GravityBoy72 you're not allowed to harm others thru incitement of words. A weapon is controlled. Screaming FIRE in a theater illegal....If people simply used common sense and understood the power of language.We would never need any censorship on even behavior in movie theaters.BUT every generation gets more violent. And they believe that they can hurt others and be untouchable. Buckle up, take responsibility for your weapon . Hitler's oratory genius made the world quake. We should not need laws to keep you from calling for violence... unfortunately the USA lost all respect for law .Thanks to Obama's thug nation.We do need them.
Kritesh Niraula First of all no one pulled your chain..And I said nothing about what you have gone on a liberal screeching session. I never said WHY it was... I am was not actually doing LAW. I was being philosophical. You @ss wipe.""you're not allowed to harm others thru incitement of words. A weapon is controlled. Screaming FIRE in a theater illegal" .What the fuck is your damage? Got damned ignorant people like you get on my nerves.. You bust into a convo and have NO Clue. Fucking willfully ignorant snowflake..
@@MSM4U2POM I believe in free speech. And it has existed, it is enshrined in the American Constitution. The same constitution now easily usurped over a cold. Dark times.
@@GravityBoy72 Oh, don't talk nonsense. America probably has the closest thing to it, but that doesn't mean you can say what you like, without consequence. The constitution does protect free speech, but still allows limitations on certain categories; you still have public order edicts that prohibit incitement, and methods of redress exist for taking people to court for libel, slander, defamation, false witness and perjury where these elements of free speech are transgressed, just like everywhere else. Ditch the rose-coloured specs, and see things as they are, my friend. America no more has freedom of speech than it does the Eiffel Tower.
Raggedy daCat I know it. I have a 5 month old son(am I allowed to say son now?)and I am showing my wife all that is going on in schools and colleges. She is terrified. Follow Jordan Peterson and see what is happening in Canada. It really is unbelievable.
I absolutely love this guy. I'm very impressed with the way he and other prominent British figures who speak out about these subjects. They have a ultimate grasp and beautiful use of the English language. I so wish I could speak so clearly and eloquently.
One of the things I hate is codewords. When you have censorship, you get two (among many) things that happen: People who do legitimately hate things just use alternative language to describe what they hate. People who listen or are in the "know" pick up on the connotations, and suddenly you have campaigns against "international world bankers". People who know about things like this seek to prevent any kind of hate speech by dubbing everything a "codeword". The problem is, what censors call a codeword and what actually is a codeword have very little overlap. The people who are actually speaking hate continue to do so, but in more clever ways. The people who want to stop hatespeech ban everything because everything has the potential to be a codeword. The end product is that innocent people (note: practicing hatespeech is not necessarily indicative of guilt) get caught in the witch hunt, and society regresses backward.
In a multicultural and multiracial society, you have to have laws against speech, in order to keep the lid on the bubbling racial, religious, and cultural inconsistencies. We didn't need hate speech laws in the past when our society was a coherent monoethnic and monoreligious nation.
I would much rather shine the biggest spotlight available on these ideas, then proceed to engage them on their arguments, and show how bad those ideas are. To take your analogy of a lid, what tends to happen when you keep a lid on a pressure cooker? eventually it explodes. When you deprive people of the ability to fight their battles with words, eventually people are going to start fighting those battles with their fists. This is exactly what we don't want to happen, we need to expose bad ideas for what they are, not drive them into the shadows and let them fester and grow and pretend nobody has those ideas.
So many SJW buzzwords. NO. You do not have to have laws against hate speech. I particularly like your metaphor of a lid on a bubbling pot. I reeeeeeally want you to do this in your own home. Put a pot on to boil. Put a tight lid on it. Really seal it down. Clamp it down. Eradicate that hateful bubbling. Then... wait a while. See if you like the outcome. The only way to truly silence someone is to kill them. But, then again, that IS what the left is best at.
I'm stunned by his words. Who is this guy?? I didn't know him. Brilliant explanation. I totally agree with him, specially on the ending part... How am I supposed to spot a racist person if they're not allowed to speak their minds (using racism as an example) ?!? I want people who hold hedious ideas to be transparent, I want to be able to spot them immediately, I don't want them to shut up!!!!
Someone asked me the other day, knowing that I voted for Trump (US citizen here, which might not need this clarification except for the fact that many non-citizens voted, believe not at your peril fellow citizens) if I was a racist. The answer came naturally, which was, I am now, because every other person who is not white in this country is now quite racist, exceedingly so in some cases, BLM being the leading example of a hate group in this country. So in summation I would like to explain that roads to reconciliation exist, but with the temperament here being what it is, for now, I am a racist.
I always love the "incitement to religious hatred" B.S. but never any mention of incitement to hatred of those who do not believe in religion , hell no that's perfectly fine nobody seems to be able to recognise how hypocritical and the double standard!
8 ปีที่แล้ว
You just don't understand what simple phrases mean.
Vengineer, you are quite possibly the stupidest person in this comments section. You just practiced HATE SPEECH against people who believe in free speech, and you did so with the most infantilizied reasoning I've seen in some time. You seriously hold in contempt the idea of free speech? You seriously believe that some of the tallest intellects in human history are stupid? Or did you catch me out with sarcasm I missed? To the OP, I don't think you understand context, nor basic phrases, or you'd realize how silly your post sounds. The world is a simple place, children. Say what you want. But keep your hands to yourselves. The only sort of speech which should be mitigated is speech that is so loud that it actually causes physical damage, or which directly threatens to do so. We already have plenty of laws, with teeth, to deal with people who threaten violence. God, nursing the left back to sanity will be exhausting.
One day everything will correct itself, and it'll crush an entire generation in the most positive way possible. I'd love to hear O'Neill have a conversation or be part of a panel with Jordan Peterson.
I hate anyone who advocates for hate speech legislations or defends it, they are responsible from that, they are promoting it. - I am a victim of hate speech and in the terms of the legislation of the UK my "feelings" on the matter are paramount. In law they are guilty. - The hate speech laws are idiotic and are not enforced with parity and are defininitionaly unjust and should be struck down.
I do believe in hate speech or free speech as long as they do not threaten people, if they threaten some one or say something that is not right action should be taken, but of course we should all have the right to say what we want good or bad.
If you incite violence with your words.You need arrested along with the perpetrators of the actual act. If you hurt others, thru incitement .You are as guilty as they are. We censor fire called in theaters. You're not allowed to harm others.
Hate speech is a new invention . I first heard of it about 10 years ago. Who says what is hateful? And is hate always bad - what about over the washing up? Presumably anyway something hateful can be hated? Where does that leave you? The idea is nonsense. It is nobody elses' business where I or anybody else hates. If we have even a tiny glimmering of awareness of all the work done since Freud and Jung and any other depth psychology, we would know the whole idea is nonsesese. Our predecessors had too much sense to give this notion the time of day- because it is so obviously license to police peoples' thoughts and feelings . Even a good parent does not exactly do that, but now we welcome our governments doing so? In sane - it is the beginning of the descent to Stalins gulags. Why are people now so mush-brained that they do not see this?
Yes, but the problem is who gets to define what incitement of physical harm is (Like Csus said). Sometimes people spout things out of an irrational moment of rage or sarcasm, as an example, or are even acting hyperbolic. Context is important, and sometimes it is very simple to mis-judge or mis-characterize an individual's thoughts. To me "advocates the physical harm of an individual or group." is not clear enough. Is it an opinion like many seem to think, or is it marching through the streets demanding the heads of those you oppose? Personally speaking I'd rather have disgusting opinions spouted so that they can be displayed for the public to judge, because if you silence people like that than they go underground, and that is a far more frightening prospect.
Dealing with the limits of freedom. The idea behind banning hate speech is that it has often lead to violence. (thinking leads to talking leads to action) I agree that policing thought is wrong but we must see this though the mind of a governing body with a problem it must address. To them policing hate speech may be the only opportunity to prevent such violent crimes as is has in the past. They are treating hate speech as threats, ideas or no. While the speaker sees this a a slippery slope or pathway to broader thought crime criminalization he hasn't recognized the purpose for their existence. I feel this is were the conversation should start. It's a lot like gun laws. There is a balance of only punishing the guilty, preventing extreme crimes, and guarding against a form of government with the power to take away our freedoms. I call this Dealing with the Limits of Freedom, for short. This answer to this question is the same in each situation. The best answers is not to ban things to prevent harm, we should look to improve our morals and investigate/address the problems of people who would commit these violent acts long before they happen. So why do people do these things? Money/Need? Emotion? Space? Poor/Abusive upbringing? A mind that is alien and incompatible with society? Welfare and aid programs didn't start out of the goodness of our hearts. If we think forwardly about these problems we act on prevention, then things like censorship will become unnecessary. But until then censorship is almost a necessity for future victims to live normal lives and to feel like someone is acting on their behalf.
12:20 So what is he saying, speech inciting violence against specific groups of people does not exist or should be allowed??? More like allowing it. But this leads to growing hatred between opposing groups (nobody likes to be insulted, even racists) and results ultimately in violence. Like so often a middle ground between freedom and order is the optimal solution. And if hate speech is ok, where exactly do we draw the line between free speech and a call to commit a crime.
It's not that it's "ok", just that a law compelling against it is an evil in itself. He is arguing the principle of the thing. Plus making racist speech banned doesn't make it go away, I would say the best cure for a bad idea is a spotlight. What difference is someone thinking racist or someone saying it? the violence it ultimately leads to is illegal. Of course you can use people's actions and speech to presume their future actions but to ban the free expression of them you will have an ever harder time of ding that. People will just go underground and talk only to those who already share their groups, never getting called out on it. How is that preferable?
I can't speak for him, but I like where the first amendment sets the line. You need to directly call for someone to harm someone else. "Bruno, break his kneecaps" kind of a thing.
Notice how even in the title of debate. It's called "is hate speech free speech". Not "is free speech hate speech". Even there you have s subtle form of semantic bias - which sets the tone for people like Brendan to have to defend.
OK so this guy is full of shit. Telling the world that you believe it's flat or that space aliens have contacted you or that Oreos are better than Chips Ahoy doesn't hurt people . ALL hate speech eventually ends up with innocent people dying which is why it is banned. You are the first base in normalizing hate which you say is innocent enough. Until some guy picks up a gun and goes into a church basement and slaughters 9 people at prayer. But then I guess you're okay with that.
Radwulf Eboraci Someone's capacity for violence doesn't change because you silence them... if anything, that is more likely to allow such thinking to fester. Wouldn't you want a student to express their disturbed thinking so people can talk them down or get them professional help? We have real world examples of Brendan's approach to deflating hate, such as the way in which society countered a brief upswing in Neo Nazi support a few decades ago. The public was allowed to hear their "arguments", tolerant voices countered and prevailed, causing a reassuring crash in their supporters yet again. Getting any disturbed person to admit their thinking is the beginning of needed attention and therapy to prevent violence, so you have it exactly backwards. Numerous cases of imminently violent individuals are stopped because they let slip violent thoughts to friends or relatives who then report them or get them help. You assume that suppressing statements defeats their hateful idea?... That is wishful thinking.
Brian R nailed it. All censorship does is alert neutrals to the fact that you want to silence your political opponents and it makes your political opponents even more bitter and vengeful. A murderous racist doesn't think to himself "oh wow, progressives didn't censor my anti-black people rant? That must mean I have the green light to shoot up one of their churches." C'mon, get serious. All you're doing here is revealing your latent desire to silence the people who disagree with you once you arrive to power. According to whoever is in power, having the "wrong view" on any hot-button topic can be viewed as hate speech. That's how you get dictatorships.
There is no "but" in "I believe in free speech".
You do or you don't.
No buts.
Well said.
GravityBoy72 you're not allowed to harm others thru incitement of words. A weapon is controlled. Screaming FIRE in a theater illegal....If people simply used common sense and understood the power of language.We would never need any censorship on even behavior in movie theaters.BUT every generation gets more violent. And they believe that they can hurt others and be untouchable. Buckle up, take responsibility for your weapon . Hitler's oratory genius made the world quake. We should not need laws to keep you from calling for violence... unfortunately the USA lost all respect for law .Thanks to Obama's thug nation.We do need them.
Kritesh Niraula First of all no one pulled your chain..And I said nothing about what you have gone on a liberal screeching session. I never said WHY it was... I am was not actually doing LAW. I was being philosophical. You @ss wipe.""you're not allowed to harm others thru incitement of words. A weapon is controlled. Screaming FIRE in a theater illegal" .What the fuck is your damage? Got damned ignorant people like you get on my nerves.. You bust into a convo and have NO Clue. Fucking willfully ignorant snowflake..
@@MSM4U2POM I believe in free speech. And it has existed, it is enshrined in the American Constitution. The same constitution now easily usurped over a cold. Dark times.
@@GravityBoy72 Oh, don't talk nonsense. America probably has the closest thing to it, but that doesn't mean you can say what you like, without consequence. The constitution does protect free speech, but still allows limitations on certain categories; you still have public order edicts that prohibit incitement, and methods of redress exist for taking people to court for libel, slander, defamation, false witness and perjury where these elements of free speech are transgressed, just like everywhere else. Ditch the rose-coloured specs, and see things as they are, my friend. America no more has freedom of speech than it does the Eiffel Tower.
Thank you for speaking out. We are losing this battle for our civilization. Everyone needs to wake up and raise your children to be adults.
Henzo Cranston pretty tough with all against us. schools are tyrannical and indoctrinating instead of educating.
Raggedy daCat I know it. I have a 5 month old son(am I allowed to say son now?)and I am showing my wife all that is going on in schools and colleges. She is terrified. Follow Jordan Peterson and see what is happening in Canada.
It really is unbelievable.
+Henzo Cranston parents need to assert their Authority with their kids instead of giving it away to Pub/Schools, Leftist Governments ❤️
Henzo Cranston have known Jordan for over six years.
This is well spoken. It would be one hell of a time for people to be afraid to speak out.
I absolutely love this guy. I'm very impressed with the way he and other prominent British figures who speak out about these subjects. They have a ultimate grasp and beautiful use of the English language. I so wish I could speak so clearly and eloquently.
If you love Brendan (he's my new hero!), you'll love his online magazine, Spiked:
www.spiked-online.com/
One of the things I hate is codewords. When you have censorship, you get two (among many) things that happen:
People who do legitimately hate things just use alternative language to describe what they hate. People who listen or are in the "know" pick up on the connotations, and suddenly you have campaigns against "international world bankers".
People who know about things like this seek to prevent any kind of hate speech by dubbing everything a "codeword". The problem is, what censors call a codeword and what actually is a codeword have very little overlap.
The people who are actually speaking hate continue to do so, but in more clever ways. The people who want to stop hatespeech ban everything because everything has the potential to be a codeword. The end product is that innocent people (note: practicing hatespeech is not necessarily indicative of guilt) get caught in the witch hunt, and society regresses backward.
In a multicultural and multiracial society, you have to have laws against speech, in order to keep the lid on the bubbling racial, religious, and cultural inconsistencies.
We didn't need hate speech laws in the past when our society was a coherent monoethnic and monoreligious nation.
I would much rather shine the biggest spotlight available on these ideas, then proceed to engage them on their arguments, and show how bad those ideas are.
To take your analogy of a lid, what tends to happen when you keep a lid on a pressure cooker? eventually it explodes.
When you deprive people of the ability to fight their battles with words, eventually people are going to start fighting those battles with their fists. This is exactly what we don't want to happen, we need to expose bad ideas for what they are, not drive them into the shadows and let them fester and grow and pretend nobody has those ideas.
So many SJW buzzwords. NO. You do not have to have laws against hate speech.
I particularly like your metaphor of a lid on a bubbling pot.
I reeeeeeally want you to do this in your own home.
Put a pot on to boil. Put a tight lid on it. Really seal it down. Clamp it down. Eradicate that hateful bubbling.
Then... wait a while.
See if you like the outcome.
The only way to truly silence someone is to kill them. But, then again, that IS what the left is best at.
Dead wrong!
I'm stunned by his words. Who is this guy?? I didn't know him. Brilliant explanation.
I totally agree with him, specially on the ending part... How am I supposed to spot a racist person if they're not allowed to speak their minds (using racism as an example) ?!? I want people who hold hedious ideas to be transparent, I want to be able to spot them immediately, I don't want them to shut up!!!!
Freedom of speech is for all, ugly, offensive or otherwise.
Great speech Brendan! Aren't we lucky that we can still hear people like you and a few others;
Freedom of speech.
Freedom from speech.
Someone asked me the other day, knowing that I voted for Trump (US citizen here, which might not need this clarification except for the fact that many non-citizens voted, believe not at your peril fellow citizens) if I was a racist. The answer came naturally, which was, I am now, because every other person who is not white in this country is now quite racist, exceedingly so in some cases, BLM being the leading example of a hate group in this country. So in summation I would like to explain that roads to reconciliation exist, but with the temperament here being what it is, for now, I am a racist.
I always love the "incitement to religious hatred" B.S. but never any mention of incitement to hatred of those who do not believe in religion , hell no that's perfectly fine nobody seems to be able to recognise how hypocritical and the double standard!
You just don't understand what simple phrases mean.
Vengineer, you are quite possibly the stupidest person in this comments section.
You just practiced HATE SPEECH against people who believe in free speech, and you did so with the most infantilizied reasoning I've seen in some time.
You seriously hold in contempt the idea of free speech? You seriously believe that some of the tallest intellects in human history are stupid?
Or did you catch me out with sarcasm I missed?
To the OP, I don't think you understand context, nor basic phrases, or you'd realize how silly your post sounds.
The world is a simple place, children.
Say what you want. But keep your hands to yourselves.
The only sort of speech which should be mitigated is speech that is so loud that it actually causes physical damage, or which directly threatens to do so. We already have plenty of laws, with teeth, to deal with people who threaten violence.
God, nursing the left back to sanity will be exhausting.
Troll.
One day everything will correct itself, and it'll crush an entire generation in the most positive way possible. I'd love to hear O'Neill have a conversation or be part of a panel with Jordan Peterson.
The madness must end. Enough with the speech police!
I 100% behind no censorship and free speech
Chomsky has been saying these things for nearly half a century, it's still good to hear them repeated. In a compact version...
I hate anyone who advocates for hate speech legislations or defends it, they are responsible from that, they are promoting it. - I am a victim of hate speech and in the terms of the legislation of the UK my "feelings" on the matter are paramount. In law they are guilty. - The hate speech laws are idiotic and are not enforced with parity and are defininitionaly unjust and should be struck down.
I do believe in hate speech or free speech as long as they do not threaten people, if they threaten some one or say something that is not right action should be taken, but of course we should all have the right to say what we want good or bad.
If you incite violence with your words.You need arrested along with the perpetrators of the actual act. If you hurt others, thru incitement .You are as guilty as they are. We censor fire called in theaters. You're not allowed to harm others.
Hate speech is a new invention . I first heard of it about 10 years ago. Who says what is hateful? And is hate always bad - what about over the washing up?
Presumably anyway something hateful can be hated? Where does that leave you?
The idea is nonsense. It is nobody elses' business where I or anybody else hates. If we have even a
tiny glimmering of awareness of all the work done since Freud and Jung and any other depth psychology, we would know the whole idea is nonsesese. Our predecessors had too much sense to give this notion the time of day- because it is so obviously license to police peoples' thoughts and feelings . Even a good parent does not exactly do that, but now we welcome our governments doing so? In sane - it is the beginning of the descent to Stalins gulags. Why are people now so mush-brained that they do not see this?
For me, 'hate speech' is clearly defined, in my mind, as this - speech in which calls for and advocates the physical harm of an individual or group.
Yes, but the problem is who gets to define what incitement of physical harm is (Like Csus said). Sometimes people spout things out of an irrational moment of rage or sarcasm, as an example, or are even acting hyperbolic. Context is important, and sometimes it is very simple to mis-judge or mis-characterize an individual's thoughts. To me "advocates the physical harm of an individual or group." is not clear enough. Is it an opinion like many seem to think, or is it marching through the streets demanding the heads of those you oppose? Personally speaking I'd rather have disgusting opinions spouted so that they can be displayed for the public to judge, because if you silence people like that than they go underground, and that is a far more frightening prospect.
Thank God I'm not at University now.
remember what is simple true to what is normal if you know that answer is that you are #1
Take your hat off indoors.
Brendan, I have great respect for Douglas Murray, but I think I LOVE you!! :-D
Dealing with the limits of freedom. The idea behind banning hate speech is that it has often lead to violence. (thinking leads to talking leads to action) I agree that policing thought is wrong but we must see this though the mind of a governing body with a problem it must address. To them policing hate speech may be the only opportunity to prevent such violent crimes as is has in the past. They are treating hate speech as threats, ideas or no. While the speaker sees this a a slippery slope or pathway to broader thought crime criminalization he hasn't recognized the purpose for their existence. I feel this is were the conversation should start. It's a lot like gun laws. There is a balance of only punishing the guilty, preventing extreme crimes, and guarding against a form of government with the power to take away our freedoms. I call this Dealing with the Limits of Freedom, for short. This answer to this question is the same in each situation. The best answers is not to ban things to prevent harm, we should look to improve our morals and investigate/address the problems of people who would commit these violent acts long before they happen. So why do people do these things? Money/Need? Emotion? Space? Poor/Abusive upbringing? A mind that is alien and incompatible with society? Welfare and aid programs didn't start out of the goodness of our hearts. If we think forwardly about these problems we act on prevention, then things like censorship will become unnecessary. But until then censorship is almost a necessity for future victims to live normal lives and to feel like someone is acting on their behalf.
Maybe. That sounds like a lot of guessing and exaggeration and strong opinions without any reasoning behind it. You read panicked.
whatever happened to the pure joy of debating ideas. The pure joy of defeating legitimately bad ideas. Does no one enjoy true debate anymore?
12:20 So what is he saying, speech inciting violence against specific groups of people does not exist or should be allowed??? More like allowing it. But this leads to growing hatred between opposing groups (nobody likes to be insulted, even racists) and results ultimately in violence. Like so often a middle ground between freedom and order is the optimal solution.
And if hate speech is ok, where exactly do we draw the line between free speech and a call to commit a crime.
It's not that it's "ok", just that a law compelling against it is an evil in itself. He is arguing the principle of the thing. Plus making racist speech banned doesn't make it go away, I would say the best cure for a bad idea is a spotlight. What difference is someone thinking racist or someone saying it? the violence it ultimately leads to is illegal. Of course you can use people's actions and speech to presume their future actions but to ban the free expression of them you will have an ever harder time of ding that. People will just go underground and talk only to those who already share their groups, never getting called out on it. How is that preferable?
I can't speak for him, but I like where the first amendment sets the line. You need to directly call for someone to harm someone else. "Bruno, break his kneecaps" kind of a thing.
Brilliant.
BRILLIANT.
I hate free speech.
Brilliant
That hat...
Notice how even in the title of debate. It's called "is hate speech free speech". Not "is free speech hate speech". Even there you have s subtle form of semantic bias - which sets the tone for people like Brendan to have to defend.
Islam is RIGHT about women.
can I ask who is the only person who dislike this vedio? I would like to talk you about why you disagree with it.
Look for some whining millenial who got triggered by the concept of 'free speech'.
OK so this guy is full of shit. Telling the world that you believe it's flat or that space aliens have contacted you or that Oreos are better than Chips Ahoy doesn't hurt people . ALL hate speech eventually ends up with innocent people dying which is why it is banned. You are the first base in normalizing hate which you say is innocent enough. Until some guy picks up a gun and goes into a church basement and slaughters 9 people at prayer. But then I guess you're okay with that.
Radwulf Eboraci Someone's capacity for violence doesn't change because you silence them... if anything, that is more likely to allow such thinking to fester. Wouldn't you want a student to express their disturbed thinking so people can talk them down or get them professional help?
We have real world examples of Brendan's approach to deflating hate, such as the way in which society countered a brief upswing in Neo Nazi support a few decades ago. The public was allowed to hear their "arguments", tolerant voices countered and prevailed, causing a reassuring crash in their supporters yet again.
Getting any disturbed person to admit their thinking is the beginning of needed attention and therapy to prevent violence, so you have it exactly backwards. Numerous cases of imminently violent individuals are stopped because they let slip violent thoughts to friends or relatives who then report them or get them help. You assume that suppressing statements defeats their hateful idea?... That is wishful thinking.
Radwulf Eboraci please name one instance where "hate speech has lead to people getting killed...
Brian R nailed it. All censorship does is alert neutrals to the fact that you want to silence your political opponents and it makes your political opponents even more bitter and vengeful.
A murderous racist doesn't think to himself "oh wow, progressives didn't censor my anti-black people rant? That must mean I have the green light to shoot up one of their churches."
C'mon, get serious.
All you're doing here is revealing your latent desire to silence the people who disagree with you once you arrive to power. According to whoever is in power, having the "wrong view" on any hot-button topic can be viewed as hate speech. That's how you get dictatorships.
Its like as though you don't believe in agency.