What is the Point of Free Speech? | Rae Langton | TEDxCambridgeUniversity
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 10. 2015
- Has there even been a time when free speech has been a more contentious issue on university campuses? Rae Langton charges into the debate from a philosophical perspective. She argues that in order to elucidate the boundaries (if they exist) within which free speech may operate it is essential to consider what the point of free speech is in the first place.
Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge and one of Prospect Magazine’s ‘Top 50 World Thinkers’ of 2014, Rae Langton is an expert on moral, political and feminist philosophy.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx
Now I really understand philosophy is so complex.
After watching this clip I still don't understand what point of free speech. I prefer the speech of free speech by Mr. Bean
what is the problem of the cameraman here
He's drunk.
Mira… la cocaracha
That backstage shot was definitely unnecessary, but that's more of an editor error. With that being said, whoever was shooting gave some creeper vibes.
He was annoyed by stitched stockings
Free speech doesn't end discussion, it enables it, that's like the whole point...
@Larry Bones I think he was trying to address the fact that at the beginning of the speech she said that bringing free speech up in an argument automatically stops any argument as if it was some field people dare not enter at the risk of losing their own right. He was saying, like you said, free speech is about expression of words. It enables discussion which in turn enables democratic debate.
Free speech also spreads fake news and makes our society very uneducated.
@@goldenhawk9322 Fake news only spreads BECAUSE people are uneducated, the solution is not to ban misinformation but to openly disprove it. The ability to be deceived does not justify the act of having one's thinking done for them by another, especially not by a centralized governing body.
To communicate, to educate, TO OFFEND!
Larry Bones what’s the point of communicating and offending? I think you need to dig deeper. She could have gone deeper in knowledge and empowerment. I think they all come down to agency - and then if your speech limits the agency of another then it is valid to question it’s utility. I’m still wrapping my head around the issue though.
Larry Bones why do you assume I’m being naive, lol. Who responds when our property is threatened, or our person? How do you suggest we respond when our agency is threatened?
Larry Bones also, she explicitly says 4:33 that she is not saying that the only justifications for free speech are knowledge and empowerment so your original comment is moot anyways 🤷♂️
@Larry Bones replace 'offend' with "expressing ideas people don't like" and everything becomes crystal clear
To prevent people from being himbos and bimbos!
>what is the point of being allowed to express ideas people don't like without being jailed?
HMMMMM I WONDER
We each may choose our own point or no point and we may all speak freely, always.
Hm, a very interesting retrospective to free speech and it's main point. I never considered free speech as an action. Of course, speech leads to some act, but the atmosphere and the way you say your words are important too.
Thanks for such an inspirational video! I made me think about new aspects of free speech.
The ban on legal censorship is more important than free speech imo. People should be able to be held responsible for their speech, but they should always have the ability to express and defend their beliefs, ideas, and opinions without any form of censorship.
I understand free speech as an analogy with sound resonance. You probably heard of the expression "to touch one's string". Think of the words as being sound. Now think of the body's response as being the vibrating string. Wether or not you produce the sound, the string still exists. Have courage to know who you are, or better written, know what music makes you vibrate entirely.
I'd get along with this lady, I think. I also think up of an answer when people ask skeptically (not thinking there is one) or rhetorically (thinking it proves their point), and they're angry I actually provided an answer. Then again, my social skills would be another roadblock for that.
Interesting...
Who decides what is that speech that you want to exclude from free speech ?
Cameraperson was drunk.
In relation to how many people it takes to change a light bulb. I was told 100, 1 to hold the bulb and 99 to turn the house around. But the trouble with that joke is that when they turn the house around the person holding the globe would turn around also so the globe would not come out.
@@erincarson8998 Good point. I never thought of that.
Voting itself is not speech. North Koreans vote for the communist party. Free speech is a simplified way to say that the flow of information should not be controlled. If an idea cannot be confronted and beaten by better ideas, those ideas should be examined. If you subscribe to an idea that can not stand on its own merits and requires censorship of counter arguments to continue its existence, you should worry less about what other people are saying and more about what you are saying.
North Koreans are coerced to vote a certain way. They cannot say no. Therefore they aren't really speaking.
HOW ? WHY ?
Do People Take Things Out Of Context ? Speaking On Opinions, NOT ABOUT THEM THE PERSON.
Do one on private free speech hypothesis of freedom of information research
it all depends on the subject. Doesn't it
I’ve noticed a little contradiction. It was said that one of the main points of free speech is knowledge and free speech, as a speech act, includes education, resources, etc. At the same time, there is standing for the personal right to say ‘no’ or ‘yes’ in those very special speech act that we call voting. However, we have to consider that those acts may not be based on any resources or knowledge. Free speech isn’t cheap and takes a lot.. hmmm, well - or not. That is why it is FREE.
Generally, I've kinda lost a point of this speech by the end of it. Nevertheless, it seems that the point of this speech is that it has a right to be presented in that unstructured way either.
interesting ...
A lot of people seem to confuse free speech with the wish to hide themselves. Free speech does not mean hiding and making yourself anonymous behind silly comments. Free speech dictate that you can post anything within the scope of the law, however, your id must be verifiable.
8:37 bookmark
Voting is not a speech act any more than choosing between a spoon or chopsticks is a speech act.
so if i don´t see "knowledge" or "empowerment" in this talk then she had no free speech??
am i doing your ideologie right??
and how does that fit with "knowledge" of someones opinion and "empowerment" of unpopular("harmful") ideas??
@Larry Bones If only her talk was this clear, I would have understood it much more easily!
ESKEEETIIIIT
WE SHOULD HAVE THE BASIC RIGHT TO OUR OPTIONS & COMMENTS ON GOVERMENT 🇺🇸 WITHOUT IT BE A PERSONAL & HARMFUL ATTACK. ONE CAN'T MAKE ATTEMPT'S ON ANOTHER'S LIFE OR WELL BEING BECAUSE OF THEIR OPINIONS. ⚖️🇺🇸
Free speech is never a garantee of it's effects, also we have the law to enforce/protect certain acts like votes and consent. If utterances can be marked as silencing or against the point and therefore should not be allowed, what will be allowed to say then?
Many many strings of syllables that probably meant something to someone else
You make a good point here. It explains why I felt like she was doing gymnastics with words, twisting them round and round as if she wanted to change them. Like when I make Rotis, I don't want to serve a raw ball of dough, so I work it this way and that, then lightly toast it so it fluffs/bubbles up.. and what I serve people is arguably the same, but is also very different. I think, if she was being more honest, as a smart woman she could have said it very clearly, without those strings of syllables. To avoid it being twisted like that, Free Speech needs to be defined as simply as possible: Anyone should say whatever they want (as long as it's not directly threatening or encouraging violence), then they should listen to what others have to say, even (and especially) if they disagree, and, when they finish, are free to criticise what has been said, and so it goes back and forth and thats how people end up coming to an understanding, or people watching the discussion decide for themselves which side they consider to be "right". BTW loved your video on Imaginary Numbers, it was very clear!
That is why my vote is for the formation of a "Direct Democracy .gov," & or "Direct liberty .org" where all we the people of the world have the sovereign equal right to write, & propose policy, vote with a unanimous consent rule to pass policy, or one no vote to veto policy.
Your building a bunch of constructs...some wonderful little builder. My free speech is the expression of my total potential as human being...period. If you want to stand on my MIND...to limit my mind...to dehumanize me...well feel FREE...but that's a bloody spot in my brain indeed. Thought Authoritarian!
The only speech that can be limited is speech that threatens violence and death against another. Limiting any kind of speech other that means that all speech can be limited. Hate speech these days is hot just bullies making fun of transgenders, its liberals branding conservative viewpoints and philosophies as "hate speech," simply because they dont agree with it or it inadvertently offends them in some way. This becomes dangerous like when congress approved the Alien and Sedition acts that limited speech against the country. Ideas, and viewpoints cannot be limited simply because you disagree and feel triggered. That is fascism at its purest and most deadly form.
Larry Bones I agree that it can be said but should be looked into none the less better safe than sorry if someone says don’t go to work tomorrow that should definitely be looked into
LACK OF UNDERSTANDING. WHEN THE OPPOSING OPINIONS ARE NOT ABOUT YOU THE PERSON. 🙃
There are infinite paths of resisatnce :)
'The Land of Free Speech'.... yeah right.
Not even worth debunking
If you have to spend 2 out of your 12 minutes explaining how to correctly interpret the title of you talk it means it was poorly chosen.
One word: yes
Why the voyeuristic camera angle?
Don’t mean to be mean but you waste so much time dwaddling around before arriving at a point of substance. Your first point was made 4 mins in.. so much unnecessary “I’m not saying there is only point to free speech” and “I’m not asking as a skeptic!”.
Well, The History of Freedom of Speech, our U.S. 1st Amendment is a lot different especially here in The United States compared to England.
Her concept of free speech is very goal oriented. However, free speech is not only a means to an end, it is a continous process.
i don't support people saying the N-word but i will fight for a person's right to say it
@iii gaslighting
I had to listen to the post modernist twice. Let me some up: You can't have free speech without free stuff.
Why are there bum shots like its wonder women from jostice league ?
Time stamps??
Are you guys seriously trolling this? Wow. Try using your speech and offering a counter argument to what she is arguing.
It isn't hard to troll post modernists. They think they are winners without ever having to compete or win anything.
Freedom of speech should protect all voices from coercive force.the her proposition is to censor argumentation. Argumentation is the point of free speech as she said herself. Censorship doesnt erase the idea. In fact, religion spreads faster and is believed more fervently under persecution. Common sense will tell you that people who use violence to protect their ideas do so because they cant argue from them and win.
In the first 90 seconds she proposes that bringing up “free speech” is a way of shutting down a conversation. But if she knew anything about the 20th Century authoritarian governments she would know that the EXACT opposite is the truth
So free speech is reserved for those of a certain education level? My grandfather passed away about a year and a half ago. He was 100 yrs old. He worked on his farm until about 2 months before he passed. He had an 8th grade backwoods Texas education. He was one of the smartest people I have ever known or heard of. Accordingly to this nonsense... because of his literacy skills, his views would be discounted or not allow at all.... Is that what I'm hearing her say?
What good is free speech if the listener only hears what they want? And creates a reality with seeds planted by those with very sophisticated means. For example, convince people your enemy is their enemy.
I'm not sure where in the presentation she mentioned free speech is reserved for only the educated. Could you identify when she said that?
She isn't saying his views would be discounted, just that it may (or may not be - she is talking on a general level, not about any specific individual) be more difficult for him to exercise his free speech to its maximum potential. She then advocates for better education to make sure that everyone is able to do what they want with words.
@Larry Bones sarahm is right and you are wrong. you didn't get langton's notion of speech, otherwise you wouldn't go on and on about censorship. but i think you got much more important issues to sort out so please don't bother.
@Larry Bones do you want someone to explain it? this is not a rethorical question.
Why dont you ask this site why they censor people.
wait?!! did she indirectly say the feminist's are the ones that need changing?
On the legal provision for freedom of expression in Brazil.
Constitution: Art. 5, IX - the expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific and communication activities is free, regardless of censorship or license.
Now it is enough to research what the Supreme Court is doing in relation to journalist A l l a n d o s S a n t o s
This all appear blatantly obvious to me but that only emphasizes how important it is that young people hear this. I am worried that schools and universities have become places of ever growing indoctrination, instead of places encouraging questing everything.
I think she just made a case for cracking down on social justice warriors and their censorious tactics. inadvertently perhaps. lol
Good point.
the speech was not attractive
free·dom
/ˈfrēdəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
"we do have some freedom of choice"