+Benyamin Il'Aflehki Looks like we're back to hanging gays for sodomy. I mean, it used to be the law, and the law is unquestionable. What were we thinking???
+Benyamin Il'Aflehki +karen straughan To be fair both the ECHM and ICCPR give variety of reasons to allow countries to regulate freedom of speech. But even with his far-fetched arguments, he fails to link the oppositions call for censorship to one of those reasons.
Perhaps those laws aren't fit for purpose and the US absolute protection of free speech that he derides is more appropriate. I don't think the proposition was about what the law currently states so his whole speech seems to miss the mark even if he could make the connections you suggested he failed to make. If anything this guy lost the debate and the way he lost also made a compelling argument against the wording of the laws he invoked!
+Saddamuel You're right ICCPR isn't fit for purpose because it's just a foundation for constitutions. And this foundation is intentionaly generic so every nation of the world would sign and ratify it.(In case of the ECHM all nations of europe) My point was: he took this generic law and still couldn't fit his bullshit into it = He failed to make a valid point. So I agree he lost the debate. But I have to disagree on your last point. In my oppinion those laws served their purpose. They restrict pure arbitrariness to censor free speech by pointing to certain reasons that can (but don't have to be used) by national constitutions. Also the US doesn't have absolute protection of free speech they exclude Obscenity among other things. Just google: crs report 95-815.
7:39 "Who decides?" -Shami Chakrabarti Exactly! Whether it's offensive is up to the listener. The speaker is telling us the intentions of the author are also up to the listener to decide. Sam Harris is often accused of hate speech not for what he says, but for the fear that his arguments would be used to justify hateful actions on the part of others who misunderstand him. Awful.
Anyone wanting to curb fee speech, no matter how vile, makes me feel physically sick. I reserve the right to hate, ridicule and mock religion for starters.
+Mark Efreet I think we need to stop classifying these people as liberal. They are anything but. I do agree with what you say however. They are a psychotic lot of authoritarians wanting to control society with their drivel. I thought we were done with this shit when we shamed the religious right into the fringes of society, but it appears these fuckers have taken up a new flag The Western gate of liberty was defended, now the enemy is approaching from the west. Liberal's! About Face! Ready Arms! Aim! Fire!
Mark Efreet It's easy to learn you don't like being hurt, so needlessly hurting others is bad. It's easy to understand that you don't want to be silenced and silencing others is bad. It's easy to understand you don't like your freedom being taken away so you shouldn't want to take it from others. The only people you should want to inflict these things on, are people that inflict them on others without significant cause. And only in order to stop them from causing more harm. Much of this is how I learned my morality, not from any religion. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. We very easily learn what is moral and immoral all on our own, because many of the thing we find moral are rooted in protecting ourselves and those we care about. That's why most people only pick and choose the bits from those religious texts that line up with their own morality. And aren't currently enslaving people from other parts of their religion because they are not of the one true faith. Though sadly it seems that's still happening in Africa and the Middle East. Though again, I stress, that religion was an opponent means very little. Only that these fools from the authoritarian Left are just like the fools from the authoritarian Right. The only difference is the bullshit they spout for their reasoning to restrict others. Left, Right, Religious, Atheist, I don't care. You want to restrict my freedom and my speech, you are the enemy. It's as simple as that.
+sekiten Are you trying to imply that the wrongs of religion stem from the religions themselves, rather than humanity? If you're atheist as you seem to be, it ought to be plain as day that religion comes from humanity, and that if religion is ugly, then it is humanity that made it as such. Even if you hold a religion in your heart, it is still obvious that humanity does not necessarily follow holy texts. In fact, the perversion of these texts is a powerful social weapon, and this can be done with any belief system. Any ideology. Silencing religion has changed nothing for you, and in fact only encouraged these people to take on your own style of fighting. Trust me when I say with confidence that they are plenty liberal. They are the fruits of your labors in shaming the religious right. They saw shame for what it was: a very effective weapon. And so they use it now to shame you and others they disagree with. Congratulations.
If the state would be allowed to decide whether the sole purpose of something said is to offend, all speech could be banned. This is a dangerous slippery slope. We should give no opportunity to those who seek power over others against their will. Just because they have no opportunity to act now doesn't mean they will never have it again. It's foolish to wait for the fire to start raging, by then it will be unstoppable.
So if the right to free speech has responsibilities, and exceptions should be made where it is not allowed, how about this: The right to life has responsibilities, and an exemption from this right is made for those who do not contribute to society ("contribution" presumably defined by the state). Unemployed? Long-term ill/disabled? Undocumented immigrant? These groups do not pay taxes, and yet use the state's infrastructure/benefits/revenues. These people would have no "independent social value" so I'm sorry bro, you don't deserve to live, I hope you understand. You know what offends me? People like Ziegler and Brooks trying to take away people's human rights. And yet I still think they should be allowed to continue talking - an amenity they, apparently, would not afford me in return.
Who is the Arbiter of speech? Who gets to decide the intentions of the speaker/writer? A person who can equate the intentional murder of civilians with "intentionally offensive" speech has absolutely no empathy. There is no validity to this argument.
I love how people deny the right to offend with speech, as if what is being spoken will offend everybody no matter how low the bar, when it usually means only your group and like minded individuals, which may not even be the majority. The speech that is illegal is so because there are extreme cases we should censor, like inciting violence, but beyond that not being politically correct for example is an entirely different matter.
NO NO NO NO NO, this guy did not seriously just try to make the argument "the ends justify the means" nothing but atrocities have every been committed under that mind-set, but I guess I should have expected as much from mister National Socialis.... oh my bad he is part of the new one, Social Justice.
How can you define what is offensive if you disagree with the other person's views and beliefs? Anyone can be 'offended' by someone who disagrees with them!
UK needs the equivalent of the USA's First (Freedom of Speech) and Second (Freedom to own a gun) Amendments. IF.... If UK gets out of the EU, it would be wise for UK to enact such laws.
Wait, am I missing something, or did he base over half his speech on the, supposed, moral and ethical authourity of the trimming of free speech based on the authourity of international declarations?
So his whole argument is the state should regulate what is and isn't offensive and has the intent of hostility and the US is wrong for constitutionally allowing all speech whether it's pro gay-marriage people or the klan? That's the only argument I could gather from his rambling of European laws on speech. Based on that logic a Buddhist(or any of the multiple cultures that use it) should go to jail for having the swastika on display, and could lead to a slippery slope of a feminist could put a man in jail for existing through calling being male as symbolic speech, like a fiery cross, that is hostile to women since they are so big on gender identity politics. Edit: It would also kill comedy because every joke will offend at least 1 person and the law would say if speech offends someone than it must go.
7:37 "... in a less offensive way." Less offensive doesn't mean NOT offensive; it's still offensive. And Shami's right: who defines what's considered offensive or not? Probably the person(s) you would least want to be defining it.
'hostility is close to offence, therefore offence is hostile.' and an appeal to authority Mr Ziegler is lacks logic in the base on which he builds his subsequent arguments, they are thus are rendered invalid.
neonatalpenguin Any link for that? Again, I'm just curious. ...I mean for the voting, but if you have a link on the Squirrel thing that would be a great too.
The problem with "offence" laws is that it is entirely subjective, i can say one thing and mean another (sarcasm) and someone might take it at face value, offence is arbitrary and therefore has no place in law.
Never seen such a one-sided debate from Oxford Union. One side was coherent, mostly polite, charismatic. The other side was full it anger, vitriol, incoherence and illogic. Fair play to this speaker for at least being polite and not seething with anger compared to his 2 companions
Purely offensive speech serves the purpose of testing whether or not "free speech" actually exists. Because if purely offensive speech isn't banned you don't have to worry about going to jail for saying the wrong thing. Conversely, if you can ban purely offensive speech you can ban any speech, because who gets to decide what is offensive and what isn't? And he didn't give an example of an instance where speech caused physical harm.
The underlying problem with this position is pretty clear "An Expression only meant to offend" is determined to be such by WHO? the offended? a court? who decides if an expression is offensive and meant to be offensive with no other purpose? say anything in a room of 100 diverse people and you will get 100 different descriptions of what you've said. the entire point of freedom of speech is to protect the speaker from deliberate misinterpretation.
The problem with this stance is that everyone shares the exact same sentiments. The belief that we shouldn't be intentionally offensive and nasty is not one that is held exclusively by the anti-free speech panel. The difference is, while pro-free speech people may disapprove of intentionally inflammatory and disrespectful behaviour, we recognize that it is an unwanted and frankly, incurable symptom of free speech. If you were to cure it, then you have already taken away your fundamental rights because who controls what can and cannot be said and the punishment you receive? Someone with higher power than you, and NO one should have power over speech no matter whether they control the whole dictionary or just one word. Only an idiot would willingly chip away at their most fundamental right! So Ruvi, Kate and Tim are preaching to the choir. We all believe in common courtesy and decency, but guess what, the right to free speech for the entire population is more important than surrendering the right, just to shut up a few bad apples.
ermistan Ok, I was being facetious in the phrasing of my reply to you. However, I do maintain that although a few of the facts he pointed to may have been accurate, he often drew the wrong conclusion from them. And also, I always find it inappropriate when people bring up international human right laws as a means of buttressing the validity of philosophical arguments. Anyone with minimal insight into how these laws are drafted would quickly find suppressed any temptation to cite to them in debate.
Of all the opposition speakers, Ziegler was by far the most eloquent and rational. Yet in his argument he failed to address a key unresolved conflict, which I overheard Ms. Chakrabarti attempt to address, and I'm sure that Mr. O'Neill wanted addressed as well: "Who decides [what is permitted and what is not]?" When the absoluteness of free speech is muddled with exceptions, not only does the idea of free speech become a misnomer, but the determination of permissible and forbidden speech is placed into the hands of (presumably) a small elite few. And the human capacity to be biased means that it only takes one like-minded council of arbiters to tip the balance towards a favour to their benefit once they become aware of the power they wield. I am not against restriction of free speech in exceptional circumstances, but I strongly caution that there are very few instances that justify such restrictions. And, if such a council of arbiters was indeed elected or appointed to make such a decision, that they must all step down from their posts after rendering a decision restricting free speech. Not because such an act is wrong, but to prevent this same council from overstepping their authority in the future.
+anonymousskunk If it's decided by an elite few they will eventually abuse their power. If it's done democratically the people trying to censor will be the whiniest most hypersensitive among us.
I cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, agree with this speaker. No amount, type or quality of speech would lead me to cause harm to another person. In order for speech to cause one person to harm another is for the WILLINGNESS to harm to already exist.
Any imposition made on what can or cannot be said by definition causes speech to lose its freedom. Perhaps the motion should address whether free speech should always be permissible.
I missed the part where those who are arguing for the right to offend, advocated murder and violence... They must have those, since otherwise they in fact do put limits. Offensive speech is interpreted as such by the person hearing the speech, grow a thicker skin dude, is a near - certainty that he has "offended" others.
He is speaking far above anyone in this comment section, past what I can see as well but he is going at this from a Hobbesian stand point, which is very confusing for myself, so I won't try to translate. But he is taking a very logical Philosophical point of view on this perspective.
I hope that everyone watching this is intelligent enough to see through this sinister piffle. Those who wish to censor others do not realise that they make a rod for their own backs.
This guy is spitting image of the bloke depicted on the board of the game "Operation" I recall from my youth; which involved removing various organs without touching the sides.
Interesting to note: for all the opposition's talk of making "safe spaces" for minorities and "the underprivileged", the speakers for the opposition are uniformly white, rich (presumably; they're at Cambridge after all) and upper class, i.e: the essence of privilege. This is true of the wider SJW movement as well.
I know I'm oversimplifying this whole, important debate, but we all can remember the phrase "Stick and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". And it's true. If a person cannot withstand the attack of someone else's denigrating speech, it is the person's fault for not having the necessary psychological armor to survive the onslaught. A law prohibiting hate speech cannot fix certain peoples' psychological vulnerabilities, it will only make people weaker.
sadly this guy is the most reasonable of the opposition. but the issue with his argument is he attempts to conflate the 'freedom of speech' with 'hate speech' and 'harassment', both of which are counted as exceptions in the freedom of speech. the two are not the same, and pretending that folks support the latter because they support the former is a tad bit insane.
Noticed how the opposition never let anyone talk, and the proposition let everyone who stood up to talk? Also...what's going on with his bowtie and shirt?
It's listed as private because she requested it due to the fact that she allegedly received a lot of backlash and even threats following its going viral.
+Stuart Lillard This guy is in love with his own voice. Would have liked to have a number of clarifications, what those interjections were about, but he just wanted to twaddle on with his rather poor speech.
It's fun how a person as obviously intelligent as him can completely confuse offensive and harmful speech. The restrictions on free speech in what he calls "liberal democracies" are NOT against offensive speech - they are against harmful speech, such as shouting "Fire!" in a theatre, or harrassing people or (in Germany) glorifying the Nazis.
He's essentially describing having the ability to read minds, to somehow "know" the speaker's ONLY intent (in the case of his argument, the utterer's ONLY intent is to PURELY cause harm). Sorry, Ruvi, no one can read other people's minds.
"In all liberal democracies the state does, and should, prohibit free speech." It's almost like he's suggesting that an imposition on free expression is a good democratic thing, like autocracy would allow for free speech. This is so backward.
The English love their government so much they are willing to hand over their tongues when told to. In this gentlman's case I approve of such a tryrany. I know the English find my land's constitution peculiar, but do not be afraid. Good parents also learn from their children.
This is some weird form of 'anti-debate'. He's just quoting articles and paragraphs from the convention of human rights as though that's it, case closed.
There is a clearly foreseeable purpose to speech that has is intended to do no more than offend: the *response* to that speech. Charlie' Hebdo's cover, making the overt assumption that it was intended solely for offense, gave the community it spoke about an opportunity to address what it was satirising. _That_ is what should have happened: a verbal, debate-oriented conversation. If CH was wrong, they should have clearly been told why, instead of having their lives and opportunities to learn ended. That conversation is incredibly important, had it not been shadowed by their deaths. The only thing that warrants regulation is people's actions: there should not be any violence. The Opposition makes the point that we don't live in a world where offense doesn't receive violence in reply. Why then, do they promote the constraint of words and ideas instead of better policies in the constraint of violence?
The best speaker on the opposition side in this debate, in fact the only one that makes a point and not just randomly attacks the speakers of the proposition side. As a proponent of free speech, this this actually makes me think.
As much as I am annoyed by the radical feminists lately, in no way do I want them shut down or not allowed to believe what they want under law. Once you tell someone that they aren't allowed to say something because others might find it offensive, you are telling them that they aren't allowed to believe certain things or express those beliefs. We need to have these discussions.
He was so rude in how he waved his hand at others who wanted to interject, rather than saying "No, thank you" like all the others did. That action alone removed any weight his argument may have had.
I do not agree with most of what he said, but at least he was to only one who didn't resort to personal attacks on the opposition debaters. I don't think that he has ever thought about the question that Shami asked, " who decides what is offensive?" He just knows that he is in the right and his views are the ones that should be the base line. What happens when the government has the right to limit "offensive" views and the decide that his are dangerously offensive?
"All liberal democracies except the United States regulate free speech." I understand that the first amendment of our constitution gives us the right to freedom of expression with regard to the content of what we say.This was a shocking statement for me as an American. I'm a little confused about the extent that other Western countries regulate free speech. Can anyone elaborate?
That's it? this is not a debate, this is a series of really (and maybe innecesarily) elaborate expositions of their stance, but there is no actual interchange of ideas, there is no argument / counterargument relation between proposers and opposers. This is no debate.
This is very close to how you argue technicalities. He very well may have gotten more support if he didn't refuse so many questions when he got to the bit about how speech that would resort to harm should be banned. Doubtless so many wondered how a government would be able to qualify speech that doesn't explicitly direct harm can be perceived as such.
Ziegler certainly has a point that there's a difference between speech that has a purpose and may incidentally offend, and speech that is used for no purpose but to offend. However, why is it that not only the latter is being silenced and punished, but the former as well? An important difference between the two is the amount of consideration and sensitivity the individual speaking has. Also, when an individual does the latter, their peers will almost always retaliate against their behavior in present-day developed society with backlash, alienation, or even physical harm, thus regulation is unnecessary here. Not only is it unnecessary to regulate speech, but it is also a risk, due to the choice of an individual in charge of regulation choosing to interpret purposeful speech with incidentally offends as speech with no purpose but to offend, due to their own personal motives. Free speech is an important way in which those without power can resist those in power (such as the would-be regulator) when power is abused.
I would agree 100% with this guy if it weren't from one little obnoxious question: who defines what is and what comprehends "social value"? 50 years ago, defending gay or afro-rights would not have been deemed as an action with "social value". "Social value", as a concept, speaks only of the current state of society and, as such, when used in the context in which this man tries to use it, it nothing but a vehicle for stagnation and cultural stasis.
This guy would make a decent points if he didn't assume that: - A law was written and therefore is morally superior/should encompass all nations - That he (or anyone else taking offense) can dictate what the intent of the "offender" is - That offensive statements are typically used solely to offend someone - That offending someone, even solely for the purposes of offending someone, is a negative thing. Ultimately all of the arguments I've seen from his "side" amount to "These people are saying things I consider to be hateful and offensive, and other people might do something bad, or people might get their feelings hurt, so they should be shut up." But that's an insane argument because the things they are saying are equally hateful and offensive to the people they deem hateful and offensive. Assuming that they are on the right side of history and therefore their hate and offense is justified is incredibly conceited and absurd. For perspective: I vehemently disagree with most of their opponents politically and ideologically, but silencing and policing language is never the solution. You just make yourself into an intolerant bigot pretending to be morally superior.
"if free speech is socially harmful and causes harm... I'm against that and would like to oppose" that harm can be interpreted then and give that same someone who is receiving communication the jusristiction to punish the person who thought of those words with the back up of that governing state. thus policing someone's mind.
This guys arguments sound good on the surface. But he doesn't offer examples, he doesn't back up his statements at all with science, or even past instances.
this was definitely the weakest of the opposition arguments. If he had stuck to fighting against speech that insights violence, I would still disagree, but at least he would have had a leg to stand on. An appeal to authority from someone who spends his days "punching up" is ridiculous. Guy couldn't even come up with a hypothetical example to support his own view let alone a real world one.
This guy falls at the first hurdle.Speech is either free or it isn't. Either you can say what you want without legally sanctioned force used against you or you can't. You can't be halfway pregnant and you can't be partially dead.
Two and a half minutes in, he already makes an appeal to authority. I can already tell this game of Fallacy Bingo is going to go swimmingly. Also, where the hell is that accent from? I can't place it.
While those in support have offered examples of how offensive speech has often been in the right (for example the gay magazine that was no platformed back in the 1890s) why is it that those opposed to offensive speech have provided no examples of how censorishiphas resulted in anything positive? From where I sit the antis are just engaging in a lot of blather.
"If it's in a book of law, then it must mean it's right" : The Video
+Benyamin Il'Aflehki Looks like we're back to hanging gays for sodomy. I mean, it used to be the law, and the law is unquestionable. What were we thinking???
+Benyamin Il'Aflehki +karen straughan To be fair both the ECHM and ICCPR
give variety of reasons to allow countries to regulate freedom of
speech.
But even with his far-fetched arguments, he fails to link the oppositions call for censorship to one of those reasons.
HerrKriegstnKeks
They might give a variety of reasons, but they're all shit nonetheless.
Perhaps those laws aren't fit for purpose and the US absolute protection of free speech that he derides is more appropriate. I don't think the proposition was about what the law currently states so his whole speech seems to miss the mark even if he could make the connections you suggested he failed to make. If anything this guy lost the debate and the way he lost also made a compelling argument against the wording of the laws he invoked!
+Saddamuel You're right ICCPR isn't fit for purpose because it's just a foundation
for constitutions. And this foundation is intentionaly generic so
every nation of the world would sign and ratify it.(In case of the ECHM all
nations of europe)
My point was: he took this generic law and still couldn't fit his bullshit into it = He failed to make a valid point. So I agree he lost the debate.
But I have to disagree on your last point. In my oppinion those laws served their purpose. They restrict pure arbitrariness to censor free speech by pointing to certain reasons that can (but don't have to be used) by national constitutions.
Also the US doesn't have absolute protection of free speech they exclude Obscenity among other things.
Just google: crs report 95-815.
I Fine his speech offensive.... when does he go to jail?
+KnIf0rTITAN He should sit down and shut up. And let a black Asian trans-woman have her chance to speak.
+KnIf0rTITAN Well, let me ask you first; Are you a white male? If yes, then your question is invalid.
The real crime is the fitting of his tux.
Shortly after we start sending actors the jail for portraying criminals. This is a competitive debate with assigned positions.
7:39 "Who decides?" -Shami Chakrabarti
Exactly! Whether it's offensive is up to the listener. The speaker is telling us the intentions of the author are also up to the listener to decide.
Sam Harris is often accused of hate speech not for what he says, but for the fear that his arguments would be used to justify hateful actions on the part of others who misunderstand him. Awful.
Opposition: "Prove that speech doesn't cause harm." Proposition: "Prove that harm isn't subjective."
Anyone wanting to curb fee speech, no matter how vile, makes me feel physically sick. I reserve the right to hate, ridicule and mock religion for starters.
I love how this guy can say all this nonsense, yet align himself with a group who defends Radical Islamist's call for Sharia Law in the UK.
+Mark Efreet I think we need to stop classifying these people as liberal. They are anything but. I do agree with what you say however. They are a psychotic lot of authoritarians wanting to control society with their drivel. I thought we were done with this shit when we shamed the religious right into the fringes of society, but it appears these fuckers have taken up a new flag The Western gate of liberty was defended, now the enemy is approaching from the west.
Liberal's!
About Face!
Ready Arms!
Aim!
Fire!
Mark Efreet Uhh,, religion makes you no more moral than anyone else. It's a matter of what you do with it. Charity work and slave trades.
Mark Efreet It's easy to learn you don't like being hurt, so needlessly hurting others is bad. It's easy to understand that you don't want to be silenced and silencing others is bad. It's easy to understand you don't like your freedom being taken away so you shouldn't want to take it from others. The only people you should want to inflict these things on, are people that inflict them on others without significant cause. And only in order to stop them from causing more harm. Much of this is how I learned my morality, not from any religion.
Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. We very easily learn what is moral and immoral all on our own, because many of the thing we find moral are rooted in protecting ourselves and those we care about. That's why most people only pick and choose the bits from those religious texts that line up with their own morality. And aren't currently enslaving people from other parts of their religion because they are not of the one true faith. Though sadly it seems that's still happening in Africa and the Middle East.
Though again, I stress, that religion was an opponent means very little. Only that these fools from the authoritarian Left are just like the fools from the authoritarian Right. The only difference is the bullshit they spout for their reasoning to restrict others. Left, Right, Religious, Atheist, I don't care. You want to restrict my freedom and my speech, you are the enemy. It's as simple as that.
+sekiten Look up a video by Sargon of Akkad: "Illiberal Progresives."
+sekiten Are you trying to imply that the wrongs of religion stem from the religions themselves, rather than humanity? If you're atheist as you seem to be, it ought to be plain as day that religion comes from humanity, and that if religion is ugly, then it is humanity that made it as such. Even if you hold a religion in your heart, it is still obvious that humanity does not necessarily follow holy texts. In fact, the perversion of these texts is a powerful social weapon, and this can be done with any belief system. Any ideology.
Silencing religion has changed nothing for you, and in fact only encouraged these people to take on your own style of fighting.
Trust me when I say with confidence that they are plenty liberal. They are the fruits of your labors in shaming the religious right.
They saw shame for what it was: a very effective weapon. And so they use it now to shame you and others they disagree with.
Congratulations.
why is one of the video made private?? was it too embarrassing for Oxford Union to share it with the world?
If you didn't find it already, someone's re uploaded it. Look up "Kate Brooks Freedom of Speech and Right to Offend Opposition".
The speaker asked that they take it down.
anonycomment probably because she was getting so much hatred
It was taken down
9:38 the girl to the right in the blue dress.
If the state would be allowed to decide whether the sole purpose of something said is to offend, all speech could be banned. This is a dangerous slippery slope. We should give no opportunity to those who seek power over others against their will. Just because they have no opportunity to act now doesn't mean they will never have it again. It's foolish to wait for the fire to start raging, by then it will be unstoppable.
"Offensive speech causes harm"
SPEECH. CANNOT. HARM.
Offense is never given, it is only TAKEN.
+sykopath66190 why does your Post only have 5 likes (including mine)? Should be on the Top!
Summary: We support freedom of speech, of course we do... as long as it's speech we approve of.
So if the right to free speech has responsibilities, and exceptions should be made where it is not allowed, how about this:
The right to life has responsibilities, and an exemption from this right is made for those who do not contribute to society ("contribution" presumably defined by the state). Unemployed? Long-term ill/disabled? Undocumented immigrant? These groups do not pay taxes, and yet use the state's infrastructure/benefits/revenues. These people would have no "independent social value" so I'm sorry bro, you don't deserve to live, I hope you understand.
You know what offends me? People like Ziegler and Brooks trying to take away people's human rights. And yet I still think they should be allowed to continue talking - an amenity they, apparently, would not afford me in return.
hilarious that the awful performance by the other person for the Opposition has been censored and labeled 'private.'
Who is the Arbiter of speech? Who gets to decide the intentions of the speaker/writer?
A person who can equate the intentional murder of civilians with "intentionally offensive" speech has absolutely no empathy.
There is no validity to this argument.
In two words his entire speech completely destroyed, "who decides?" and that is all it took.
This entire debate right there
I love how people deny the right to offend with speech, as if what is being spoken will offend everybody no matter how low the bar, when it usually means only your group and like minded individuals, which may not even be the majority. The speech that is illegal is so because there are extreme cases we should censor, like inciting violence, but beyond that not being politically correct for example is an entirely different matter.
Wow, dude just silenced and offended a woman, throw him in jail.
NO NO NO NO NO, this guy did not seriously just try to make the argument "the ends justify the means" nothing but atrocities have every been committed under that mind-set, but I guess I should have expected as much from mister National Socialis.... oh my bad he is part of the new one, Social Justice.
How can you define what is offensive if you disagree with the other person's views and beliefs? Anyone can be 'offended' by someone who disagrees with them!
That's really what this boils down to. Anything can be offensive, it's a slippery slope.
Well, I find that offensive!
UK needs the equivalent of the USA's First (Freedom of Speech) and Second
(Freedom to own a gun) Amendments. IF.... If UK gets out of the EU, it would
be wise for UK to enact such laws.
Wait, am I missing something, or did he base over half his speech on the, supposed, moral and ethical authourity of the trimming of free speech based on the authourity of international declarations?
So his whole argument is the state should regulate what is and isn't offensive and has the intent of hostility and the US is wrong for constitutionally allowing all speech whether it's pro gay-marriage people or the klan? That's the only argument I could gather from his rambling of European laws on speech. Based on that logic a Buddhist(or any of the multiple cultures that use it) should go to jail for having the swastika on display, and could lead to a slippery slope of a feminist could put a man in jail for existing through calling being male as symbolic speech, like a fiery cross, that is hostile to women since they are so big on gender identity politics.
Edit: It would also kill comedy because every joke will offend at least 1 person and the law would say if speech offends someone than it must go.
"Who decides?" wow she said more with those two words than the entire speech she was responding to
Brilliant speech. Ban everything! Ban banning!
7:37 "... in a less offensive way." Less offensive doesn't mean NOT offensive; it's still offensive. And Shami's right: who defines what's considered offensive or not? Probably the person(s) you would least want to be defining it.
This is amazing, unintentional parody at it's finest.
he must major in sophistry
'hostility is close to offence, therefore offence is hostile.'
and an appeal to authority
Mr Ziegler is lacks logic in the base on which he builds his subsequent arguments, they are thus are rendered invalid.
Please tell me these lunatics didn't win...
+IndigoChildism Yeah I'm curious, I can't seem to find the results of the proposition anywhere.
+IndigoChildism I am leaving a comment in-case anyone has any updates >.>
+IndigoChildism don't mind me, just want updates. Keep scrolling ^_^
+IndigoChildism They didn't. They lost quite badly. Tim Squirrel went around saying that the Oxford Union should be burnt to the ground.
neonatalpenguin
Any link for that? Again, I'm just curious.
...I mean for the voting, but if you have a link on the Squirrel thing that would be a great too.
The problem with "offence" laws is that it is entirely subjective, i can say one thing and mean another (sarcasm) and someone might take it at face value, offence is arbitrary and therefore has no place in law.
There should be a law against people who try to put any sort of limitation on free speech.
Never seen such a one-sided debate from Oxford Union. One side was coherent, mostly polite, charismatic. The other side was full it anger, vitriol, incoherence and illogic. Fair play to this speaker for at least being polite and not seething with anger compared to his 2 companions
The failed attempt at getting a round of applause going at 1:18 is glorious.
This guy is type that would burn witches. Because he knows how to tell apart good women from witches.
Purely offensive speech serves the purpose of testing whether or not "free speech" actually exists. Because if purely offensive speech isn't banned you don't have to worry about going to jail for saying the wrong thing. Conversely, if you can ban purely offensive speech you can ban any speech, because who gets to decide what is offensive and what isn't?
And he didn't give an example of an instance where speech caused physical harm.
The underlying problem with this position is pretty clear "An Expression only meant to offend" is determined to be such by WHO? the offended? a court? who decides if an expression is offensive and meant to be offensive with no other purpose?
say anything in a room of 100 diverse people and you will get 100 different descriptions of what you've said. the entire point of freedom of speech is to protect the speaker from deliberate misinterpretation.
Who defines what "proper" means?
No speech should be banned by the government.
Made the mistake of looking at comments before video: What am I getting myself into?
The problem with this stance is that everyone shares the exact same sentiments. The belief that we shouldn't be intentionally offensive and nasty is not one that is held exclusively by the anti-free speech panel. The difference is, while pro-free speech people may disapprove of intentionally inflammatory and disrespectful behaviour, we recognize that it is an unwanted and frankly, incurable symptom of free speech. If you were to cure it, then you have already taken away your fundamental rights because who controls what can and cannot be said and the punishment you receive? Someone with higher power than you, and NO one should have power over speech no matter whether they control the whole dictionary or just one word. Only an idiot would willingly chip away at their most fundamental right! So Ruvi, Kate and Tim are preaching to the choir. We all believe in common courtesy and decency, but guess what, the right to free speech for the entire population is more important than surrendering the right, just to shut up a few bad apples.
What dressing does this gentleman want with his word salad?
This guy knows his shit
ermistan Correction: This guy knows shit.
+Blue Chain nothing he said wasn't fact tbf.
+David Khön Goldstein I have and after listening to his reasons on why he is saying that ... I have to agree with him.
ermistan Ok, I was being facetious in the phrasing of my reply to you. However, I do maintain that although a few of the facts he pointed to may have been accurate, he often drew the wrong conclusion from them. And also, I always find it inappropriate when people bring up international human right laws as a means of buttressing the validity of philosophical arguments. Anyone with minimal insight into how these laws are drafted would quickly find suppressed any temptation to cite to them in debate.
tsuich00i To illustrate the problem with that statement: The sole purpose of your last comment was to offend. J'accuse! Prove me wrong.
Of all the opposition speakers, Ziegler was by far the most eloquent and rational. Yet in his argument he failed to address a key unresolved conflict, which I overheard Ms. Chakrabarti attempt to address, and I'm sure that Mr. O'Neill wanted addressed as well: "Who decides [what is permitted and what is not]?"
When the absoluteness of free speech is muddled with exceptions, not only does the idea of free speech become a misnomer, but the determination of permissible and forbidden speech is placed into the hands of (presumably) a small elite few. And the human capacity to be biased means that it only takes one like-minded council of arbiters to tip the balance towards a favour to their benefit once they become aware of the power they wield.
I am not against restriction of free speech in exceptional circumstances, but I strongly caution that there are very few instances that justify such restrictions. And, if such a council of arbiters was indeed elected or appointed to make such a decision, that they must all step down from their posts after rendering a decision restricting free speech. Not because such an act is wrong, but to prevent this same council from overstepping their authority in the future.
+anonymousskunk If it's decided by an elite few they will eventually abuse their power.
If it's done democratically the people trying to censor will be the whiniest most hypersensitive among us.
This guy just banned Family Guy...
I cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, agree with this speaker. No amount, type or quality of speech would lead me to cause harm to another person. In order for speech to cause one person to harm another is for the WILLINGNESS to harm to already exist.
Any imposition made on what can or cannot be said by definition causes speech to lose its freedom. Perhaps the motion should address whether free speech should always be permissible.
I missed the part where those who are arguing for the right to offend, advocated murder and violence... They must have those, since otherwise they in fact do put limits. Offensive speech is interpreted as such by the person hearing the speech, grow a thicker skin dude, is a near - certainty that he has "offended" others.
He is speaking far above anyone in this comment section, past what I can see as well but he is going at this from a Hobbesian stand point, which is very confusing for myself, so I won't try to translate. But he is taking a very logical Philosophical point of view on this perspective.
I hope that everyone watching this is intelligent enough to see through this sinister piffle. Those who wish to censor others do not realise that they make a rod for their own backs.
This guy is spitting image of the bloke depicted on the board of the game "Operation" I recall from my youth; which involved removing various organs without touching the sides.
Interesting to note: for all the opposition's talk of making "safe spaces" for minorities and "the underprivileged", the speakers for the opposition are uniformly white, rich (presumably; they're at Cambridge after all) and upper class, i.e: the essence of privilege. This is true of the wider SJW movement as well.
His arguments are logical and nuanced. Too difficult for many who commented below, because they can think only in slogans.
Regulating speech sounds like a great idea as long as the people in power agree with you.
So if I'm gaming and I call my opponent "crap", I should be arrested? Bloody heck
I know I'm oversimplifying this whole, important debate, but we all can remember the phrase "Stick and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". And it's true. If a person cannot withstand the attack of someone else's denigrating speech, it is the person's fault for not having the necessary psychological armor to survive the onslaught. A law prohibiting hate speech cannot fix certain peoples' psychological vulnerabilities, it will only make people weaker.
So who won the debate? Does the audience decide? They seem smart enough to figure it out.
Am I watching a one act Kafka monologue or a debate at Oxford Union?
The opposition videos seemed to always be minutes longer than the proposition.
9:38 The face that girl pulled says it all.
sadly this guy is the most reasonable of the opposition. but the issue with his argument is he attempts to conflate the 'freedom of speech' with 'hate speech' and 'harassment', both of which are counted as exceptions in the freedom of speech. the two are not the same, and pretending that folks support the latter because they support the former is a tad bit insane.
Noticed how the opposition never let anyone talk, and the proposition let everyone who stood up to talk? Also...what's going on with his bowtie and shirt?
Why is Kate Brooks' speech listed as a [Private video]?
+Joachim Walle
Great question... It was not that offensive was it?
It's listed as private because free speech includes censorship.
It's listed as private because she requested it due to the fact that she allegedly received a lot of backlash and even threats following its going viral.
Because she sounded like a raving lunatic and she was humiliated by a young Asian girl and does not want it viewed.
"proper protection of rights".
I'm done already.
I am very offended at this man refusing to check his privilege so that Shami could speak.
+Stuart Lillard Call the authorities. We need to have him punished for offending us.
+Stuart Lillard This guy is in love with his own voice. Would have liked to have a number of clarifications, what those interjections were about, but he just wanted to twaddle on with his rather poor speech.
It's fun how a person as obviously intelligent as him can completely confuse offensive and harmful speech. The restrictions on free speech in what he calls "liberal democracies" are NOT against offensive speech - they are against harmful speech, such as shouting "Fire!" in a theatre, or harrassing people or (in Germany) glorifying the Nazis.
I ask the proper authorities to look at this like bar which clearly shows a majority are offended by this man's speech. He needs to be punished.
He's essentially describing having the ability to read minds, to somehow "know" the speaker's ONLY intent (in the case of his argument, the utterer's ONLY intent is to PURELY cause harm). Sorry, Ruvi, no one can read other people's minds.
"In all liberal democracies the state does, and should, prohibit free speech."
It's almost like he's suggesting that an imposition on free expression is a good democratic thing, like autocracy would allow for free speech. This is so backward.
That's very disappointing, that supposed to be one of the best ranked universities in the world. What a shame!!
The English love their government so much they are willing to hand over their tongues when told to. In this gentlman's case I approve of such a tryrany.
I know the English find my land's constitution peculiar, but do not be afraid. Good parents also learn from their children.
This is some weird form of 'anti-debate'.
He's just quoting articles and paragraphs from the convention of human rights as though that's it, case closed.
There is a clearly foreseeable purpose to speech that has is intended to do no more than offend: the *response* to that speech.
Charlie' Hebdo's cover, making the overt assumption that it was intended solely for offense, gave the community it spoke about an opportunity to address what it was satirising. _That_ is what should have happened: a verbal, debate-oriented conversation. If CH was wrong, they should have clearly been told why, instead of having their lives and opportunities to learn ended. That conversation is incredibly important, had it not been shadowed by their deaths.
The only thing that warrants regulation is people's actions: there should not be any violence. The Opposition makes the point that we don't live in a world where offense doesn't receive violence in reply. Why then, do they promote the constraint of words and ideas instead of better policies in the constraint of violence?
The best speaker on the opposition side in this debate, in fact the only one that makes a point and not just randomly attacks the speakers of the proposition side. As a proponent of free speech, this this actually makes me think.
As much as I am annoyed by the radical feminists lately, in no way do I want them shut down or not allowed to believe what they want under law. Once you tell someone that they aren't allowed to say something because others might find it offensive, you are telling them that they aren't allowed to believe certain things or express those beliefs. We need to have these discussions.
He was so rude in how he waved his hand at others who wanted to interject, rather than saying "No, thank you" like all the others did. That action alone removed any weight his argument may have had.
I do not agree with most of what he said, but at least he was to only one who didn't resort to personal attacks on the opposition debaters.
I don't think that he has ever thought about the question that Shami asked, " who decides what is offensive?"
He just knows that he is in the right and his views are the ones that should be the base line. What happens when the government has the right to limit "offensive" views and the decide that his are dangerously offensive?
WHO WON?! WHO'S NEXT?! YOU DECIDE!!!
+Chris G Social Justice Warriors Vs Enlightenment! Begin!
Soon I will be offended by this debate, but it'll have to wait another week.. my patreon account is playing up.
how was the vote?
This is just a word salad. It's like someone made a nonsense cut-and-paste collage of all the other speeches.
Huh, the proposition are so keen on speech they want to speak when it's not their turn too.
"All liberal democracies except the United States regulate free speech." I understand that the first amendment of our constitution gives us the right to freedom of expression with regard to the content of what we say.This was a shocking statement for me as an American. I'm a little confused about the extent that other Western countries regulate free speech. Can anyone elaborate?
why is there a video missing ? it says private
Looks like a right creep.
Thanks, Doc.
Who decides what's offensive? Why if you're offended should it effect me?
Why is he allowed to overrun for so long?
That's it? this is not a debate, this is a series of really (and maybe innecesarily) elaborate expositions of their stance, but there is no actual interchange of ideas, there is no argument / counterargument relation between proposers and opposers.
This is no debate.
Guess yall here care more about the gender of the people who are opposing rather than why they are opposing
This is very close to how you argue technicalities. He very well may have gotten more support if he didn't refuse so many questions when he got to the bit about how speech that would resort to harm should be banned. Doubtless so many wondered how a government would be able to qualify speech that doesn't explicitly direct harm can be perceived as such.
Ziegler certainly has a point that there's a difference between speech that has a purpose and may incidentally offend, and speech that is used for no purpose but to offend.
However, why is it that not only the latter is being silenced and punished, but the former as well?
An important difference between the two is the amount of consideration and sensitivity the individual speaking has. Also, when an individual does the latter, their peers will almost always retaliate against their behavior in present-day developed society with backlash, alienation, or even physical harm, thus regulation is unnecessary here.
Not only is it unnecessary to regulate speech, but it is also a risk, due to the choice of an individual in charge of regulation choosing to interpret purposeful speech with incidentally offends as speech with no purpose but to offend, due to their own personal motives. Free speech is an important way in which those without power can resist those in power (such as the would-be regulator) when power is abused.
I would agree 100% with this guy if it weren't from one little obnoxious question: who defines what is and what comprehends "social value"? 50 years ago, defending gay or afro-rights would not have been deemed as an action with "social value". "Social value", as a concept, speaks only of the current state of society and, as such, when used in the context in which this man tries to use it, it nothing but a vehicle for stagnation and cultural stasis.
This guy waves more than the Queen herself....
This guy would make a decent points if he didn't assume that:
- A law was written and therefore is morally superior/should encompass all nations
- That he (or anyone else taking offense) can dictate what the intent of the "offender" is
- That offensive statements are typically used solely to offend someone
- That offending someone, even solely for the purposes of offending someone, is a negative thing.
Ultimately all of the arguments I've seen from his "side" amount to "These people are saying things I consider to be hateful and offensive, and other people might do something bad, or people might get their feelings hurt, so they should be shut up."
But that's an insane argument because the things they are saying are equally hateful and offensive to the people they deem hateful and offensive. Assuming that they are on the right side of history and therefore their hate and offense is justified is incredibly conceited and absurd.
For perspective: I vehemently disagree with most of their opponents politically and ideologically, but silencing and policing language is never the solution. You just make yourself into an intolerant bigot pretending to be morally superior.
"if free speech is socially harmful and causes harm... I'm against that and would like to oppose"
that harm can be interpreted then and give that same someone who is receiving communication the jusristiction to punish the person who thought of those words with the back up of that governing state.
thus policing someone's mind.
This guys arguments sound good on the surface. But he doesn't offer examples, he doesn't back up his statements at all with science, or even past instances.
this was definitely the weakest of the opposition arguments. If he had stuck to fighting against speech that insights violence, I would still disagree, but at least he would have had a leg to stand on. An appeal to authority from someone who spends his days "punching up" is ridiculous. Guy couldn't even come up with a hypothetical example to support his own view let alone a real world one.
This guy falls at the first hurdle.Speech is either free or it isn't. Either you can say what you want without legally sanctioned force used against you or you can't. You can't be halfway pregnant and you can't be partially dead.
Two and a half minutes in, he already makes an appeal to authority. I can already tell this game of Fallacy Bingo is going to go swimmingly.
Also, where the hell is that accent from? I can't place it.
While those in support have offered examples of how offensive speech has often been in the right (for example the gay magazine that was no platformed back in the 1890s) why is it that those opposed to offensive speech have provided no examples of how censorishiphas resulted in anything positive? From where I sit the antis are just engaging in a lot of blather.