejunior and who shall that impartial arbiter be
Vaccine is to 20th booster
As
Being maskless and unvaccinated is to catching co...
.. Wait what??? You tricked me!!!!
@@jeanclaudejunior Move somewhere else that's more inclined to your desire for draconian limits on speech. There are plenty of authoritarian nations out there, pick one.
People should be able to say what they want
What is said may make my blood boil but I defend the right to say it.
We can't rely on the benevolence of the government
One mans truth speech is another mans hate speech. Actions speak louder than words. Ethical responsability is what we need.
Just cause it upsets one person does not mean it is hate speech......perhaps if we all had our telepathic ability turned on and can read everyone's intention, maybe we can judge then but for now people are just gonna have to have different viewpoints yet still get along, lol
Removing need for cell towers reduces network vulnerability.
Each phone is a transciever with ability to transmit and receive data, you dont need phone bills if your community networks their devices with networking software.
Maybe try blockchain encryption for voting, ranking, and propositions for worker owned co-ops instead of supporting corporate dictatorships
A gay guy I know said some awful things about straight people. Was he, the gay guy, committing hate speech? I didn't like his discriminatory speech. It was hateful!
yea, so what? why get emotional about it?
I really hate it when people do Hate Speech and play the dirty Victim card.
Even if I disagree with you doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have a voice
Why do I need to like and not hate something?
No such thing, its like saying should we ban angry speech
No we shouldn't. People have the right to be angry, hateful, ignorant, belittling or what ever they want.
I thought hate speech was a type of propaganda used to convince others to hate someone, so that the hated will be attacked or harmed in some way either through social ostracism, economic harm via job loss, or physical harm.
This would be censorship. Because the government would decide based on their preferences what can be talked about and sometimes you need to be insulting to make people think. If the speech is dangerous, then people will decide to listen to something more productive to their lives.
I’d ask a Liberal/Left winger. Should you say “hateful” words against Donald Trump?
You should be allowed to say it
How can you ban something that doesn’t exist? 🤔
Bars
hell no. "hate speech" is a made up thing. it's literally just insulting..
poor young people getting their little feelings hurt 😭
I’m “young people” but I can’t stand these babies that whine about someone hurting their feelings. Get over it. When did “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” stop being relevant?
@@thechristmasproductions whoever raised you did well.
Hate speech isn't made up. It means abusive or threatening speech. Just because you are a straight white male who gets called something like an asshole, doesn't mean hate speech isn't a thing. If I walk up to a black guy and just dehumanize him for being black, that is hate speech. It is not an insult. It's not like I'm calling someone fat because they decided to eat a lot of sweets. It's hating on a guy for being something he physically cannot change. So acting like people cannot have emotions is just funny af. Nobody wants to be made fun or for being gay or for being a different race or sex, but it still happens. You cannot just act like those people are just gonna let it go. What I think is that people who have no experience with actual serious hate think it's made up and call people babies and so on. No it should not be censored but you cannot sit here and pretend that it does not exist
@@JamesThePokemonHunter i'm not pretending
@@kaliberr021 I mean you are because it's a thing. It's like saying racism doesn't exist.
god forbid someone thinks different
How in the world can you govern speech? I can't govern what you say - you can't govern what I say.
Ultimately - I choose to be kind, and promote kind words and deeds.
But how can something that doesn't exist be censored or banned?
I think that freedom of speech is bad. For example, when a person says something what is true and another person starts to bully him,insult him and swear like a sailor, the second person should be punished. But RUclips let these people get away with everything and polite people are punished. Freedom of speech also leads to spreading conspiration theories and some people believe them and then spreading them, which causes tension in society. I think that comments on social media should be deleted.
They just need to harden the duck up
No need for a 5 min video. Making it short, no it shouldnt be censored
I believe in kindness. But I have every right to be unkind - in my words.
The state shall not govern my utterances.
What do i do about the girl in school that said i was ugly do i sue her or do i just cry in a big crowd until somebody can defend me.waaaaaa
I hate mayonnaise.
Who has the right to limit free speech? The answer: No one. Our Constitution says so. It is the FIRST Amendment for a reason. If you don't like free speech move to another country.
Truth!
I like free speech . Every country in the world should like free speech sir
@@syl0531 but not the case.
No.... it should not
The only limits to free speech should be incitement to violence. If in their speech somebody provides evidence that they are committing some crime, eg posting CP, luring providing material support to a terrorist organization, etc there are other laws that the police can use to arrest these people.
The problem is who gets to decide what hate speech is. If I say that I am a male and that biological sex differences exist, then what if the government claims I am transphobic and I am committing hate speech.
The other problematic thing is misinformation, the government has been agressively trying to and succeeding to censor content that they think is misinformation. COVID-19 is a good example. We were told that the lab leak theory is misinformation but it turned out that the NIH funded the Wuhan Institute if Virology's experiments of injecting spike proteins into a SARS virus. We were also told that retrovirals and other chemicals are misinformation because Trump said it but it has been proven over and over again that the are effective against covid-19 patients who are very sick. In conclusion, it shouldn't be the elitists and globalists who decide what content is good or not good for us, it should be the individual end user. Once free speech is limited for reasons other than incitement to violence it is no longer free.
As long as you aren't calling people to violence, let it fly.
agree, no doubt
Funny how we’re talking about censorship on RUclips when my comments get deleted if I say duck with an f at the beginning smh
thanks for the "differing views" section!!
Hate is anything you don’t agree with.
Or don’t like to hear
Every painful truth and well measured critique is hate speech to someone, its impossible to have any difficult conversation if "hate speech" can be prosecuted. It should never be illegal to express a human emotion
Its all ok or none of it is ok
Who dictates what’s hate speech and what’s not?
the word hate is an emotional term. the legal term is prejudice and the word bigot.
I draw the line at calls for violence. Defamation and perjury should be protected.
Freedom of speech is only one. You have rights to say anything and other people have right to agree with you, disagree with you, ignore you or tell you to gtfo. Therefore Freedom of speech shouldbe be only absolute.
Hate speech as bad as it is, its still free speech. I hope you understand that RUclips, and stop with your censorship.
RUclips doesn't have to follow freedom of speech laws cause it's a business and can control what is talked about on there platform and its fucked up
@@Danny-ss8il is RUclips a publisher or a platform?
@@EdwardJamesKenway... they act like publisher
@@EdwardJamesKenway... is still their rules
But if someone is infront of a cop and starts saying that a group of people are stupid the cop arrests him because he believes that that is offensive but what if it isnt lets say that that group thinks that stupid is good
We need to counter-act conservatives, not shut them up.
Whats wrong with us
@@carlthelongshoreman1979 Common sense, they don't like it.
@@billbillerton6122 what common sense?
I hate pickles.
1:40 So, no one else is going to talk about how crush videos are somehow protected even though it's literally people killing and maiming animals? Like, what is going on right now? Am I understanding this wrong, having a stroke, or is this just complete bs?
The legal status of crush videos in the United States is indeed a complex and concerning issue. While the acts depicted in these videos are extremely cruel and inhumane, there are some legal protections that have made it difficult to completely ban or suppress this content.
Here's a brief overview of the legal situation around crush videos:
First Amendment Considerations:
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of United States v. Stevens that a federal law banning the creation, sale, or possession of "crush videos" was unconstitutional.
The Court found that the law was overly broad and violated the First Amendment's free speech protections, even for speech that many would find abhorrent.
Animal Cruelty Statutes:
While the federal law banning crush videos was struck down, some states have passed their own laws prohibiting the production and distribution of these types of videos.
However, enforcement and prosecution under these state-level animal cruelty laws has proven challenging.
Obscenity Laws:
Prosecutors have attempted to use obscenity laws to target crush videos, but the legal definition of obscenity is very narrow and difficult to apply in these cases.
The Supreme Court has set a high bar for what qualifies as legally obscene material not protected by the First Amendment.
Challenges in Identification and Enforcement:
The anonymity of the internet and the difficulty in tracing the origins of crush videos have hampered law enforcement efforts to identify and prosecute the perpetrators.
So in essence, while the content of crush videos is universally seen as abhorrent and inhumane, the legal system has struggled to find effective ways to ban or suppress this material due to the strong free speech protections in the US. Efforts to address this issue continue, but it remains a complex and troubling legal challenge.
Wat happened to sticks n stones?
That died a long time ago with chivalry under its wing. Unfortunately.
I still use it but I talk to logical people most the time. I drive for uber and I talk to quite a bit off people and most actually have my same views. They just don't go out and say it to just anybody because they do worry about who is against them. I gave about 4500 rides so far. I have seen crazy cat lady widows. Who watch CNN and you can't really talk to them because they live under a rock. They only think one view is real. I mean I can fake it just to hear them but it's crystal clear really quick. I still say what I believe. I don't give a crap. I have a 4.98 ratings almost perfect. I saw it will a 😃.
censorship doesnt solve the hate of hate speech...how can you solve a problem you refuse to hear
Facts. Censoring people only makes them angrier and more hateful
It's kinda gay that hate speech would be banned.
i wont ban on my platform
i want the censored removed
master offline yes
Unless you are to underaged and what to see some parts then ya censor that
The way I see it threatening people is illegal because it leads to violence and death in most situations. Hate speech or bigoted speech to be more specific falls under that same category because it always leads to violence and death. I think the distinction between normal free-speech and heat speeds should be defined in law. I find it prejudicial this video never mentions that the EU practices hate speech censorship for decades and has not had this slippery slope problem this video advocates. that’s imagine on the point of hate speech is not a direct threat to people is pretty ridiculous considering we find a world war because of it. Frankly there are so many hate crimes in the United States on a daily basis I fail to see the distinction anymore. Hate speech is different from normal speech because it provides zero positive aspects.
No. Because hate speech is as subjective as “kill all [insert group of people here]” to “i don’t like this politician”. Both are deemed hateful by certain people and therefore would be removed for the sake of “removing hate speech”.
Thats not hatespeech that is call to action which is not protected
@@carlthelongshoreman1979 but a call to action is treated as no different than criticism.
@@dylanbuchanan6511 NO IT ISNT. a call to action is ILLEGAL!!
To me, I think that the definition for hate speech should be that whoever hates someone or a group of people to the point that they want to harm them should definitely be censored on social media and for the greater good to save others from worrying about what that someone would do to them constantly.
There is no such thing as hate speech.
warning, but not a straight BAN