Insulting people can be legally protected because it's an opinion as well. The only exceptions are provable defamation of character (libel or slander). That's why journalists can be sued if they fail to fact-check what they say about a public figure, but stand-up comedians can say whatever they want. Some other forms of "speech" that are not legal are inciting panic, conspiracy to commit a crime, copyright infringement... Probably other things that I'll think of later. (There are also FCC rules about using swearwords on television using wireless transmitters during daylight hours, but most of those rules are just silly.)
Shawn, you are thinking like an American; this video is speaking about United Nations controls, they are the ones who tell all the smaller countries what they must teach in their schools if they want to enjoy "most favored nation" status and be protected from neighboring enemies. You would be surprised about the rapid change in sexual practices, preferences, and ideology since Mongolia adopted these "guidelines". The alternative is to risk further control from China who has already forbid Mongolian language being taught, or traditional clothing be worn in inner Mongolian schools that they control. Soon the UN hope to get rid of the American constitutional model and implant a global standard, what President Bush called "New World Order".
As per wikipedia (Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater): "Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout fire in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting fire when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter, assuming the other elements of that crime are made out."
Stated as a true American. And I mean that as a compliment re the First Ammendment. Take at look at what is happening in the rest of the Anglosphere and be afraid!
Media needs to be held fully accountable to its motivations and show a clear separation of facts and opinions, and broadened context Practically all abridgment to speech is made by the reactionary inter course of our poorly informed peers
a clear seperation of facts and opinions is nearly impossible in normal human communication. Two different people with two different opinions can read the same text with different inflections, communicating an opinion without changing the text at all. Holding media outlets accountable for their motivations is problematic in the extreme. What motivations would you declare actionable? Profit? increase in audience? most media outlets have similar motivations. What changes is the means that they use. Sure it would be great to pass a law that " the media may not lie", but holding all media to that standard would be nearly unenforcable.
Having an opinion is fine, but one should also have the wisdom to know when it is and isn't appropriate to voice it, and listeners to know the distinction between opinion and fact.
This is not correct. Freedom of speech also means that people can say things which are factually incorrect, except for cases of defamation of character. The problem with prohibiting people from saying things which are factually incorrect is that things which were once thought to be irrefutable facts turned out not to be true. Science advances by challenging the accepted paradigm. Even a new idea which turns out to be wrong can be beneficial, in that it may stimulate others to come up with theories that revolutionize our understanding of the Universe.
Where was it said that freedom of speech doesn't allow for insulting others? Citation needed. Of course insulting others is protected speech; that is the opinion of the person and must be protected at all cost.
I think it depends per country. Freedom of speech is different everywhere. For example, if you said something negative but true about someone in the United States, you would be okay. But in Japan, if you said something negative but true about someone, you could be convicted(?) of defamation if it caused damages to the person despite it being true.
Freesdom of speech comes NOT from governments. It is part of your natural right to liberty, which comes from the simple fact that each individual adult owns their own body and life. You have a natural right to do whatever you want, so long as you are not violating the rights to life, liberty or property of another person. That's your right to liberty. Good governments defend this natural right. Bad ones violate it. That's how we know the difference between good governments and bad ones.
@@wintensity your assuming there's a god. If there is not, then rights are an artificial construct that humanity came up with. Just as governments are the means by which we control the distribution of power, resources, and security. These government choose to grant us "rights" so the type of government and its view of power are crucial to upholding or even providing rights. . .
@@Strider91Government’s don’t have that kind of authority, that’s why when they infringe on our rights we call them tyrannical. How can they infringe on our rights when they define what our rights are?
Whoa-ho-hoaaa! Really just blitzed through that part about "insulting someone is not protected under free speech." Really? Why not? Let's assume it's true for a moment. What makes a statement an insult? Is it when the person making it intends to say something negative about another party? Or is it when a person being talked about declares that the other party has spoken negatively about them? Under either definition, how can Greta Thunberg's accusations against money-hungry corporations be considered free speech? Are there not others insulted by that assertion?
if there are limitations like listed, unverified information or insults, then freedom of speech can be easily manipulated and violated by the opposing views of a particular speech who will claim they are offended/insulted or the questionable/arguable information is false... these are not and should NEVER BE considered unprotected speech, IN A FREE SOCIETY there should be freedom of expression oneself with speech as long as it does not DIRECTLY PHYSICALLY hurts others.
This didn't answer my question. I want to know how much you can say that people dislike. Anything that can be said or thought will inevitably offend someone, no matter your intentions. So, where do we set the boundaries? Socially, it depends on which ideology is popular, conservative during the Cold War and liberal today. Legally, where are the limits?
At 2:29 time, one can state something is a fact when it is not. There are people that lie oll the time. It's not something that should be done, but it can be done.
She has every right to make up facts - that is freedom of speech. And the FACT that Sprouts used her as a shining example of freedom of speech, shows what a scam they are and people should express themselves by the thumbs down or unsubscribing.
@@Pope_Balenciaga Yes! Why not? Theories, whether right or wrong should have the right to be expressed. Look at the recent "crazy conspiracy" theories, people tried to ban from public speech, that came out to be true. And as a result of the ability to get to the people, in spite of the obstacles, many lives were saved.
when you speak freedomly which is correct in some cases, you have to give up on other's emotions sometimes. 'cause in the end you shouldn't talk freely to someone you know they can be broken easily. that's why you learn when to talk and to who. but the most important thing is to give your opinion on something respectedly without keep insulting it too much, so whoever can put 'your opinion' in mind
More important is the Freedom of Thought, without which Freedom of Speech will become less meaningful. For example, when one can ONLY think well of one's dear leader, or else the gulag, what is the use of freedom of speech even if one is free to praise the dear leader anytime and anywhere?
Mondo of Blazing Saddles and Gretta have many similarities least of which being a "Pawn in the game of life." Topic of free speech and the case study chosen is her?! Out of a historical timeline of great people in pursuit of such an ideal. Even modern and globally relevant. I'm racking my brain as to why a creditable disseminator of knowledge would do so. Dang I was hopeful of this channel...
More like if she was born in the Philippines, or most Southeast Asian countries, she would have been way less likely to get where she is today because of the economy there (2018, the average Filipino family income was PHP 313,000/year ($6,231.27)). Even if she was born in China/North Korea, her voice would have been silenced by a communist agenda. Sweden has a high GDP, and national income average. Where you are born plays into what you have access to, and the income of your parents to travel. I was trying to say this objectively based on Sociology, and not just pointing out the disparity between rich or poor/spoiled children.
For the most part, the main speech that should be limited is ones that can bring immediate harm to others. If you are trying to get a job, and I tell the interviewer you are a criminal when you have no record, I am potentially ruining your life with a lie. Short of that, even if people want to lie on the internet, if you aren't directly bringing harm that can be proven or to ruin someone's life, even lying should be protected in freedom of speech and that kind of lying needs to be vetted by the marketplace of ideas, where speech stands on if it can be proven or not
That would be a lie. It's already not protected. Not because it may negatively alter someone's future but because it's simply untrue. So we're good there
02:45 can't it be objectively justified ? Doesn't that depend on how you interpretate that statement. Like you can easily say the per capita co2 emission of someone in the top0.01 is higher than someone of the bottom 90%. Just take the amount of houses owned/cars or the amount of private flights taken between those 2 groups in relation to flying public trips
I think you just discovered where Sprouts may also have difficulty differentiating between opinion and fact. This demonstrates the problem we have today in free societies, where some don't know all the facts and form strong opinions and then others don't care for facts anyway, only their opinions. And now we also have the problem where people think they can argue their opinion against a fact.
@@nancyneyedly4587 The statement being referenced is problematic. The enviornmental impact of the richest people in the world can be calculated, relative to the average, or really any other demographic, but caims of sacrificed inplies intent, which would be more difficult to objectively determine
I think people sometimes forget that freedom of anything usually comes with the responsibility and consequence of that freedom. Saying Im superior leads to both the consequence of someone objecting to that or worse someone believing that and holding me accountable. My humble opinion is that people often get angry when they cant separate the consequences from the freedom. Yes, you have freedom to bear arms, but the responsibility is on you if someone gets hurt from those arms, especially if it’s your own flesh and blood. What do you think?
Not quite. It actually means that you're freed from SOME of the consequences of that speech, namely those in regards to legal recourse. So yes, if I say my opinion is X, I cannot be legally charged for that opinion so I don't have to fear legal consequences. Will there still be consequences to my speech? Naturally, but only in so far as they don't infringe on my rights. And I would say that is where most of the anger is coming from? Like when you say something unpopular and get death threats in turn. Or when people try to get you fired for your speech? Maybe my country is a special case but here denunciation and defamation are illegal.
@@DelaronZarath True, but legality can often be bought or suspended. I guess there are different aspects to freedom of speech. In the political realm, it's one thing, but on youtube, it's another. But there are always going to be consequences for what you say, regardless if it's legal, social, or whatever.
And Freedom of Speech and Expression should be as optimally tolerated as possible, even if such content isn't considered factual, unless it comes in the form of incitement e.g. urging immediate harm toward someone or certain group of individuals.
maybe there's a time and place for even that. Violence is never the answer though, unless it's out of defense with a cause, if said people are killing others or doing great harm and getting away with it. Things that are destructive, that destroy people and the earth need to be destroyed like pollutants and the buildings manufacturing them, and the GMOs. The roots of evil gotta be burned. Injustice in any form should never happen. The people who arrest someone else who's exercising freedom of speech to the one who's arrested for standing for a cause should never happen for they are innocent people. Innocent people should never be arrested and suffer for it. Think about Roger Williams and the founding fathers, like thomas jefferson and others? They were radicals and Europe would have people like Roger Williams be put to death for he wasn't going along with the established church. It's the same now, people hate radicals, they hate differing viewpoints.
Freedom of speech means she has the right to say things that are not true.....insult people and basically say whatever she wants even if it can't be verified......this video is bullship
Why can't freedom of speech allow us to be vocal in a court of law. Is our Judiciary still in the dark middle ages? 1) Why should we all rise when the Judge enters? 2) Why are we not allowed to speak out of turn? 3) Why can't we raise our voice against the judiciary? 4) Why can't we use verbal profanities against a judge/lawyer in a court of law? Even if there are laws against this, why should we follow them? Shouldn't it be a personal choice? 5) Are these laws out-dated? 6) Can we have these rules thrown out? 7) Perjury should be allowed as a part of freedom of speech and considered as a form of personal expression. 8) Why can't we sue the judiciary? Isn't it unfair? 9) Why do our judiciary set an environment of intimidation. 10) People should enter a court of law without fear or the feeling of intimidation.
seems weakening fast here , in USA specially universities, many sacking & being cancelled by medias and orgs & WOKE etc. & truth and stats no matter now
We need more, of course, i miss the 90's and the 00's were i could really say whatever i want. However, i'm absolutist in permitting offensive and fake things to be said. Not because i like it, but because such power should never be given to the state.
I say the following: Proven true facts should be protected. Opinions are fine. Inciting illegal action is not. Unless people assemble to commit violence or end up starting it, it is peaceful even if aggressive. Freedom of speech does not mean people have to listen or private individuals can't remove your platform if they acknowledge they aren't public. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are not protected, because the SLAPPer goes in knowing they're going to lose unless the other side runs out of money.
Often people demanding their freedom of speech be protected are actually demanding we listen to them. What they forget is the corollary of free of speech is the freedom to listen ... or not listen as the case may be. You have the right to say what you want but you don't have the right to demand everyone listen. All ideas are not created equal and I don't have to listen to idiots.
one interesting set of definitions I agree with states that facts are things that can be observed, measured, or verified. Truth is something believed to be correct. By those definitions you can have untrue facts, because the facts are independant of belief. any fact stated by someone who does not believe it can be an untrue fact,
Absolute bullshit. Freedom of speech DOES mean the right to say untrue things, insult others (opinions are absolutely protected in this wise), and even the statement of untruths. You are completely wrong about this.
“The problem is when someone states something as a fact it but can be proven as wrong by objective standards”. That literally negates the entirety of freedom of speech because if you don’t have the freedom to state something or classify something as being a fact if that statement can be objectively proven otherwise, then you don’t have freedom of speech. If someone genuinely believes the thing they are stating then it would be a lie for them to call their statement as anything other than a fact. This means that If I believe something is a certain way and I truly do believe it to be that way, if a make a statement about it, all someone else has to do is prove me wrong and that then would Mean the statement falls outside of legal, freedom of speech.
Huge fan of Sprouts, but this one misses the mark by a mile. This lesson incorrectly interprets free speech and pushes the globalist UN and WEF agenda of censorship with a good dose of climate change and a sprinkle of anti-gun propaganda. This is an example of how education today pushes socialist anti-freedom concepts as good or normal, along with advocating and teaching the abdication of individual responsibility (e.g., don't think for yourself, the government or someone else will do that for you). Using Greta Thunberg as your avatar for this lesson was a poor choice, but easy to see why if your objective is to push an underlying agenda more than understand the concept of free speech. You should watch your own video on BONHOEFFER'S THEORY OF STUPIDITY first, and then think critically about the underlying yet not-so-hidden message in this lesson. In America, our Constitution PROTECTS our Rights as a birthright FROM the government, our Rights are NOT granted to us BY the government. This lesson advocates suppressing and censoring any unapproved thinking or speech and conveniently leaves out who decides what thoughts are allowed. Of course, this comment is me exercising my right of free speech.
This video is incorrect. The freedom to be wrong is protected because it is the basis of public discourse, academic debate, and the presentation of new ideas, new knowledge, or novel applications or insights of knowledge. The way this work is if someone believes speech to be wrong, it is their right to publicly rebutt, rather than abridge the speech of the other. My generation had to take Civics. I say this video is wrong. I do not claim it is not protected speech. It is protected. It is their interpretation of the First Amendment. I believe it to be factually wrong. Therefore, I have added my rebuttal. Now I also choose to unsubscribe, as I now question this outlet. Additionally, when it comes to lying, someone can also lie if they choose. They just have to face the consequences. It is our responsibility to be mature in our ability to learn about as much as we can, use reason, and discern truth from lies and rebutt them. Intelligently.
Freedom of speech of our time ends when we talk about Russian security concerns, woke entertainment, traditional gender roles as well as people like Julian Assange, Zelensky and Snowden etc... okay trolls and bots of the internet. I have named the things that must not be spoken.
I think many people would agree that freedom of speech is ”bad” when it comes to allegations like how parents sued social media companies like Meta, even making their CEOs express grief and sorrow over the decisions that some of his young clients, namely young teens, commited suicide because of an indirect result of his product. I can understand the fact that you as a parent who lost a kid due to cyber-bullying want to express your anger towards un unknown danger that social media can cause, but suing and going as far as putting someone in the position to admit that ”he has blood on his hands” when he has no reason to admit it, that is not right.
Probably because facts don't necessarily need the protection of freedom of speech. Because you can check the facts, unlike the others. But that's just a guess though.
What do you think about this slogan: "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences". Is it ok to kick someone out of your home because of what they say?
Those who say that are often looking to bring 'consequences' (punishments) on others who disagree with them. ANY action has consequences, positive or negative, massive or negligible. We do not exist in a vacuum.
Wait. Who says insults aren't protected by free speech? Where is this standard codified? Please don't tell me it's part of a U.N. declaration, that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The most unpopular and caustic opinions expressed are exactly those that deserve protection under free speech concepts. Speech and expressions that aren't protected is that which causes harm or incites others to violate law, your assertion that insults aren't protected is misleading.
Freedom of speech are in align with human rights. You can express your opinion and idea that confront or completely against other people opinion and idea, but it is only limited to you expressing your opinion and idea only. You don't have right to force other person to accept your opinion and idea against their will, because you will violate the other person's basic human right of expressing their opinion and idea, also rights to believing in it What i see in today's phenomenon is Some people have opinion and idea about something. They try to spread that opinion and idea to others. To those who accept, they will have this feeling of togetherness or belonging to a group. But to others that don't accept, they began to see that person as some kind of enemies that opose serious threat that should be eradicated, alienated or kicked out from the society. Let me take one example of this Sexual orientation regardles LGBTQ. Expressing your sexual orientation that in align with lgbtq agenda are basicaly part of your right to express your self and you have rights to talk about your sexual orientation as part of free speech. But all your rights that related to your sexual orientation limited to expressing it to others only, as you don't have any right to force others to accept your sexual orientation against their will. This including you are not allowed to do labeling to anyone who doesn't accept your sexual orientation, such as calling those who don't accepting as homophobic. If you do that, not only you are violating that person basic rights of free speech and freedom to believe in something, you also destroying the very basic understanding of human rights it self because you treating your own human rights higher than the others, which is a violation to the human rights it self
@@mynightcore4741 Nothing homophobic about not buying into someone's delusion that they are something that they are not. Most gay and lesbians do not buy into the insanity, either. Are they homophobic?
@@mynightcore4741 as long as i didn't force you to denying your sexual preference related to lgbtq, i am not a homophobic since not believing something or not accepting something can not be classified as phobia. I will be classified as homophobic if i force you to abandon your sexual preference related to lgbtq, or shouting rejection by using harsh words or violence to destroy anything related to lgbtq. If you began to mock me, labeling me or doing violent action both words and physical just because i don't want to accept your sexual preference and sexual orientation as something to be seen right or don't want to join it. That will make you as a human rights abuser or human rights violator because you trying to destroy or denying my rights to believe or not to believe. To accept or not to accept. Lgbtq activist asociating person in this category as equal to na*i. So if you do, you are a na*i aswell, just like what lgbtq activist says
This video propagates the same guaranties and limits as other totalitarian organizations: China under Mao, The USSR under Stalin, and the guy with the funny mustache that no one is allowed to talk about any more. The State power with the guns determines "what is true by objective standards". Right now in China, people are locked up in mental institutes and tortured for speaking against "The Party" because only a crazy person would speak against the party, therefore, they are condemned as crazy and locked away until they are broken and publicly denounce their previous ideas. I'm sure that the sponsoring channel "Sprouts" would not object to any of the items on Mussolini's Party Platform because it is completely in line with the UN agenda; it claims to be antidogmatic, antidemagogic, and antiprejudicial. It wants voting rights, women's rights, a lowering of the voting age to get more young people involved, a minimum wage, legislation powers to be given to specialized departments (appointed, not elected) like departments of transportation; power; environmental; etc. Mussolini demanded a progressive tax and reparations paid by the rich who profited unfairly, and by the Church (that the Church property be confiscated in the name of social justice). We are not taught this history, but you can still find it, but the google algorithm makes it more and more difficult to find these truths. There are still libraries. Find A Primer of Italian Fascism by Jeffrey T. Schnapp
This applies to everything except boycott divestment and sanctions for Israel bc of the way they treat Palestinians. Freedom of speech is not allowed in that case.
Palestinian supporter also doing the same to israeli supporters. Trying to shut them up from expressing their knowledge about the conflict. I often saw palestinian mocking israeli supporter who's telling their knowledge about israeli ownership with lots of labelling, such as zionist, murderer or colonialist supporter. They often trying to reject whatever israeli supporter says as if it's a hoax eventhough middle east have recorded proof to what the israeli supporter had said. Such as the fact that palestine was first created as jewish province during roman empire rule in 70's AD, not as arab teritory. Lots of palestinian supporter saying this as a hoax
Rest of the world learning online and thinking it's just a [100 years war] or [1800 years old problem] WHILE the Jews and Christians who know about what's going on for 3400+ years. Be thankful that the GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob spared you Philistines and did not wipe your nation from the face of the earth like HE did the Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Hittites, Amorites and Girgashites. Both you know and we know that West Bank was never yours and the Gaza strip is your entirity. When the Jews were taken exile by the Romans, the refugees from the Ottoman Empire (turkey) came and settled in the empty houses of Israelites and called it Palestine and built a mosque and gave it a rank called 3rd holiest place for muslims. You never defeated the Israelites to call the land your place but still lay claim that it is yours. Wow. I maybe killed for this (or maybe I am foolish to bring death to my doorstep). But this is the truth that believe in. And by God I will stand on it. Btw I am 100% Indian, 100% Protestant Christian.
The problem with using "free speech" to protect a protest is that some lawmakers use it as a line of demarcation with regard to labor strikes and other forms of righteous civil unrest. If workers want to disrupt a business by refusing to work and blocking scabs from entering the building, they can achieve results, but if we use the "free speech" metric to define what types of strike behavior is legal, then the strike becomes a "protest," and the police (assuming they follow the rules) must protect the workers' right to walk around carrying signs, but not to interfere with their employer's business (such as blocking customers or scabs from entering). This makes the strike less effective. Similarly, the Occupy Wall Street movement started out as a direct response to corporate bailouts, attempting to block traffic entering or exiting the financial district. The (respectable, albeit overly ambitious) goal was to put pressure on the same groups of people who have the ear of the politicians to change national fiscal policy. The problem is that when police forced them to avoid blocking traffic, the movement just became a generic "protest" against wealth inequality, attracting fair-weather-socialists and band-wagon-partygoers. The movement basically fizzled out as a result. My point is that sometimes, the "illegal" protest is the right course of action, and trying to fit a protest into what is legally-protected speech could cause it to become less effective.
@@dunningkruger4863 as in CCP agents or CCP kill squads would be sent to hunt down those who made this video in this channel... Similar to how CIA assassinates those agains the US gov.
Using Tank Man for the thumbnail but then primarily using Greta as an example is kind of bait and switch. Especially since she is a controversial figure. As for the freedom of speech there is also the prohibition of statements that may endanger others, e.g. reporting on troop movements in a war zone can be dangerous to the troop themselves.
Nice Propaganda. But to be fair, I knew this video was going to be propaganda ridden... When it started off with Gretta Thunberg... What makes it Propaganda though is the Framing of "Free Speech"... To Exclude "Offensive Language"... When the WHOLE IDEA of Free Speech is to PROTECT Offensive Language... SPECIFICALLY!
@@AnimatorPerpetrator100-nf6jj Typical! Nothing intelligent to say, so you resort to an Ad Hominem Attack instead. But then I expect that from an NPC. (See, I can do it too.) lol....
You claim to be an educational program that seeks to remain objective and apolitical yet your use of blatant anti-china propaganda would seem to suggest you are highly politically motivated.
There are a lot of inaccuracies in this video. Maybe you should try to understand, or know a subject better before you make a video, or maybe just stick to what you know.
The assortation of untrue facts... isn't that the same thing as unfounded opinion. Insulting people isn't protected!? That doesn't sound free to me. An insult is the same as an opinion. It might not be founded in fact, but it is an opinion just the same.
Many countries put what they consider reasonable limits on speech. Many european countries can be more willing to priohibit speech that is insulting or that spreads misinformation, given european history.
@@scottmeeker9971 well I don't know what she nows but I do know she's omitted certain facts like the 26,000 year axis wobble of the earth. So it's just coincidence that the Sahara desert was once a lush savanna (10,500years ago) then. the mechanics look pretty simple to me.
A Supreme Court associate justice in the Philippines gave a good opinion regarding the limitations of thd freedom of speech. He said: "One of our most guarded and valued rights is our freedom of expression. However, the freedom to express one’s sentiments and belief does not grant one the license to vilify in public the honor and integrity of another." - Justice J. Bellosillo What is odd is that, there are those who are saying they are just using their freedom of speech to Make fun or ridicule others thinking it is they are entitled to do so by association. With by association I mean, belonging to a certain group.
Freedom of speech is in murky waters, because facts are in murky waters. The phrase “A man can become a woman” is now highly contested and people are censoring in the name of hate speech or because they believe it is a fact. “This person is a woman,” is also a highly contested phrase that people cannot form an agreement on yet some want to censor
Mammals cannot change sex, by surgery or declaration. "Gender" - which is now conflated with sex - is a different matter entirely, being reliant upon regressive sexualized stereotypical behaviors which vary over time and by culture. Censorship of these facts does not change the reality of evolutionary biology.
@@terfalicious Which is very confusing for everyone involved. For example, some would approve the statement: "a man can now go into labor and bear a child." People afraid of offending certain parties would be afraid to question this statement.
@@aedalis88 People who WISH they were men can bear children - yet they are still women. The language fakery is part of the agenda to confuse people with limited understandings biology. Men have small, mobile gametes and women have large, sessile gametes. All mammals show this pattern, humans included. It really is simple biology, and reality will bear out (let's hope sooner than later).
If a teacher will ask you a question you have more than just freedom of speech. Little after it you lose it and cant be gained once again until the lesson end, otherwise you will be punished in any legal or illegal way by the teacher. The punishments are: - Psychological or moral abuse: • achieving an bad grade to lower your average. • being impersonated as clown etc. • an call to parents may also cause you problems sometimes (if they dont care what you say). • being yelled at by the teacher. - Physical abuse: • getting moved out of class • getting hit by the teacher by hand, sometimes by an item they hold.
How ironic that this video contains two major points towards the end that are fundamentally untrue, which is that “insulting” or “untrue” speech is not protected. This is demonstrably and 100% false. At least in the United States, ALL speech is protected from government interference by the first amendment. There is no carve out for “untrue” or “insulting” speech, nor should there ever be, because “untrue” or “insulting” speech is too often subjectively labeled, most frequently by those in power with agendas. This video needs to be re-done lest it’s violating the very rules of free speech it attempted to explain, that is, peddling false information.
This is a pro-censorship view of freedom of speech which is wrong. Real freedom of speech is allowing people the freedom to express views that go against your own views be it Facts or Opinions.
I still be that we should have the freedom of speech and expression, only if it’s harmless and helpful to society. Like, should a crazy person go around spread “hate word” towards certain group of people and scream “fire” in public even though there isn’t any fire.
Nice legend you have there! But Greta was heavily supported and funded. It's not a small girl being brave, rather a machine of lobbyists that took the chance. Don't be sad, just invent another nice story!
Who decides if something is objective fact? Some things that were once considered objective fact, have long since been disproved. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Remember back in the day when every celebrity who appeared on The Dean Martin Celebrity Roast was arrested? They should have known.. insults are not freedom of speech.
Insulting people can be legally protected because it's an opinion as well. The only exceptions are provable defamation of character (libel or slander). That's why journalists can be sued if they fail to fact-check what they say about a public figure, but stand-up comedians can say whatever they want.
Some other forms of "speech" that are not legal are inciting panic, conspiracy to commit a crime, copyright infringement... Probably other things that I'll think of later. (There are also FCC rules about using swearwords on television using wireless transmitters during daylight hours, but most of those rules are just silly.)
Shawn, you are thinking like an American; this video is speaking about United Nations controls, they are the ones who tell all the smaller countries what they must teach in their schools if they want to enjoy "most favored nation" status and be protected from neighboring enemies. You would be surprised about the rapid change in sexual practices, preferences, and ideology since Mongolia adopted these "guidelines". The alternative is to risk further control from China who has already forbid Mongolian language being taught, or traditional clothing be worn in inner Mongolian schools that they control.
Soon the UN hope to get rid of the American constitutional model and implant a global standard, what President Bush called "New World Order".
As per wikipedia (Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater):
"Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout fire in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting fire when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter, assuming the other elements of that crime are made out."
Conspiracy to commit a crime is about an act and not an expression (speech), so such things are understandable.
@@mlauntube I'm pretty sure Rowan Atkinson, a British actor, made a kiosk where people could openly insult him to demonstrate freedom of speech
Stated as a true American. And I mean that as a compliment re the First Ammendment. Take at look at what is happening in the rest of the Anglosphere and be afraid!
Media needs to be held fully accountable to its motivations and show a clear separation of facts and opinions, and broadened context
Practically all abridgment to speech is made by the reactionary inter course of our poorly informed peers
a clear seperation of facts and opinions is nearly impossible in normal human communication. Two different people with two different opinions can read the same text with different inflections, communicating an opinion without changing the text at all. Holding media outlets accountable for their motivations is problematic in the extreme. What motivations would you declare actionable? Profit? increase in audience? most media outlets have similar motivations. What changes is the means that they use. Sure it would be great to pass a law that " the media may not lie", but holding all media to that standard would be nearly unenforcable.
Having an opinion is fine, but one should also have the wisdom to know when it is and isn't appropriate to voice it, and listeners to know the distinction between opinion and fact.
Opinions and facts are becoming nondistinguishable in current society
This is not correct. Freedom of speech also means that people can say things which are factually incorrect, except for cases of defamation of character. The problem with prohibiting people from saying things which are factually incorrect is that things which were once thought to be irrefutable facts turned out not to be true. Science advances by challenging the accepted paradigm. Even a new idea which turns out to be wrong can be beneficial, in that it may stimulate others to come up with theories that revolutionize our understanding of the Universe.
Where was it said that freedom of speech doesn't allow for insulting others? Citation needed. Of course insulting others is protected speech; that is the opinion of the person and must be protected at all cost.
I think it depends per country. Freedom of speech is different everywhere. For example, if you said something negative but true about someone in the United States, you would be okay. But in Japan, if you said something negative but true about someone, you could be convicted(?) of defamation if it caused damages to the person despite it being true.
This video is so bad 🤦♂️
Stating "Untrue" facts is certainly protected.
Something is only untrue OR true until proven otherwise.
This sentence is false.
Freesdom of speech comes NOT from governments. It is part of your natural right to liberty, which comes from the simple fact that each individual adult owns their own body and life. You have a natural right to do whatever you want, so long as you are not violating the rights to life, liberty or property of another person. That's your right to liberty. Good governments defend this natural right. Bad ones violate it. That's how we know the difference between good governments and bad ones.
No, it comes from government. As does censorship. Thats why choosing the right government is so crucial
@@Strider91 Your rights come from God, governments are there to protect them.
@@wintensity your assuming there's a god. If there is not, then rights are an artificial construct that humanity came up with. Just as governments are the means by which we control the distribution of power, resources, and security. These government choose to grant us "rights" so the type of government and its view of power are crucial to upholding or even providing rights. . .
@@Strider91Government’s don’t have that kind of authority, that’s why when they infringe on our rights we call them tyrannical. How can they infringe on our rights when they define what our rights are?
Theres no such thing as good governments.
Message of the video - If our fact disagrees with yours, we can censor it. If you insult someone we can censor it.
Some people just can't stand an opinion about something or someone that is different from theirs
The liberal hive mind works in mysterious ways.
@@Hater_UltimaExactly the type of people who want to strip the rights of trans people... wait.
Whoa-ho-hoaaa! Really just blitzed through that part about "insulting someone is not protected under free speech." Really? Why not?
Let's assume it's true for a moment. What makes a statement an insult? Is it when the person making it intends to say something negative about another party? Or is it when a person being talked about declares that the other party has spoken negatively about them? Under either definition, how can Greta Thunberg's accusations against money-hungry corporations be considered free speech? Are there not others insulted by that assertion?
if there are limitations like listed, unverified information or insults, then freedom of speech can be easily manipulated and violated by the opposing views of a particular speech who will claim they are offended/insulted or the questionable/arguable information is false... these are not and should NEVER BE considered unprotected speech, IN A FREE SOCIETY there should be freedom of expression oneself with speech as long as it does not DIRECTLY PHYSICALLY hurts others.
This didn't answer my question. I want to know how much you can say that people dislike. Anything that can be said or thought will inevitably offend someone, no matter your intentions. So, where do we set the boundaries? Socially, it depends on which ideology is popular, conservative during the Cold War and liberal today. Legally, where are the limits?
Greta who benefited from free speech is not giving the same courtesy to the scientists and people that disagree with her and her dogma.
nonsense
exactly what power or mechanism is she using to prevent others from voicing their opinion?
At 2:29 time, one can state something is a fact when it is not. There are people that lie oll the time. It's not something that should be done, but it can be done.
Greta has the right to free speech, but not the right to make up facts
If it's made up, it's not a fact then. You don't like her facts?
She has every right to make up facts - that is freedom of speech. And the FACT that Sprouts used her as a shining example of freedom of speech, shows what a scam they are and people should express themselves by the thumbs down or unsubscribing.
That depends
If that was the case, should all flat earthers be punished for their opinion or made up facts?
@@Pope_Balenciaga Yes! Why not? Theories, whether right or wrong should have the right to be expressed.
Look at the recent "crazy conspiracy" theories, people tried to ban from public speech, that came out to be true. And as a result of the ability to get to the people, in spite of the obstacles, many lives were saved.
when you speak freedomly which is correct in some cases, you have to give up on other's emotions sometimes. 'cause in the end you shouldn't talk freely to someone you know they can be broken easily. that's why you learn when to talk and to who. but the most important thing is to give your opinion on something respectedly without keep insulting it too much, so whoever can put 'your opinion' in mind
4:04 I love this reference.
Made me sad.
More important is the Freedom of Thought, without which Freedom of Speech will become less meaningful.
For example, when one can ONLY think well of one's dear leader, or else the gulag, what is the use of freedom of speech even if one is free to praise the dear leader anytime and anywhere?
Mondo of Blazing Saddles and Gretta have many similarities least of which being a "Pawn in the game of life."
Topic of free speech and the case study chosen is her?! Out of a historical timeline of great people in pursuit of such an ideal. Even modern and globally relevant. I'm racking my brain as to why a creditable disseminator of knowledge would do so.
Dang I was hopeful of this channel...
It must be nice to have wealthy enough parents to do what she does.
As opposed to acting like trump's children and making the world a worse place?
More like if she was born in the Philippines, or most Southeast Asian countries, she would have been way less likely to get where she is today because of the economy there (2018, the average Filipino family income was PHP 313,000/year ($6,231.27)).
Even if she was born in China/North Korea, her voice would have been silenced by a communist agenda. Sweden has a high GDP, and national income average. Where you are born plays into what you have access to, and the income of your parents to travel.
I was trying to say this objectively based on Sociology, and not just pointing out the disparity between rich or poor/spoiled children.
@@misterhat5823the TDS is strong on this one 😮
@@notshane3827 Trolling a year old comment? Sad...
@@misterhat5823Not "trolling", it's the truth.
3:35 public safety must be sacrificed for liberty and freedom
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS WHAT MAKES US a free country and not China, and what USSR went through.
well if anything untrue is not protected, then big corporations shouldn't lie right? or politicians for that matter?
For the most part, the main speech that should be limited is ones that can bring immediate harm to others. If you are trying to get a job, and I tell the interviewer you are a criminal when you have no record, I am potentially ruining your life with a lie. Short of that, even if people want to lie on the internet, if you aren't directly bringing harm that can be proven or to ruin someone's life, even lying should be protected in freedom of speech and that kind of lying needs to be vetted by the marketplace of ideas, where speech stands on if it can be proven or not
That would be a lie. It's already not protected. Not because it may negatively alter someone's future but because it's simply untrue. So we're good there
02:45 can't it be objectively justified ? Doesn't that depend on how you interpretate that statement. Like you can easily say the per capita co2 emission of someone in the top0.01 is higher than someone of the bottom 90%. Just take the amount of houses owned/cars or the amount of private flights taken between those 2 groups in relation to flying public trips
I think you just discovered where Sprouts may also have difficulty differentiating between opinion and fact.
This demonstrates the problem we have today in free societies, where some don't know all the facts and form strong opinions and then others don't care for facts anyway, only their opinions. And now we also have the problem where people think they can argue their opinion against a fact.
@@nancyneyedly4587 The statement being referenced is problematic. The enviornmental impact of the richest people in the world can be calculated, relative to the average, or really any other demographic, but caims of sacrificed inplies intent, which would be more difficult to objectively determine
فکر میکنم وظیفه همه ماست که به عقاید و اعتقادات یکدیگر احترام بگذاریم تا حدی که با «اخلاق انسانی منافاتی نداشته باشد» و این قید بسیار مهم است.
I think people sometimes forget that freedom of anything usually comes with the responsibility and consequence of that freedom. Saying Im superior leads to both the consequence of someone objecting to that or worse someone believing that and holding me accountable. My humble opinion is that people often get angry when they cant separate the consequences from the freedom. Yes, you have freedom to bear arms, but the responsibility is on you if someone gets hurt from those arms, especially if it’s your own flesh and blood. What do you think?
Not quite. It actually means that you're freed from SOME of the consequences of that speech, namely those in regards to legal recourse. So yes, if I say my opinion is X, I cannot be legally charged for that opinion so I don't have to fear legal consequences. Will there still be consequences to my speech? Naturally, but only in so far as they don't infringe on my rights. And I would say that is where most of the anger is coming from? Like when you say something unpopular and get death threats in turn. Or when people try to get you fired for your speech? Maybe my country is a special case but here denunciation and defamation are illegal.
@@DelaronZarath True, but legality can often be bought or suspended. I guess there are different aspects to freedom of speech. In the political realm, it's one thing, but on youtube, it's another. But there are always going to be consequences for what you say, regardless if it's legal, social, or whatever.
And Freedom of Speech and Expression should be as optimally tolerated as possible, even if such content isn't considered factual, unless it comes in the form of incitement e.g. urging immediate harm toward someone or certain group of individuals.
maybe there's a time and place for even that. Violence is never the answer though, unless it's out of defense with a cause, if said people are killing others or doing great harm and getting away with it. Things that are destructive, that destroy people and the earth need to be destroyed like pollutants and the buildings manufacturing them, and the GMOs. The roots of evil gotta be burned. Injustice in any form should never happen. The people who arrest someone else who's exercising freedom of speech to the one who's arrested for standing for a cause should never happen for they are innocent people. Innocent people should never be arrested and suffer for it. Think about Roger Williams and the founding fathers, like thomas jefferson and others? They were radicals and Europe would have people like Roger Williams be put to death for he wasn't going along with the established church. It's the same now, people hate radicals, they hate differing viewpoints.
Freedom of speech means she has the right to say things that are not true.....insult people and basically say whatever she wants even if it can't be verified......this video is bullship
Why can't freedom of speech allow us to be vocal in a court of law.
Is our Judiciary still in the dark middle ages?
1) Why should we all rise when the Judge enters?
2) Why are we not allowed to speak out of turn?
3) Why can't we raise our voice against the judiciary?
4) Why can't we use verbal profanities against a judge/lawyer in a court of law?
Even if there are laws against this, why should we follow them? Shouldn't it be a personal choice?
5) Are these laws out-dated?
6) Can we have these rules thrown out?
7) Perjury should be allowed as a part of freedom of speech and considered as a form of personal expression.
8) Why can't we sue the judiciary? Isn't it unfair?
9) Why do our judiciary set an environment of intimidation.
10) People should enter a court of law without fear or the feeling of intimidation.
seems weakening fast here , in USA specially universities, many sacking & being cancelled by medias and orgs & WOKE etc. & truth and stats no matter now
"The woke dont care about facts and truth"
"Climate change is a hoax"
Do you see how these are 2 conflicting statements
Ah yes, the woke boogeyman.
We need more, of course, i miss the 90's and the 00's were i could really say whatever i want.
However, i'm absolutist in permitting offensive and fake things to be said. Not because i like it, but because such power should never be given to the state.
I say the following: Proven true facts should be protected. Opinions are fine. Inciting illegal action is not. Unless people assemble to commit violence or end up starting it, it is peaceful even if aggressive. Freedom of speech does not mean people have to listen or private individuals can't remove your platform if they acknowledge they aren't public. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are not protected, because the SLAPPer goes in knowing they're going to lose unless the other side runs out of money.
Often people demanding their freedom of speech be protected are actually demanding we listen to them. What they forget is the corollary of free of speech is the freedom to listen ... or not listen as the case may be. You have the right to say what you want but you don't have the right to demand everyone listen. All ideas are not created equal and I don't have to listen to idiots.
At least we agree or disagree with greta right under technical freedom of speech ?
Greta got attention thanks to the connections of her rich parents.
Here's a tissue.
@@scottmeeker9971 Thanks, it has the same IQ as you.
Shes a jewish.
What colour is her buggati?
I have to say, I don’t like her ideas but I do respect her commitment.
Great video.
Facts are true and thus there are no "untrue" facts. If something is untrue it is not a fact.
one interesting set of definitions I agree with states that facts are things that can be observed, measured, or verified. Truth is something believed to be correct. By those definitions you can have untrue facts, because the facts are independant of belief. any fact stated by someone who does not believe it can be an untrue fact,
Freedom of speech stops where intolerance & persecutions begin. See the paradox of tolerance, Karl Popper: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Absolute bullshit. Freedom of speech DOES mean the right to say untrue things, insult others (opinions are absolutely protected in this wise), and even the statement of untruths. You are completely wrong about this.
Let me guess, you are US-citizen and think your legal definition of "free speech" applies to all nations in the world?
@@LegioXXI Let me guess, you actually imagine that freedom of speech can be said to exist without the freedom to lie and say words that offend.
O, shudder! Hold your tongue if stating the truth might offend someone!
What a nation of fragile egos we have become.
“The problem is when someone states something as a fact it but can be proven as wrong by objective standards”.
That literally negates the entirety of freedom of speech because if you don’t have the freedom to state something or classify something as being a fact if that statement can be objectively proven otherwise, then you don’t have freedom of speech. If someone genuinely believes the thing they are stating then it would be a lie for them to call their statement as anything other than a fact.
This means that If I believe something is a certain way and I truly do believe it to be that way, if a make a statement about it, all someone else has to do is prove me wrong and that then would Mean the statement falls outside of legal, freedom of speech.
Huge fan of Sprouts, but this one misses the mark by a mile. This lesson incorrectly interprets free speech and pushes the globalist UN and WEF agenda of censorship with a good dose of climate change and a sprinkle of anti-gun propaganda. This is an example of how education today pushes socialist anti-freedom concepts as good or normal, along with advocating and teaching the abdication of individual responsibility (e.g., don't think for yourself, the government or someone else will do that for you). Using Greta Thunberg as your avatar for this lesson was a poor choice, but easy to see why if your objective is to push an underlying agenda more than understand the concept of free speech. You should watch your own video on BONHOEFFER'S THEORY OF STUPIDITY first, and then think critically about the underlying yet not-so-hidden message in this lesson. In America, our Constitution PROTECTS our Rights as a birthright FROM the government, our Rights are NOT granted to us BY the government. This lesson advocates suppressing and censoring any unapproved thinking or speech and conveniently leaves out who decides what thoughts are allowed. Of course, this comment is me exercising my right of free speech.
You nailed it, Fred. Kudos.
This video is incorrect. The freedom to be wrong is protected because it is the basis of public discourse, academic debate, and the presentation of new ideas, new knowledge, or novel applications or insights of knowledge.
The way this work is if someone believes speech to be wrong, it is their right to publicly rebutt, rather than abridge the speech of the other.
My generation had to take Civics. I say this video is wrong. I do not claim it is not protected speech. It is protected. It is their interpretation of the First Amendment. I believe it to be factually wrong.
Therefore, I have added my rebuttal. Now I also choose to unsubscribe, as I now question this outlet.
Additionally, when it comes to lying, someone can also lie if they choose. They just have to face the consequences. It is our responsibility to be mature in our ability to learn about as much as we can, use reason, and discern truth from lies and rebutt them. Intelligently.
Freedom of speech of our time ends when we talk about Russian security concerns, woke entertainment, traditional gender roles as well as people like Julian Assange, Zelensky and Snowden etc... okay trolls and bots of the internet. I have named the things that must not be spoken.
And clearly lying and untruth are protected, otherwise CRT and gender ideology couldn't be taught.
Woke is far from entertaining, unless you're a masochist! 🤣
Is insulting and degrading others people's religious beliefs a freedom of speech?
Yes.
I think many people would agree that freedom of speech is ”bad” when it comes to allegations like how parents sued social media companies like Meta, even making their CEOs express grief and sorrow over the decisions that some of his young clients, namely young teens, commited suicide because of an indirect result of his product. I can understand the fact that you as a parent who lost a kid due to cyber-bullying want to express your anger towards un unknown danger that social media can cause, but suing and going as far as putting someone in the position to admit that ”he has blood on his hands” when he has no reason to admit it, that is not right.
Please I want to know the program in which you create and animate the characters
I couldn't understand- 3:14 how stating a fact is not protected by Freedom of Speech?
Probably because facts don't necessarily need the protection of freedom of speech. Because you can check the facts, unlike the others. But that's just a guess though.
@@szabosandor8783 What is a woman? (Note: The wrong answer will get you socially ostracized, possibly fired, maybe arrested for 'hate speech'....)
Meanwhile in Andhra Pradesh, India the government suppresses people by using police ,media , legislation, and violence
So yes democracy 😣😂😂
Motham India, anni countries kooda alaagey unnai
What is the program used in your channel?
I think they actually pay a service to do the animation instead of using a program.
Why did you change the thumbnail from a tianimen square drawing to a bunch of loudspeakers
3:22 so this means i could be censored or arrested if i believe the earth is flat technically?
Im not a flat earther but this sounds pretty insane
What do you think about this slogan: "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences". Is it ok to kick someone out of your home because of what they say?
Those who say that are often looking to bring 'consequences' (punishments) on others who disagree with them.
ANY action has consequences, positive or negative, massive or negligible. We do not exist in a vacuum.
insulting others certainly is protected speech, making threats is not protected speech.
You have a right to free speech, but you have the responsibility to not lie or spread panic.
It's a shame that Republicans didn't get the memo, though.
Wait. Who says insults aren't protected by free speech? Where is this standard codified? Please don't tell me it's part of a U.N. declaration, that isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The most unpopular and caustic opinions expressed are exactly those that deserve protection under free speech concepts. Speech and expressions that aren't protected is that which causes harm or incites others to violate law, your assertion that insults aren't protected is misleading.
Freedom of speech are in align with human rights. You can express your opinion and idea that confront or completely against other people opinion and idea, but it is only limited to you expressing your opinion and idea only. You don't have right to force other person to accept your opinion and idea against their will, because you will violate the other person's basic human right of expressing their opinion and idea, also rights to believing in it
What i see in today's phenomenon is
Some people have opinion and idea about something. They try to spread that opinion and idea to others. To those who accept, they will have this feeling of togetherness or belonging to a group. But to others that don't accept, they began to see that person as some kind of enemies that opose serious threat that should be eradicated, alienated or kicked out from the society.
Let me take one example of this
Sexual orientation regardles LGBTQ.
Expressing your sexual orientation that in align with lgbtq agenda are basicaly part of your right to express your self and you have rights to talk about your sexual orientation as part of free speech.
But all your rights that related to your sexual orientation limited to expressing it to others only, as you don't have any right to force others to accept your sexual orientation against their will. This including you are not allowed to do labeling to anyone who doesn't accept your sexual orientation, such as calling those who don't accepting as homophobic.
If you do that, not only you are violating that person basic rights of free speech and freedom to believe in something, you also destroying the very basic understanding of human rights it self because you treating your own human rights higher than the others, which is a violation to the human rights it self
❤❤❤
thats very homophobic of you
@@mynightcore4741 Nothing homophobic about not buying into someone's delusion that they are something that they are not. Most gay and lesbians do not buy into the insanity, either. Are they homophobic?
@@workinprogress3609 yes, homosexuals are homophobic and you are very smart
@@mynightcore4741 as long as i didn't force you to denying your sexual preference related to lgbtq, i am not a homophobic since not believing something or not accepting something can not be classified as phobia.
I will be classified as homophobic if i force you to abandon your sexual preference related to lgbtq, or shouting rejection by using harsh words or violence to destroy anything related to lgbtq.
If you began to mock me, labeling me or doing violent action both words and physical just because i don't want to accept your sexual preference and sexual orientation as something to be seen right or don't want to join it. That will make you as a human rights abuser or human rights violator because you trying to destroy or denying my rights to believe or not to believe. To accept or not to accept.
Lgbtq activist asociating person in this category as equal to na*i. So if you do, you are a na*i aswell, just like what lgbtq activist says
This video propagates the same guaranties and limits as other totalitarian organizations: China under Mao, The USSR under Stalin, and the guy with the funny mustache that no one is allowed to talk about any more. The State power with the guns determines "what is true by objective standards". Right now in China, people are locked up in mental institutes and tortured for speaking against "The Party" because only a crazy person would speak against the party, therefore, they are condemned as crazy and locked away until they are broken and publicly denounce their previous ideas. I'm sure that the sponsoring channel "Sprouts" would not object to any of the items on Mussolini's Party Platform because it is completely in line with the UN agenda; it claims to be antidogmatic, antidemagogic, and antiprejudicial. It wants voting rights, women's rights, a lowering of the voting age to get more young people involved, a minimum wage, legislation powers to be given to specialized departments (appointed, not elected) like departments of transportation; power; environmental; etc. Mussolini demanded a progressive tax and reparations paid by the rich who profited unfairly, and by the Church (that the Church property be confiscated in the name of social justice). We are not taught this history, but you can still find it, but the google algorithm makes it more and more difficult to find these truths. There are still libraries. Find A Primer of Italian Fascism by Jeffrey T. Schnapp
This applies to everything except boycott divestment and sanctions for Israel bc of the way they treat Palestinians. Freedom of speech is not allowed in that case.
Palestinian supporter also doing the same to israeli supporters. Trying to shut them up from expressing their knowledge about the conflict.
I often saw palestinian mocking israeli supporter who's telling their knowledge about israeli ownership with lots of labelling, such as zionist, murderer or colonialist supporter.
They often trying to reject whatever israeli supporter says as if it's a hoax eventhough middle east have recorded proof to what the israeli supporter had said.
Such as the fact that palestine was first created as jewish province during roman empire rule in 70's AD, not as arab teritory. Lots of palestinian supporter saying this as a hoax
Rest of the world learning online and thinking it's just a [100 years war] or [1800 years old problem] WHILE the Jews and Christians who know about what's going on for 3400+ years.
Be thankful that the GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob spared you Philistines and did not wipe your nation from the face of the earth like HE did the Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Hittites, Amorites and Girgashites. Both you know and we know that West Bank was never yours and the Gaza strip is your entirity.
When the Jews were taken exile by the Romans, the refugees from the Ottoman Empire (turkey) came and settled in the empty houses of Israelites and called it Palestine and built a mosque and gave it a rank called 3rd holiest place for muslims.
You never defeated the Israelites to call the land your place but still lay claim that it is yours. Wow.
I maybe killed for this (or maybe I am foolish to bring death to my doorstep). But this is the truth that believe in. And by God I will stand on it.
Btw
I am
100% Indian, 100% Protestant Christian.
You just proved yourself wrong
The problem with using "free speech" to protect a protest is that some lawmakers use it as a line of demarcation with regard to labor strikes and other forms of righteous civil unrest. If workers want to disrupt a business by refusing to work and blocking scabs from entering the building, they can achieve results, but if we use the "free speech" metric to define what types of strike behavior is legal, then the strike becomes a "protest," and the police (assuming they follow the rules) must protect the workers' right to walk around carrying signs, but not to interfere with their employer's business (such as blocking customers or scabs from entering). This makes the strike less effective. Similarly, the Occupy Wall Street movement started out as a direct response to corporate bailouts, attempting to block traffic entering or exiting the financial district. The (respectable, albeit overly ambitious) goal was to put pressure on the same groups of people who have the ear of the politicians to change national fiscal policy. The problem is that when police forced them to avoid blocking traffic, the movement just became a generic "protest" against wealth inequality, attracting fair-weather-socialists and band-wagon-partygoers. The movement basically fizzled out as a result. My point is that sometimes, the "illegal" protest is the right course of action, and trying to fit a protest into what is legally-protected speech could cause it to become less effective.
Nice video, though showing the Tiananmen Square of the Chinese tank man scene as thumbnail ain't a good idea 😅
Why.......it's freedom of expression
@@dunningkruger4863 as in CCP agents or CCP kill squads would be sent to hunt down those who made this video in this channel... Similar to how CIA assassinates those agains the US gov.
Then there is no point to the question as the outcome is already determined to be NO.
Also Commie tube hid your comment
Using Tank Man for the thumbnail but then primarily using Greta as an example is kind of bait and switch. Especially since she is a controversial figure.
As for the freedom of speech there is also the prohibition of statements that may endanger others, e.g. reporting on troop movements in a war zone can be dangerous to the troop themselves.
Nice Propaganda.
But to be fair, I knew this video was going to be propaganda ridden...
When it started off with Gretta Thunberg...
What makes it Propaganda though is the Framing of "Free Speech"...
To Exclude "Offensive Language"...
When the WHOLE IDEA of Free Speech is to PROTECT Offensive Language...
SPECIFICALLY!
Propaganda? I guess someone learned a new word.
@@AnimatorPerpetrator100-nf6jj Typical! Nothing intelligent to say, so you resort to an Ad Hominem Attack instead. But then I expect that from an NPC. (See, I can do it too.) lol....
See the video on stupid people. Also the 5 factor personality test re neuroticism.
You claim to be an educational program that seeks to remain objective and apolitical yet your use of blatant anti-china propaganda would seem to suggest you are highly politically motivated.
Freedom of speech is not free but with a cost.
There are a lot of inaccuracies in this video. Maybe you should try to understand, or know a subject better before you make a video, or maybe just stick to what you know.
4:07 said societies must be destroyed and restarted
Ahhhh, the children of the ultra elite.
Jewish elite
The assortation of untrue facts... isn't that the same thing as unfounded opinion. Insulting people isn't protected!? That doesn't sound free to me. An insult is the same as an opinion. It might not be founded in fact, but it is an opinion just the same.
Many countries put what they consider reasonable limits on speech. Many european countries can be more willing to priohibit speech that is insulting or that spreads misinformation, given european history.
Someone should tell the little girl about pole shifts and sun activity. That’ll really freak her out!
She's 22 now
Yea, you know more than she does, obviously.
@@scottmeeker9971 well I don't know what she nows but I do know she's omitted certain facts like the 26,000 year axis wobble of the earth.
So it's just coincidence that the Sahara desert was once a lush savanna (10,500years ago) then. the mechanics look pretty simple to me.
@@dunningkruger4863 With the brain of a little girl
@@wintensity Her brain is certainly more functional than yours.
A Supreme Court associate justice in the Philippines gave a good opinion regarding the limitations of thd freedom of speech. He said:
"One of our most guarded and valued rights is our freedom of expression. However, the freedom to express one’s sentiments and belief does not grant one the license to vilify in public the honor and integrity of another." - Justice J. Bellosillo
What is odd is that, there are those who are saying they are just using their freedom of speech to Make fun or ridicule others thinking it is they are entitled to do so by association. With by association I mean, belonging to a certain group.
WIth social media and high tech data, just worry feeling and motions can override facts and priority by us/layman & effect our politicians.
Should the world ban censorship
@jjw00dw1 why
Nothing you said makes sense. Multiple contradictions and statements without citation.
Freedom of speech is in murky waters, because facts are in murky waters. The phrase “A man can become a woman” is now highly contested and people are censoring in the name of hate speech or because they believe it is a fact. “This person is a woman,” is also a highly contested phrase that people cannot form an agreement on yet some want to censor
Mammals cannot change sex, by surgery or declaration. "Gender" - which is now conflated with sex - is a different matter entirely, being reliant upon regressive sexualized stereotypical behaviors which vary over time and by culture. Censorship of these facts does not change the reality of evolutionary biology.
@@terfalicious Which is very confusing for everyone involved. For example, some would approve the statement: "a man can now go into labor and bear a child." People afraid of offending certain parties would be afraid to question this statement.
@@aedalis88 People who WISH they were men can bear children - yet they are still women. The language fakery is part of the agenda to confuse people with limited understandings biology. Men have small, mobile gametes and women have large, sessile gametes. All mammals show this pattern, humans included. It really is simple biology, and reality will bear out (let's hope sooner than later).
If a teacher will ask you a question you have more than just freedom of speech. Little after it you lose it and cant be gained once again until the lesson end, otherwise you will be punished in any legal or illegal way by the teacher.
The punishments are:
- Psychological or moral abuse:
• achieving an bad grade to lower your average.
• being impersonated as clown etc.
• an call to parents may also cause you problems sometimes (if they dont care what you say).
• being yelled at by the teacher.
- Physical abuse:
• getting moved out of class
• getting hit by the teacher by hand, sometimes by an item they hold.
Very flawed video, therefore dangerous.
How ironic that this video contains two major points towards the end that are fundamentally untrue, which is that “insulting” or “untrue” speech is not protected.
This is demonstrably and 100% false. At least in the United States, ALL speech is protected from government interference by the first amendment. There is no carve out for “untrue” or “insulting” speech, nor should there ever be, because “untrue” or “insulting” speech is too often subjectively labeled, most frequently by those in power with agendas.
This video needs to be re-done lest it’s violating the very rules of free speech it attempted to explain, that is, peddling false information.
Those who have a lot of money have more freedom of speech.
Complacency is never good.
This is a pro-censorship view of freedom of speech which is wrong. Real freedom of speech is allowing people the freedom to express views that go against your own views be it Facts or Opinions.
2:34 Careful, that'll topple down the entirely of far-left ideas.
Brilliant Idea to bunk classes!
This video got banned in China for the reference the massacre
I still be that we should have the freedom of speech and expression, only if it’s harmless and helpful to society. Like, should a crazy person go around spread “hate word” towards certain group of people and scream “fire” in public even though there isn’t any fire.
Speech becomes an insult when it negatively get associated to some one or a group. That insult will be only protected when that is a fact and a truth.
A conclusion based on bias and lies is worth crap.
She is an irritating person but I support her. I must leave a better world for my children
Nice legend you have there! But Greta was heavily supported and funded. It's not a small girl being brave, rather a machine of lobbyists that took the chance.
Don't be sad, just invent another nice story!
👣🌏☯️🌌
Who decides if something is objective fact? Some things that were once considered objective fact, have long since been disproved. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Reality exists whether you 'believe' it or not. Post Modernism i.e. "all truth is relative/socially constructed" is a toxic theory.
Freedom of speech is often confused with insult of one's believe which is not acceptable
Remember back in the day when every celebrity who appeared on The Dean Martin Celebrity Roast was arrested? They should have known.. insults are not freedom of speech.
and now she is the worlds biggest antisemitic brat
I know... Sad!
Great work Thank you
Time to unsubscribe I guess
"Freedom of Speech ends where Cancel Culture begins."
-Adolph Stalin
🤣Woke me up when it's over! LOL