Just because in your opinion a person is wrong that doesn’t actually mean they are wrong! Everyone bases their speech on what they believe; that makes them right on their world but wrong in yours!
@Trisha Eaten-Cox Uhm, how confidently-incorrect are you? "EVERYTHING is just Opinions vs Opinions, no Facts exisrt and no Hattespeech exists" literally is 'objectively wrong' and quite hilariously so?
@Trisha Eaten-Cox Theres literally People who call for Gays, Jews and Autistic-Children to be (I quote) "Put-down like ill-Dogs". This is called a Hatepreacher. And you just shouted into the world by yelling 'I DONT KNOW WHAT A HATREPACHER IS BUT MY SMALL BRAIN FINDS THE WORD FUNNY!'?
@@loturzelrestaurant Screw them, but still they have freedom of speech. How many people in their right minds listen to bad ideas like that? Furthermore why is it that anything negative said about white people is not hate speech?
Yes! Saying insults, racist remarks, lies, painful truth, epithets, cursing, swearing, etc are all free speech. They might bring shunning, threats, insulting responses, or even a pop in the nose. Inciting rioting, like causing panic evacuation by calling "fire," is unlawful. Be responsible. Try not to cause harm, but express yourself!
There are limits on the first amendment's freedom of speech. Those limits are things like "yelling fire in a theater", directly inciting violence, and defamation of a private citizen resulting in limiting their ability to provide for themselves or some other tangible harm.
@@albertoalmeida3424 Ok, I’m finished reading. That book has no freedom of speech. I don’t agree with total freedom of speech. I’m not saying no one should speak their opinion. I think it should be illegal to say anything deliberately racist, Homophobic, or antisemitic. Their is no place in society for those people.
Yes. The issue with censoring hate speech is that people will begin to define things they don’t like as hate speech. The only sensible solution is to not legislate speech.
hate speech has become speech stuff thats not fully definded aspolitically correct if you say youll love elon, you get harassed by some socialist lefties
Some of the more authoritarian bent political activists will not tolerate any "hate speech" but they will support and even promote some of the most vindictive types of hate speech if it promotes their political views. This is why the right to free speech and free expression of ideas is so critically important.
In the UK, a woman was arrested for praying silently outside an abortion clinic. The police officer asked her if she was praying, she said yes, and he arrested her for what amounted to "Wrongthink." Don't think it's coming to where you live? There are always those working to ensure it is. ='[.]'=
Hate speech is precisely what free speech protects. It protects your right to say something someone else doesn’t like. If it doesn’t anger someone it doesn’t need to be protected.
yeah but free speech also protects the right for others to critique and be mad at said person for saying those words, free speech is just that the government can't legall take action, doesnt mean others can't take action.
Hate speech isn't just saying an unpopular opinion. Hate speech most of the time takes it from just words into threats of violence. That is when it stops being free speech.
Ironic how they all laud the first amendment as essential, yet quickly changed gears when asked about “hate speech” and censorship. It’s sadly a conditioned response in today’s society.
Attacking someone personally is hate speech. Labeling an entire culture bad or hateful is hate speech. Criticizing a politician's race is hate speech. Do you really think we should protect this? Because I dont. Attacking someone personally is wrong, thats a fact. Labeling an entire culture bad or hateful is Wrong, because that ends in discrimination (and even deaths), take for example the holocaust and how the Nazis labeled all Jews as bad people, and even as today there are many anti-Jewish movements and people not only in Germany, but also in the United States. Criticizing a politician's race is wrong, and even stupid, criticise them because of what they do, not because of what they are! Because thats hate speech.
@@sognarud7347 Sorry that explanation is NOT 8 spch. Using that would mean ANY disagreement or criticism about ANYONE becomes 8 spch and if this were the case, then I see tons of it in the poIitical arena from the Ieft on a daily basis. Disagreemnt & criticis are NOT 8 'trid.
@@user-qm9ub6vz5e I think youre just projecting your own racism. I think you wanna be able to bash wytes as much as possible but wanna hide behind "hAtE sPeEcH" when someone throws it back at ya. But youre a cowardly leftist so its to be expected. 😁
Freedom of speech is what makes west especially America unique than most countries in the world. It needs to be cherished and savoured. In a place where i'm from, Indonesia, there's a law that can literally send you to jail for every word you said verbally or in social media. Be it criticizing the government, insulting someone, or simply complaining why the service at your local restaurant is so slow.
You technically don’t have free speech in the US, if you say something like “I hate X people” in the middle of the street, you can be sent to jail for racism lol
Our youth are taught they "have the Right not to be offended", and that they get to decide what YOU can say, what opinions YOU have and allowed to vote, solely on THEIR judgement. That by the way is the EXACT OPPOSITE of Freedom of Speech, which is ALL opinions can be voiced and it's up to the listener not the speaker to filter out for themselves what they deem worthy or unworthy of consideration.
So, the common opinion of college students is: "Freedom of speech is great as long as it's strictly censored." Well, the University is the bastion of self-contradictory idiocy, so I suppose this is not at all surprising.
In the past when someone said something that was deemed offensive or oppressive or rude or anti-social etc... the response was... "They can say what they want; it's a free country..." whether you liked it or not, people could say whatever they wanted... That is freedom... and that is free speak... the whiney offended weak people need to toughen up and grow up... you were given the gift of freedom... don't through it away because you are trying to be virtuous or you "feel" offended... free speech is historically rare and a very precious right...
A good illustration of how all you have to do is change the wording on how you describe the exact same thing and now you can get people to do a 180 degree reversal. Those who control the language, control the world.
Speaking as a graduate of UCLA the person with the Sander sweatshirt is an embarrassment. That person's inability to articulate ideas and an acceptance to censor hate speech shows a total lack of understanding and thought about what freedom of speech is about.
@@adinp9384 There is probably some truth to that, but Libs Of TikTok would prove that the Left really is just as insane and stupid as these videos portray. Remember, conservatives don't have to go out of our way to make leftists look bad. All we have to do......is let them speak. And there's never a shortage.
There is no such thing as "Hate" speech. All speech is free speech. You, personally, may not like, disagree with it, and even see it as harmful, but it's only speech. Problems occur when physical actions are taken, on any side of the issue.
Regardless of my opinion on it, the Supreme Court ruled in Schenck v. U.S. that not everything is covered by free speech. Something called the Clear and Present Danger clause was added saying you can't say things that cause a clear and present danger. This includes threats of violence, calling fir violence against a certain group, or advocating for the removal of constitutional rights of a group. A lot of "hate speech" falls under this. Not sure how much I agree, but the Supreme Court itself disagrees that hate speech is free speech
@@welderman1221 so if go to a concert and yell gun and people die becuse they were trampled trying to leave there should be no repercussions? Free speech absolutism doesn’t exist and nobody is actually a free speech absolutist. We have laws about speech already.
Is free will wrong? I don't think Free speech has a problem in fact to tell you the truth it's what makes our democracy great. It proves to the worlds that have no democracy running on a monarchy or dictatorship followed by religious persecution that democracy is the symbol of freedom.
Hate speech is under freedom of speech. If hate speech was not part of free speech then we wouldn’t need the 1st amendment. Reason we need the 1st amendment is that anyone can claim “hate speech” when they are being criticized.
I think the important thing to remember is that "hate speech" isnt just "someones opinions" hate speech is things said that vilifies and discriminates based on someones inherent, (with some exceptions) aspects, (i.e race, sexuality, gender, yes that includes transgender people, nationality, and some others) so i think the phrasing is off. I think some of them are right, free speech does not make you free from consequences, it only means that the government can not interfere with speech (JUST SPEECH) legally. unless you are a whistleblower, you will not get legally in trouble for your opinions, no matter how stupid.
"Is "Hate Speech" Free Speech?" YES!!! I have the right to say "I Hate You" or anything about you I don't like. Your "Feelings" don't matter. As long as I stay in the confines of the "Law" [Which they are trying to change in violation of the Constitution.]
@@dreamchaser3966 No, these are EXTREMELY different. The things we can get away with in America they will go to jail for in UK. In America you'll go to jail for saying, "Let's murder this guy," whereas in the UK you'll go to jail for saying, "Trans women are men."
I think doxxing is certainly not allowed, so you cannot "just" say everything. You cannot however legislate feelings, so with freedom of speech comes the right to offend people, so to say.
To have freedom of speech you need accept that someone says something you disagree with, if you then create a definition of "hate speech" then how is the contrarian thought being allowed to exist?
If you say something that degrades a specific subgroup of the population, that is hate speech. Hate speech should not be allowed even in a country with freedom of speech. This guy seems to almost think that kids calling another kid names on the playground should be ok and should be protected by free speech.
Because the constitution protects from federal intervention, not private. Even in an extreme case where I duct tape your mouth shut you could press charges for assault or something, but not for a 1A violation because citizens are not required to uphold 1A for each other. It only restricts government agencies.
well it's privately owned, so whoever currently owns the website should have the right to set their own terms and conditions for use. don't get me wrong, i'm for complete, unregulated FREE speech, but free speech only gives you protection from the government. i don't think the question you should be asking is "should social media companies be able to censor free speech?" but rather "why are social media companies against free speech?"
Hate speech, as all speech, should be protected by free speech since there's no consensus as to what hate speech is and who gets to define what it is. (The same for all "offensive" speech. If I don't like it I try and walk away or politely ask for them to stop using offensive language if I can't leave.)
The irony of some of these opinions is that America is the only democracy with freedom of speech in their constitution. For example, Canada only codifies Freedom of Expression, but not Freedom of Speech.
Some of these young people were idiots. On one hand they're for freedom of speech, but with guardrails. Then they get the epiphany that there's no way to build the guardrails justly. What moroons.
Hate speech is Falls under free-speech. It's protected by free-speech therefore, how is anybody countable of what they say when it comes to hate speech do you have the right to say that you hate somebody?
NO speech should be banned. Now that isn't to say that people shouldn't be held civilly liable for what they say IF and only if it's UNTRUE, and harms someone's reputation, credibility, or employability. If it IS true, all bets are off, there shouldn't be ANYTHING that's allowed to stop people from truth..... FACTUAL truth, opinion is a whole DIFFERENT ball of wax. Should OPINIONS be allowed to be expressed? ABSOLUTELY! But if those opinions could cause someone harm, maybe they should be SELF-censored.....but NEVER censored externally. Just be prepared to suffer the consequences if your expressed opinion causes someone ACTUAL harm. Butt-hurt feelings or indignation DON'T count as harm BTW. Their reputation, credibility, or employability being affected, THAT'S what counts as harm. Bullying is yet ANOTHER category. Bullying is speech INTENDED to harm. The whole POINT of bullying someone is to harm them. Ether by what is said or done directly TO them, or by making them anathema to others for some reason. It CAN be slander, but it can also be unnecessarily cruel, meanspirited TRUTH too. It's something that lies (when true or just opinion) in a "free speech" gray area. It should NOT be criminally or civilly punishable, but rather should carry the most dire socal consequences for the bully, backfiring on them so to speak. Placing THEM under extreme social pressure to STOP their egregious behavior.
@@riikerman I guess that depends on what you mean by "treason speech". Plotting treason? That's ALREADY illegal.....always HAS been. The discussion we're having right now? Do you REALLY want to go THERE? Discussing how to (legally) get a harmful (to the country) regime out of power? How is THAT treason? How to get an already treasonous regime out of power? Is it REALLY treason to try to STOP treason? Isn't stopping treason part of the oath officeholders and military take to defend this country against all enemies both foreign and domestic? So would discussing how to best DO that actually BE treason when the treasonous entities in question are currently the administration of record? It SOUNDS all patriotic and grand to simply say "ban treason speech" but that's a whole can of worms that will make the EXECUTION of such a catchphrase a logistics NIGHTMARE, and open a Pandora's box of problems better left alone.
There is a difference between hate speech and speech that you hate, if you are triggered by a word that's a YOU problem, your fee fees aren't my problem
Anything other than advocating violence is not prohibited speech. You can say x are inferior to y, be it cultural, religious, racial, etc. ANY OTHER OPINION is both contrary to the constitution and advocating a cudgel to be wielded by the government to control any opposition.
He didn't say "with no consequences", he said they can choose to comply or not, and he's right. It's still wrong for the government to ask, but Twitter had every ability and right to say No, and if the government retaliated they could just publish both the request and the retaliation, which is what they should have done. But they didn't. They were all too happy to jump in bed with a liberal government.
🦋 I can hate what you say but still fight for your right to say it. 🇺🇸
Agree completely. I defend someone’s right to be just as wrong as they wish to be.
Just because in your opinion a person is wrong that doesn’t actually mean they are wrong! Everyone bases their speech on what they believe; that makes them right on their world but wrong in yours!
Hate speech is protected by the free-speech by the first amendment they just don't teach that in school today
Come back to this channel to restore hope in western society
The whole point of the first amendment is to protect unpopular speech since popular speech needs bo protection.
Yeah but PragerU of all people trying to muddy-the-Defintion of Hatespeech reaaaaaly is transparent.
@Trisha Eaten-Cox Uhm, how confidently-incorrect are you?
"EVERYTHING is just Opinions vs Opinions, no Facts exisrt and no Hattespeech exists"
literally is 'objectively wrong' and quite hilariously so?
@Trisha Eaten-Cox Theres literally People who call for Gays, Jews and Autistic-Children to be (I quote) "Put-down like ill-Dogs". This is called a Hatepreacher.
And you just shouted into the world by yelling 'I DONT KNOW WHAT A HATREPACHER IS BUT MY SMALL BRAIN FINDS THE WORD FUNNY!'?
@@loturzelrestaurant Screw them, but still they have freedom of speech. How many people in their right minds listen to bad ideas like that? Furthermore why is it that anything negative said about white people is not hate speech?
@@loturzelrestaurant no such thing as hate speech.
If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington
Yes! Saying insults, racist remarks, lies, painful truth, epithets, cursing, swearing, etc are all free speech. They might bring shunning, threats, insulting responses, or even a pop in the nose. Inciting rioting, like causing panic evacuation by calling "fire," is unlawful. Be responsible. Try not to cause harm, but express yourself!
EXPRESS YOURSELF!!!!
The fire thing comes from the losing opinion of a supreme court case. You can in fact shout fire in a crowded theater. Have a nice day.
"Hate Speech" = truth nowadays.
Painful TRUTH is hate speech?
False, you’re allowed to say fire inside a building
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”. We need to re-educate this to society.
Absolutely agree
Words can hurt but that's not the problem of the person that said those words but the person who is hurt by them.
@@SilverHawk214 that's the persona of children still learning what to do about it.. grow up child and deal with it. Conflict is a matter of interest.
There are limits on the first amendment's freedom of speech. Those limits are things like "yelling fire in a theater", directly inciting violence, and defamation of a private citizen resulting in limiting their ability to provide for themselves or some other tangible harm.
@@thadrepairsitall1278 absolutely agree it comes down to common decency common sense good people would not do SUCH things
These poor souls don't even know what "freedom of speech" is... AND THEY ARE COLLEGE STUDENTS!!! That is cringe.
Total free speech sucks though.
@@MasonRai READ 1984 George Orwell.
@@albertoalmeida3424 Ok, I’m finished reading. That book has no freedom of speech. I don’t agree with total freedom of speech. I’m not saying no one should speak their opinion. I think it should be illegal to say anything deliberately racist, Homophobic, or antisemitic. Their is no place in society for those people.
@@MasonRai
LOL .... here we go
@@juliansandoval8022 You think people should be allowed to say that stuff, why?
Yes. The issue with censoring hate speech is that people will begin to define things they don’t like as hate speech. The only sensible solution is to not legislate speech.
I mean, PragetU...
@@loturzelrestaurant
Use your big boy words.
hate speech has become speech stuff thats not fully definded aspolitically correct
if you say youll love elon, you get harassed by some socialist lefties
like how movies made in the old days now have to censor the n-word? how horrible.
@@albertmooney2628
Imagine being so delicate that words hurt your feelz.
Some of the more authoritarian bent political activists will not tolerate any "hate speech" but they will support and even promote some of the most vindictive types of hate speech if it promotes their political views. This is why the right to free speech and free expression of ideas is so critically important.
Total free speech sucks though. Yes racist remarks and threats fall under free speech. And that is why I personally think total free speech sucks.
I find the left harbors more hate than anyone on the right!
@@MasonRai Go live in China if it bothers you that much. You can only speak the way the CCP allows.
@@InvisibleCitizen Nah, how come there is more racists, Homophobes, transphobes, and antisemitic people on the right.
@@PhilippinesLife101 I’m saying their should still be a lot of free speech, not total freedom of speech. More like Europe.
In the UK, a woman was arrested for praying silently outside an abortion clinic. The police officer asked her if she was praying, she said yes, and he arrested her for what amounted to "Wrongthink." Don't think it's coming to where you live? There are always those working to ensure it is. ='[.]'=
Wow!
You know I don't think your telling the whole story here... Give me several sources to prove me wrong.
Hate speech is precisely what free speech protects. It protects your right to say something someone else doesn’t like. If it doesn’t anger someone it doesn’t need to be protected.
Exactly!
yeah but free speech also protects the right for others to critique and be mad at said person for saying those words, free speech is just that the government can't legall take action, doesnt mean others can't take action.
Hate speech isn't just saying an unpopular opinion. Hate speech most of the time takes it from just words into threats of violence. That is when it stops being free speech.
Ironic how they all laud the first amendment as essential, yet quickly changed gears when asked about “hate speech” and censorship. It’s sadly a conditioned response in today’s society.
Yeah... You want to know what's worse? Trump, DeSantis and Abbot have all tried to get speech banned as well. And these people are leaders in the GoP.
The cognitive dissonance is real among these kids. Unfortunately, it's the age they are being raised in.
Ask any of them why would we have the Right to speech, if we only have a Right to favorable speech. Why would favorable speech need to be guaranteed?
Ask Abbot, DeSantis and Trump while you're at it. They've all been on an anti-free speech train for years now.
Because it's Subjective. Who would decide, and who gives that person the right to. It would be never ending.
Same as any other law, right?
@Wyatt Borden Yeah, that's also why we have discussions and can change laws.
Racism should be legal
Exxxactly. The law can't be perceptive. It has to be cut and dry, black and white or chaos occurs
On top of the other points, I want people free to say things I hate so that I know what to make of them.
That was a surprisingly solid meeting of the minds across the board.
The problem is DEFINING what that is.
So far we know the Ieft can say anything they want about ppl and groups they can't stand !
"Hate Speech" = facts. Try telling the truth about crime or WW2 and find out.
Is that because it's a made up thing
Attacking someone personally is hate speech. Labeling an entire culture bad or hateful is hate speech. Criticizing a politician's race is hate speech.
Do you really think we should protect this? Because I dont. Attacking someone personally is wrong, thats a fact. Labeling an entire culture bad or hateful is Wrong, because that ends in discrimination (and even deaths), take for example the holocaust and how the Nazis labeled all Jews as bad people, and even as today there are many anti-Jewish movements and people not only in Germany, but also in the United States. Criticizing a politician's race is wrong, and even stupid, criticise them because of what they do, not because of what they are! Because thats hate speech.
@@sognarud7347 Sorry that explanation is NOT 8 spch. Using that would mean ANY disagreement or criticism about ANYONE becomes 8 spch and if this were the case, then I see tons of it in the poIitical arena from the Ieft on a daily basis. Disagreemnt & criticis are NOT 8 'trid.
Why would you need to protect polite speech? Saying things that anger people or hurt them emotionally is exactly what free speech protections are for.
"If free speech means anything it means my right to say what you don't want to hear." - George Orwell
"When I joined the militia I had promised myself to kill one Fascist - after all, if each of us killed one they would soon be extinct" - George Orwell
There were actually some good responses here and these people are open to learning. Hope yet!
The Government nor the Media are hearing and sharing what all people feel. Now they both only tell you how you should feel and what you should think.
There is no hate speech. It is only speech.
Same with "hate crimes". There are only crimes.
Tell me you say the n word without telling me you say the n word.
@@user-qm9ub6vz5e Tell me you dont like Freedom of Speech without saying you dont like Freedom of Speech
@@mobilusinmobili8321 say the N word then and lets see what happens
@@user-qm9ub6vz5e
I think youre just projecting your own racism. I think you wanna be able to bash wytes as much as possible but wanna hide behind "hAtE sPeEcH" when someone throws it back at ya.
But youre a cowardly leftist so its to be expected. 😁
Freedom of speech is what makes west especially America unique than most countries in the world. It needs to be cherished and savoured. In a place where i'm from, Indonesia, there's a law that can literally send you to jail for every word you said verbally or in social media. Be it criticizing the government, insulting someone, or simply complaining why the service at your local restaurant is so slow.
You technically don’t have free speech in the US, if you say something like “I hate X people” in the middle of the street, you can be sent to jail for racism lol
Someone teach Michael Knowles that nothing should be censored except incitement to violence.
Our youth are taught they "have the Right not to be offended", and that they get to decide what YOU can say, what opinions YOU have and allowed to vote, solely on THEIR judgement. That by the way is the EXACT OPPOSITE of Freedom of Speech, which is ALL opinions can be voiced and it's up to the listener not the speaker to filter out for themselves what they deem worthy or unworthy of consideration.
So, the common opinion of college students is:
"Freedom of speech is great as long as it's strictly censored."
Well, the University is the bastion of self-contradictory idiocy, so I suppose this is not at all surprising.
Either its free or it isnt. Of course this doesnt mean one should....
Free Speech vs. Approved Speech
There is no hate speech !!!!
That one guy had the most important question, "Who decides?"
Answer is simple. Same as every other law.
Me. I volunteer. Just kidding. You're right, that is the razor's edge of it all.
It is free speech.
2:50 that's actually a good point
It is! Twitter had every ability and right to say No, but chose to be accomplices because it was a liberal government that was asking.
If free speech is based off of whether or not others are offended then say goodbye to free speech.
In the past when someone said something that was deemed offensive or oppressive or rude or anti-social etc... the response was... "They can say what they want; it's a free country..." whether you liked it or not, people could say whatever they wanted... That is freedom... and that is free speak... the whiney offended weak people need to toughen up and grow up... you were given the gift of freedom... don't through it away because you are trying to be virtuous or you "feel" offended... free speech is historically rare and a very precious right...
The interviewer ends up lecturing the students rather than simply asking probing questions as an interviewer should.
Oh I see, freedom of speech is extremely important, unless it's something I disagree with.
Who's to say what's offensive? Burning the American flag offends me.
A good illustration of how all you have to do is change the wording on how you describe the exact same thing and now you can get people to do a 180 degree reversal.
Those who control the language, control the world.
Speaking as a graduate of UCLA the person with the Sander sweatshirt is an embarrassment. That person's inability to articulate ideas and an acceptance to censor hate speech shows a total lack of understanding and thought about what freedom of speech is about.
Am seeing this video right? There seems to be more people in UCLA that are waking up.
That or the majority of UCLA students just refuse to talk to Prager U, so we end up only hearing from the people who are open-minded.
@@adinp9384 There is probably some truth to that, but Libs Of TikTok would prove that the Left really is just as insane and stupid as these videos portray. Remember, conservatives don't have to go out of our way to make leftists look bad. All we have to do......is let them speak. And there's never a shortage.
Conservatives believe there should be censorship too. Everyone does, don’t be stupid
0:57 is spot on
Let people say whatever they want, so you know which ones are the a-holes to avoid and ignore.
Who decides what is hate speech?
There is no such thing as "Hate" speech. All speech is free speech. You, personally, may not like, disagree with it, and even see it as harmful, but it's only speech. Problems occur when physical actions are taken, on any side of the issue.
These people didn’t seem nearly as helpless as the people you usually meet on these campuses
What if Jim Crowe got to decide what was considered hate speech? 🤔
Freedom of speech dosent mean freedom of consequences peggedU
Probably some more nuance involved if you consider defamation, slander, etc.
Regardless of my opinion on it, the Supreme Court ruled in Schenck v. U.S. that not everything is covered by free speech. Something called the Clear and Present Danger clause was added saying you can't say things that cause a clear and present danger. This includes threats of violence, calling fir violence against a certain group, or advocating for the removal of constitutional rights of a group. A lot of "hate speech" falls under this. Not sure how much I agree, but the Supreme Court itself disagrees that hate speech is free speech
If you think that the 1st amendment is outdated then there's no "freedom to hate" on the Bill of Rights.
FREE speech means ALL SPEECH IS FREE!!!! Feelings be damned!!!
This is not true. Should we be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater?
@@user-qm9ub6vz5e REALLY!!??? Finish the 6th grade and comment AFTER high school graduation
@@welderman1221 so if go to a concert and yell gun and people die becuse they were trampled trying to leave there should be no repercussions? Free speech absolutism doesn’t exist and nobody is actually a free speech absolutist. We have laws about speech already.
Is free will wrong? I don't think Free speech has a problem in fact to tell you the truth it's what makes our democracy great. It proves to the worlds that have no democracy running on a monarchy or dictatorship followed by religious persecution that democracy is the symbol of freedom.
Benjamin Franklin said, in regards to free speech, "Fart proudly."
Hate Speech is Free Speech. But, don't be surprised if Society shuns you or you get attacked for saying dumb and unhinged shit.
Or just ignores you. It's simple as that but libertards don't want "hate speech" because it's popular
Legalize racism
There is no such thing as "hate speech". Who is to decide what that would be anyway? The government? What is "hate speech" to one is not to another.
Hate speech is under freedom of speech. If hate speech was not part of free speech then we wouldn’t need the 1st amendment. Reason we need the 1st amendment is that anyone can claim “hate speech” when they are being criticized.
The only thing more despicable than hate speech is the abridgment thereof.
Speech that we disagree is what requires the most protection.
Speech regulations should be decided like any other restriction is decided. Suffers from same problems like any other law.
"Their truth" - no such thing. There is only the truth.
I think the important thing to remember is that "hate speech" isnt just "someones opinions" hate speech is things said that vilifies and discriminates based on someones inherent, (with some exceptions) aspects, (i.e race, sexuality, gender, yes that includes transgender people, nationality, and some others) so i think the phrasing is off. I think some of them are right, free speech does not make you free from consequences, it only means that the government can not interfere with speech (JUST SPEECH) legally. unless you are a whistleblower, you will not get legally in trouble for your opinions, no matter how stupid.
Agreeable speech needs no protection. Also there is no such thing as hate speech.
"Is "Hate Speech" Free Speech?"
YES!!! I have the right to say "I Hate You" or anything about you I don't like. Your "Feelings" don't matter.
As long as I stay in the confines of the "Law" [Which they are trying to change in violation of the Constitution.]
All speech is free speech. Who decides what is "hate speech."
all I can think is; Holy cow! UCLA has dramatically lowered its admission standards
In UK, they put you in jail for "hate speech".
In Norway they put you in jail for saying "Men can't be lesbians."
In USA they put you in jail for "inciting violence". Similar thing. restriction on speech. Just different countries draw different lines.
@@dreamchaser3966 In UßA, they put you in jail fir inciting violence if you are not politically connected.
@@dreamchaser3966 No, these are EXTREMELY different. The things we can get away with in America they will go to jail for in UK. In America you'll go to jail for saying, "Let's murder this guy," whereas in the UK you'll go to jail for saying, "Trans women are men."
@@dentpeninde yeah I know. Every country have some restrictions on speech
I think doxxing is certainly not allowed, so you cannot "just" say everything. You cannot however legislate feelings, so with freedom of speech comes the right to offend people, so to say.
There's a reason there's no legal definition for "hate speech" in the U.S. Who gets to say what it is?
Unfortunately hate speech is protected under the first no matter how disgusting and vile but that opens the door to call out the offender
How is it freedom if you're "held accountable"?
If you think "hate" speech should be censored, then you are not pro free speech.
To have freedom of speech you need accept that someone says something you disagree with, if you then create a definition of "hate speech" then how is the contrarian thought being allowed to exist?
Who gets to decide what hate speech is? Me, can I be the one who decides?
If you say something that degrades a specific subgroup of the population, that is hate speech. Hate speech should not be allowed even in a country with freedom of speech. This guy seems to almost think that kids calling another kid names on the playground should be ok and should be protected by free speech.
Tell these students there is no such thing as hate speech.
I'd rather use my speech to counter speech that I'm offended by, and if that becomes the default for everyone, free speech lives on.
Speech that should be protected is speech you despise.
For people who hadn’t face racism aim at them clearly don’t get how damaging racism is
Wow we are fooked.
We should make American companies follow the spirit of the constitution. How can it be ok for a business to violate Americans constitutional rights???
Because the constitution protects from federal intervention, not private. Even in an extreme case where I duct tape your mouth shut you could press charges for assault or something, but not for a 1A violation because citizens are not required to uphold 1A for each other. It only restricts government agencies.
well it's privately owned, so whoever currently owns the website should have the right to set their own terms and conditions for use. don't get me wrong, i'm for complete, unregulated FREE speech, but free speech only gives you protection from the government. i don't think the question you should be asking is "should social media companies be able to censor free speech?" but rather "why are social media companies against free speech?"
- Any thing that dont like to l3ft is H Speech.
- When l3ft offends, tread or bully "isnt H Speech".
Hate speech, as all speech, should be protected by free speech since there's no consensus as to what hate speech is and who gets to define what it is. (The same for all "offensive" speech. If I don't like it I try and walk away or politely ask for them to stop using offensive language if I can't leave.)
The first amendment refers to religion, I have no idea how they put "freedom of speech" on it.
The irony of some of these opinions is that America is the only democracy with freedom of speech in their constitution. For example, Canada only codifies Freedom of Expression, but not Freedom of Speech.
Some of these young people were idiots. On one hand they're for freedom of speech, but with guardrails. Then they get the epiphany that there's no way to build the guardrails justly. What moroons.
Hate speech is Falls under free-speech. It's protected by free-speech therefore, how is anybody countable of what they say when it comes to hate speech do you have the right to say that you hate somebody?
Yes, there's no such thing as hate speech as it's entirely subjective.
NO speech should be banned. Now that isn't to say that people shouldn't be held civilly liable for what they say IF and only if it's UNTRUE, and harms someone's reputation, credibility, or employability. If it IS true, all bets are off, there shouldn't be ANYTHING that's allowed to stop people from truth..... FACTUAL truth, opinion is a whole DIFFERENT ball of wax.
Should OPINIONS be allowed to be expressed? ABSOLUTELY! But if those opinions could cause someone harm, maybe they should be SELF-censored.....but NEVER censored externally. Just be prepared to suffer the consequences if your expressed opinion causes someone ACTUAL harm. Butt-hurt feelings or indignation DON'T count as harm BTW. Their reputation, credibility, or employability being affected, THAT'S what counts as harm.
Bullying is yet ANOTHER category. Bullying is speech INTENDED to harm. The whole POINT of bullying someone is to harm them. Ether by what is said or done directly TO them, or by making them anathema to others for some reason. It CAN be slander, but it can also be unnecessarily cruel, meanspirited TRUTH too. It's something that lies (when true or just opinion) in a "free speech" gray area. It should NOT be criminally or civilly punishable, but rather should carry the most dire socal consequences for the bully, backfiring on them so to speak. Placing THEM under extreme social pressure to STOP their egregious behavior.
@@riikerman I guess that depends on what you mean by "treason speech".
Plotting treason? That's ALREADY illegal.....always HAS been.
The discussion we're having right now? Do you REALLY want to go THERE?
Discussing how to (legally) get a harmful (to the country) regime out of power? How is THAT treason?
How to get an already treasonous regime out of power? Is it REALLY treason to try to STOP treason? Isn't stopping treason part of the oath officeholders and military take to defend this country against all enemies both foreign and domestic? So would discussing how to best DO that actually BE treason when the treasonous entities in question are currently the administration of record?
It SOUNDS all patriotic and grand to simply say "ban treason speech" but that's a whole can of worms that will make the EXECUTION of such a catchphrase a logistics NIGHTMARE, and open a Pandora's box of problems better left alone.
There is a difference between hate speech and speech that you hate, if you are triggered by a word that's a YOU problem, your fee fees aren't my problem
Hate speech is legal as long as it does threaten body harm.
I believe that would be "assault".
Anything other than advocating violence is not prohibited speech. You can say x are inferior to y, be it cultural, religious, racial, etc. ANY OTHER OPINION is both contrary to the constitution and advocating a cudgel to be wielded by the government to control any opposition.
What happened to Will Whit? Did he get sick?
Prager needs to remember this when someone says something about Jews.
The poor petal that thinks that a private company can "do what the Gov asks, or not, with no consequences".
Bless.
He didn't say "with no consequences", he said they can choose to comply or not, and he's right. It's still wrong for the government to ask, but Twitter had every ability and right to say No, and if the government retaliated they could just publish both the request and the retaliation, which is what they should have done. But they didn't. They were all too happy to jump in bed with a liberal government.
So they don’t believe in the 1st amendment. There is no such thing as hate speech
Surprised to see them mostly come around in the end. My alma mater is usually pretty chock full of NPCs
Haters are going to hate...words must heal the divide...
Who determines what is hate speech ??
No such thing as hate speech.