Does freedom of speech give the right to offend?
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 01. 2015
- BBC One 11 January 2015
The moral, ethical and religious discussion series presented by Nicky Campbell returns for an eighth series, with this first edition coming live from London.
Among those taking part in the debates are: Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin, chaplain to the speaker of the House of Commons; Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain from Maidenhead Synagogue; Julian Huppert MP; Raza Nadim from MPAC UK; Dan Hodges, Daily Telegraph columnist; Douglas Murray from The Spectator; Pavan Dhaliwal from the British Humanist Association; the feminist writer Kate Smurthwaite; Richard Garside, director, Centre for Crime & Justice Studies; Roz Hardie, CEO of Object; and Taiwo Ade, founder of Discuss Jesus.
The correct question is: Do the easily offended have the right to take away freedom of speech.
Rea Ality I agree 100%
Clever, Rea!
Nice
Does taking offence giver the right to murder, is even more appropriate.
No they don't
"Does freedom of speech give the right to offend?"
Spoilers should be: Yes.
Douglas Murray was *_so_* dead-on accurate. Secularism and (the _ongoing_ struggle for)freedom and the scientific enlightenment is *_the best_* thing that ever happened to humanity. It's *_absurd_* to have to defend it against people who think saying or drawing certain things makes a revenge killing not only likely, but worth carrying out. That's *_backwards violent and insane_*. Yes, there are MANY aspects of modern society that are insane and violent too; but *_so is_* Islam. Islam is an idea; *_all_* ideas can, and in a free society, _should_ be openly *_and rigorously_* debated. Satire is a big part of that debate. It amazes me that people can't see how *_important_* that is.
Yes of course it does. If we curbed free speech every time somebody got offended nobody would ever say anything! There's always some snowflake who is offended...
Sviaveldi TALK ABOUT ANYTHING BUT NOT SO CALLED JEWS
but...There is NO right ..."to be Free from being Offended".
yes, this special privilege for racism and jews is ridiculous.
“No idea is above scrutiny and no people are beneath dignity”. What a great quote.
"They murdered twelve people!" "Yeah well you fired a guy." "Those aren't the same thing." "Stop redefining freedom of speach." What the actual fuck?
Interesting. 5 years ago you could write phuck with a F. Fascinating. Today, the YT police censorship won’t let you. Orwellian world.
Blasphemy is an imaginary crime with no victim
😂 never saw someome speakign so much truth in a single sentence.
"Yes."
There, I just answered the question in a single word. There's nothing more to say.
people are retards, but in the right way, you can abuse what large groups miss use, maybe thats what a nazi is but tbfh idc. just because you lable something bad does not make it fact, fucking morrons these leftists are.
Well, I'm convinced.
@@ttminotaur5592 it’s your freedom of speech to say “retards”. It’s my freedom of speech to say, as much as it’s your right to say it, “retards” could be switched with many words. Why not “fuckwits” or “cunt sticks” so you don’t make yourself look like someone that isn’t fussed to upset disabled people and you still call the leftists morons? Not trying to be a dick about it, just want to raise awareness. Most people are too scared to write “nigger” but are happy using “retard” as a slur, which is strange.
@@shmalfie8674 that’s your freedom of speech…..lol
You are wrong. Offense is taken, not given.
The use of mockery and irony are two of the greatest tools that can be used to advance societies away from archaic beliefs and ideas.
@K John
Please explain. Taking away someone's social media account is not censoring them because those social media platforms have rules that the person agreed to follow when they signed up. Break the rules and you're gone.
Where does this silencing and shouting down take place? It doesn't happen in my daily life and I would guess probably not in other's lives. BTW, neither silencing or shouting down is the same as using mockery and irony as techniques to show the absurdity of some people's arguments. If silencing does happen, some people DESERVE to be silenced and they bring it on themselves. In the old days, a crazy person wouldn't just be silenced, they'd be booted out of the village to fend for themselves. I personally think we currently treat some crazy people way too nicely. Marjorie Taylor Greene shouldn't have just been kicked off committees, by now she should have been booted out of Congress completely.
Religions are against advance in society because it would undermine their political power.
Offense is TAKEN, not given, the very premise of the question is foundationally irrational.
Love this comment
Good point.
Disagree. The “give” was in reference to conferring a RIGHT to offend, not in reference to giving offence.
@@kindface It takes a weak mind to imply that someone else is responsible for your emotions. Nobody has superpowers which give them control over other's emotions. The only one who can be reasonably and rationally held responsible for being offended is the individual claiming to be offended. This is demonstrated through two scenarios. In the first scenario someone claims to be offended even when the "offender" specifically states no intention to offend, and others who hear the same message are not offended. The second scenario is when someone who is attempting to cause offense is ignored and rejected by the recipient without the recipient deciding to "take offense" at the message. It is therefore demonstrably evident that you are unable to offend me, unless I choose to take offense. I stand by my assertion that giving offense is an irrational premise.
@@kindface But if offence is taken and not given, then you can't have or not have the right to offend.
That lady at 14:23 is a genius.
I'm sick of religion being given the same status as race.
+toddles9 Putting a label of genius on her just because she figured that out is a bit excessive, however.
+toddles9 I didn't skip to that minute but was surely waiting for it, this video is a perfect debate. Class talk, criticizing religions has nothing to do with race
Okay thing is with this argument is that race and religion come under the same umbrella law of hate crime. There is no difference.
+Ross Leeson in the eyes of the law
But the muslim guy used the word racism.And the cartoonist did a character drawing of Mohammed.You can scrutinize religion and ideologies by law.Its only a hate crime if their is an attack on muslims as people.
Some people need to be offended. If you hold ridiculous beliefs, you can bet that in a free society they will be ridiculed, regardless of how sacred you think your beliefs are. If your beliefs are defensible, then use your free speech to defend them. If they're not defensible, then either get used to being offended, or consider changing your beliefs. Resorting to defending your beliefs with violence, is a blatant admission that your beliefs are not defensible, through rational discourse.
If you're Beliefs are SOLID, like mine, you don't need to get Offended..... I don't mind any criticism because my beliefs are Not that Weak!!
Grateful Apostate sigh
You are absolutely right, sir.
Why would a grown man want to OFFEND others, like a little child in a kindergarten, is beyond me.
@@burlbird9786 To show that no ideas are holy. That you should be able to critique and talk about all ideas. If anything, the reactions prove that very point. Controversial ideas ESPECIALLY should be talked about. Extraordinary claims about gods and miracles require extraordinary evidence, which is not out there. Yet there are religious people who hold their belief in SUCH high regard, they think they should silence anyone who dares make a funny drawing about their belief. How about that?
"People have a right to get offended by how I dress, but they do not have a right to tell me how to dress in a way that doesn't offend them."
Truth right here. Great job.
"I Stopped listening after a while"
*proceeds to talk over everyone else*
Everyone has the right to offend, and everyone has the right to be offended; freedom of speech is a two way street. But this does not extend to physically causing harm to someone.
yeah it doesn't cause harm....
i am sure it will cause Sucide
+Lil Ladiboi From Bangkok Then that's on the offend-ee. Nothing to do with the one who offended the person in question. It isn't antagonizing like bullying (which I think is fine, people need to have think skin to grow up into a sensible adult). In a free society you shouldn't put a hammer above peoples' heads if they say something against the norm. Sticks and stones.
suicide is a personal choice. If someone kill you, that is not suicide, that is murder. If you suicide because of someone said some bad things about you, that is not their fault, but it is your fault.
damn, that last part is rubbish thinking ma boy, do you know what is call negative talk? not all people have that "words don't hurt me " idea.
And you have to right to not stay / buy / hear what offend you.
It's not because you are offended that you are right!
people were killed over a cartoon... end of the argument
@@tobymcinnis7031 there is no freedom of speech if one cannot offend. Your critique is useless
@@tobymcinnis7031 the argument was in the video. The fact people were killed over a cartoon is the final nail in the coffin. There is no defense for that. I'm surprised by your snarky remark considering your lack of comprehension.
@@tobymcinnis7031 oh wow, what a bad take. Wheres your counter to the the point of "people were killed over a cartoon" ? Please try and justify it so we can all point and laugh.
@@joegalley2187 Now I wish I could see what this Toby Mcinnis guy said...
@@alexrandall8557 LOL same
“Because in order to think, you have to risk being offensive” - Jordan Peterson
Hardly profound, like the rest of his garbage statements.
@Joshua Bull You do not have to be a communist in order to realize that JBP is such a dishonest person.
Lying about bible passages, lying about lobsters to suit his argumentation, making his argument about atheists totally impervious to facts and redefining words when it suits him (but only then of course) and still claiming that a law does what it cannot do, even after the Bar of Canada told him why he is wrong are not the actions of an honest thinker.
@Joshua BullOh, it was wrong all right.
It is NOT heavily implied in the bible that Cain's heart was not in his offerings to god (it is not implied at all). Still Peterson claimed so.
Lobster brains do NOT "basically dissolve" after losing a fight as JBP writes.
He claimed that atheists are not really atheists unless they murder people. They are really believers who "think" they are atheists. That way he can ignore all evidence that atheists are not violent by claiming that they are actually believers.
He redefined the word truth to be basically "that which serves life" but his "12 rules..." chapter about telling the truth soesn't make sense with that definition but it does if you define "truth" the normal way (reflecting physical reality).
Nobody in Canada have been prosecuted for misgendering someone, let alone charged or convicted. Because Bill C-16 did NOT make misgendering illegal, as the largest organization of actual law experts explained before it was even passed. But have Peterson retracted his false statements about the bill? No.
The guy is frequently wrong, you denying the facts does not change that.
@Joshua Bull
You really show your level don't you?
I give you verifiable facts and your answer is basically "Na na na, you're wrong and I'm not listening!" I guess I offended you with my facts.
@@andreaslundberg2978 so you're saying that Rob Hoogland was not arrested for disagreeing to giving his underage daughter hormonal treatment without his consent under the laws which are doing what Peterson said they would do?
Douglas Murray is a boss! Highly recommend his works. Humble and heavy.
And his hockey career is not bad at all too!
@@jonathanallard2128 haha that's news to me!
Or are you talking about the Swedish NHL player?
@@inspiRational99 I am. T'was a joke, conflating the two.
As a hockey fan, I've heard about the hockey player before the philosopher so whenever I hear about Douglas Murray the philosopher, I can't help but think about the Swedish hockey player.
XD
@@jonathanallard2128 hahaha yeah, quite a contrast for the world of Ice Hockey.
@@inspiRational99 huh yeah, big time. The Swedish guy was a 6'4" 220+ lbs hard hitting defenseman.
Nothing like the well spoken and thoughtful guy you see on this show!
Both bosses in their own way.
I'm French and I'm tired of these religious people who are offended by everything
The right to freedom of speech exists *_PRECISELY_* to offend. Freedom of speech allows you to criticize anything and anyone. Criticism of the government offends government officials. Should we not therefore criticize the government ever?
The best movie about freedom of speech is The People vs Larry Flynt.
Freedom of speech for who?
That is the question.
@@lightinthedark9201 Everyone.
@@VKingMD it doesn't seem like it
@@lightinthedark9201 Legally it still does. Radical Leftists have created an Orwellian cancel culture where freedom of speech is severely limited if it goes against their narrative. What should happen is people with shitty ideas should be told their ideas are shitty then ignored by the rest of society, not cancelled.
Like when the Fine Brothers announced that they were trademarking the word React in video, and lost over 675,000 subscribers almost overnight.
Everyone had a really open, positive, honest, progressive conversation...except for one guy
Oh I dunno, you watch a later clip of this same episode and that Teiwo fella is a right wanker.
“Weasel talk” - epic description.
The guy in the glasses keeps talking about "equality"... This is the problem here; This debate is not about "equality", it's about Free Speech!
They have to constantly "move the goalposts" because, otherwise, they'd get scored on and totally defeated!!! They KNOW they're Weak and full of shit!!
He's talking about both. The inequality in freedom of speech.
Any conversation about liberty is a conversation about equality, because liberty and equality are diametrically opposed, you have to choose between them. Given that liberty is more or less attainable and equality is not I choose liberty.
@@9175rock How can there be inequality in FREE speech? Everyone holds the right to say whatever they want, that's kind of the whole point
@@BUGHUNTER6 People won't be equally unoffended. But equality isn't fair anyway because none of us are equal, to begin with.
*My rights don't end at your feelings.*
20/10 to Douglas on this one. His levels of education are apparent.
Majid and Douglas are the voices of sanity here. And the woman who pointed out Islam isn't a race, its a religion. Crazy that people don't understand the distinction. I wish Christopher Hitchens were alive
Wish we had a show in this format in the States. Passionate but civil discussion about truly important issues. And everyone is much better dressed.
Yep that's part of it. TV shows aimed at non working (mostly)women who revel in looking down their noses at other people. That's daytime TV.
Same here in Spain. Love the bbc
@@Darling137 Aimed at “non-working (mostly women)” my arse. It was aired on a Sunday morning. Sunday is probably the best time to get “non-workers” as well as men. You’re clearly watching through the eyes of a feminist.
@@Jamie0789 Your ass indeed if you think I view the world through the eyes of a feminist.
To be fair to you, I think you may have missed my point and unfortunately don't recall precisely what my reply was in response to. Based on the context of my response (which seems to be a reply to myself, which I don't do), it looks like it was in reply to a now deleted comment. I was probably lamenting the fact that daytime TV in the US was historically aimed at housewives and were either melodrama or mindless entertainment: soap operas, game shows, talk shows (especially the salacious and shock kind) etc. Now the standard seems to be stuff like Ellen or The View which have a little more redeeming value, although I haven't watched TV midday for quite a while. I clearly wasn't talking about this show as I live in the States.
"I stopped listening." The root of the problem.
"In order to think you have to risk being offensive" (Jordan Peterson). That sums it up for me.
You have to take it if your willing to give it too. Do not be running and complaining if people also say things that offend and impinge on your freedom of choice.
@@karisbaker5316 I never do, hence my position.
I never thought, in a million years, that I would agree with something that came out of Kate Smurthwaite's mouth. I'm at a loss of words.
I’ve not reached that point yet. I don’t think I’m ready
Same thing I was thinking I heard her.....
I was actually very pleasently surprised to hear her say something that is not bats#it crazy ....
Something here scares me.
You actually have a muslim in this crowd who is absolutly unwilling to answer the question, if it is ok for a paper to publish a cartoon with Muhamed. He dodges and he dances, and he doesn't answer the question.
Why not?
I assume, that he doesn't want to say, what he really thinks, because he thinks that it is not ok, and he knows that this answer would put him in a bad light... righously so.
Or can anybody give me a different reason, why he wouldn't just answer the fricken question?
Maybe he believes that Muhammad SHOULD be a cartoon, but other Muslims would retaliate & punish him for his honest answer, maybe???? It's just a guesstimate.
@@humongousfungusamongus3871 then Islam is even worse than it appears to be.
@Tahmid alpha12 I don't think you understand offensiveness is SUBJECTIVE. Who gets to decide why and what things are offensive? And who let them decide?
@Tahmid alpha12 what about people who claim the Tora or Bible are the ultimate moral compass? Religion is a never ending circle
@Tahmid alpha12 Every Holy book is being interpreted in a thousand different ways by different people. Amongst those people are some who claim to be close to god and teach people as such their ways. Since there is enough conflict in the world around the meaning of certain writings I think you can say that we cannot all be expected to find the same answers there. And because holy books are no law books that are specifically defined to ground every small detail on what can and cannot be done, let alone on modern issues, that again we cannot be expected to find answers there. We are all moral beings and those moral beings have come up with their own laws about what can and cannot be done. therefore I would say having those laws as a guidance should be above the lessons you take out of the holy book.
Raza Nadim is part of the problem... You either have free speech or you don't. He is a benifecery of free speech, as he can sit there and blame the victims. The problems facing "moderate" Muslims is not a result of the radicals but everyone else.
Did he actually say that Muslims don't care if people poke fun at Islam????? Seriously?
the first audience member Made the best point...There is a difference between religion and race
Douglas murray is a national treasure
National racist treasure
@@aymanismail4135lol you wish. Too bad people like you will never think differently
Douglas is improving with age like a good wine.
Yep, just look at him now. 44 and he’s still lookin handsome
Yes, freedom of speech gives us the right to offend. If what you are going to say does not offend anyone, there would be no need for a freedom of speech law.
Does freedom of speech give the right to offend?
YES
Technically, it doesn't even *Give* the Right, it just *Protects* it!!! Governments can NOT give Rights because they don't have that Authority, Rights come from a MUCH higher source!! It's government's job to protect those Rights and they often Fail miserably at doing so
Well said David.
@@AustinTexas6thStreet we have no rights, and they come from no higher power. If they did we all had the same rights in all countries. We just have some privileges. Right aren’t rights if they can be taken away from us.
Yes because you can't control what offends another....sticks and stones...which should be taught again
Freedom of speech means you can say that person is good or bad
But freedom of speech doesn't mean you can make fun of that person
I'm really sick of people who are okay with murdering people but cry victim.
Your talk shows are still relevant after 6 and 7 years.
People with paper thin beliefs based on literally zero evidence and only social bullying always act like cry babies when someone laughs at their wacko ideas.
@@osogrande4999 Seen and experienced that many times.
@@willievanstraaten1960 Me too Willie, it’s now at epidemic proportions. I find myself just wanting to trigger people these days.
@@osogrande4999 u hit the nail on the head hear what a grate comment
All his debate topics on Islam are still relevant today. Islam is a cult, and it won't reform. Even a 100 years later, these would be relevant, unless Islam is forcefully submitted.
I'm not responsible for people's feelings and how they'll respond to my views
You are if you begin publicly broadcasting them. Especially if you do so in the knowledge (and perhaps glee?) that they are incendiary. I'm sure you're a perfectly reasonable person, but you have a little bit more to think about on this matter.
Toby Mcinnis Would you agree that whether or not ones views are 'incendiary' should not stop one from broadcasting them? Being offended doesn't constitute an argument. I agree with you that the person who makes their views available is responsible for the offense felt but I don't think they should sugar coat their views or be blinded by the offense taking of the opposition.
@@fiontancahill3338 Exactly!
You are not responsible if your words offend someone. That is on the one that is offended. It is their choice to be offended by your words.
If you take care not to offend, you must either lie, or hold your tongue and pretend approval. To me, this dishonesty is a worse sin than offending someone. Logically someone can only offend themselves. It requires them to hold huffy beliefs. Otherwise disagreement would just wash off.
12 people lost their lives for joking about somebody, this is unbelievable!!!
"Does freedom of speech give the right to offend?"
We can't hinder this foundational & vital value just because people get offended. Its not even a matter of debate - NNEEEEXXTT!
"Does freedom of speech give the right to offend?" Simple answer is yes.
Douglas Murray is spot on.
Murder is an offense. Raping someone is an offense. Stealing is an offense. Physical Assault is an offense. Saying what someone might not want to hear is NOT AN OFFENSE.
You are aware there is more than 1 meaning of offense correct?
This should be compulsory viewing for all MPs. It was also made when the BBC knew how to have open and frank debates and had unbiased hosts.
Now we have cancel culture where people think words are weapons and talk about "perceived harm" and a government that has hate crime based on "perception" rather than intent.
The butthurt is was strong with Raza Nadim when Douglas Murray and Maajid were destroying him.
The feeling of offense is created by the individual that receives the information. We can never control that. They, as adults, should control themselves.
When the 'Peoples Case' came to court in Alberta, Canada, many people were offended. The idea that women should be called 'persons' like any man. To say they should be given the same rights before the law? Offensive indeed. If offense was the ruler over speech, women would not be 'persons' today.
Coincidentally, the religion that is always offended does not give women equal treatment under the law.
Islam just wants us to shut up and let them conquer us. Really.
I'm offended" = "I'm intolerant, self-centered, and seek power over others through my outrage."
"Does freedom of speech give the right to offend? "
Yes. Next question?
Majid Nawaz is a fine orator and a cultivated man, with an open mind.
Someone from MI5 needs to be keeping an eye on the charming "I stopped listening" guy. He is very angry and on I'd say, somewhere on the radicalisation spectrum (!).
Does freedom of speech give the right to offend? Without the right to offend there is no freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the right to offend.
This is a very fraught self-swallowing semantic argument which has done nothing but confuse you into believing whatever you believed before you undertook its reasoning was completely correct. Must try harder.
Wow, that was a sentence to nowhere. Try again.
Sometimes during the year of 1461, a group of Ottoman emissaries arrived in Wallachia (the Southern province of present day Romania) to bring harsh orders from the Sultan in Istanbul to the Prince of Wallachia, Vlad III, aka. "The Impaler".
The Prince was ordered to immediately pay the tribute he owned to the Porte for the last three years, and as a compensation for delayed payment, to collect and hand over a hundred young Romanian boys, to be converted to Islam and trained into Janissaries.
Vlad was expecting such demands from the Sultan, and already decided to reject them all, and rebel against the Ottoman rule. However, he took personal offense with the tone of the Ottoman envoys, that were behaving rather disrespectfully. So he asked them bluntly why they did not kneel in front of him, as it was indicated "by the law of the land, when in front of the Lord of the country, the one anointed by God himself as ruler".
The emissaries answered that they do not recognize "the Wallachian God, or the Wallachian laws and customs, but only the rule of Allah, the only God of everything there is in the world".
Prince Vlad answered that he only expected them to be polite, and to extend him the courtesy that himself offered to them, for example by not asking them to remove their turbans from their heads - although in Wallachia, nobody was allowed to keep his headgear in the presence of the Prince.
The presumptuous Ottoman envoys replied: "We would always keep our turbans, no matter who would ask us to take them off, because this is the law of Allah, and we do not care about wishes that goes against the commands of Allah, for this would be nothing short of blasphemy".
To this, Vlad the Impaler said: "You are indeed faithful Muslims, and I applaud your religious fervor. So please, allow me to help you be even better Muslims, by making sure you will always keep your turbans on your heads, no matter were you will be in the future". And he ordered his guards to seize the envoys, and to nail their turbans on their heads "with horseshoe nails", and send them back to Istanbul, to the Sultan.
It looks like--unless we get a list of "not to do...not to say" from the sensitive religious people, we can not define "freedom of speech".
Yes, it gives you the right to ridicule/"offend" every bronze-age superstition. Like Charlie Hebdo did with every single religion. But thanks to islam, police protection with adequate firearms is necessary.
I never thought I'd ever agree with anything Kate Smurthwaite said.
i was just thinking that lmao
You can not have free speech without having a chance of offending someone.
Douglas Murray operates like a boss as usual!! 🤜🏻💥🤛🏻
Offence is subjective. I won't necessarily agree with what someone says but I'll bloody defend them and let them say it regardless of what it is.
So you are telling me, that you will go to a march of the KKK to promote the idea that whites are superior to blacks and other color people?
Luce - I agree, I might tell you that you have a nice ass and you'd take it as a compliment, while another woman might be offended. It's all subjective
kev what the fuck? No, she didn’t say that at all.
Bless you all for being here, back then. My how times have changed, and in the opposite direction to that which many of us wish they'd have taken. Ah well, here's to you.
Whataboutism. The whole "argument" of that zealot. Beware of zealots in power.
Outside of threatening someone with physical violence, (which even then are simply words), anyone should be allowed to say anything to anyone.
As long as you are in a physical dwelling that you can evacuate yourself at any given moment.
as long as it dose not risk physical harm its protected under free speech
The only logical answer is ‘yes’ for the simple reason that offense is entirely subjective. People who say ‘no’ think they’ve got the whole topic wrapped up, like everyone agrees what is and is not offensive. But we don’t, and until we all do, no other answer but ‘yes’ can stand.
Douglas is wound up by that Raza Nadim right from the get go, yet still maintains his dignity while utterly obliterating his foolish opponent. His final four words are spat out with total disdain, quite rightly, "You don't understand ANYTHING!".
Yes freedom of speech does give the right to offend. Point is you dont know what every single person finds offensive, you could be making a perfectly valid point and the listener gets offended by inserting some subtext that you didnt even say, and or misconstrue what point you were actually making. Ultimately if you speak to a crowd of people the chance of someone being offended by something you say is almost 100% certain.
Obviously freedom of speech comes first, then offense is taken as a by product of that, but then freedom of speech then gives you the right to clarify your points, engage in dialogue or apologise for any offense caused if the objection is valid. But without some sort of clemency offense is inevitable.
I think the problem those of us on the right of politics have, is that most difficult issues, when talked about, you always run the risk of causing offensive but like everything difficult the dialogue is surely worth while. I am genuinely concerned now that we run a risk of not having honest conversations anymore because of self censorship and if we cannot have honest conversations anymore then we cannot find real solutions to anything. The left has brought us to this point where we are all undergoing unconscious bias training at work etc. You know the problem with that is it basically assumes everyone hidden in their subconscious is a detestable person, even if they dont know it, and then that feeds into "the listeners" paranoia that there must be something dark or insidious behind what the speaker is actually saying.
Fine.Freedom of expression is a right.But that doesn't mean that it is a right to insult a belief or something precious to someone.It doesn't justify violence of course.But there is a limit to everything.You can criticize but not insult.And you should know what you're criticizing first.
And btw there is a double standard.If there were anti black or anti-semitic depictions there would be an outrage.And those depictions would be cancelled.Why then when it comes to muslims,there is a right to insult and backlash?
There is a lot of Anti-semitic demonstrations going on... from the left wing. Who are very pro-palestine. It doesnt really get any more anti-semitic that wanting to destroy or siding with those that seek to destroy the only Jewish state in the world today.
Theres actually a lot of evidence that people are so concerned about being deemed racist that for instance Manchester Arena bomber didnt get stopped and searched. And obvious Rotherham rape gangs, Hull rape gangs, Leicester sewing modern day slavery operations etc. All examples of when the authorities have all "looked the other way". The Jewish seem a very soft target given they are entirely peaceful. And I dont like the way the left wing throw their entire support behind Palestine, presumably because they are a weaker miltary force than Israel, and yet Palestine have almost always been the aggressor.
@@pjdilans1 Excuse me?Jewish,a soft target? Palestine the aggressor?
Know your history first.
@@lightinthedark9201 its well documented Israel took the Gaza strip in a defensive war. They later left the Gaza strip in a truce, but tensions with Hamas only heightened since.
The land was called Judea. And the Romans renamed it to break Jewish ties to the area after a Jewish rebellion uprising. In Roman times Palestine was not its own country it was the Palestina province of Syria.
You could always tell me the name of the specific conflict Israel started?
And yes launching thousands of rockets at Israels Iron Dome makes Palestine the aggressors. And Israel accepted the two state UN peace solution... Palestine did not. For Palestine it is as I said the only solution is to eradicate Israel. Which makes them the aggressors.
Happy to discuss what ever else historically speaking I am missing. But you shouldnt assume people dont know their subject.
Honestly if you dont think it was idiotic for Palestine to launch thousands of rockets at Israel. Then maybe we as the rest of the world looking on, need to just accept there never will be peace in that region, and keep our noses out of it rather than siding with anyone. It shows such ignorance, and theres really no help for that region.
The apoligist didn’t even answer a single question and wasnt listening he was just waiting to talk again
Being offended is one thing; killing over being offended is insane.
Douglas Murray.....he is a clever guy....so much respect for him.....he is not scared to uphold the right of free speech....or scared to speak up against those who would wish to hurt those who do.....as a Christian I hear anti Christian things every day..... I can pray and turn the other cheek....not shoot and stab or bomb because I don't like what I hear.......unlike the justification I hear from the mouth in the studio.....
Murray always looks like he's psyching up for a cage fight
Madjid nawaz explains it like a boss at 7:00
having myself been banned for 24 hours by Facebook for saying I'm a gullible fool, which was deemed unacceptably offensive to myself, I was interested to see this debate on freedom of speech.
Same for me
The gentleman with the gray sweater (salt & pepper hair), is extremely well spoken! Rational, methodical, and gets his point across w/o emotion (but in a profound nature). The Lady around minute 14 makes a valid point, however, I think the gent I spoke of earlier is spot on! cheers
my douglas murray is always had that serious contempt of expression during his speeches ahaha.
Could you write the above in English please?
@@terrytibbs5678 considering it was four years ago, he's probably not going to respond, so let me help you out?
He's probably not speaking his first language, hence your confusion, but the meaning is quite clear, here let me clarify for you in case you're not able to put it together:
"Douglas Murray always has that serious expression of contempt on his face when he is doing these interviews"
There you go.
that guy with the glasses seemed very pissed and aggresive and a little controling.
everyone can get offended at anything.
therefore the right to offend is not only an important right, arguably, it is the most important right of all.
While the Christian man’s remark
about mockery being poison
sounds fair enough
on the surface,
his view is shared every tyrant who ever lived.
As another audience member put it,
mockery is “a weapon for truth”.
America needs a show like this so badly .
you would have bikini-clad women firing t-shirts from the audience section though. And I don't like the idea of having to masturbate during a discussion about terrorism.
@@tobymcinnis7031 What's wrong with masturbation?
this is a really hard question because if we take it to limit it can be quite grey.
for example if a comedian mock a certain person and he is made fun by his surrounding every day, does he have the right to be protected from that?
Nobody has the "right" to dictate how other people use language plain and simple. Being offended is is subjective to the individual I.e. in Australia a vegan got backlash for asking her neighbours to not cook meat because the smell offends her.
Nobody anywhere should be able to tell others how they use language to form thoughts
Being offended is a personal shortcoming. It has nothing to do with free speech.
Offense is taken not given. Whoever takes offense is responsible for that choice.
That Raza Nadim guy is something else though. Talk about a reactionary fool. Wow. If he is a 'moderate' Muslim then we should be scared. He makes quite a few claims here - including the claim that he knows the real reason behind the publication Charlie Hebdo. I honestly cannot believe that this guy heads up a family let alone an organization called the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK. He's more of an emotional wreck than anything else. He comes across as very very very weak in his beliefs. Kind of pathetic to watch, actually.
"Anything you can convert to is not a race"
2021 has entered the chat
Your freedom ends where my offense begins
WHEN SOMEONE IS THIS MAD, THEY ARE ALWAYS WRONG!
Half of "freedom of speech" is having the freedom to choose when not to speak. Not saying something doesn't take away that freedom, and it definitely doesn't change how you feel about that something. These days everyone just says anything because they can, not because they should (not to sound like Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park there).
This. This praise and defensiveness of freedom of speech completely ignores the "Is what I'm saying true/kind/sensible/constructive/etc?" That should be the first thought. It's super easy to keep mouth open and let words vomit out (and notice the other side isn't listening because they're used to hearing static nonsense so much they've gotten numb to it). What does that give anyone? After that step we can move on to the next point on the agenda.
Douglas Murray was magnificent in this. His rage at the terrorist sympathiser was tangible. The West needs people like this to uphold the philosophy and values we inherit from the Enlightenment, that make our culture the most hospitable for a diversity of views and freedom to live as we wish.
When it comes to freedom of speech or religion, Douglas Murray is on par to Christopher Hitchens in his polemics and it’s awesome!
Douglas Murray is a right wing twat who often doesn't know what he is talking about and spreads very questionable theories , but yeah he was relatively correct here
YES. In order to have meaning full conversation with someone you must be willing to offend or get offended.
what is this "website" called google. Lol - great contribution. Love the way Majid picks up on it
Douglas Murray has just aged like a fine wine, excellent speaker.
Freedom of speech is the right of everyone! I'm a gay woman whose been called many names (some really disgusting) over the years now I obviously don't agree with what these people have called me but the fact of the matter is this is a free society and they have a right to say these things, what they don't have the right to us to physical hurt me or someone else! If I call a Muslim or a Christian a twat don't I have that right but if I shoot a Muslim or Christian then I should be punished! Ps I'm not actually calling anyone a twat in my comment I'm just asking a question!
+Jaffa T
That is why dogmatic views such as religion should die out peacefully. A lot of these ridiculous views are from these bronze age beliefs which is counterproductive to our society today.
If a person sets out, through deed or speech, to deliberately cause upset in another person by using deliberately aggressive posture to elicit a similarly aggressive posture on the part of the other person, the recipient of the aggression, that does not constitute an intelligent use of the power of "freedom of speech".
If, however, a person is engaging in an intelligent conversation or debate with another and, through that respectful conversation, inadvertently presents some data or a position/opinion and, based on that discourse, the other person takes offense/exception to that data or position, the offended person may have to examine what it was about the data or remarks that caused them to be offended. This would particularly be the case if you have established mutual respect with the other person.
In my opinion, THIS reflects the true spirit of freedom of speech.
To younger generations, please understand that the answer is YES, unequivocally. Freedom of speech comes with a built-in risk of offending, and that is how disagreements become discussions, then agreements, then norms. And it is how we work EVERYTHING out.
Unless you want government to work it all out for you, in which case you are likely either uneducated or a fascist (or both).
There are no sacred ideas.
My fellow Muslims: offence is taken, not given. Nothing that any human says, or draws, can harm God or prophet Muhammad. Nothing anyone can say or draw can hurt your iman when it's strong enough. If you feel offended you need to reflect on why is it so. Why is your iman so weak that a mere human can hurt it? It doesn't make your faith stronger when you lash out at the test given to you by Allah. It doesn't make your faith stronger to demand that it never be tested. These tests are supposed to try to make you uncomfortable to show you how secure your faith is. Embrace them and show the world your faith is strong and unaffected by such petty things, even if they were legitimately designed to target Muslims specifically.
Prophet Muhammad predicted that towards the End most Muslims would be so in name only, having lost their iman. Are you one of those Muslims in name only? Those with strong iman don't take offence and lash out with violence at things that simply cannot hurt or affect the Prophet Muhammad or God in *any way*.
Exactly, a "ur mum" joke doesn't make your mother fat. A pun isn't meant to offend anyone, yet someone may take offense. You can sit there and screen about how how "offensive" something is, but in reality you should be saying "I'm offended." Its not the same thing.
Nice way to think about it, wish everyone felt as you do.
Well…with people being offended by their doctor simply telling them they’re obese (a clinical health term)…there’s prob no limit to what or how speech offends. Here in the United States, free speech is a right….however being NOT being offended is not
@Jorge Morando huh???
Douglas Murray is excellent here. Well done him.
"Does freedom of speech give the right to offend?'
Absolutely!
Freedom of speech with any restrictions is NOT freedom of speech.
Of course. Religion should be mocked and ridiculed at every opportunity.
Really?
@@cheryldeboissiere7824 Yes, really.
My right, and any other's, to freedom of speech and expression does NOT end at you, or anyone else, being offended. -me Xd
*“Nobody has the right to not be offended.* That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read.
If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.
To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”
― Salman Rushdie
“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”
-Salman Rushdie
"I regard free speech as a prerequisite to a civilised society, because freedom of speech means that you can have combat with words. That's what it means. It doesn't mean that people can happily and gently exchange opinions. It means that we can engage in combat with words. In the battleground of ideas. And the reason that that's acceptable, and why it's acceptable that people's feelings get hurt during that combat, is that the combat of ideas is far preferable to actual combat." -Prof. Jordan Peterson
I just wish we had this open dialogue in the United States. Many are misguided individuals, unwilling to hear another's point of view.
The homogenous point and that of projecting at 7 mins is spot on.