you prolly dont care but does any of you know of a trick to get back into an instagram account..? I was stupid forgot my login password. I would love any tricks you can give me.
"If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech. There's two positions you can have on freedom of speech. Now you can decide which position you want."
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" What if somebody says you and your entire nation should be killed or enslaved?
@@suurmestari7457 It's not that simple. Every genocide starts with somebody saying there should be genocide. Freedom of speech does not include violating other's rights.
@@suurmestari7457 Please explain why do you think that absolute freedom of speech is a good thing. Why is a right of Nazis to declare Jews as lower race that should be exterminated (or whatever similar nation that claims it's superior to it's neighbors) more important than Jews' right to live?
@@michaelwright8896 he didn't. A guy called Hall wrote it as an illustration of Voltaire's ideals so to speak, in his biography of Voltaire. From my memory, Voltaire wrote, ' I detest what you write but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write' something like that
A true Leftist and Progressive should be on Chomsky's side on this issue. We should never employ the tools of oppressors to silence those with whom we do not agree with no matter how much we may disagree with there views
I blame parents of left in late 1800's demanding with guard down, the state to bring public education. Nationalism, White Supremacy propaganda of progressive to have color blind Jim Crow, NeoLiberal Globalism, and CIA all is core of issue starting and worsened by corporate person right and climate change. Don't have education taught with educated parents who depend on education system to move toward progress then parents overworked with news of CNN blinding them to have education, Media and News (CNN in 1980 to modern era with Fox worse as Internet is out of right wing normal) as education system, civil rights used by power to destroy democracy, media, consumerism growing from Marketing and AD industry,
So historically and scientifically proven facts are open for debate and multiple "views"? The Holocaust happened and was orchestrated by Nazis with the intent of murdering millions of people, specifically Jews. Climate change is a proven scientific phenomenon and mankind needs to curb their greenhouse house emissions to reduce the effects. The number two is the number two. Alphabets exist in written language. All of these are well-established facts. Stating otherwise is irresponsible and attention-seeking behavior. I don't know. I'm open to other thoughts an rebuttals, of course, but that is how I see it right now.
@Twenty Faces The Things is, there were hate speech laws in place in Germany before Hitler came to power. The only way to defeat bad ideas is with better ideas. American have understood this since 1776.
He's actually adressed this in particular. He talked about it with Krauss. I'm sure it's easy to find the video on UA-cam. He is adamant against speaking in persuasive fashion as he feels it's a form of manipulation, to stir one's senses into agreeing with a certain viewpoint. Instead, he rather approach things calmly and allow the facts to speak for themselves. Another thing he as addressed is that he isn't trying to convince others to think like him but rather have conversations so that both may come to the conclude what is true, as he himself is not convinced of his own arguments. I think it's an extremely ethical approach to have because he realizes and understands that reality is much bigger than him and he realizes that he can be wrong about certain things. To quote Hawkings, all we have to do is keep talking.
This clip is from an absolutely tremendous documentary film on Noam Chomsky called "Manufacturing Consent." It's incredibly well done and a 'must-see' if there ever was one. It originally came out in 1994 so it's slightly dated but not too badly, don't miss it.
6:53+ "If you're in favor of freedom of speech that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise, otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech. It's two positions you can have on freedom of speech. Now you can decide which position you want."
What is so difficult to understand about Mr. Chomsky's position? "I do not agree with your words Sir, but I would die for your right to express them"!!
Yeah but Chomsky happened to disagree with his dismissal on those grounds. Whatever the case, you can't say people on the left don't stand for free speech.
You're using words like "oppressive" and "authoritarian" very loosely. An employer/employee relationship is not authoritarian. It is voluntary, to mutual benefit. If either party perceives that the relationship is no longer serving its interests, the relationship ends. That is not "oppression". It is freedom of association, an expression of liberty. Government is the only entity that can legally force behavior under threat of imprisonment or death. No other institution has that power. The recent riot at Berkeley (over the planned Milo Yiannopoulos speech), highlights this difference. It's one thing to withdraw from, or argue against, a viewpoint you don't like. It's quite another to engage in violence to prevent someone from being heard. And government, by its nature, is an instrument of physical violence, which is why it is not permitted to act against you in any way for speaking your mind.
Just because it's voluntary doesn't mean it's not authoritarian. You voluntarily submit to government as well, or else you would be dead. Same goes for having a boss for the vast majority of people.
You don't voluntarily submit to government. You don't "sign up" to be under the jurisdiction of the state; you just are and you have no choice about it. And while you might choose to be cooperative when they compel you, you do that knowing that if you don't cooperate, they will at some point physically force your compliance by having policemen show up at your door with guns and a piece of paper, place hands on you, force you into a vehicle and take you to be incarcerated. An employer can't take your freedom away. He can only take your job away. And your job isn't yours by inherent right, it's yours by virtue of the employment agreement you made. It has terms that both sides have to live up to. Not the same thing at all as obedience to the state. As for having to work, yes, most people need to have some sort of job in order to feed themselves. But that doesn't come from an authority, it comes from nature. It's inherent in being a living organism that you have to act to sustain yourself. In a free society, you have many options as to how you will do that. And only in the most abject poverty would you face a circumstance where there is one particular job you must take or you will starve to death. Let's please not pretend that Faurisson faced that kind of circumstance.
Policemen will eventually come to your house if you don't submit to paying taxes or whatever, because you are stealing. Just like how they'll come to your door if you steal from your workplace or from a store or anything like that. No, nearly everybody has to work for somebody, that is just the reality. Not some fantasy world where everybody can and will start their own business. Does not make it authoritarian. The protestors at Milo's speech weren't authoritarian. The government gives you the right to free speech, and we don't need to hear it on our campuses if we don't want. Especially given Milo is an especially inflammatory speaker who has outed trans kids in the middle of his speeches. That means his speech is actually a threat to safety. So it was entirely justified what they did. (Which was really nothing. What happened? A few windows broken, a few bottle rockets sent off)
The way a lot of these "intellectuals" debate is just attacking with poorly sourced information, reframing a half-understood premise as something that fits their own narrative, and making personal attacks. And here we have Chomsky, just chugging along since the 1920s, calmly using logic and information to communicate with people that frankly aren't worth his wasted breath. What a legend.
"Goebbels was in favor of Freedom of Speech for views he liked; so was Stalin." I don't understand how that doesn't click for some people. You can't just say you love Freedom of Speech when the people talking are espousing ideologies with which you already agree. You have to be reciprocal and listen to the batshit-crazy ideas of people with whom you disagree, otherwise it's not really "Freedom".
@@hklinker Inciting violence is what we want to avoid. Inciting hatred? I mean, if you want to start making the argument that hatred EVENTUALLY leads to violence, I'm sure you and I could find some common ground. The most important issue in this regard is what exactly defines "hate." It's not a universal, and that's about as clear as it gets. If a critical article is released, someone is going to interpret it as "hate" while another person is going to interpret is as "tolerant and acceptable." What tool do we use to measure, weigh, and decipher whose interpretation is the correct interpretation? I don't think there is such a tool.
Chomsky and and these people arnt even talking about the same thing, just like Twitter they just don't get it and won't until it's too late. We need now more than ever Chomsky!!!!
Sadly, the Earth seems to be populated by non-thinking creatures who are more than happy to accept authority rather than think through difficult issues themselves. It shouldn't be this hard to convince people *WHY* this is such a dangerous practice.
He lost his way during the lockdown. He called for forced medical tyranny. Perhaps he's lost it in his old age to have made such an overt and obvious foul.
@@drott150 This lie again. Let me tell you mutt: why don't you talk about Israel and their contribution of Pfizer. No you won't, Mr.JIDF. As or anyone else reading this comment: All he said was that anti-vaxx should be refused to allowed to dine outside and stopped form social gathering.
Dreaptomaniac I understand where you are coming from if you haven't already I recommend you read some of his books, there he expands on his views a lot more. :)
@@daniel-fd9ih I think it's quite clear that Chomsky supports freedom of speech in the sense that you can't be prosecuted by the state for your speech alone. Institutions like Universities should have no obligation to uphold freedom of speech, but they certainly lose all credibility if they choose to suppress speech beyond a reasonable boundary. Showing extreme BDSM in times square would be a severe public nuisance, and so it is reasonable for the police to intervene while upholding freedom of expression. If you cannot say something to an audience in any context without the state prosecuting you for nothing but the speech alone, then freedom of speech has failed.
"Mr Chomsky, you seem to have some radical, some controversial attitudes on free speech" What's so controversial about saying "I don't agree with what you're saying but I'll defend your right to say it"?
@Twenty Faces Well being a racist is wrong,sure But would rather know who the racist are. If you restrict speech these racist are just going silence themselves and make themselves seem like reasonable people. In America a nazi can say horrible things. But i have equal right to tell him to fuck off. If people know that person is a nazi. The more regular people can denounce him. This something that seem be lost on Europeans.
I'd say it's controversial because there is a difference between free speech and lies. If I scam you out of your money by lying to you, I can't then in court claim that "I was just using my right of free speech". I really don't understand how people in this comment section aren't talking more about how completely flawed his reasoning is. He is not defending free speech, he is defending lies. There is most definitely a difference. If someone says "I hate this particular religion and I think they should all die", THAT is free speech. If someone says "I don't care about genocide, screw them", THAT is free speech. You can disagree with them all you want, but you have to give them the right to say it. But that is NOT what Chomsky is defending here.
@@Lone432345 Similarly, like you say, a nazi saying horrible things is free speech, and you telling him to fuck off is free speech. But, again, this is something entirely different from what Chomsky is saying in this video. I am 100% pro free speech, but also 100% against what Chomsky is claiming.
It's controversial because very few people really believe in freedom of speech. Most people think that other people should be completely free to say things they agree with.
It's frightening how biased and unwilling to understand him those people were. Chomsky explained himself as clearly as possible and yet they all jump at him barking, not listening what he's saying. Shows how the empty can rattles the most.
@@nathanmarsh3172 I have several psychologist friends, all of them say a monotoned vocal speech pattern is a classic sociopath trait. After 50+++ years, listening to CHUMPsky, he only changes the names of his villians over the decades. In addition, most of his books have a massive preponderance to quote himself from his previous books. If you want the definitive assessment of CHUMPsky just listen to Thomas Sowell's assessment of Noam Chomsky. Someone he has knowledge of because they are the same age and era of 1960's radical semi Faustian Marxist Revisionist and Malthusian history and politics.
I think a lot of Anarchists and anti-authoritarian socialists have forgotten what it means to be anti-authoritarian these days and I'm quite disillusioned by it all. Preemptive use of violence is not a legitimate use of authority, if it is than that means the wests' preemptive attack on Iraq is justified if we're going to adopt such principles. But such principles are in conflict with Anarchism and being anti-free speech is highly undemocratic.
Not only do I agree with your general position, but I've also drawn the particular comparison between censorship of hate speech and the doctrine of preventive war as it was used in the case of Iraq.
@@drott150 What would be the point? For rational people all one needs to do is examine the historical record. Col Felix Sparks, Gen Eisenhower, Gen Patton, Lt. Col Dick Winters and many, many more saw the awful horror of the nazi ss concentration camps. This isn't even a debate. And again, even entering into the discussion about holocaust denial is losing one's humanity. But again, all you have to do is look at the historical record.
As a french person, i have to say : the state of confusion and ensuing generalised hatred is getting unbearable as a result of generations of half-baked intellectual and political discourse of the sort. It’s like the population has given up on essential ideas of truth as a whole and we’ve descended into tribal hell, unconsciousness.
Not really. It concentrates them and others into more obscure and extremist platforms, and within these platforms they may feel stronger and more popular, but their broader influence is significantly lower.
The variables of one man's actions contributes little when there is a social need that isn't addressed! Noam is planting seeds of ideas that will not bear fruit for 50 years.
Conservative here. Though I vehemently disagree with Chomsky on socialism, I agree completely with his support of freedom of speech. No-one should be silenced.
When a Conservative claims to be in favor of free speech I am forced to give a skeptical glare. Conservatism has always been an opponent of free speech historically. And that is because it has to be. The preservation of oppressive systems, which is whole-sail what virtually every Conservative position aims to do since the origin of the term, is best served by limiting speech. Now, in recent years - and I emphasize recent - there has been a narrative shift in the US where the Conservative Right has claimed the mantle of free speech. But this is not the first time The Right has done so. The Far Right in the late Weimar did the same thing. Not because they ever actually believed in free speech, but because it was a useful tool in the moment to obtain the power necessary to subvert it. And my skepticism is further enforced by the fact that Conservatives were - in my lifetime - aiming to ban or censor just about everything. The Satanic Panic was not that long ago. Additionally, my skepticism is also reinforced every time Conservatives let the mask slip and try to get something silenced. Which is actually quite frequent.
Firstname Lastname Every single one. That’s the purpose of Conservatism. To drag our feet or go back. Save for a couple of positions, which they share with Leftists (for the wrong reasons), every Conservative position is about preserving systems of oppression and control. And this has been true for hundreds of years, not just today.
I will now attempt to place the issue within a context that even French academia may understand it: Chomsky - “I dislike Roquefort cheese with every fibre of my being, but I will defend your right to eat it if you so choose”.
"Freedom" of speech means that you can say whatever you like except when it comes to criticising the authorities. Also I find that sometimes I say one thing but people seem to hear something else.
I mean how hard can it be to understand. Left or right or whatever, how can you not understand this extremely simple distinction. Also hilarious the Tel Aviv guy who of course turns it into 'an obvious campaign against Israel' haha snowflake
All topics need to be debated otherwise the people doomed to inherit that knowledge are inheriting dogma, and however correct or incorrect that dogma is it is better for people to think and work out for themselves what is right.
"In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. This quotation - which is sometimes misattributed to Voltaire himself - is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech."
Chomsky is CONSTANTLY derided for not following the popular narrative. He's a professor of LINGUISTICS! If I were him, I would make fun of the so-called media also. Our government, "news" media, court system, and corporate advertising structure has taken the English language into the toilet. Words don't mean anything anymore, and Chomsky is trying to be precise in his delivery. Too bad that it bores most people. We're in a "sound byte" world, and it stinks to high Heaven.
I will always remember this incident of Chomsky's position on freedom of speech. To hell with the pseudo-free speech those sort of people have. You allow for people to be put on trial because of offense and you scarifice your freedom to say what offense even is.
The people attacking Chomsky for his Freedom of Speech Defense are Scumbags. Let′s not defend their weaselly and cowardly attempts of defamation. I did not even know Chomsky had that much integrity, and I respect him even more for it; even if I don′t agree with many of his political views.
The first thing all Marxists do is shut down free speech and disarm the opposition. CHUMPsky is crying Wolf like all good Marxists are taught. For the "Useful Idiots." He NEVER explains exactly how his solutions work after 100 years of failed Marxists attempts at his rhetoric and "Final Solution's" to the evils of Western Judeo Christian Civilization. Any socialist experiment for the last 100 years ends in abject misery. Hence today Venezuela and Cuba and any tin pot 21st Century 3rd World country. Hell Hole Marxist cliches and platitudes of Misery, starvation, unemployment and finally death by disease of mind, body and Spirit. DEMOCIDE. death by your own government and Citizens inPEACETIME.
"I'm not defending his views, I'm defending his right to speak them I'm not defending his views, I'm defending his right to speak them I'm not defending his views, I'm defending his right to speak them I'm not defending his views, I'm defending his right to speak them I'm not defending his views, I'm defending his right to speak them I'm not defending his views, I'm defending his right to speak them" - Chomsky
OK I tried to make this comment before, but it got deleted, probably for containing the wrong combinations of words, so I'll have to be a bit more generic this time [speaking of free speech...]. I admire Chomsky, but the video did make me wonder if there should be a distinction between expressing an opinion or stating an outright lie. I am not familiar with Faurisson's work, but considering the fact that he denied that a historic event happened, it can only be based on falsified research. And we do, in our 2021 society, understand the dangers of spreading lies. If someone says: 'This very tragic historic event [generic!] was a good thing', that is an opinion. It's an opinion you will despise, but it falls within free speech. However, if someone says 'this very tragic historic event never happened - here is the proof' then, to me, they are doing something completely different. Is this person really expressing a 'view' when he is just lying? I'm not saying that lying should be outlawed. I don't have a solution, I just admire the problem. I'm saying that I believe that expressing an opinion and spreading a lie are two very distinct things and I wonder if they should be treated as if they are subject to the same law. It would have been nice to see that discussion in the video (or in the comments), and if anyone has an opinion on it, please respond.
I don't care if it's chomsky, after ww2 you just cannot defend freedom of speech as an absolute above all other values. If you think that we should kill nazis (which is the reasonable position) you can't also be in favor of them talking, as they would be dead. As far as holocaust deniers are concerned they also shouldn't be able to hold public lectures. You don't need a state to stop that, you just take direct action and stop him from speaking.
@@anarchistpoops161 Well... I do believe you can still defend freedom of speech as an absolute. Genocide or no. I definitely think it's possible that I COULD think that we should kill nazi's AND be in favor or them talking, precisely because there is a difference between SAYING nazi's should be dead and actually DOING it. Chomsky seems to say that 'making false claims = free speech', and I just can't get on board with that part. If a repairman tells me 'if you give me 100 bucks I'll fix your car', and then takes the 100 bucks and does nothing, according to Chomsky, I can't touch him because he was exercising his right to free speech. I call bs.
@@cyprel when you sue the repairman, you don’t win a judgement against them for lying. You win for breach of contract. It’s not the speech that is punished, it’s the theft.
This is a fundamental tension with expression! There is no method to separate dissident opinions from lies, in a meaningful legal way. Proscribing areas that are open to challenge and areas that are not, is the rationale of heresy and religious authority. Medieval Catholic Europe allowed discussion of fine intellectual points about say, transubstantiation or the sequence of actions in performance of miracles, but offering alternative models of celestial motion were deemed lies, dangerous speech, and punished. We “knew” the Ptolemaic model was accurate, and challenging it was illegal. Setting a barrier of “truth” to be met before speech is allowed means dogma will rule, not because it’s correct, but because it will censor all differing opinion.
Chomsky's point is this: who do we entrust with the power to decide what is true or false, and therefore what it is permitted to say? As with the death penalty, it's a nice idea, but there is no way to give the state that power without giving the state the ability to abuse that power, and if history has taught us one thing, it's that any power that can be abused, will be abused.
You don't know me, just because one agree's with someone on some points doesn't mean he is a fanboy of his. Also just because you disagree with someone on some points, you shouldn't disregard everything he says. ...and btw, I did watch most of that! ^^
what white supremacists? and even if that were true, what does that have to do with my comment? you'd describe those univerities as being part of a regressive left? otherwise you're just rambling incoherently.
The idea that freedom of speech means freedom to say what is true, with truth defined as what the government agrees with, was a central doctrine of both Nazism and Bolshevism.
There are two realities with this topic. The first comes with freedom of speech and your right to say things that are unpopular and/or untrue. That right should be protected so long as you're not inciting others to harm or kill other people. The second, is your right to remain at a particular job or take part in (mostly online) debates or social media sites based on what you publicly say. In that instance, you are not the owner of that organization and your rights are limited by what they will allow. You do not have to buy their products, use their services, or attend their institutions. But that doesn't mean that they have the obligation to keep you employed or active within that particular group.
I'm here because someone tweeted a link to it. They were trying to help a somewhat public figure who had just been presented on twitter with a challenge. This in the UK where the slow torture of the Labour party over "left antisemitism" is reaching insane levels. The challenge was that he had tweeted support for an alleged antisemite, a left wing Jewish man. "Here is the evidence, retract your support or face the consequences." A timely reminder of perhaps the best way to deal with it.
Mick Hume wrote a good little book on the subject, calling it a 'silent war on free speech' because the attackers never say they're against free speech. I'm on the fence on it, but it is very muddying that people against free speech don't have the balls to say so. Hardly anyone is actually in favour of free speech. Not really. But nobody will admit it, so the important debate can't be held on open and honest terms.
A good piece, that would be much better had it included Chomsky's statement ("preface") in it's entirety. How can we determine the merits of his statement without seeing it?
"I'm not a free speech absolutist, it seems as though you just do not understand that free speech is an absolute. We have the freedom of speech to discuss the importance of it, what to do about hate, etc. We, you or I, have the freedom of expression to reasonably and peacefully protest in public over an issue you or I find important, but you, my fellow human being within a nation of freedom, you have the freedom of religion as well. Such a freedom to and of religion, also protects no matter how fundamentally wrong you are, from being burned at the stake by the US Government as if you were a witch in the 13-hundreds." - Me
How does one refute odious ideas if it is not permitted to discuss those ideas? I think Europe is wrong in its approach to this. Making something forbidden only gives it the allure of the forbidden. It allows awful, hateful people to cast themselves as the real victims, martyrs to their "truth". Let them spew their vile ideas so everyone can see who and what they are. If their ideas are really that awful and their claims that false - which, make no mistake, is 100% true for neo-Nazis and other Holocaust deniers - it should be easy to refute them.
Nope, times are the same. Right wingers are literally censuring every Republican in congress who voted to impeach/convict Trump. They are pushing laws that will restrict millions of people from being able to exercise one of the most important forms of speech, the ability to vote. They are passing laws across different states to criminalize protests. They are pushing anti-bds laws across different states, etc.
..haha about 5:55 or so when he mentions it to point the French intellectual community is uncapable of understanding the issue. Similar how many are now with 'secularism', like saying they are banning the burqini in the name of secularism. When doing so is violating secular values. The state shouldn't take an opinion on such issues if it were secular. However France does so and then says it is to defend secularism.
Sorry but that's exactly what defending secularism means. Just like you can't sacrifice virgins by throwing them into volcano and then claim it's your "religious freedom" You shouldn't cover your face in a store, shop, public transportation /park...etc. You can believe, worship in privacy, but it's your obligation to live like "when in Rome" How many burqinis on Saint Tropez beach?...before French Riviera turns into shit hole?
On the one hand, we should not platform views that propegate, or support the propegation of hateful violence, it's legitimisatiom, or justification. However, this is limited to platforming, and in the academic sphere, there should be room to investigate everything. I have not even properly investigated the claims about the nonexistance of these death camps, because I don't really care about the specific details, as the overall actions were still monsterous, and the ideology behing them fails in principle. However, if in theory these claims were true, then it would be vital that we cleared that up, since no matter how much the nazis were wrong regardless, they should still be condemed based on accurate terms, I mean I don't think condeming hitler for eating babies is useful, in fact it removes from the actual atrocities. So if these claims where true (which I am personally not concerned enough with to investigate, due to the consensus elsewhere) we woulf only find out if academians were allowed to freely examine it. If the act of peadophilia is wrong, it is crucial that we have that fiscussion, at least in academic terms, to clarify why, and what that suggests we do about it. (for the record I am convinced the work is done, and it is clearly wrong). Taboos are useful in that they teach us what is to be given platforms, and what is to be strictly kept within the relevant spheres, but nothing should be sacred, or protected from examination within academia. Nazis shouldn't be treated as moderate people having normal views in the news, but we shouldn't burn all their literature, in fact it should exist in public libraries for scrutny and examination. In short, you have the freedom to say annything, but not on a stage. You may speak profanely, but not in the kindergarden, you may lie but not in court, or when making deals. Our freedom of speech should guarantee that we may speak anything, and organize around it, but not in all settings.
It's a shame that a large portion of the left can't understand the basic principle of freedom of speech. I'm pretty left leaning, but I cringe so hard whenever I hear the "I'm pro free speech, but...." excuses. Although I think most people on the left are in favour of free speech, I think the left should have a harder stance on defending free speech. One reason why the right wing has gained more popularity over the years is because they have essentially created a strawman, in which the left is somehow anti-free speech. I feel that if more people on the left would take the issue of free speech and censorship more seriously then less people would be convinced by right wing lies and misinformation. Even if that means opposing hate speech laws or big tech companies.
The right will always be lying propagandists. They are literally censuring every Republican in congress who voted to impeach/convict Trump. They are pushing laws that will restrict millions of people from being able to exercise one of the most important forms of speech, the ability to vote. They are passing laws across different states to criminalize protests. They are pushing anti-bds laws across different states, etc.
I don't disagree at all. And I think that when conservatives say they're in favour of freedom of speech, I think they're being dishonest because whenever leftists are the ones being cancelled and censored, they ignore all their principles and either just act like it isn't happening or are completely for it. Conservatives only want free speech for conservatives. I find it amazing that so many "Free speech advocates" support Donald Trump, considering how anti-free speech and free expression he is. For example he literally proposed a flag burning law so that anyone who burnt the flag would go to prison for a year. However, this isn't an excuse for the left to be in favor of restricting freedom of speech, because if the government can make expressing certain views illegal, then it's only a matter of time before they make certain left wing or anti capitalist views illegal. Which is why I am against hate speech laws, and why I think that my country ( the UK ) should have a law that protects freedom of speech ( so similar to the first ammendment).
@@rhysevans4188 yea I’m against hate speech laws too. Fortunately I live in the USA where that’s not a thing. Though, I think conservatives and right leaning people in other countries aren’t the same as what’s considered conservative in the USA. I’m sure in other countries conservative governments are also pro hate speech laws. But yea speech shouldn’t be criminalized if it’s not direct threats
"The language you use has meaning!" - addressing arguably history's most influential linguist
Oh the irony
Plus, doesn’t that retort sound familiar?
you prolly dont care but does any of you know of a trick to get back into an instagram account..?
I was stupid forgot my login password. I would love any tricks you can give me.
@@paintedhorse6880 the last two 🕑🕑
"If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech. There's two positions you can have on freedom of speech. Now you can decide which position you want."
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" What if somebody says you and your entire nation should be killed or enslaved?
@@goranmilic442 I'll say: "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."
@@suurmestari7457 It's not that simple. Every genocide starts with somebody saying there should be genocide. Freedom of speech does not include violating other's rights.
@@goranmilic442 Tough luck. Then you can't say you support freedom of speech.
@@suurmestari7457 Please explain why do you think that absolute freedom of speech is a good thing. Why is a right of Nazis to declare Jews as lower race that should be exterminated (or whatever similar nation that claims it's superior to it's neighbors) more important than Jews' right to live?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it"
Benjamin Pulgar true liberalism. used to respectable.
Voltaire
@@anaghashyam9845 When did Voltaire say that?
@@michaelwright8896 he didn't. A guy called Hall wrote it as an illustration of Voltaire's ideals so to speak, in his biography of Voltaire. From my memory, Voltaire wrote, ' I detest what you write but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write' something like that
@@anaghashyam9845 Hall also wrote “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”
A true Leftist and Progressive should be on Chomsky's side on this issue. We should never employ the tools of oppressors to silence those with whom we do not agree with no matter how much we may disagree with there views
I blame parents of left in late 1800's demanding with guard down, the state to bring public education. Nationalism, White Supremacy propaganda of progressive to have color blind Jim Crow, NeoLiberal Globalism, and CIA all is core of issue starting and worsened by corporate person right and climate change.
Don't have education taught with educated parents who depend on education system to move toward progress then parents overworked with news of CNN blinding them to have education, Media and News (CNN in 1980 to modern era with Fox worse as Internet is out of right wing normal) as education system, civil rights used by power to destroy democracy, media, consumerism growing from Marketing and AD industry,
@Twenty Faces sounds like Paradox of Tolerance, but ok
@Twenty Faces Nazis and fascists employed and still employ violence to silence those with whom they disagree, do you want to do the same ?
So historically and scientifically proven facts are open for debate and multiple "views"? The Holocaust happened and was orchestrated by Nazis with the intent of murdering millions of people, specifically Jews. Climate change is a proven scientific phenomenon and mankind needs to curb their greenhouse house emissions to reduce the effects. The number two is the number two. Alphabets exist in written language. All of these are well-established facts. Stating otherwise is irresponsible and attention-seeking behavior. I don't know. I'm open to other thoughts an rebuttals, of course, but that is how I see it right now.
@Twenty Faces The Things is, there were hate speech laws in place in Germany before Hitler came to power. The only way to defeat bad ideas is with better ideas. American have understood this since 1776.
I love how much Chomsky is able to maintain composed, but when he raises his voice, even slightly, it's slightly bloody terrifying
Less is more. I've so rarely lost my temper that, on the few occasions I have, it's stunned into silence people that, even vaguely, know me. :)
He's actually adressed this in particular. He talked about it with Krauss. I'm sure it's easy to find the video on UA-cam. He is adamant against speaking in persuasive fashion as he feels it's a form of manipulation, to stir one's senses into agreeing with a certain viewpoint. Instead, he rather approach things calmly and allow the facts to speak for themselves. Another thing he as addressed is that he isn't trying to convince others to think like him but rather have conversations so that both may come to the conclude what is true, as he himself is not convinced of his own arguments.
I think it's an extremely ethical approach to have because he realizes and understands that reality is much bigger than him and he realizes that he can be wrong about certain things.
To quote Hawkings, all we have to do is keep talking.
I read this in JP's voice
@@migol1984 The concept of "conversation" is completely lost in today's world.
This clip is from an absolutely tremendous documentary film on Noam Chomsky called "Manufacturing Consent." It's incredibly well done and a 'must-see' if there ever was one. It originally came out in 1994 so it's slightly dated but not too badly, don't miss it.
Not dated at all. In fact, was quite prescient
@@stevenjm12 Yes, very prescient indeed.
The book is Chomsky's seminal work and should be required reading for anyone engaging in political discourse. The documentary is a perfect entry.
@@danb3529 Herman actually put as much work into the book as Chomsky. It's a trenchant and must-read if there ever was one.
I saw it. Excellent. L. K
"Do the facts matter or don't they matter?"
"Well, they do, but-"
"Well, then let me tell you what the facts are."
Brilliant.
First they censor things you don't like, then they censor things you do like.
Quickly
6:53+ "If you're in favor of freedom of speech that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise, otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech. It's two positions you can have on freedom of speech. Now you can decide which position you want."
Spyridon Kaprinis - Damn str8, «πατρίδα».
And right before that, he said "Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin"
Freedom of speech is not here to protect the speech you like; it is to protect the speech you cannot stand to hear.
What is so difficult to understand about Mr. Chomsky's position? "I do not agree with your words Sir, but I would die for your right to express them"!!
Yeah but Chomsky happened to disagree with his dismissal on those grounds. Whatever the case, you can't say people on the left don't stand for free speech.
You're using words like "oppressive" and "authoritarian" very loosely. An employer/employee relationship is not authoritarian. It is voluntary, to mutual benefit. If either party perceives that the relationship is no longer serving its interests, the relationship ends. That is not "oppression". It is freedom of association, an expression of liberty. Government is the only entity that can legally force behavior under threat of imprisonment or death. No other institution has that power.
The recent riot at Berkeley (over the planned Milo Yiannopoulos speech), highlights this difference. It's one thing to withdraw from, or argue against, a viewpoint you don't like. It's quite another to engage in violence to prevent someone from being heard. And government, by its nature, is an instrument of physical violence, which is why it is not permitted to act against you in any way for speaking your mind.
Just because it's voluntary doesn't mean it's not authoritarian. You voluntarily submit to government as well, or else you would be dead. Same goes for having a boss for the vast majority of people.
You don't voluntarily submit to government. You don't "sign up" to be under the jurisdiction of the state; you just are and you have no choice about it. And while you might choose to be cooperative when they compel you, you do that knowing that if you don't cooperate, they will at some point physically force your compliance by having policemen show up at your door with guns and a piece of paper, place hands on you, force you into a vehicle and take you to be incarcerated.
An employer can't take your freedom away. He can only take your job away. And your job isn't yours by inherent right, it's yours by virtue of the employment agreement you made. It has terms that both sides have to live up to. Not the same thing at all as obedience to the state.
As for having to work, yes, most people need to have some sort of job in order to feed themselves. But that doesn't come from an authority, it comes from nature. It's inherent in being a living organism that you have to act to sustain yourself. In a free society, you have many options as to how you will do that. And only in the most abject poverty would you face a circumstance where there is one particular job you must take or you will starve to death. Let's please not pretend that Faurisson faced that kind of circumstance.
Policemen will eventually come to your house if you don't submit to paying taxes or whatever, because you are stealing. Just like how they'll come to your door if you steal from your workplace or from a store or anything like that. No, nearly everybody has to work for somebody, that is just the reality. Not some fantasy world where everybody can and will start their own business. Does not make it authoritarian.
The protestors at Milo's speech weren't authoritarian. The government gives you the right to free speech, and we don't need to hear it on our campuses if we don't want. Especially given Milo is an especially inflammatory speaker who has outed trans kids in the middle of his speeches. That means his speech is actually a threat to safety. So it was entirely justified what they did. (Which was really nothing. What happened? A few windows broken, a few bottle rockets sent off)
The way a lot of these "intellectuals" debate is just attacking with poorly sourced information, reframing a half-understood premise as something that fits their own narrative, and making personal attacks.
And here we have Chomsky, just chugging along since the 1920s, calmly using logic and information to communicate with people that frankly aren't worth his wasted breath.
What a legend.
And his work is always so thoroughly cited that it almost seems superhuman. Every chapter in Hegemony or Survival has 50-100 sources cited in EACH.
"Goebbels was in favor of Freedom of Speech for views he liked; so was Stalin."
I don't understand how that doesn't click for some people. You can't just say you love Freedom of Speech when the people talking are espousing ideologies with which you already agree. You have to be reciprocal and listen to the batshit-crazy ideas of people with whom you disagree, otherwise it's not really "Freedom".
Very well-put!
in the grand scheme of things, there's no such thing as freedom is there though ?
I don’t disagree. Explain though where the line is for inciting hate?
@@hklinker Inciting violence is what we want to avoid.
Inciting hatred? I mean, if you want to start making the argument that hatred EVENTUALLY leads to violence, I'm sure you and I could find some common ground.
The most important issue in this regard is what exactly defines "hate." It's not a universal, and that's about as clear as it gets.
If a critical article is released, someone is going to interpret it as "hate" while another person is going to interpret is as "tolerant and acceptable."
What tool do we use to measure, weigh, and decipher whose interpretation is the correct interpretation? I don't think there is such a tool.
I’m referring to hate speech laws. In Canada, there is a defence under the law if what you’re saying is true, so Holocaust deniers are over the line.
Chomsky is the real deal. Some people can't handle that.
he's good, but also arrogant on some regards, Zizek for example
Chomsky and and these people arnt even talking about the same thing, just like Twitter they just don't get it and won't until it's too late. We need now more than ever Chomsky!!!!
Bingo! The scary thing is that the kleptocracy has now completely twisted one of his greatest fears: climate change.
Sadly, the Earth seems to be populated by non-thinking creatures who are more than happy to accept authority rather than think through difficult issues themselves. It shouldn't be this hard to convince people *WHY* this is such a dangerous practice.
At least part of the blame for that lies with organised religion.
@@kiwitrainguy not really.
Noam is such a commendable human being. He stood his ground against the worst accusations. He is a man of principle.
He lost his way during the lockdown. He called for forced medical tyranny. Perhaps he's lost it in his old age to have made such an overt and obvious foul.
@@drott150 This lie again. Let me tell you mutt: why don't you talk about Israel and their contribution of Pfizer. No you won't, Mr.JIDF.
As or anyone else reading this comment: All he said was that anti-vaxx should be refused to allowed to dine outside and stopped form social gathering.
In these polarizing times we need the wise words of Chomsky. an amazing man who has contributed so much. :) A truly Great American if you ask me!
Dreaptomaniac I understand where you are coming from if you haven't already I recommend you read some of his books, there he expands on his views a lot more. :)
@@daniel-fd9ih I think it's quite clear that Chomsky supports freedom of speech in the sense that you can't be prosecuted by the state for your speech alone. Institutions like Universities should have no obligation to uphold freedom of speech, but they certainly lose all credibility if they choose to suppress speech beyond a reasonable boundary. Showing extreme BDSM in times square would be a severe public nuisance, and so it is reasonable for the police to intervene while upholding freedom of expression. If you cannot say something to an audience in any context without the state prosecuting you for nothing but the speech alone, then freedom of speech has failed.
He was a good alternative to straight out international Communism controlled by the KGB anyhow ☝️
"Mr Chomsky, you seem to have some radical, some controversial attitudes on free speech"
What's so controversial about saying "I don't agree with what you're saying but I'll defend your right to say it"?
@Twenty Faces Its not controversial if your not pussifed European snowflake who can't take offence.
@Twenty Faces Well being a racist is wrong,sure But would rather know who the racist are. If you restrict speech these racist are just going silence themselves and make themselves seem like reasonable people. In America a nazi can say horrible things. But i have equal right to tell him to fuck off. If people know that person is a nazi. The more regular people can denounce him. This something that seem be lost on Europeans.
I'd say it's controversial because there is a difference between free speech and lies. If I scam you out of your money by lying to you, I can't then in court claim that "I was just using my right of free speech". I really don't understand how people in this comment section aren't talking more about how completely flawed his reasoning is. He is not defending free speech, he is defending lies. There is most definitely a difference. If someone says "I hate this particular religion and I think they should all die", THAT is free speech. If someone says "I don't care about genocide, screw them", THAT is free speech. You can disagree with them all you want, but you have to give them the right to say it. But that is NOT what Chomsky is defending here.
@@Lone432345 Similarly, like you say, a nazi saying horrible things is free speech, and you telling him to fuck off is free speech. But, again, this is something entirely different from what Chomsky is saying in this video. I am 100% pro free speech, but also 100% against what Chomsky is claiming.
It's controversial because very few people really believe in freedom of speech. Most people think that other people should be completely free to say things they agree with.
"Intellectuals are very good at lying -- They're professionals at it."
Chomsky is the only adult in the room.
It's frightening how biased and unwilling to understand him those people were.
Chomsky explained himself as clearly as possible and yet they all jump at him barking, not listening what he's saying.
Shows how the empty can rattles the most.
Oh they understand him alright- that's precisely why they are so rattled and then ridiculously smearing of the man.
Can you imagine a world where everyone spoke as calmly and as thoughtfully as Chomsky?
His hushed monotoned speech where y he repeats himself in his points for the last 50 years is by definition of a classic sociopath.
@@lorenzomcnally6629 nonsense
@@nathanmarsh3172 I have several psychologist friends, all of them say a monotoned vocal speech pattern is a classic sociopath trait. After 50+++ years, listening to CHUMPsky, he only changes the names of his villians over the decades. In addition, most of his books have a massive preponderance to quote himself from his previous books. If you want the definitive assessment of CHUMPsky just
listen to Thomas Sowell's assessment of Noam Chomsky. Someone he has knowledge of because they are the same age and era of 1960's radical semi Faustian Marxist Revisionist and Malthusian history and politics.
@@lorenzomcnally6629 nonsense
We'd probably have a nuclear war.
"Lnaguage you has meaning !" he actually said that to the guy who literally founded lisguistics in its current form.
Chomsky is the most patriotic American there is because he stands up for things he agrees and does not agree with through the first amendment
I think a lot of Anarchists and anti-authoritarian socialists have forgotten what it means to be anti-authoritarian these days and I'm quite disillusioned by it all. Preemptive use of violence is not a legitimate use of authority, if it is than that means the wests' preemptive attack on Iraq is justified if we're going to adopt such principles. But such principles are in conflict with Anarchism and being anti-free speech is highly undemocratic.
Not only do I agree with your general position, but I've also drawn the particular comparison between censorship of hate speech and the doctrine of preventive war as it was used in the case of Iraq.
Lol, most socialists are highly authoritarian.
@@R3tr0v1ru5 so you never understood what OP said? He talked about non-authoritarian socialists.
Freedom of speech is an illusion. It is dictated by the people in power. We should regard it as such if we are to be real.
@@R3tr0v1ru5 Anarchists aren’t
What he said at the end hit me....to even enter into that denial discussion is to lose one's humanity. Wise words indeed.
No they're not. Have you actually read and studied in detail the so called "denier" side?
@@drott150 What would be the point? For rational people all one needs to do is examine the historical record. Col Felix Sparks, Gen Eisenhower, Gen Patton, Lt. Col Dick Winters and many, many more saw the awful horror of the nazi ss concentration camps. This isn't even a debate. And again, even entering into the discussion about holocaust denial is losing one's humanity. But again, all you have to do is look at the historical record.
@@davidhutchinson5233 What would be the point? Oh I don't know, maybe discovering this thing called "the truth?" At least try to not be an NPC.
Need more people like Chomsky defending freedom of speech.
As a french person, i have to say : the state of confusion and ensuing generalised hatred is getting unbearable as a result of generations of half-baked intellectual and political discourse of the sort. It’s like the population has given up on essential ideas of truth as a whole and we’ve descended into tribal hell, unconsciousness.
You can blame the postmodernists for that to a certain degree.
"The highest American ideal is to defend the soapbox of someone standing on it to disparage your views."- Calvin Coolidge
A courageous and correct position.
When Chomsky speaks, others should STFU and listen. He doesn't care whether you believe him or not.
He cares very much. That's why he argues with his opponents.
Waow, Simply genius :- ) Thank you Noam for being the change we want to see.
The first 25 seconds should be The quote of our times.
Deplatforming people and shouting them down only makes them stronger and more popular.
Give me one example of that happening.
@@rypoelk997 Epic fan fiction, completely ahistorical though.
you can agree with Chomsky but that narrative is kind of bullshit and is not born out anywhere
Stalin disagrees
Not really. It concentrates them and others into more obscure and extremist platforms, and within these platforms they may feel stronger and more popular, but their broader influence is significantly lower.
definitely one of the best edited videos on youtube
Protect this man at all costs
The variables of one man's actions contributes little when there is a social need that isn't addressed! Noam is planting seeds of ideas that will not bear fruit for 50 years.
You Either Support Free Speech or You Don’t.
Conservative here. Though I vehemently disagree with Chomsky on socialism, I agree completely with his support of freedom of speech. No-one should be silenced.
Same
Agree, but his silence the last few years has made me lose all respect. He should be speaking out against the Left.
When a Conservative claims to be in favor of free speech I am forced to give a skeptical glare. Conservatism has always been an opponent of free speech historically. And that is because it has to be. The preservation of oppressive systems, which is whole-sail what virtually every Conservative position aims to do since the origin of the term, is best served by limiting speech.
Now, in recent years - and I emphasize recent - there has been a narrative shift in the US where the Conservative Right has claimed the mantle of free speech. But this is not the first time The Right has done so. The Far Right in the late Weimar did the same thing. Not because they ever actually believed in free speech, but because it was a useful tool in the moment to obtain the power necessary to subvert it.
And my skepticism is further enforced by the fact that Conservatives were - in my lifetime - aiming to ban or censor just about everything. The Satanic Panic was not that long ago. Additionally, my skepticism is also reinforced every time Conservatives let the mask slip and try to get something silenced. Which is actually quite frequent.
@@keyow2 "The preservation of oppressive systems"
Which ones in particular?
Firstname Lastname
Every single one.
That’s the purpose of Conservatism. To drag our feet or go back.
Save for a couple of positions, which they share with Leftists (for the wrong reasons), every Conservative position is about preserving systems of oppression and control.
And this has been true for hundreds of years, not just today.
This is from the UK's BBC Radio 3 - "3rd Ear" 11th February 1989.
Jonathan Steinberg talks with Professor Noam Chomsky
I will now attempt to place the issue within a context that even French academia may understand it: Chomsky - “I dislike Roquefort cheese with every fibre of my being, but I will defend your right to eat it if you so choose”.
Sincere and honest
As usual Chomsky is both right and consistent. Not a worshiper, but profoundly appreciative that weve had him for so long.
Noam’s one of a kind, for sure.
Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai should check out this video.
Whichever side is trying to silence dissent, that side is the oppressor.
"Freedom" of speech means that you can say whatever you like except when it comes to criticising the authorities.
Also I find that sometimes I say one thing but people seem to hear something else.
I mean how hard can it be to understand. Left or right or whatever, how can you not understand this extremely simple distinction. Also hilarious the Tel Aviv guy who of course turns it into 'an obvious campaign against Israel' haha snowflake
All topics need to be debated otherwise the people doomed to inherit that knowledge are inheriting dogma, and however correct or incorrect that dogma is it is better for people to think and work out for themselves what is right.
0:46 "Do the facts matter or don't they matter?" What a great way to preface a conversation.
"In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. This quotation - which is sometimes misattributed to Voltaire himself - is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech."
Chomsky is CONSTANTLY derided for not following the popular narrative. He's a professor of LINGUISTICS! If I were him, I would make fun of the so-called media also. Our government, "news" media, court system, and corporate advertising structure has taken the English language into the toilet. Words don't mean anything anymore, and Chomsky is trying to be precise in his delivery. Too bad that it bores most people. We're in a "sound byte" world, and it stinks to high Heaven.
I will always remember this incident of Chomsky's position on freedom of speech. To hell with the pseudo-free speech those sort of people have. You allow for people to be put on trial because of offense and you scarifice your freedom to say what offense even is.
I like this way of putting it
The people attacking Chomsky for his Freedom of Speech Defense are Scumbags. Let′s not defend their weaselly and cowardly attempts of defamation.
I did not even know Chomsky had that much integrity, and I respect him even more for it; even if I don′t agree with many of his political views.
The first thing all Marxists do is shut down free speech and disarm the opposition. CHUMPsky is crying Wolf like all good Marxists are taught. For the "Useful Idiots."
He NEVER explains exactly how his solutions work after 100 years of failed Marxists attempts at his rhetoric and "Final Solution's" to the evils of Western Judeo Christian Civilization.
Any socialist experiment for the last 100 years ends in abject misery. Hence today Venezuela and Cuba and any tin pot 21st Century 3rd World country. Hell Hole Marxist cliches and platitudes of Misery, starvation, unemployment and finally death by disease of mind, body and Spirit. DEMOCIDE. death by your own government and Citizens inPEACETIME.
"I'm not defending his views, I'm defending his right to speak them I'm not defending his views, I'm defending his right to speak them I'm not defending his views, I'm defending his right to speak them I'm not defending his views, I'm defending his right to speak them I'm not defending his views, I'm defending his right to speak them I'm not defending his views, I'm defending his right to speak them" - Chomsky
Based Chomsky
OK I tried to make this comment before, but it got deleted, probably for containing the wrong combinations of words, so I'll have to be a bit more generic this time [speaking of free speech...].
I admire Chomsky, but the video did make me wonder if there should be a distinction between expressing an opinion or stating an outright lie. I am not familiar with Faurisson's work, but considering the fact that he denied that a historic event happened, it can only be based on falsified research. And we do, in our 2021 society, understand the dangers of spreading lies.
If someone says: 'This very tragic historic event [generic!] was a good thing', that is an opinion. It's an opinion you will despise, but it falls within free speech. However, if someone says 'this very tragic historic event never happened - here is the proof' then, to me, they are doing something completely different. Is this person really expressing a 'view' when he is just lying?
I'm not saying that lying should be outlawed. I don't have a solution, I just admire the problem. I'm saying that I believe that expressing an opinion and spreading a lie are two very distinct things and I wonder if they should be treated as if they are subject to the same law.
It would have been nice to see that discussion in the video (or in the comments), and if anyone has an opinion on it, please respond.
I don't care if it's chomsky, after ww2 you just cannot defend freedom of speech as an absolute above all other values. If you think that we should kill nazis (which is the reasonable position) you can't also be in favor of them talking, as they would be dead. As far as holocaust deniers are concerned they also shouldn't be able to hold public lectures. You don't need a state to stop that, you just take direct action and stop him from speaking.
@@anarchistpoops161 Well... I do believe you can still defend freedom of speech as an absolute. Genocide or no. I definitely think it's possible that I COULD think that we should kill nazi's AND be in favor or them talking, precisely because there is a difference between SAYING nazi's should be dead and actually DOING it.
Chomsky seems to say that 'making false claims = free speech', and I just can't get on board with that part. If a repairman tells me 'if you give me 100 bucks I'll fix your car', and then takes the 100 bucks and does nothing, according to Chomsky, I can't touch him because he was exercising his right to free speech. I call bs.
@@cyprel when you sue the repairman, you don’t win a judgement against them for lying. You win for breach of contract. It’s not the speech that is punished, it’s the theft.
This is a fundamental tension with expression! There is no method to separate dissident opinions from lies, in a meaningful legal way.
Proscribing areas that are open to challenge and areas that are not, is the rationale of heresy and religious authority. Medieval Catholic Europe allowed discussion of fine intellectual points about say, transubstantiation or the sequence of actions in performance of miracles, but offering alternative models of celestial motion were deemed lies, dangerous speech, and punished. We “knew” the Ptolemaic model was accurate, and challenging it was illegal.
Setting a barrier of “truth” to be met before speech is allowed means dogma will rule, not because it’s correct, but because it will censor all differing opinion.
Chomsky's point is this: who do we entrust with the power to decide what is true or false, and therefore what it is permitted to say? As with the death penalty, it's a nice idea, but there is no way to give the state that power without giving the state the ability to abuse that power, and if history has taught us one thing, it's that any power that can be abused, will be abused.
so some publisher asked chomsky to write a short text on freedom of speech and it was published in that crazytalk-book??
the definition of spitting gold
Faurisson's admission at the end leaves the interviewer speechless.
True his stance threw stormy weather
Notice how then people arguing with him have no substance to their arguments just words they think sound clever that they bark in an obnoxious tone.
Chomsky inspires economical, effective speech.
Legend
I totally agree with Noam Chomsky. And by the way, no tragedy should originate dogmas similar to those of those who caused it.
Noam Chomsky is a true intellectual. He speaks the truth. He never supports Israel's policy of apartheid towards Palestinians.
"I'm not a racist, but..."
"I support freedom of speech, but..."
lmfao french intellectuals
Not so much different than modern day American intellectuals.
It’s charming when some college professor says this, yet in which colleges can you genuinely say exactly what you’re thinking, without punishment?
Nowadays? None.
3:01 to 3:16 I believe the popular term used to describe this kind of behavior is 'stupidity by association'.
the regressive left should watch this
And the new atheists and Harris fanboys should watch this: ua-cam.com/play/PLHZGTTZG6HcLl9QnVGhfBMlQhLlrew8b4.html
DerSektenspinner So should Milo, who thinks gay conversion therapy is valid.
You don't know me, just because one agree's with someone on some points doesn't mean he is a fanboy of his. Also just because you disagree with someone on some points, you shouldn't disregard everything he says. ...and btw, I did watch most of that! ^^
"Liberal" universities are bending over backwards to accommodate white supremacists, so your comment is kind of silly.
what white supremacists? and even if that were true, what does that have to do with my comment? you'd describe those univerities as being part of a regressive left? otherwise you're just rambling incoherently.
Thank you Noam for advocating for post-truth
There's no such thing as "extreme" views on free speech. It's a positive/negative issue. You either have free speech or you don't.
6:31
Chomsky mode activated
What does that last quote mean "to adopt a central doctrine"??
The idea that freedom of speech means freedom to say what is true, with truth defined as what the government agrees with, was a central doctrine of both Nazism and Bolshevism.
At 6:10 - 6:20 - not much has changed with the French intel com.
Rinse repeat, still going on today.
This must be the "flak" that's mentioned in the Propaganda Model.
There are two realities with this topic. The first comes with freedom of speech and your right to say things that are unpopular and/or untrue. That right should be protected so long as you're not inciting others to harm or kill other people.
The second, is your right to remain at a particular job or take part in (mostly online) debates or social media sites based on what you publicly say. In that instance, you are not the owner of that organization and your rights are limited by what they will allow.
You do not have to buy their products, use their services, or attend their institutions. But that doesn't mean that they have the obligation to keep you employed or active within that particular group.
The lesson here is one of association.
I'm here because someone tweeted a link to it. They were trying to help a somewhat public figure who had just been presented on twitter with a challenge. This in the UK where the slow torture of the Labour party over "left antisemitism" is reaching insane levels.
The challenge was that he had tweeted support for an alleged antisemite, a left wing Jewish man. "Here is the evidence, retract your support or face the consequences."
A timely reminder of perhaps the best way to deal with it.
Jesus that was painful
"I'm not interested in freedom of speech and all that. I have to *win."*
vart kan man se hela?
Who is the guy that said he isn't interested in free speech at 9:40?
Faurrison, the person whose free speech was at issue...
TOP 10 ANIME TAKEDOWNS
Mick Hume wrote a good little book on the subject, calling it a 'silent war on free speech' because the attackers never say they're against free speech. I'm on the fence on it, but it is very muddying that people against free speech don't have the balls to say so. Hardly anyone is actually in favour of free speech. Not really. But nobody will admit it, so the important debate can't be held on open and honest terms.
B-but he said something they disagreed with though!
A good piece, that would be much better had it included Chomsky's statement ("preface") in it's entirety. How can we determine the merits of his statement without seeing it?
"I'm not a free speech absolutist, it seems as though you just do not understand that free speech is an absolute. We have the freedom of speech to discuss the importance of it, what to do about hate, etc. We, you or I, have the freedom of expression to reasonably and peacefully protest in public over an issue you or I find important, but you, my fellow human being within a nation of freedom, you have the freedom of religion as well. Such a freedom to and of religion, also protects no matter how fundamentally wrong you are, from being burned at the stake by the US Government as if you were a witch in the 13-hundreds." - Me
How does one refute odious ideas if it is not permitted to discuss those ideas?
I think Europe is wrong in its approach to this. Making something forbidden only gives it the allure of the forbidden. It allows awful, hateful people to cast themselves as the real victims, martyrs to their "truth". Let them spew their vile ideas so everyone can see who and what they are. If their ideas are really that awful and their claims that false - which, make no mistake, is 100% true for neo-Nazis and other Holocaust deniers - it should be easy to refute them.
#VOLTAMONARK
Times have changed
Nope, times are the same. Right wingers are literally censuring every Republican in congress who voted to impeach/convict Trump. They are pushing laws that will restrict millions of people from being able to exercise one of the most important forms of speech, the ability to vote. They are passing laws across different states to criminalize protests. They are pushing anti-bds laws across different states, etc.
Is it just me or does Noam Chomsky look like the guy from the Up movie?
Chomsky is such a rhetorician.
That's what he is
..haha about 5:55 or so when he mentions it to point the French intellectual community is uncapable of understanding the issue. Similar how many are now with 'secularism', like saying they are banning the burqini in the name of secularism. When doing so is violating secular values. The state shouldn't take an opinion on such issues if it were secular. However France does so and then says it is to defend secularism.
Sorry but that's exactly what defending secularism means. Just like you can't sacrifice virgins by throwing them into volcano and then claim it's your "religious freedom" You shouldn't cover your face in a store, shop, public transportation /park...etc.
You can believe, worship in privacy, but it's your obligation to live like "when in Rome"
How many burqinis on Saint Tropez beach?...before French Riviera turns into shit hole?
On the one hand, we should not platform views that propegate, or support the propegation of hateful violence, it's legitimisatiom, or justification. However, this is limited to platforming, and in the academic sphere, there should be room to investigate everything.
I have not even properly investigated the claims about the nonexistance of these death camps, because I don't really care about the specific details, as the overall actions were still monsterous, and the ideology behing them fails in principle. However, if in theory these claims were true, then it would be vital that we cleared that up, since no matter how much the nazis were wrong regardless, they should still be condemed based on accurate terms, I mean I don't think condeming hitler for eating babies is useful, in fact it removes from the actual atrocities.
So if these claims where true (which I am personally not concerned enough with to investigate, due to the consensus elsewhere) we woulf only find out if academians were allowed to freely examine it.
If the act of peadophilia is wrong, it is crucial that we have that fiscussion, at least in academic terms, to clarify why, and what that suggests we do about it. (for the record I am convinced the work is done, and it is clearly wrong). Taboos are useful in that they teach us what is to be given platforms, and what is to be strictly kept within the relevant spheres, but nothing should be sacred, or protected from examination within academia. Nazis shouldn't be treated as moderate people having normal views in the news, but we shouldn't burn all their literature, in fact it should exist in public libraries for scrutny and examination.
In short, you have the freedom to say annything, but not on a stage. You may speak profanely, but not in the kindergarden, you may lie but not in court, or when making deals. Our freedom of speech should guarantee that we may speak anything, and organize around it, but not in all settings.
This video, for all its good candour and dignity, should at least put up a warning for the graphic scenes at the end.
It's a shame that a large portion of the left can't understand the basic principle of freedom of speech. I'm pretty left leaning, but I cringe so hard whenever I hear the "I'm pro free speech, but...." excuses. Although I think most people on the left are in favour of free speech, I think the left should have a harder stance on defending free speech. One reason why the right wing has gained more popularity over the years is because they have essentially created a strawman, in which the left is somehow anti-free speech. I feel that if more people on the left would take the issue of free speech and censorship more seriously then less people would be convinced by right wing lies and misinformation. Even if that means opposing hate speech laws or big tech companies.
The right will always be lying propagandists. They are literally censuring every Republican in congress who voted to impeach/convict Trump. They are pushing laws that will restrict millions of people from being able to exercise one of the most important forms of speech, the ability to vote. They are passing laws across different states to criminalize protests. They are pushing anti-bds laws across different states, etc.
I don't disagree at all. And I think that when conservatives say they're in favour of freedom of speech, I think they're being dishonest because whenever leftists are the ones being cancelled and censored, they ignore all their principles and either just act like it isn't happening or are completely for it. Conservatives only want free speech for conservatives. I find it amazing that so many "Free speech advocates" support Donald Trump, considering how anti-free speech and free expression he is. For example he literally proposed a flag burning law so that anyone who burnt the flag would go to prison for a year. However, this isn't an excuse for the left to be in favor of restricting freedom of speech, because if the government can make expressing certain views illegal, then it's only a matter of time before they make certain left wing or anti capitalist views illegal. Which is why I am against hate speech laws, and why I think that my country ( the UK ) should have a law that protects freedom of speech ( so similar to the first ammendment).
@@rhysevans4188 yea I’m against hate speech laws too. Fortunately I live in the USA where that’s not a thing. Though, I think conservatives and right leaning people in other countries aren’t the same as what’s considered conservative in the USA. I’m sure in other countries conservative governments are also pro hate speech laws. But yea speech shouldn’t be criminalized if it’s not direct threats