The Freedom of Hate Speech; a Call for Civil Dialogue | Katia Campbell | TEDxMSUDenver
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 10. 2019
- From an early age many children in the United States are taught that all opinions are valid and equal. When it comes to hateful ideology and hate speech, that becomes a problem. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences, yet we are in an era where hateful ideologies are now being considered as valid political opinions and are given a platform at the highest levels in our country. This talk discusses the need to understand our responsibilities when it comes to free speech and the consequences of unfettered hate speech in our culture. We need to critically interrogate the validity of all ideas and get back to privileging reason and argument when it comes to freedom of speech. It is also important to engage in civil dialogue with people who do not always share our same worldview. Katia Campbell is an Associate Professor at Metropolitan State University of Denver. She earned her doctoral degree from the University of Denver in the areas of Rhetoric, Diversity, and Media Studies.
Her scholarship and teaching focuses on rhetoric, free speech, cultural representation, popular media, and critical pedagogy. She also consults and facilitates workshops on Communication and Diversity, Media Literacy, Free Speech, Public Speaking, and Dialogic Ethics. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
"I'm not advocating for censorship..." I just don't think you should be allowed to say things I find offensive.
@I Will Rock Your Face!
Thank you for providing an example of ridiculous speech that I personally disagree with, but that I will defend your right to say.
She never says certain idea shouldn't be allowed to be said. She said certain ideas aren't worth being said based on how informed they are. In no way do I see that as censorship. I'm curious on what you see it though
@@drsoups and who's going to judge how informed I am?
Nick Nicholson Its not something that can necessarily be judged effectively especially because of each person's inherant bias. However, whether or not an opinion is well informed can still be at least determined at basic level based on legitimate logical deduction. For example, whether or not their arguments are fallacious or if the reasoning they are using for their arguments is legitimate, and/or if they actually prove their point.
@@drsoups That is true. She does not suggest censorship, she suggests open , logical dialog. I don't think many people here actually watched the video all the way through.
Ptediction: she will be for censoring until she is censored; then she will blame huyite pepo for shutting her down.
What? You didn't watch the video?
That woman is a professional victim.
she said she's against censorship.
Start of speech : “ I... am a victim of mean words”
*turns off video *
Facts
I don’t think she said this exact phrase. Can you give me a time stamp?
You have the depth of understanding of a goldfish.
Well, if you're not willing to become informed before forming your opinion, then your onion does not have value
@Channel 9 OÑO
I believe in the principle of free speech.
@Real Communism this man is a troll
@Real Communism ignore him. Leftists coming from there echo chambers don't recognize the truth when they see it
@Real Communism Don't lump her in with all women. There are many who do act as advocates for free speech.
The Radical Left all in all would curb your free speech only because it would offend them
@@supersani21 Radical libtard
@@supersani21 yup! Anyone with a working brain would easily be able to see right away that she’s attacking our right to free speech. This channel is a joke. Always against our god given rights
We are living in difficult times? Wow sounds like someone has blinders on their eyes
Sounds just like someone who has not lived through difficult times or traveled somewhere that people are really living in difficult times. Ignorance develops people like this.
She isn't aware of the modern western world life comfort. Send her back to the dark age
Haha this chick is insane.
So.....she was attacked by a gang of adverbs?
Those goddamn adverbs!
Makes me sick to my stomach
And a mafia of adjectives.
If speech is violence to you, congrats. You've lived an incredibly sheltered life.
Some of us know first-hand what exactly "violence" is, and words could never ever match the pain and terror. Never.
I agree wholeheartedly. I am glad to see you understand that hate speech causes violence, and how important it is to end both things.
@@eliashcroft6773 yup what you just said offended me now I’m gonna be violent towards you you should be in jail for it too … only weak and simple minded people will let others words control your actions
Exactly
Hate speech usually leads to violence
Whatever happened to TED talks being intellectual and interesting?
Marco Galindo x means independently organized event. Anybody can do this.
@@annonymeandfish you don't get his comment
@@annonymeandfish No, when conservatives try to do this the radical leftists riot so TEDx charges prohibitively expensive for security fees effectively silencing right wing voices with violence.
TEDx is not TED.
If freedom of speech has the right to offend, then be ready for its consequences. Nothing in this world is free, we are bound by our body and death. It is pure human ignorance to assume and truly believe that there are no consequences.
I am offended by your speech......now what?
Then have your comment actually say why you are offended by it so people can have a legitimate and civil discussion about it like she is calling for.
@@drsoups When you control the bounds of speech to the point grievances cannot be expressed, those effected resort to violence. Speech may be violence, but it is the least deadly. We need it to operate in the world. So, her judgement and curtailing of accepted speech, is offensive. Thereby, by her own declared standards, should be banned.
nicholas daley I disagree that she is saying people should control the bounds of what speech is being said, I believe her word is being misinterpreted. She calls for civil discussion on speech that one disagrees with, and argues that ill-informed opinions *shouldn't* be in the marketplace of ideas. But she is not calling for active suppression and censorship or said ideas.
@@drsoups You have the right to risk being offensive. You also have the right to be wrong.
@@drsoups Like I said, you have a right to be wrong.
My worry is that this "hate speech" could easily be misused down the line, what would be classified as "hate speech" and what would be the punishment, not only that but it just sounds very much like one of my jolly old Orwellian nightmares
Raven Whiteduck
I respect your concern and recognize that it is a difficult issue. This is why I definitely do not support censorship . I do think the issue of hate speech is still one we need to recognize, address, and talk about though as it does impact our society and our communities. Thanks for your comment. Ignoring it or pretending it isn’t real, as some on this thread desperately want to do, won’t get us to a better place as a diverse and democratic culture. But yes, I have Orwellian nightmares too so I do understand where you are coming from.
Could easily be misused? It's used to try to ruin people's lives every day NOW.
@@katiacampbell3737 With all the times "Hate Speech" is used to censor or jail people for things said online regardless of context, I'm not convinced that "Hate Speech" is anything more than just a means to get around the 1st Amendment for the sake of creating/controlling narratives.
@@katiacampbell3737 You challenge that speech Katia. Not through fists like some groups do, but through your own words and debate. Someone will always have something to say you don't like or is in fact hateful. Sadly, that is the way of the human beast. But you win by moving people to your side with words and peaceful acts.
In fact, through this speech you DO support censorship. It's despicable. Like I said in my on its own post, by your own standards you should be quiet. That's how this game works. What we find acceptable today is tomorrow's ill informed and hateful.
Now do I truly want you silenced? No. Because if you are silenced then I run the risk of being silenced as well. But don't tell us you're against censorship when you just had a pro censorship talk.
@@katiacampbell3737 do you see what lawmakers do when their are new laws in place? They add more and more rules to it until it's barely understandable, people getting fined for having the wrong tree in their backyard, kids getting stopped by the cops for selling lemonade, you will inevitably cause far more harm then good should this "hate speech" be taken to either a provincial or federal level, I mean do we wanna end up like china who've censored winnie the pooh
oh muh community. "Community " is the most over used word to set up virtue signalling.
Grow a pair lady.
I love to see that you support ladies with pairs :D Trans and Intersex rights!
Who else is waiting until comments get blocked?
I kind of hope it is, who here does not realize immediately something is wrong in a video as soon as they see comments turned off?
I like how her favorite philosophers are the sophists:
Sophistry: the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
When education fails, fall upon persuasion
Here before the memes
TED talk by CNN should be the title
That part when she says only informed opinions have value. Wow, talk about self awareness
Limited free speech is not free speech, conditional rights are not rights
And... with that “free” does not mean without consequences. @fox
@@CrysWats right so stop trying to censor everyone you don’t agree with because you opinion offended me now it’s hate speech you should go to jail.. see how dangerous that is when you take away free speech
@@KingAries85 lol what? Where did I say take away free speech? Everybody has choices. With those choices come consequences. Consequences could be good or bad.
So happy to see most people defending free speech. Thank you all for this.
This woman's speech is hateful and offensive...
She must be silenced for my dignity!
Indeed gooseman
Ah yes, hypocrisy
Thank you. I thought I was predominantly alone in this idea, that hate speech should be battled with arguments, logic and civility, not with censorship.
She is trying to tell people they dont understand the first amendment....I didnt realize she was a comedian.
TEDx having someone who wants to control thought and speech undermines the very concept of TEDx talks. I don't think they should condemn this video or apologize like the SJWs have, but I won't be watching anymore if there are any future videos like this. Not to mention this video dramatizes this girl's life who she just sucks the suffering her parents went through, which even they don't sound like they lived that rough lives relative to their contemporaries.
The community coming together IS freedom of speech because they chose to exchange the thoughts that there was something morally wrong.
This videos deserves every downvote it gets. DOWNFINGAS!
What?! Future videos like this? These people have been promoting psychos for 2 or 3 years.
What is the very concept of TEDx talks.
The way I understand it, excluding unpopular opinions (look at the like bar), would be going against the very concept of TEDx talks.
@@schwarzerritter5724 I thought it was supposed to be about technology entertainment and design.
@@fatbrownbuffalo2769 If that is what this is about then it lost itself a long time ago.
@@schwarzerritter5724 Can't argue with that. Seems like the talks are becoming more focused on MSM narrative.
I remember when tedx was interesting... and thought provoking.. guess that’s all over with now..
How many more nice things will be destroyed by the victim hustling?
I guess this is why we can’t have nice things...
Who’s here from Sinatra says
Professional Noobs. Me!!
Me, I saw his brilliant response video first and that’s what sent me here.
"All ideas are equally valid and true"......?!?!?!!
Yeah, no. Wrong. I knew participation trophies were a bad idea. I knew it.
Prot She's saying NOT all ideas are equally valid and true
> I am strong
> I am a victim of speech
L M A O?
There is no such thing as hate speech. The things you want to censor will not always be your list, do YOU want aomeone else to dictate what you can say then?
Avshara Grastus How is she calling for censorship?
@QED FACT: Explicit calls to violence and murder are threats not hate speech. Prove me wrong.
@QED FACT: The term hate speech is not in any local, state or federal law anywhere in the USA. Prove me wrong.
Nailed it perfectly
@@drsoups well when you fight to take away someone’s right to say something because your weak and broken is censorship. When In fact letting someone else’s words control your actions is weak and childish .. no wonder so many of you are ok with letting the government think for you
I'm embarrassed this happened in my city but am glad the community had a chance to understand exactly how INSANE this is.
''Directed to historically marginalized group'' ?
Hate can be directed to any human being. You can degrade and dehumanize historically privileged group.
Not all opinions are valid and equal.
Sometimes you're wrong. Sometimes you're uninformed. Sometimes your opinion doesn't matter.
Sometimes someone else's opinion hurts you.
I wonder if she realizes that Socrates and Plato hated the sophists for twisting the truth, exactly like she is doing.
@Captain Jack yeah this chick made my brain hurt really really bad, she's an up-and-coming race Hustler 😬🤐🤫
13 minutes of "I don't understand free speech, so you shouldn't have it."... Thanks, Tedx. 😒
“Every 60 seconds in Africa, a minute passes”
- Big Man Tyrone
She is so happy to be a proffesional "victim" it's unbelievable.
Hahahahaha yeah definitely not a shill bag
They lettin errbody and they mama give a Ted talk 😂😂
She misquotes *brandenburg v ohio* , speech that causes violence would be the disfavored fighting words doctrine. *Brandenburg* says the speach has to **incite** imminent lawless action
Stopping hate speech is a social and personal responsibility thing- not a government thing. It takes love, "compassion," and "respect."
That being said, although the government has red line of "direct violence." My "personal" red line is dehumanizing someone ie. not calling them human.
Sometimes, sadly, we have "red lines."
What are you even talking about, freedom of speech is something that we can not just dispense with because someone heard words they disagree with. That sounds to me like the absolute worst idea i have ever heard in a very long time.
Its a fair question to ask me why obviously but please allow me to explain why, the only way you can control what people say is through laws, what kind of a tool have you just given the politicians? The perfect weapon to silence their opposition and ban even their ideas. Democracy is dead and the wonderful dictatorship can finally begin.
Never ever will i agree with this, i would give my life to stop this from happening happily.
Id stand next to you for it too, even if it cost me my life as well.
If we don't take a stand and defend the document that protects our freedoms and way of life, when should we take a stand?!?!!
I’ll fight you for my freedom lady.
Banning hate speech: because we all know that the intention of the first amendment was to protect our right to share cat videos on social media.
This woman is absolutely entitled and privileged if mere words are what she's trying to fight against!
Some women on this earth are still fighting for the right not to be sold or auctioned off like property.
This women is an egotist at best a narcissist at worst
It's crazy how there are so many comments criticizing the video, for things that are not in the video.. actually a bit the opposite.
I challenge you to show me just one critical comment that was about something that is not in the video.
@@jamesmabry5776 and how do you suggest me to show you one? I could just make up one, and what if you can't find it? Just look for one yourself and you tell me
'Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences,'
Actually it kinda does; How does a tyrannical dictatorship silence free speech?
With consequences.
I always love when these people talk about banning or stopping hate speech, especially the ones who want it done by force. What they NEVER realize is that 1. It would have to be spread equally across the board. Not just what they view as "hate speech." And 2, the most beautiful part in all of this, who is in power over the house and Congress right at that moment. If they enact ANY speech laws, for the sake of argument they can, who do you think will be disproportionately targeted for them? I can promise you it wouldnt be the people they think it would be.
Anyone remember 'sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me'?
except in harry potter
I am a strong wahman
Also her: people said mean words to me and they hurt my feelings so they should be punished
This video did not attract the attention of intended audience but the audience that needs to be informed the most. Now that’s real power.
I think it's ironic how all of those in favor of hate speech are not those who have experienced it's consequences. Hate speech isn't just about speech, it's that those words only mean one thing. Which is that whichever race/religion/etc is hated on, should be harmed and discriminated against in some manner. That is literally it's entire point. It inevitably leads to violence against that race/religion/etc.
Of course it's an easy choice when you experience none of those consequences and don't have to face the nazis and get to use dum dum lines like "you can't handle words!". I'm not saying it should therefore be banned. I'm saying that there are multiple things to take into account and it's not that straight forward if you are not a sadistic sociopath.
For example, the UN provides alternative methods: "States can also use alternative tools - such as education and promoting counter-messages - to address the whole spectrum of hateful expression, both on and offline." But as we all know, an additional consideration must take place, which is that this is the last thing that the US government would do.
I don't have to say *ANYTHING* about this video! The amount of dislikes speak for me!
Synopsis: buzzword, buzzword, buzzword... there needs to be censorship of opinions I disagree with... buzzword, buzzword.
The speaker's ideas are the real danger, but yet I will support her right to say them. I just wish it was reciprocal.
By choosing to be offended by speech, you are empowering the speech, not yourself.
If someone attacks you physically, or takes actions that affect your life then you protest. If someone says mean words... you ignore them. If a group of people hold mean beliefs... you ignore them. Their thoughts and their words can’t hurt you unless you let them hurt you. It’s literally one of the first things we are taught in school.
Until you stop giving words power over your lives, you will perpetually be a “victim”
How about, stop being an a$$hole.. It costs you nothing.
"I'm strong. I'm a victim. My parents gave me a backbone. I'm a victim. I'm not for censorship but I want to make the cost of free speech prohibitive. I'm a victim. Hate speech is something only other people can be guilty of because I say so. I'm a victim."
Someone needs to explain to her that this tactic is no longer effective.
I literally spit my coffee out laughing. This is exactly the narcissistic insanity the left is presenting as serious argumentation. We’re well on our way to living in 1984.
This is exactly it
I would prefer if you could be very specific with the exact wording that was used against you that you consider as hate speech?
She never explained how her parents were terrorized. And hate speech isn't exclusive to 'historically marginalized' people.
Katia Campbell, I will ask you if your ideology is one of hate and intolerance? Please sight facts and not your feelings. You are defeated by your own words, by quoting free market place of idea's and then you go on to infer your ideas are superior to others and we must sensor and bury any ideology that conflicts with your own. That your skin color empowers you by your past and present oppression, does your skin color not give you the platform on which you speak? You are a well-educated college professor, you are privileged, not oppressed. Diversity of thought should be your first and last premiss.
Is she serious?
Adderrell sadly yes she is deadly serious
Unfortunately, yep.
I showed this video to one of my neighbors who lived through the siege of Sarajevo back in the 90s. He said basically the U.S is luckily that it can be hurt by words.
"We had to sleep in destroyed homes waiting for shellings to hit our home, and Americans sit in safe spaces looking to avoid hateful speech. I would swap places with them any day"
Grateful to see this ratioed so thoroughly
Free speech harms nothing. Actual violence does and we have laws against it. I disagree with her, is that free speach or hate speach? Under her ideology, who gets to decide if not for free speach?
The clash of "il informed opinions" is the best way to create, sharpen, and maintain strong arguments.
Isn't this a slippery slope? Who gets to decide what is and is not informed? Who gets to decide what is and is not hateful? Is it the government? Is it the most powerful people in country? If money is considered speech, will the wealthiest people in our country get to decide what is hateful? If we go down this road of limiting freedom of speech, will the freedom of political speech be next? What happens when the opposing party to your own political ideology comes into power and they deem your speech to be hateful? Am I allowed to ask these questions, or is it a hateful argument that is misinformed? At what point does any criticism or push back to the ideals of your movement become hateful speech that we need protection from?
"I'm the product of a..." look at the first thing she said. This was thought out, it's the first thing out of her mouth. She is something bought, sold and paid for by her own definition. Do you think her mother ever said that she was a product of someone else? THATS EXACTLY WHAT HER MOTHER WAS FIGHTING AGAINST!
Who defines what 'Hate' is?
Exactly.
Right now in the USA the Southern Poverty Law Center(SPLC) defines what 'Hate' is in the USA.
I do not recall when we voted on establishing that particular non profit as a government agency which directs so much of the enforcement resources in the USA?
Sounds like she had a pretty privileged life. I never had a group of people constantly watching over me and my family to make sure that we were safe.
Hate speech is an arbitrary term, what you deem to be “hate speech” will be different from another persons definition. Not only that, but the definition of that term would arbitrarily change from era to era and the ideas that would be considered objectionable will arbitrarily change. It’s insane, the idea behind the first amendment was to protect speech that the general public find objectionable and horrible.
TEDx, where the heck do you guys find these people??
Difficult times.... Right like today I woke up pet my dog in my warm house got an energy drink out of the fridge and watched the rain can you imagine what will happen if our electric grid fails? Our society has become so soft some people think words are equivalent to violence. This is of course insane no idea is so dangerous it can't be discussed. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the inability of her ideological comrades not having evidence and arguments for some positions.
Katia: I'm a victim of Free Speech and want it banned entirely!
U.S. Constitution: Am I a joke to you?
If we say what is or isn't okay to say that defeats the point of free speech.
"I was a victim of free speech" Yeah i don't care
Honestly I think that
I have 3 wonderful brown children, and I told them to never let anyone censor your speech like this woman is preaching and to be strong enough to not let words make you a victim.
This is the way. She appears to be fascist, fascist lite, but still fascist.
"From an early age many children in the United States are taught that all opinions are valid and equal". That statement is just patently untrue...she probably means that children are taught that people are all entitled to their own opinion and we should respect that freedom, which is certainly not the same statement.
Call it whatever you want, but the second you try to legislate what is and isn't acceptable speech, or what "hate speech" is, you will find yourself on a quick route to authoritarianism where the powerful can simply decide what is hate speech and you will not be allowed to say anything contradictory to them.
Hate speech is free speech. We have free speech not to simply talk about banal things, but to be able to say things that ARE controversial, even if they don't appeal to the sensibilities of some elitist, academic busybody who only wants more power.
"Why can't I hate you with speech"
- Patrice O'Neal
😂😂😂
And what would the modern woman know about responsibility? Nothing.
eh, about as much as a modern man
On a platform who's 'trending' page might make you want to give up on humanity altogether, this comment section is a spark of hope.
Katia, I respect that you are not advocating for censorship, however that begs the question of where do we set the bar for accountability in speech? For instance: without reading his patient's chart, a doctor tells his patient that she has cancer. She goes through years of chemo, only to find out that she never had cancer. He technically did not lie, as he never read the chart (this would be labeled as ignorance), yet he would still face malpractice, be found guilty, and possibly face jail time. Why is the same not true for public figures and media pundits? They are held by the public as reliable sources of information (much like the doctor), their words are taken at face value by millions, so should they too not face the same scrutiny and consequences when propagating false or ill informed ideas, or hate speech?
The job of scrutinizing these people is up to other people with a platform. And the job of protecting ourselves from bad ideas is ours. We do that by staying informed and talking to people. You will find that the more people you talk to, the more your ideas change as do theirs hopefully.
Wow no response, very telling
@@mst5g826 Then why do doctors lose their medical licenses and face prison time? News media pundits are the doctors of information. I'm not talking about the polarized talk show hosts, I'm talking about the main steam, prime time "news." When they misrepresent data, or leave out key facts in order to frame a information to fit their story. We don't let the doctor off the hook because his patient didn't do enough research about cancer, so why should that excuse work for the news pundits?
@@CriticalThinking83 If we're talking about the medical field, then the insurance companies would be a better comparison to the msm since they are owned by the same people in large conglomerates. The doctor would be a person with a platform such as independent YTube or paper reporters are to the msm. Just as new media is chosen by the viewer, the patient chooses a doctor who provides an informed diagnoses. You cannot know if your doctor is giving you good info unless you educate yourself and get multiple opinions. A doctor usually has to be similar to an A. Jones figure to lose their ability to provide service and they pop up in other places afterwards. With the insurance companies, we all know what their motive is and how far they will go to assert it by educating ourselves and knowing when to go outside of the insurance system. So, our main problem becomes a lack of education because there will always be a profit motive and soulless people willing to go to whatever lengths. Some of them get caught, but most know how to skirt the law. What can we do but learn to protect ourselves and look out for our friends and family? Beyond that, we can talk to people and spread ideas that don't originate from the elite. It is almost a guarantee that if we allow the gov to punish the media, it will be manipulated to advance their own protection and the flow of ideas will narrow even further than what social dictates allow.
You already understand enough to not trust the media. That's a lot farther than most still, especially among older generations. Her best point is to learn rhetoric as the ancients propose in the trivium style. I'm not saying you should study the Greeks, but go out and practice talking to people with whom you would not generally share ideals. The action itself is educational. The most important part of this for yourself is to test your own beliefs. Recognize the assumptions made and built upon by your own ideas while you are trying to break down their assumptions. One will continually find that they have to go back to think and research which will strengthen your understanding. If you were able to have a human conversation, both parties will come back the next time with better understanding and a better debate. The more points of view you find on a subject, the more you understand a subject. And the ultimate truth is that no one has 'the' right answer. But the more ideas that are tested, the closer we all get.
Soccer Is a communist sport
What are you referring to? I guess I lost the order of the comments. We don’t what?
And in terms of our system being fine, that is debatable. Sure it’s fine for those that continuously benefit from it, but that doesn’t mean we can’t want to make the system better for more people.
4:06 "The truth comes through the clash of arguments. It does not come through the form of ill-informed opinions". I'm sorry but this is just thickheaded.
It's not like arguments just emerge fully formed out of the blue. Also, most arguments are opinions. You have to be pretty big-headed to only consider your side of an argument to be factual and any argument you disagree with as merely "ill-informed opinions".
This is why I really don't want to call my self a lefty any more. The left is just so totalitarian, and abusive and unwilling to consider arguments that contradicts its current stands.
I think republicans are wrong, but we should not be silencing them
I agree with her. Her father was free to be successful (speak freely) he just wasn't free from the consequences or responsibility of that (speech) position. If he didn't like the KKK (SJWs) harassing him shouldn't have been successful (speaking). He should have lowered himself to their standards (been silent and say what they believe). No different then what she asks of everyone she believes who are saying (so called) "hate speech".
“In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive.”
Dr.Jordan B Peterson
Someone said he's a conman, I don't think you need me to tell you that that is BS!
I'm strong, words hurt. You do realize people died so you could have the opportunity to say that right.
Imagine being so strong words hurt you
are you implying that words are not for the weak?
Hahaha nice!!! I love all the comments defending free speech but this one is the best I’ve seen so far.
"Adverbs broke my legs.... words really do hurt..."
But if you're so strong how's words gonna get you. If you're empowered by hate speech then why would you want it to go away.
It is ones own personal responsibility to inform themselves and debate them
“Don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating for censorship.” Then advocates for censorship in the next sentence.
She says that freedom of speech DOES NOT mean freedom of consequence or responsibility. Excuse me, does she truly believe that freedom of speech is truly free if you can be prosecuted for exercising that freedom? This displays a fundamental lack of understanding, which is troubling to say the least. She does not understand that the 1st amendment is a "protection" of your freedom of speech rights. Therefore, you are presented with no consequences for exercising that right, unless of course you are directly inciting violence. She believes that the freedom of speech is the action of your body allowing your mouth to work in conjunction with your tongue to form words that come out of your mouth. This is lunacy of course. Your freedom of speech is the state not being able to prosecute you for saying something that they may not like, and them protecting your ability to say these things in public. Her (mis)understanding of the 1st amendment is like a police officer standing right next to you, telling you that you can jaywalk if you want. And as you take your second step in a non-marked street, he immediately writes you up a ticket and tells you that you broke the law. It is very disturbing to see someone who could potentially be influential in our society to be this misled.
To change the 1st amendment, all you have to do is get 2/3s of the states to approve a new amendment that makes the changes that you desire. That's all. If you can't pull that off, then you can't change the 1st amendment. We have laws, and those laws require a PROCESS.
You don't get to skip that process no matter the reason and no matter the consequences. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This is an unlimited absolute, and it's the social contract under which I obey the laws. If you break that contract, then I am within my rights to eat the people I don't like.
Don't want me to eat people? Then uphold the social contract, because that social contract is the only thing keeping you off my plate.
Understanding the 1st amendment is very simple in fact. You are allowed to Express yourself and what/ how you think without legal consequences. So long as you are not slandering, or calling to action.
Remember one TED talk of a guy talking about toilet paper? Yeah, this is less important than that one.
That does not mean that you should ban ill informed opinions
Hate speech is free speech and should always be. If we believe we can decide that just because something is offensive that it can't be said, then we don't speak at all
So... who decides if an opinion is “informed”?
The Experts of course
The only way to create a free society is to let those whose opinion and vision you despise say what they want openly without legal consequences. Also, there is such a thing as social censorship.
If you give people the power to censor the speech of others, there will always be power-hungry pathological ideologues who will stop at nothing and by no means necessary to obtain that power so the power to censor in of itself shouldn't exist. Also, if people who you deem as persons committing hate speech are censored, how do you expect them to dispense with a hateful ideology if their ability to argue with people of opposing opinions is reduced?
Hate speech is becoming a catch all container for speech that hurts ones feelings. Define "hate".
For her to talk about the great liberal thinkers and the idea of a market place of ideas is the funniest thing I’ve heard this week
I know what she means I once spent a week in a hospital because I fell on some mean spoken words.
This is not social injustice. It's a social anxiety
I am calling you out for hate speech. I disagree with what you have said so, by your logic, you are using hate speech. If you have children and they say something you disagree with, are you going to call them out for hate speech?
I don't like what you are saying but I don't want to stop you from saying it. It is your right to say what you want even if it hurts my feeling but if your words are enciting violence, that's a different matter.
Remember the ditty:-
Sticks and stones
May break my bones
But words will never hurt me.
My advice to you is; grow up and stop acting like a baby.
This lady just argued the case for why religion shouldn't count as anything. Thank you.
When was she going to give any examples and instances where this hate speech was employed "everywhere". Or at least unchallenged.