This is what a "waste of time" degree like philosophy gives you. Sunak et al could do with learning how to think clearly rather than just how to be a financier.
It is a crime against humanity, that logic isn't a mandatory subject in schools. So many people believe they understand logic, but never once actually study what it is. If you haven't studied logic, how can you possibly hope to be a logical person.
@@filip4698 People who actually want to know how to think for themselves, and come to objective conclusions that best represent humanity. Those who wants to believe as many _actually_ true things as possible, and disregard as many _actual_ false things as possible. To do this reliably you need to learn logic for a start. Next silly question?
@@QuintarFarenor europe has managed to have a more intelligent populous and better government than america or england... it's doable. but you're right amerikkkans, especially, fear intelligence, logic, reason, social aid, books, women, and LGBTQ...(england isn't technically europe, they're their own species and amerikkka is where i live)
@@christophertaylor9100 Maybe you could point out actual specific examples of people being censored along with quotes and references to Alex specifically approving of those things being censored. Meanwhile I'm as close to a free speech advocate as it gets.
@@christophertaylor9100that's the opposite of what he said, he said, while freedom of speech and misinformation can go hand and hand, freedom of speech is still the best course of action, because without free speech we cannot combat misinformation. Watch the whole video next time
I think it goes without saying that unrestricted free speech will not lead to the dissolution of misinformation. However, it is certainly better to have unrestricted free speech than to allow any one body be the arbiter of what speech is acceptable and what the punishment for unacceptable speech might be.
@@RJGMorrisyes, I think so (even though I perhaps didn't think it through enough). Banning some kind of speech in the public discourse doesn't mean it won't occur privately, thus those who want to "call for violence" can still do so, as long as nobody outside their group can hear them.
@@RJGMorris (Laws regarding) plagiarism don't violate free speech, you're just not allowed to make a profit from copying others' speech. Edit: added in parentheses
I dont think it would be impossible to regulate disinformation. It would be tricky. It would need to be democratic, but also limited in its scope and subject to a balance of powers.
@@RJGMorris yes and no, calls to violence are just words. If they lead to action, a court could decide the speaker is perhaps responsible for that action or incitement of the action. Although, I believe the responsibility falls on the individuals committing the act directly since they are capable of deciding for themselves. For plagiarism I suppose it depends on if that is considered a form of speech. I'd consider it theft in most instances. Also, just because speech is not restricted legally, doesn't mean there aren't consequences for saying certain things, i.e. societally imposed. As we've seen fairly often in recent years with the rise of cancel culture, society responds harshly without need for restrictive laws.
I was just thinking this! The short before this was one of Hitchens, and the way they articulate their thoughts so clearly and intelligently is very similar
What we need to be doing is teaching children critical thinking skills, how to weigh evidence and question what they hear. One of the most important things you can teach a child is that a claim isn't necessarily correct just because it supports what they want to believe. We need to not give bogus propaganda claims fertile ground to grow in.
While I agree on that (as it will be harder to censor hoaxes in future, as someone needs to decide what is a hoax), if one breaks the terms of service, it's quite clear - and thus, because freedom of speech does not mean "freedom from consequences", rational consequences should follow.
Or we can all be mature and not get pissed at ideas people have that disagree with our own. Literally getting mad at someones thoughts and words is something kids do through tantrums
@@Ejacunathan Instead, that's literally not what I wrote. Are you for not punishing someone, if they break the terms of service? If we cam just turn our heads back, at people breaking such "internet laws", than why do we even have them? Trump broke Twitter's terms of service, he was validly punished - which wasn't only as a means of punishing, but also as a means of keeping others safe. It's not about "I disagree with you, shut up!", it's about "you broke the law, which endangers others. We'll silence you/'put you in online jail', so that you cannot harm others". Trump broke Twitter's terms of service, which *every person registering to Twitter/any other social media agrees to abide* (and so, Twitter had the right to cut him off); and him breaking it brought the ending of 5 lives, and injuring of many others, on the January 6th. This is not about "I disagree with you, you'll be silenced" - this is about "I broke the law, I shall go through consequences" (Trump literally agreed to it, as any other Twitter user); and it's also "Because of my actions, 5 people were killed. I'll be banned, as a way of keeping others safe". Fr, I've never seen someone defending the breaking of terms of service - which you are literally writing about. Are you against the terms of service? Well, by that logic, are you against law? If you've answered yes to both, than I guess you'd like to hear about the "Social contract theory". The point is clear - all I'm saying is that those that break the rules of the social media/internet/the state, should feel consequences. You wouldn't say "Don't be a pussy. Just because you disagree with the actions of this murderer, does not mean he should be jailed! You snow-flake!" - but that's how you sound like. Why am I still and mainly talking about the "terms of service"? - because they are well defined rules, and so as Cosmicsceptic basically pointed out "it'll be hard to choose whether something is or isn't hoax" - however when somebody breaks the rules; it's kinda clear.
I notice that Alex doesn't subscribe to the concept of absolute free speech, which is a commendable stance. This suggests the acknowledgment of necessary limitations on free speech. However, Alex harbors skepticism towards both government authorities and billionaires being entrusted with the task of imposing these restrictions, a sentiment that's understandable. This naturally raises the question: What specific restrictions does Alex believe should be in place, and who or what does he propose to be responsible for enforcing them?
In the US, we have the first amendment. This means, in America, that the government cannot legislate against any type of speech except in one or two instances, specifically direct calls to immediate violence. Hate speech or whatever you'd like to call it is perfectly legal here. On the other hand, social media platforms are owned and run by private companies and private companies are allowed to police speech however theyd like. Reddit is another example, go to a subreddit, break the rules of the subreddit by saying something against those rules and you'll be banned. Is that an infringement on my free speech rights? No. Its not the government stepping in to stop me. I AM allowed to go onto a street corner and day whatever I'd like but I certainly can't go on UA-cam or Facebook or Twitter and start spouting racist nonsense without expecting a punishment. Personally I'm totally okay with the current system here in the states.
I like that this short clip shows the dilemma. We don't want a ton of disinformation everywhere scamming people, but every method of restriction has the same basic concerns of who we want to trust with the task of deciding. I think some restrictions in some contexts are very important. For instance, in medicine or business. A doctor should not be allowed, in the course of his work, to give harmful medical misinformation, especially through neglect or malice. A business should not be allowed to lie about a product in a way that is provably hazardous. It feels like quite the dilemma.
Alex makes me hopeful for the future of intellectualism. Anyway, no one ever argues unrestricted free speech makes disinformation disappear. Usually they're the opposite camps. However, no one wants unrestricted free speech on social media, even people who call themselves "free speech absolutists". Moderation is necessary but it's difficult to make a rule of moderation precise. Maybe no allowing ad homenims can solve this problem since ad homenims are easy to spot and define? Define ad homenims, and use AI to spot and delete it even before the text is posted? Does ad homenims cover hate speech? I'll have to think more.
I believe the topic of this debate was referring to a situation in which a BBC presenter was found to have committed some form of misconduct (I think sexual misconduct, but I could be mixing up news stories). Due to censorship laws covering up the identities of offenders, there was online speculation about which presenter it could have been, which led to people being defamed and having their reputations damaged for things they didn't do. So in this specific situation, restrictions on free speech created disinformation. But in general, yes, I agree.
As a heads uo An ad hominem is just an argument saying that something is wrong because the person making the argument is bad. Insults without claims as such are not ad hominems. Ex: 'you are dumb thus your argument is invalid' is an ad hominem But 'your argument is invalid, thus you are dumb' is not an ad hominem
You cannot reliably regulate such a thing even through AI. Let’s say I’m quoting an ad-hominem from someone else or to demonstrate a point about logical fallacies. What would you do then? Make a special exception for quotes? Then anyone can nest an ad-hominem in a quote. Kinds of speech, no matter how accurately defined, are fundamentally intertwined. You cannot possibly ban an isolated form of speech.
It sounded like there was going to be a third option, for who would make the decisions on what type of speech to allow, besides the unelected Silicon Valley executives or the government. Anyone?
I like that approach. I don't like free speech but I loathe the alternative. I saw people getting arrested in the UK for rightfully hating the monarchy. On the other hand I do appreciate how Germany isn't turning into a fascist hell hole like many states in the country with the golden standard of free speech. A famously anti-free speech ideology. It's a bit of a paradox.
I don't remember who said it but I think about this all the time: Let's replace cancel culture with context culture. I'm not a big fan of complaining about canceling, but in this case we can broaden it to any censorship. Replace censorship with commentary and explanation. In that sense, I absolutely do believe free speech is a great way to disincentivize misinformation.
Hey Alex have you read the righteous mind by Jonathan heidt? He talks about how to communicate with different world views and you do such a great job of hitting the mark here. Unregulated free speech is a right wing “issue” but you manage to assimilate the left by pointing out the keys can’t be given to an authority that might hurt minorities (a left wing “issue”). You’ve created a perfect example here of taking the side of the right with the moral perspective understood from the left. Cheers
Let us not be hypnotized by how well he articulates himself, governments 50 years ago are made up of completely different people . Having said that maybe he's right, America seems to be going backwards right now
Only some parts of government have changed in 50 years, as some positions can be held longer than that, & how likely that people will get replaced by people who font think like them?
So he is saying forum-like platforms not always clarify dubious information by member participation alone but he also says any sort of control over those platforms is not the answer bc policy makers or moderators also have their biases. So, what's the solution then, smart pants? Complain alone?
Should the government regulate speech? Probably not. Can institutions regulate internal speech? Absolutely, barring some legally-protected examples (like union organizing) of course.
You speak, like I think. I would give my abilty to have children, to simply be able to bridge the gap between my thoughts and my speech. Autism can be a superpower, but oh boy is it mostly a hindrance.
The question at this stage should not be “who” decides which speech to censor. The question to be asking first is “how.” The answer is obvious: harm reduction. Censor the speech that demonstrably leads to harm, allow the rest. In fact, that’s what we already do. I’m not allowed to threaten you with violence or blackmail you for the reasons that this is speech which causes harm. I just wish people would take the principle further.
There are laws protecting against the forms of speech you listed. Those laws should be and are enforced everywhere, including on the internet. Censoring ANYTHING else is an overreach. And the question about which authority gets to censor should always be the first thing to consider: it's incredibly dangerous to avoid that discussion. If an authority has compromised itself by lying for or acting on the behalf of a cartel, against public interest, as was shown to be the case with the government and most of the academic and medical communities in the past three years, then giving those authorities the right to censor people is deeply unwise, aside from being by definition undemocratic.
But who would decide what is harmful? As Alex said, until 2003 you were unable to teach about homosexual relationships in the UK schools because it was deemed harmful.
I think simply censoring speech that "demonstrably leads to harm" is a bit of an over-simplified way of putting it. Under such a simplified model, those without any intent to do harm, also get punished. The current model works a little bit closer to "intent to do harm". This is why defamation, tortuous interference, calls to violence, etc. are all illegal. With defamation or tortuous interference, someone has to craft a lie with the intent of getting someone fired, nullifying a contract, or otherwise creating an economic disadvantage for the target. A third party propagating that information has no legal liability here because they were simple misinformed by the defamer, and that's how it should be since punishing third parties would disincentivise public participation. If we want to expand this concept of punishing on proven intent, id be done with that, but not on the basis of just harm done.
@@pintpullinggeek Wdym who? We already put our faith in Govs and courts to make laws to determine and prevent harm. Literally doing this with speech would be no different.
It certainly a difficult quandary and one that very likely can’t be solved on UA-cam. Where one draws the line on what should be allowed or what should not is a very personal issue, as well as how that should be enforced. In my view… your rights generally end where someone else’s are concerned. Just because you can say something doesn’t mean you should. And also remember that people angry with you are entitled to that right as well.
Maybe not Utopia (impossible imo) nut without absolute free speech and thought, no other freedom can truly exist. We'll get there. My vote is ZERO censorship, for any reason.
I agree but you can change the government you can't change the company unless by direct government input hence back to the same point. Free reign isn't the way either.
Whenever Free Speech is brought up as a right vs a problem (especially Hate Speech), I feel conflicted. And this is exactly why. Because we see a lot of misinformation spread and calls for violence that we want to stop...but seeing how in the US in Florida and Texas they are going through all their school libraries with a comb to find any books with a message they don't aprove of (anything not uber-conservative) while feeling so outraged if you try to turn the tables and present their Bible as having exactly the same or even more restricted content as any of the texts they so revile...means I don't trust that side of the government, and on the other hand I know that the other side can have some problem individuals who are intollerant to a whole other slew of historical facts. If any of them get involved with some sort of Clean-up Opperation of the Free Speech list of tollerated topics... I can only accept that rather than effectively make a list of offensive topics, we'll have to go on with Free Speech and fish out on an individual basis what might be Hate Speech. And yes, it exists even if my definition "Speech intended to offend, not speech that incidentally offended unintentionally." probably misses some.
It's so freaking adorable that you think it's the right trying to control speech and shut down ideas / words / speech that goes against their beliefs. Hahaha it makes me laugh
Why do we need to ban hate speech or calls to violence? Banning them won't change the mind of those who think like that, will it? Would such a solution prevent the speakers from still sharing those ideas privately?
But what point is he trying to make. He's said free speech is just a free for all of lies and misinformation, but also nobody can be trusted to enforce censorship?
The biggest lie you've been fed is about there being a novel threat of misinformation from nobodies on the internet, and that your government isn't the biggest misinformer ever, even after having lied you into the Iraq war and having forced you to take an unsafe experimental medical treatment for a flu that came about through government-funded research, among a million other things.
So either unelected billionaires that don't actually care about truth and freedom of speech, or governments that you don't trust either? What's the solution then?
As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, in a sudden and indisputable burst of truth: ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.’ Knowledge about 'homosexuality' (in the 1970-80s still considered something of a psychological aberration or sociological disturbance, in the Soviet Union as much as in the United Kingdom) and teaching children 'about it' (as a mind-game) would - officially at least - have consisted of psychiatric descriptions, not political correctness. And that queer reality, in the use of giving meaning to terms, was the dispute: e.g. Is sex between members of the same gender, in public or private, consensual or enticed, welcome or intrusive, the 'same as' sex between opposite genders (then heavily restricted by law and custom, as it still is)or is it 'different to'? No, not 'Love is Love' (it isn't by the way) nor Equal Rights For Equal Duties (still not quite applicable, btw) but is one sex act (this) the same as another (that) - and therefore applicable to teaching .. erm biological facts (rather than political slogans, et al - 'Gay', for instance, having then become a political term, specifically in the radicalisation of an activist's form of victimology). Cf 'Rules For Radicals' Saul Alinksky, to see how that impish endeavour worked - remarkably well as a piece of social engineering to reach an ulterior end .. ulterior to the souls under discussion and how they lived their lives). Censorship and its censorious officers are inevitable in a complex society having a wide variety of means to communicate individual beliefs; and their often nasty little job will always have its critics, some even wild enough to want to censor censors out of a job; merrily unaware of or careless in regard to Chesterton's elfin Island Fence. '"Something there is that doesn't love a wall, That wants it down." I could say "Elves" to him, But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather He said it for himself.' Robert Frost, Mending Wall. Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o)
Hey Connor! I had a moral question for you. There's two people. One of them is being harassed by the other and it makes them very uncomfortable. Now pretend there's a way to quantify that discomfort. The person harassing could stop, but doing so would cause the harasser an equal amount of discomfort and suffering. Intuitively we say "so what, you can't harass people because it makes you feel more comfortable". My question is, why not? If not harassing causes them the same level of pain and suffering, why do we prioritize the comfort of the person being harassed? Surely the offending party did not ask to be born an a-hole.
Thank you!!! It frustrates me to no end that not only repeating the same mistakes when it comes to accepting other people, we're also revisiting and 'debating' a bunch of old ones.
To be clear, this is a relevant and ongoing issue which needs to be discussed urgently. 1.) Firstly, we still have blasphemy laws and similar laws against free speech all over the Western world. Not to mention there are people fighting for free speech in many countries. And even here in America, you can be fired for speaking out against the Israeli gov’t, etc. 2.) We need to figure out how speech should work online and in social media. Speech is neither free, nor equal at the moment in its curation. We have algorithms pushing certain content over others, creating a hierarchy where speech is de facto silenced by its perceived low value, etc. This is all to say, this issue is very much unsettled, and discussing it is incredibly important.
Free speech is not going to bring about utopia but if there is such a thing it is the basis for it. And no one is suggesting unrestricted free speech towards children. Children need to be shielded from some aspects of adult society until they are ready. How that is handled and by whom will always be an ongoing debate for which we need free speech.
Yeah he starts out with a straw man, then argues that you cannot trust authorities to regulate free speech in an argument that authorities should regulate free speech. And people here are praising him as some vast intellect, the next Christopher Hitchens! LOL
I don't know but someone probobly said that. Alex was trying to clarify his position, I think. Free speech doesn't lead to the perfect world but it is better than the alternative.
Alex's example here is perfect. Even if you agree that educational material regarding homosexual relationships is harmful to children, you can see on which side of censorship you find yourself now.
Unfortunately we can see the effects 20 years later that allowing the dissemination of homosexual material to children was undead harmful. So they did get it right. 🤷🏼♂️ He swung and missed on that one.
And homosexual in particular? Heterosexual content, that stuff's fine, that's 'letting kids be kids', but the moment it's anything other than straight, its corrupting the youth? Oh and especially what happens when that kid is homosexual? When they don't know what's happening and they think they've done something wrong because no one's ever educated them correctly?
@@DanilsonCarvalho was it education for teens or pre teens regarding how sex works? Because telling kids that some people like poking it in vages and some like poking it in the hole below it is not good for anyone, especially kids.
@@RextheRebel Sex Ed is a completely different topic to the one I was talking about, I'm not especially knowledgeable on the pedagogic practices regarding it nor do I find it relevant. We could have that discussion at another time, when it proves relevant, but suffice to say, I think comprehensive sex education is good and should be mandated. You know being homosexual is different from having gay sex, right? In the same way that being heterosexual is different from having straight sex. Both these things are multifaceted, from relationships to common practices, in their histories and behaviors, platonic relationships too. Boiling Sex Ed down to "Stick in hole" in insanely immature and childlike, in much the same way boiling homosexuality down to "man fucks man" is insanely immature and childlike.
That is not even close to what he said. The law against allowing kids to learn about homosexuality at the same time as hetrosexuality was mistaken. Btw Alex has made several videos criticising homophobia take this one for example titled "Why Muslim Parents Are Pulling Their Kids From School": ua-cam.com/video/bG9Amgd5wio/v-deo.htmlsi=NP7SmxVTbD3v8y6W Alex said it is hubris to believe that we currently are in a better position to know what should be censored and what shouldn't than we were 20 years ago.
This is why free speech matters. It's a straw man argument to say that free speech will make the world a peaceful and loving place. It's there to spread out power and reduce the risk of tyrrany by limiting control over people.
Governmets change all the time, for better or for worse. The iherent problems of democracy and free speech can't be solved by government action to limit them. The only way to save democracy and free speech is to uphold liberal values, since democracy and free speech are pointless if the majority of people use them to oppose their own freedom.
"Blogger" was a bad characterization of him. I would have gone with "Oxford graduate of Philosophy and Theology" possibly shortend to simply "Oxford graduate" another alternative would be "podcaster". What point are you making exactly?
It feels a little deceptive to me that you cut the third option, no moderation whatsoever. There are problems with moderation driven by government or Capital but a complete lack of moderation is by far the worst of the options. In the context of the internet that means never knowing who anyone is, whether what they're saying is true, or why they're saying it. There would also exist no mechanism for creating spaces for civil discourse or holding people accountable for saying genuinely dangerous things. You give up some freedom whenever you agree to abide by moderation but you give up a lot more freedom when you don't.
You have no idea what you're talking about. I can get a better picture of what people actually think by reading 4chan, which is unmoderated, than you can by noting 2/3 posts in reddit are *deleted* by the censors. I don't want to censor people any more than I believe I have a right in a real conversation to cover someone's mouth if they disagree with woketards.
The fact that you don't want free speech to be moderated per se (by the government, for instance) doesn't mean there can't be spaces where such moderation exist. I can join a discourse space where anonymity is forbidden and certain discourses are off the table, if I'm willing to do so. But I should be allowed to join unmoderated spaces as well.
@@Molly-jh4kz Whoever runs that space. Could be yourself. I know, I know: isn't that precisely what's happening with social media networks? Don't their owners control free speech on their platforms? Yup, they do. I need to think about it further lol
@@davidandersson1961 That's historically not been the role of the public school system. Anything beyond health concerns has always been left to the family. It's why we continue to expand what "health" means - so the Left can do an end run around the actual will of the people. Sex ed in schools has never really had broad support. I imagine it would be okay to require classes on how to commit murder as well, if we want to follow what passes for some as logic. We can call it "murder education." After all, they're banking on the word "education" making it alright, just like how we like to call ridiculous and destructive spending bills "Health Care/Civil Rights Acts." 🤣 Take care.
@@AJHart-eg1ys While most people probobly know something about sex before sex ed it is definitely preferable to learn about it in school than at home, that would be so weird I don't even want to imagine it. "I imagine it would be okay to require classes on how to commit murder as well, if we want to follow what passes for some as logic." What are you talking about?
I always find the "who gets to decide what you can and can't say " argument flawed. It's like saying "who gets to decide what laws can and can't get passed". The government, obviously, and if they pass unjust laws we protest and vote them out. Just because they have power to pass unjust laws does not mean they should not be able to pass any laws.
I think you're partially correct. The most terrifying difference is between governments who restrict your freedom and those who force you to do something. It's a very big difference, telling someone what they can't do and getting someone what they must do. At that point it becomes something like slavery. And this is the exact problem with the LGBT, they demand we must call them whatever made-up language they desire to be called. It's not just "don't do this or that", it's "do that or else..."
You do realize that in order to "protest and vote them out" you need free speech? That is why laws about what you can say are fundamentally different from any other laws the government can pass. You can't advocate for things to be changed if the very act of doing so produces legal repercussions.
I agree that the best answer is door number 3 - the public decide and make criminal laws that speech can't directly encourage. As to sexual content in education, homosexual or not, that's a sticky issue coloured with lots of greys. The better critique of government information by far is WMDs in Iraq.
It's always annoying to see how in the past, X things were prohibited while Y things were perfectly fine, but now in the modern world, X things became acceptable but for some reason Y things become prohibited I don't think i need to provide examples if you understand what i mean. We gain rights and lose others, instead of keeping rights while moving forward
I was so glad you said this. The “marketplace of ideas always reveals the truth” is obviously not true but that doesn’t mean free speech isn’t important.
@christophertaylor9100 you can if the regulation is being done in an unbias way. I come from singapore and have a little bit of freedom of speech, but because we are living in a multi ethnic, multi religion country in harmony, it should be fair to all people regardless of race, language or religion.
@@RandomMe93 Nope, not possible. No matter how you write it, those in power will find a way to use it to their benefit and against their political enemies. Its freedom or tyranny. Pick one.
You can only speak this way when you realize there are no solutions to life. Our choices boil down to whether not interventions or change will make things worse or marginally better. But nothing can be solved. The idea of solution is the problem we have.
@@50_foot_punch99 improvement for who and what? What’s the measurement of improvement? And what’s sacrificed for the improvement? Most evils in the world come from selling improvement.
What does he mean by "educational material related to homosexuality relationships"? How is this a good thing for children? You think kids need to be educated about sexual relationships at all let alone deviant ones?
I agree. Hate speech is controlled by government. If they want to support a subjective hate speech accusation then they will. Then can just ask easily not if it benefits them. By allowing big restrictions on speech we open ourselves to a plethora of other restrictions on other human rights such as right of assembly
so refreshing to hear logic and reason spoken.
This is what a "waste of time" degree like philosophy gives you. Sunak et al could do with learning how to think clearly rather than just how to be a financier.
It is a crime against humanity, that logic isn't a mandatory subject in schools.
So many people believe they understand logic, but never once actually study what it is.
If you haven't studied logic, how can you possibly hope to be a logical person.
@@WhoThisMonkeywho tf studies logic
@@filip4698
People who actually want to know how to think for themselves, and come to objective conclusions that best represent humanity.
Those who wants to believe as many _actually_ true things as possible, and disregard as many _actual_ false things as possible.
To do this reliably you need to learn logic for a start.
Next silly question?
I’d like to see more people of your mental clarity in our governments.
I don't trust him
@@tonyromero13why don't you trust him?
we know better.
People unfortunately don't want that. Most fear (intelligence) that they can't control.
@@QuintarFarenor europe has managed to have a more intelligent populous and better government than america or england... it's doable. but you're right amerikkkans, especially, fear intelligence, logic, reason, social aid, books, women, and LGBTQ...(england isn't technically europe, they're their own species and amerikkka is where i live)
Free speech doesn't solve everything but solutions cannot be discovered without the ability to discuss the issues freely.
You say that, but I think it takes a level of hubris unbecoming of our capacities to say that…FUCK, I lost it.
That is his exact point.
This is what I've been waiting to hear from SOMEONE. Thanks, Alex .
"I don't think I trust them". Never a truer word spoken Alex.
Yet he trusts them to have the power to censor people they don't like to hear from
@@christophertaylor9100 Maybe you could point out actual specific examples of people being censored along with quotes and references to Alex specifically approving of those things being censored. Meanwhile I'm as close to a free speech advocate as it gets.
@@christophertaylor9100I certainly do. I think all neo nazis and white supremacists should undergo mandatory political re-education, or hard labor.
@@christophertaylor9100that's the opposite of what he said, he said, while freedom of speech and misinformation can go hand and hand, freedom of speech is still the best course of action, because without free speech we cannot combat misinformation. Watch the whole video next time
I think it goes without saying that unrestricted free speech will not lead to the dissolution of misinformation. However, it is certainly better to have unrestricted free speech than to allow any one body be the arbiter of what speech is acceptable and what the punishment for unacceptable speech might be.
So you think calls to violence or plagiarism should be allowed because it's better to have unrestricted speech?
@@RJGMorrisyes, I think so (even though I perhaps didn't think it through enough).
Banning some kind of speech in the public discourse doesn't mean it won't occur privately, thus those who want to "call for violence" can still do so, as long as nobody outside their group can hear them.
@@RJGMorris (Laws regarding) plagiarism don't violate free speech, you're just not allowed to make a profit from copying others' speech.
Edit: added in parentheses
I dont think it would be impossible to regulate disinformation.
It would be tricky. It would need to be democratic, but also limited in its scope and subject to a balance of powers.
@@RJGMorris yes and no, calls to violence are just words. If they lead to action, a court could decide the speaker is perhaps responsible for that action or incitement of the action. Although, I believe the responsibility falls on the individuals committing the act directly since they are capable of deciding for themselves. For plagiarism I suppose it depends on if that is considered a form of speech. I'd consider it theft in most instances. Also, just because speech is not restricted legally, doesn't mean there aren't consequences for saying certain things, i.e. societally imposed. As we've seen fairly often in recent years with the rise of cancel culture, society responds harshly without need for restrictive laws.
Alex has transformed into a modern Hitchens. Awesome.
I was just thinking this! The short before this was one of Hitchens, and the way they articulate their thoughts so clearly and intelligently is very similar
The voice of reason, Alex has a great mind, clear critical thinking is his trump card, pity it’s not more widespread in society.
What we need to be doing is teaching children critical thinking skills, how to weigh evidence and question what they hear.
One of the most important things you can teach a child is that a claim isn't necessarily correct just because it supports what they want to believe.
We need to not give bogus propaganda claims fertile ground to grow in.
While I agree on that (as it will be harder to censor hoaxes in future, as someone needs to decide what is a hoax), if one breaks the terms of service, it's quite clear - and thus, because freedom of speech does not mean "freedom from consequences", rational consequences should follow.
Or we can all be mature and not get pissed at ideas people have that disagree with our own. Literally getting mad at someones thoughts and words is something kids do through tantrums
@@Ejacunathan Instead, that's literally not what I wrote. Are you for not punishing someone, if they break the terms of service? If we cam just turn our heads back, at people breaking such "internet laws", than why do we even have them?
Trump broke Twitter's terms of service, he was validly punished - which wasn't only as a means of punishing, but also as a means of keeping others safe. It's not about "I disagree with you, shut up!", it's about "you broke the law, which endangers others. We'll silence you/'put you in online jail', so that you cannot harm others". Trump broke Twitter's terms of service, which *every person registering to Twitter/any other social media agrees to abide* (and so, Twitter had the right to cut him off); and him breaking it brought the ending of 5 lives, and injuring of many others, on the January 6th. This is not about "I disagree with you, you'll be silenced" - this is about "I broke the law, I shall go through consequences" (Trump literally agreed to it, as any other Twitter user); and it's also "Because of my actions, 5 people were killed. I'll be banned, as a way of keeping others safe".
Fr, I've never seen someone defending the breaking of terms of service - which you are literally writing about. Are you against the terms of service? Well, by that logic, are you against law? If you've answered yes to both, than I guess you'd like to hear about the "Social contract theory". The point is clear - all I'm saying is that those that break the rules of the social media/internet/the state, should feel consequences. You wouldn't say "Don't be a pussy. Just because you disagree with the actions of this murderer, does not mean he should be jailed! You snow-flake!" - but that's how you sound like. Why am I still and mainly talking about the "terms of service"? - because they are well defined rules, and so as Cosmicsceptic basically pointed out "it'll be hard to choose whether something is or isn't hoax" - however when somebody breaks the rules; it's kinda clear.
Alex is so eloquent and articulate. I envy him for that.
"Commentator & blogger", seriously? They have no idea of what you do?
I notice that Alex doesn't subscribe to the concept of absolute free speech, which is a commendable stance. This suggests the acknowledgment of necessary limitations on free speech. However, Alex harbors skepticism towards both government authorities and billionaires being entrusted with the task of imposing these restrictions, a sentiment that's understandable. This naturally raises the question: What specific restrictions does Alex believe should be in place, and who or what does he propose to be responsible for enforcing them?
Alex O’Connor makes a good point.
In the US, we have the first amendment. This means, in America, that the government cannot legislate against any type of speech except in one or two instances, specifically direct calls to immediate violence. Hate speech or whatever you'd like to call it is perfectly legal here.
On the other hand, social media platforms are owned and run by private companies and private companies are allowed to police speech however theyd like. Reddit is another example, go to a subreddit, break the rules of the subreddit by saying something against those rules and you'll be banned. Is that an infringement on my free speech rights? No. Its not the government stepping in to stop me. I AM allowed to go onto a street corner and day whatever I'd like but I certainly can't go on UA-cam or Facebook or Twitter and start spouting racist nonsense without expecting a punishment.
Personally I'm totally okay with the current system here in the states.
Alex….the next Hitchens?!?
I'm so glad we have this guy to try bring some sanity to this world. And I don't mean bring sanity back, I mean, bring it, full stop.
Hitchens's speech on freedom of expression is absolutely spot on in this matter
Just discovered your channel. Are we seeing a new Hitchens!! Love how well you articulate yourself.
ALEX O'CONNOR , as usual you got it! As Hitchens said, 'who do you want to yell you what you can or cannot see or hear?' 👍💝💙🥰✌
I like that this short clip shows the dilemma.
We don't want a ton of disinformation everywhere scamming people, but every method of restriction has the same basic concerns of who we want to trust with the task of deciding.
I think some restrictions in some contexts are very important. For instance, in medicine or business. A doctor should not be allowed, in the course of his work, to give harmful medical misinformation, especially through neglect or malice. A business should not be allowed to lie about a product in a way that is provably hazardous.
It feels like quite the dilemma.
Alex makes me hopeful for the future of intellectualism. Anyway, no one ever argues unrestricted free speech makes disinformation disappear. Usually they're the opposite camps. However, no one wants unrestricted free speech on social media, even people who call themselves "free speech absolutists". Moderation is necessary but it's difficult to make a rule of moderation precise. Maybe no allowing ad homenims can solve this problem since ad homenims are easy to spot and define? Define ad homenims, and use AI to spot and delete it even before the text is posted? Does ad homenims cover hate speech? I'll have to think more.
I believe the topic of this debate was referring to a situation in which a BBC presenter was found to have committed some form of misconduct (I think sexual misconduct, but I could be mixing up news stories). Due to censorship laws covering up the identities of offenders, there was online speculation about which presenter it could have been, which led to people being defamed and having their reputations damaged for things they didn't do.
So in this specific situation, restrictions on free speech created disinformation. But in general, yes, I agree.
I can't just call someone an idiot? I'm out.
As a heads uo
An ad hominem is just an argument saying that something is wrong because the person making the argument is bad.
Insults without claims as such are not ad hominems.
Ex: 'you are dumb thus your argument is invalid' is an ad hominem
But 'your argument is invalid, thus you are dumb' is not an ad hominem
Up*
You cannot reliably regulate such a thing even through AI.
Let’s say I’m quoting an ad-hominem from someone else or to demonstrate a point about logical fallacies. What would you do then? Make a special exception for quotes? Then anyone can nest an ad-hominem in a quote.
Kinds of speech, no matter how accurately defined, are fundamentally intertwined. You cannot possibly ban an isolated form of speech.
Crazy to see someone i used to watch as a teenager on UA-cam talk on television.
It sounded like there was going to be a third option, for who would make the decisions on what type of speech to allow, besides the unelected Silicon Valley executives or the government. Anyone?
I like that approach. I don't like free speech but I loathe the alternative.
I saw people getting arrested in the UK for rightfully hating the monarchy. On the other hand I do appreciate how Germany isn't turning into a fascist hell hole like many states in the country with the golden standard of free speech. A famously anti-free speech ideology.
It's a bit of a paradox.
Alex always speaks out the options and eloquently says “I don’t know exactly”
Most intellectually honest dude ever
I don't remember who said it but I think about this all the time: Let's replace cancel culture with context culture. I'm not a big fan of complaining about canceling, but in this case we can broaden it to any censorship. Replace censorship with commentary and explanation. In that sense, I absolutely do believe free speech is a great way to disincentivize misinformation.
Free speech allows the opportunity for the truth to prevail. Censorship ensures it doesn't.
You've got my vote 🗳 👏
Verbose.
That was the fallacy with the internet, what you described in the beginning.
Free speech can gather hatred momentum, so there must be some line drawn surely
Hey Alex have you read the righteous mind by Jonathan heidt? He talks about how to communicate with different world views and you do such a great job of hitting the mark here. Unregulated free speech is a right wing “issue” but you manage to assimilate the left by pointing out the keys can’t be given to an authority that might hurt minorities (a left wing “issue”). You’ve created a perfect example here of taking the side of the right with the moral perspective understood from the left. Cheers
Free Speech indeed does not solve everything. But its better than any other option by far.
Mad that people think completely unrestricted speech will reduce misinformation is absurd
It's amazing to me that free speech has to be argued for like this, thankfully Alex makes the points very clear!
I aim to be this well-spoken
Not everyone's opinions are correct, but the second you try and challenge the freedom of speech things get very dark very fast.
"Nazis should be silenced, violently if necessary". Is the above statement agreeable with you?
@@user-sm1bi5ix6l no, as long as somebody is not physically harming another individual, they may say and act as they please
@@judejordan23 so you are ok with nazis getting into power as long as it's done through words? You have no morals.
Let us not be hypnotized by how well he articulates himself, governments 50 years ago are made up of completely different people . Having said that maybe he's right, America seems to be going backwards right now
Only some parts of government have changed in 50 years, as some positions can be held longer than that, & how likely that people will get replaced by people who font think like them?
censorship in any form is immoral
Idk man id like to cencor people that want me and my kind dead.
Where is this taken from? I'm interested in hearing the full debate.
So he is saying forum-like platforms not always clarify dubious information by member participation alone but he also says any sort of control over those platforms is not the answer bc policy makers or moderators also have their biases.
So, what's the solution then, smart pants? Complain alone?
Does anyone know which policy of banning homosexual information he’s referring to?
Why were they wrong about the homosexuality stuff?
Sex education is important.
Should the government regulate speech? Probably not. Can institutions regulate internal speech? Absolutely, barring some legally-protected examples (like union organizing) of course.
Oh how the mighty have fallen
What?
You go girl!
True, free speech doesn't solve all the world's problems, but it does allow the world's problems to be exposed.
Can you please explain how teaching young children about homosexuality is somehow _good_ for them?..
You speak, like I think.
I would give my abilty to have children, to simply be able to bridge the gap between my thoughts and my speech.
Autism can be a superpower, but oh boy is it mostly a hindrance.
I've been blocked on 15 or so right wing channels for voice opinions they don't like.
The question at this stage should not be “who” decides which speech to censor. The question to be asking first is “how.” The answer is obvious: harm reduction. Censor the speech that demonstrably leads to harm, allow the rest. In fact, that’s what we already do. I’m not allowed to threaten you with violence or blackmail you for the reasons that this is speech which causes harm. I just wish people would take the principle further.
There are laws protecting against the forms of speech you listed. Those laws should be and are enforced everywhere, including on the internet. Censoring ANYTHING else is an overreach. And the question about which authority gets to censor should always be the first thing to consider: it's incredibly dangerous to avoid that discussion. If an authority has compromised itself by lying for or acting on the behalf of a cartel, against public interest, as was shown to be the case with the government and most of the academic and medical communities in the past three years, then giving those authorities the right to censor people is deeply unwise, aside from being by definition undemocratic.
But who would decide what is harmful?
As Alex said, until 2003 you were unable to teach about homosexual relationships in the UK schools because it was deemed harmful.
I think simply censoring speech that "demonstrably leads to harm" is a bit of an over-simplified way of putting it. Under such a simplified model, those without any intent to do harm, also get punished. The current model works a little bit closer to "intent to do harm". This is why defamation, tortuous interference, calls to violence, etc. are all illegal. With defamation or tortuous interference, someone has to craft a lie with the intent of getting someone fired, nullifying a contract, or otherwise creating an economic disadvantage for the target. A third party propagating that information has no legal liability here because they were simple misinformed by the defamer, and that's how it should be since punishing third parties would disincentivise public participation. If we want to expand this concept of punishing on proven intent, id be done with that, but not on the basis of just harm done.
@@pintpullinggeek Wdym who? We already put our faith in Govs and courts to make laws to determine and prevent harm. Literally doing this with speech would be no different.
@@wilforddraper1894 You would willingly hand over your rights to free speech to the government? Not too swift.
How have I only just realised the resemblance to the main character from Sex Education?
We need more people like you in this world 🌎 !!
Has anyone said that 100% freedom of expression will lead to no disinformation?
It certainly a difficult quandary and one that very likely can’t be solved on UA-cam. Where one draws the line on what should be allowed or what should not is a very personal issue, as well as how that should be enforced.
In my view… your rights generally end where someone else’s are concerned. Just because you can say something doesn’t mean you should. And also remember that people angry with you are entitled to that right as well.
Everything else deemed good is only sustainable after any speech becomes free and protected.
Evolution is slow & painful, even social Evolution
Its fucking maddening! Aaaaaaaaaaàa
Alex is so articulate here
Maybe not Utopia (impossible imo) nut without absolute free speech and thought, no other freedom can truly exist. We'll get there. My vote is ZERO censorship, for any reason.
So nazis can spew their fake bs with no moderation? Wtf?
Capitalim is good and has no errors
I agree but you can change the government you can't change the company unless by direct government input hence back to the same point.
Free reign isn't the way either.
Whenever Free Speech is brought up as a right vs a problem (especially Hate Speech), I feel conflicted. And this is exactly why. Because we see a lot of misinformation spread and calls for violence that we want to stop...but seeing how in the US in Florida and Texas they are going through all their school libraries with a comb to find any books with a message they don't aprove of (anything not uber-conservative) while feeling so outraged if you try to turn the tables and present their Bible as having exactly the same or even more restricted content as any of the texts they so revile...means I don't trust that side of the government, and on the other hand I know that the other side can have some problem individuals who are intollerant to a whole other slew of historical facts. If any of them get involved with some sort of Clean-up Opperation of the Free Speech list of tollerated topics...
I can only accept that rather than effectively make a list of offensive topics, we'll have to go on with Free Speech and fish out on an individual basis what might be Hate Speech. And yes, it exists even if my definition "Speech intended to offend, not speech that incidentally offended unintentionally." probably misses some.
It's so freaking adorable that you think it's the right trying to control speech and shut down ideas / words / speech that goes against their beliefs. Hahaha it makes me laugh
@@frankvandermerwe1487 I think he was talking about "(citizen) rights" and not "the right" (despite of the example later used)
Why do we need to ban hate speech or calls to violence? Banning them won't change the mind of those who think like that, will it? Would such a solution prevent the speakers from still sharing those ideas privately?
@@frankvandermerwe1487 Do you live in the US?
But what point is he trying to make. He's said free speech is just a free for all of lies and misinformation, but also nobody can be trusted to enforce censorship?
The biggest lie you've been fed is about there being a novel threat of misinformation from nobodies on the internet, and that your government isn't the biggest misinformer ever, even after having lied you into the Iraq war and having forced you to take an unsafe experimental medical treatment for a flu that came about through government-funded research, among a million other things.
So either unelected billionaires that don't actually care about truth and freedom of speech, or governments that you don't trust either? What's the solution then?
The solution is free speech.
As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, in a sudden and indisputable burst of truth:
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.’
Knowledge about 'homosexuality' (in the 1970-80s still considered something of a psychological aberration or sociological disturbance, in the Soviet Union as much as in the United Kingdom) and teaching children 'about it' (as a mind-game) would - officially at least - have consisted of psychiatric descriptions, not political correctness. And that queer reality, in the use of giving meaning to terms, was the dispute: e.g. Is sex between members of the same gender, in public or private, consensual or enticed, welcome or intrusive, the 'same as' sex between opposite genders (then heavily restricted by law and custom, as it still is)or is it 'different to'?
No, not 'Love is Love' (it isn't by the way) nor Equal Rights For Equal Duties (still not quite applicable, btw) but is one sex act (this) the same as another (that) - and therefore applicable to teaching .. erm biological facts (rather than political slogans, et al - 'Gay', for instance, having then become a political term, specifically in the radicalisation of an activist's form of victimology).
Cf 'Rules For Radicals' Saul Alinksky, to see how that impish endeavour worked - remarkably well as a piece of social engineering to reach an ulterior end .. ulterior to the souls under discussion and how they lived their lives).
Censorship and its censorious officers are inevitable in a complex society having a wide variety of means to communicate individual beliefs; and their often nasty little job will always have its critics, some even wild enough to want to censor censors out of a job; merrily unaware of or careless in regard to Chesterton's elfin Island Fence.
'"Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down." I could say "Elves" to him,
But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather
He said it for himself.' Robert Frost, Mending Wall.
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
Hey Connor! I had a moral question for you. There's two people. One of them is being harassed by the other and it makes them very uncomfortable. Now pretend there's a way to quantify that discomfort. The person harassing could stop, but doing so would cause the harasser an equal amount of discomfort and suffering. Intuitively we say "so what, you can't harass people because it makes you feel more comfortable". My question is, why not? If not harassing causes them the same level of pain and suffering, why do we prioritize the comfort of the person being harassed? Surely the offending party did not ask to be born an a-hole.
Exactly my opinion.
Thank you!!!
It frustrates me to no end that not only repeating the same mistakes when it comes to accepting other people, we're also revisiting and 'debating' a bunch of old ones.
To be clear, this is a relevant and ongoing issue which needs to be discussed urgently.
1.) Firstly, we still have blasphemy laws and similar laws against free speech all over the Western world.
Not to mention there are people fighting for free speech in many countries. And even here in America, you can be fired for speaking out against the Israeli gov’t, etc.
2.) We need to figure out how speech should work online and in social media. Speech is neither free, nor equal at the moment in its curation.
We have algorithms pushing certain content over others, creating a hierarchy where speech is de facto silenced by its perceived low value, etc.
This is all to say, this issue is very much unsettled, and discussing it is incredibly important.
@@charliekowittmusic Free speech is the best choice.
Free speech is not going to bring about utopia but if there is such a thing it is the basis for it.
And no one is suggesting unrestricted free speech towards children. Children need to be shielded from some aspects of adult society until they are ready. How that is handled and by whom will always be an ongoing debate for which we need free speech.
He agrees with you.
Need to run for prime minister
Not how our system works, we're not the US
Has anyone ever said that free speech will lead to information utopia?
Yeah he starts out with a straw man, then argues that you cannot trust authorities to regulate free speech in an argument that authorities should regulate free speech.
And people here are praising him as some vast intellect, the next Christopher Hitchens! LOL
I don't know but someone probobly said that. Alex was trying to clarify his position, I think. Free speech doesn't lead to the perfect world but it is better than the alternative.
En vrai si ça se passait comme ça, tout les livreurs à domicile feraient faillite.😂
Alex's example here is perfect. Even if you agree that educational material regarding homosexual relationships is harmful to children, you can see on which side of censorship you find yourself now.
Reasonable Alex o Connor >>>> hyperbolic Alex o connor
Unfortunately we can see the effects 20 years later that allowing the dissemination of homosexual material to children was undead harmful.
So they did get it right. 🤷🏼♂️
He swung and missed on that one.
The dissemination of homosexual material is harmful to children. Let kids be kids.
And homosexual in particular? Heterosexual content, that stuff's fine, that's 'letting kids be kids', but the moment it's anything other than straight, its corrupting the youth?
Oh and especially what happens when that kid is homosexual? When they don't know what's happening and they think they've done something wrong because no one's ever educated them correctly?
@@DanilsonCarvalho was it education for teens or pre teens regarding how sex works? Because telling kids that some people like poking it in vages and some like poking it in the hole below it is not good for anyone, especially kids.
@@RextheRebel Sex Ed is a completely different topic to the one I was talking about, I'm not especially knowledgeable on the pedagogic practices regarding it nor do I find it relevant. We could have that discussion at another time, when it proves relevant, but suffice to say, I think comprehensive sex education is good and should be mandated.
You know being homosexual is different from having gay sex, right? In the same way that being heterosexual is different from having straight sex. Both these things are multifaceted, from relationships to common practices, in their histories and behaviors, platonic relationships too.
Boiling Sex Ed down to "Stick in hole" in insanely immature and childlike, in much the same way boiling homosexuality down to "man fucks man" is insanely immature and childlike.
@@DanilsonCarvalho Yes, because it's normalcy.
Is he suggesting that it is hubris to believe it is safe to educate youth about homosexual relationships?
That is not even close to what he said. The law against allowing kids to learn about homosexuality at the same time as hetrosexuality was mistaken. Btw Alex has made several videos criticising homophobia take this one for example titled "Why Muslim Parents Are Pulling Their Kids From School": ua-cam.com/video/bG9Amgd5wio/v-deo.htmlsi=NP7SmxVTbD3v8y6W
Alex said it is hubris to believe that we currently are in a better position to know what should be censored and what shouldn't than we were 20 years ago.
It should be government controlled but not thus government
It is harmful to children 😂
This is why free speech matters. It's a straw man argument to say that free speech will make the world a peaceful and loving place. It's there to spread out power and reduce the risk of tyrrany by limiting control over people.
No censorship
Governmets change all the time, for better or for worse. The iherent problems of democracy and free speech can't be solved by government action to limit them. The only way to save democracy and free speech is to uphold liberal values, since democracy and free speech are pointless if the majority of people use them to oppose their own freedom.
Democracy and capitalism dont mix.
What is this taken from?
Who should make the decision? A blogger, surely...
"Blogger" was a bad characterization of him. I would have gone with "Oxford graduate of Philosophy and Theology" possibly shortend to simply "Oxford graduate" another alternative would be "podcaster".
What point are you making exactly?
It feels a little deceptive to me that you cut the third option, no moderation whatsoever. There are problems with moderation driven by government or Capital but a complete lack of moderation is by far the worst of the options. In the context of the internet that means never knowing who anyone is, whether what they're saying is true, or why they're saying it. There would also exist no mechanism for creating spaces for civil discourse or holding people accountable for saying genuinely dangerous things. You give up some freedom whenever you agree to abide by moderation but you give up a lot more freedom when you don't.
You have no idea what you're talking about. I can get a better picture of what people actually think by reading 4chan, which is unmoderated, than you can by noting 2/3 posts in reddit are *deleted* by the censors. I don't want to censor people any more than I believe I have a right in a real conversation to cover someone's mouth if they disagree with woketards.
That is a very good point imo!
The fact that you don't want free speech to be moderated per se (by the government, for instance) doesn't mean there can't be spaces where such moderation exist. I can join a discourse space where anonymity is forbidden and certain discourses are off the table, if I'm willing to do so. But I should be allowed to join unmoderated spaces as well.
@@DavidAguileraMoncusi Moderated by who?
@@Molly-jh4kz Whoever runs that space. Could be yourself.
I know, I know: isn't that precisely what's happening with social media networks? Don't their owners control free speech on their platforms? Yup, they do.
I need to think about it further lol
I really appreciate the efforts he has invested to reach this level of logic and share that with us.
And "schools" should be distributing educations about ANY particular sexual proclivities because ...?
Sex education
@@davidandersson1961 That's historically not been the role of the public school system. Anything beyond health concerns has always been left to the family. It's why we continue to expand what "health" means - so the Left can do an end run around the actual will of the people. Sex ed in schools has never really had broad support.
I imagine it would be okay to require classes on how to commit murder as well, if we want to follow what passes for some as logic. We can call it "murder education." After all, they're banking on the word "education" making it alright, just like how we like to call ridiculous and destructive spending bills "Health Care/Civil Rights Acts." 🤣
Take care.
@@AJHart-eg1ys While most people probobly know something about sex before sex ed it is definitely preferable to learn about it in school than at home, that would be so weird I don't even want to imagine it.
"I imagine it would be okay to require classes on how to commit murder as well, if we want to follow what passes for some as logic." What are you talking about?
Which city??
I always find the "who gets to decide what you can and can't say " argument flawed. It's like saying "who gets to decide what laws can and can't get passed". The government, obviously, and if they pass unjust laws we protest and vote them out.
Just because they have power to pass unjust laws does not mean they should not be able to pass any laws.
Because that worked really well in the past...right??
I think you're partially correct. The most terrifying difference is between governments who restrict your freedom and those who force you to do something. It's a very big difference, telling someone what they can't do and getting someone what they must do. At that point it becomes something like slavery. And this is the exact problem with the LGBT, they demand we must call them whatever made-up language they desire to be called. It's not just "don't do this or that", it's "do that or else..."
@@JohnCena8351 I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't add more restrictions to speech, only that this argument is not a good one.
You do realize that in order to "protest and vote them out" you need free speech? That is why laws about what you can say are fundamentally different from any other laws the government can pass. You can't advocate for things to be changed if the very act of doing so produces legal repercussions.
@@JohnCena8351Personally, I think we've come a long way since feudalism.
I agree that the best answer is door number 3 - the public decide and make criminal laws that speech can't directly encourage. As to sexual content in education, homosexual or not, that's a sticky issue coloured with lots of greys. The better critique of government information by far is WMDs in Iraq.
Apex argumentation
Free speach isn't about truth. It's about freedom to speak
Freedom to speak lies? Deception should be criminal, but then yall would head straight to the guillotine
Those who will trade even a little bit of freedom for a little security likely deserve NEITHER - Benjamin Franklin (paraphrased)
Everybody deserves freedom and security
Benjamin did not know nuclear weapons. He comes from a time where unrestricted freedom doesn't threaten our all existence.
@@DundG threaten our all existence? You is a idiot. 🤣🤣🤣
@@blubaylon Are you 6 years old???
It's always annoying to see how in the past, X things were prohibited while Y things were perfectly fine, but now in the modern world, X things became acceptable but for some reason Y things become prohibited
I don't think i need to provide examples if you understand what i mean. We gain rights and lose others, instead of keeping rights while moving forward
I was so glad you said this. The “marketplace of ideas always reveals the truth” is obviously not true but that doesn’t mean free speech isn’t important.
Yes, but i think it should be regulated but by who is the deepest question. It's unfortunate but we don't really have a good answer for this.
His argument that it should be regulated proves that nobody can be trusted to regulate it.
@christophertaylor9100 you can if the regulation is being done in an unbias way. I come from singapore and have a little bit of freedom of speech, but because we are living in a multi ethnic, multi religion country in harmony, it should be fair to all people regardless of race, language or religion.
@@RandomMe93 Nope, not possible. No matter how you write it, those in power will find a way to use it to their benefit and against their political enemies. Its freedom or tyranny. Pick one.
@@christophertaylor9100 I'll take freedom every single time.
You can only speak this way when you realize there are no solutions to life. Our choices boil down to whether not interventions or change will make things worse or marginally better. But nothing can be solved. The idea of solution is the problem we have.
Even a nihilister would see your opinion poorly. It's not about an answer its about improving.
@@50_foot_punch99 improvement for who and what? What’s the measurement of improvement? And what’s sacrificed for the improvement? Most evils in the world come from selling improvement.
What does he mean by "educational material related to homosexuality relationships"? How is this a good thing for children? You think kids need to be educated about sexual relationships at all let alone deviant ones?
I agree.
Hate speech is controlled by government. If they want to support a subjective hate speech accusation then they will. Then can just ask easily not if it benefits them.
By allowing big restrictions on speech we open ourselves to a plethora of other restrictions on other human rights such as right of assembly