Per Canadian law: "There are three separate hatred-related offences: section 318 (advocating genocide),[10] section 319(1) (publicly inciting hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace),[11] and section 319(2) (wilfully promoting hatred).[11] In addition to the three offences, there are provisions which authorize the courts to order the seizure of hate propaganda, either in physical formats (section 320)[12] or in electronic formats (section 320.1)." I don't understand why people would have a problem with disallowing someone calling for violence and genocide against an identifiable group, purely based on their identity.
I geuss you didn't watch the video. The rules you cite above use the word "hate" or" hatred". As JP says...who defines "hate"? You? The Govt? The definition is so broad those rules can be used to stop free speech. Also we need to acknowledge how these rules are enforced. Here in the US we have leftist Democrat elected officials publicly advocating violence and hatred against conservatives. Actual violence against conservatives is pretty common and is ignored by the media. You defend the rules above as though they are just simple rules meant to protect people. They are not. They're broad, and can used by the Govt. to stop free speech.
@@RUBIZEN 🤣 Dude, that rule would literally protect your precious Republicans, but the US doesn't want it, because it would protect groups and prevent that awful rhetoric, regardless of who does it.
@@jtchristiank1 Jordan Peterson supports censorship he thinks anonymous users should be banned which would stop 95% of the politically incorrect discourse as most people can’t Afford to get cancelled and attacked by antifa
Very nice material. Until now, I was always close to flabbergasted when people in discussions brought up the term of hate speach/ inflammatory speach( German: Hetze, Hasssprache) because it was so ridiculous but I could not articulate my counter argument - until now.
Funny how specific “hate speech” is Hate speech isn’t just any speech that is hateful to anyone It’s specifically right wing contrarian views that are “hate speech” Like Nazi speech is “hate speech” but communist speech isn’t
This is a dumb argument. There are lots of things that aren’t clearly defined that require context for a judge to determine if it breaks a law or not. An obvious example of hate speech would be if someone calls a black person the n word in a derogatory manner. That would be hate speech. If a couple black people who are friends call each other that word in a joking way, that wouldn’t be hate speech. My point is context and intent matter and just because something isn’t easily defined doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated.
This is an absurd argument. It's so indefensible that he himself switches from "hate" speech to "offensive" speech. Here's one: what constitutes violence? If I slap someone on the back in congratulations... how hard can I squeeze someone's hand during a handshake... who can say exactly where it becomes violence? Who gets to judge that? Because there's a grey area ALL violence should be legal. Absurd. Germany has stricter laws/criteria against hate speech than the USA (know why?) & the German people still have a very healthy level of free speech.
You need to change the thumbnail of this video very badly by the way, because it’s highly misrepresentative and actually gives the opposite message to what he’s trying to say
"Don't regulate it because you can't define it.
Just a reminder that hate is not bad, nor good. Its just emotion. Hatefull behaviour might be good if justified.
Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you.
Per Canadian law:
"There are three separate hatred-related offences: section 318 (advocating genocide),[10] section 319(1) (publicly inciting hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace),[11] and section 319(2) (wilfully promoting hatred).[11] In addition to the three offences, there are provisions which authorize the courts to order the seizure of hate propaganda, either in physical formats (section 320)[12] or in electronic formats (section 320.1)."
I don't understand why people would have a problem with disallowing someone calling for violence and genocide against an identifiable group, purely based on their identity.
I geuss you didn't watch the video. The rules you cite above use the word "hate" or" hatred". As JP says...who defines "hate"? You? The Govt? The definition is so broad those rules can be used to stop free speech. Also we need to acknowledge how these rules are enforced. Here in the US we have leftist Democrat elected officials publicly advocating violence and hatred against conservatives. Actual violence against conservatives is pretty common and is ignored by the media. You defend the rules above as though they are just simple rules meant to protect people. They are not. They're broad, and can used by the Govt. to stop free speech.
@@RUBIZEN
🤣 Dude, that rule would literally protect your precious Republicans, but the US doesn't want it, because it would protect groups and prevent that awful rhetoric, regardless of who does it.
I find your dismissal of " free speech " as hateful.
Thus
We need to ban those that want to ban people ...
He is clearly contradicting himself recently on Twitter.
Unfortunately he may no longer be so thoughtful like he used to be
Explain, please. I'm not on Twitter.
but does he make others really think including me and you and avoid dogma?
@@jtchristiank1 Jordan Peterson supports censorship he thinks anonymous users should be banned which would stop 95% of the politically incorrect discourse as most people can’t Afford to get cancelled and attacked by antifa
Your thumbnail did him dirty.
This guy needs to be listen to so badly
UA-cam, Twitter, Facebook, and all the other media sources need to pay attention to this and stop acting like fools
And again, he's spot on...
Very nice material. Until now, I was always close to flabbergasted when people in discussions brought up the term of hate speach/ inflammatory speach( German: Hetze, Hasssprache) because it was so ridiculous but I could not articulate my counter argument - until now.
Funny how specific “hate speech” is
Hate speech isn’t just any speech that is hateful to anyone
It’s specifically right wing contrarian views that are “hate speech”
Like Nazi speech is “hate speech” but communist speech isn’t
This is a dumb argument. There are lots of things that aren’t clearly defined that require context for a judge to determine if it breaks a law or not. An obvious example of hate speech would be if someone calls a black person the n word in a derogatory manner. That would be hate speech. If a couple black people who are friends call each other that word in a joking way, that wouldn’t be hate speech. My point is context and intent matter and just because something isn’t easily defined doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated.
The n word is awesome
I call people I don’t like the n word all the time and my black friend approves
@@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098 I know that isn’t true because you don’t have any friends lol.
@@EricGronneberg that’s not true I have many far right and Nazi friends including black anti semetic far right Hitler loving Nazi friends.
@@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098 it sounds like your only friend is Kanye west
King
Correction: The devil is in all governments...
this thumbnail does not do JP any justice
This is an absurd argument. It's so indefensible that he himself switches from "hate" speech to "offensive" speech.
Here's one: what constitutes violence? If I slap someone on the back in congratulations... how hard can I squeeze someone's hand during a handshake... who can say exactly where it becomes violence? Who gets to judge that? Because there's a grey area ALL violence should be legal. Absurd.
Germany has stricter laws/criteria against hate speech than the USA (know why?) & the German people still have a very healthy level of free speech.
nice video
You need to change the thumbnail of this video very badly by the way, because it’s highly misrepresentative and actually gives the opposite message to what he’s trying to say
That thumbnail is does exactly what he intended. I hate it 😁