Free To Speak - Thought Police
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2024
- Thought Police examines the long history of governments suppressing speech-with clear echoes of George Orwell’s warning of a world without free speech. The program explores personal stories from Hong Kong, North Korea, and Peru, whose governments tried to suppress free speech. One instance resulted in a monumental-and avoidable-human tragedy.
0:00 - Introduction
1:51 - Hate Speech
14:21 - That’s Orwellian
19:08 - We Must Know Who Is Who
25:12 - Defying the Mainland
31:22 - Global Consequences
34:26 - Censoring Information
45:21 - Fighting for a Free Press
54:50 - Conclusion
55:57 - Credits
* * * * *
Learn more about Free To Choose Media: freetochoosemedia.org/
Shop for related products: shop.freetochoosenetwork.org/
Stay Connected with Free To Choose Media
Facebook: / freetochoosenetwork
Twitter (@FreeToChooseNet): / freetochoosenet Instagram (@freetochoosenetwork): / freetochoosenetwork
#georgeorwell #hongkong #peru #northkorea #suppression #freespeech #firstamendment #freedomofspeech #artisticfreedom #speech #freeexpression #freedomofexpression #individualrights #constitutionalrights #cancelculture #misinformation #disinformation #freetochoose #documentary #publictelevision - Розваги
Freedom to speak=freedom to think. It’s absolutely crucial to a functioning society you have to be able write and talk it out with your fellow citizens
You see, the issue with allowing any authority to define anything related to hate or love speech is that those definitions will reflect the tastes of the authority.
In the UK, up until the 1960's books and films were strictly censored. That's weird isn't it? It wasn't that long ago.
UK hypocrisy comes home at Pro Palestinian Rally
Berlin will suffer for their laws and will suffer in a big way. You need to give all people a chance to speak and say what they want to say otherwise the pendulum will swing and when it swings back it swings hard.
It's the lid on the pressure cooler....with no relief valve.
The problem in Nazi Germany wasn't that too many people had the right to voice their opinions. And now we have everyone in Germany that disagrees with the current narrative being branded Far Right Extremists.
Yes very dangerous. It is about prioritising values. If you prioritise freedom of speech, you get some unsavoury speech but you ensure that unsavoury element isn't bottled and brewed with the potential to explode.@@meritholdingllc123
“who defines hate”
The idea of free speech wasn't go give people the right to say anything they want to, on any platform, it was to restrict government control of what the citizens would say. So the government cannot forbid you from criticizing the president, or congress, or political party. The opposite of free speech is censorship. So the government cannot censor it's citizens. Censorship should not apply to private enterprises. For instance, a cafe owner could ask a person to leave their establishment if they are yelling at other patrons, using profanity and threats. Same as social media. Facebook, UA-cam and X are all private entities. They paid for the development of their application, and offer platforms for people to express themselves. However, if they restrict or remove certain comments, that is their right, whether you agree to it or not. Social media is not the government, thankfully, but by being a private enterprise have the right to monitor it's contents.
If you have something to say, maybe social media isn't always the best way to do it. I get it, it is a way to reach many people, but if you want to get your message out there without the risk of having it removed, you can always stand on a street corner, in a public setting and deliver your message there.
"Same as social media. Facebook, UA-cam and X are all private entities."
Private entities that have become the public square, and have done so on the basis that they are not publishers. By censoring things that they don't like, they have become publishers. This is from a news report on U.S. Supreme Court judge Clarence Thomas: "In Thomas' view, social media companies are "sufficiently akin" to a common carrier, like a public utility, such as a telephone company, and should be "regulated in this manner," he wrote, suggesting that social networks should be federally regulated in the same way that, say, a phone company cannot prevent a person from making a call."
I have no problem with a private company set up to promote a particular point of view from censoring alternative points of view. But when they purport to be places where _you_ can express _your_ views, like a common carrier, then they should not have the right to censor particular views.
Of course they have their "community standards", and if you don't agree with those, then perhaps it's on you to not use their service. But when those "community standards" are vague and enforced unequally, that's hardly justification for censoring views.
Particularly if they have something to hide.
"Every nation gets the government it deserves." - Joseph De Maistre
Every nation does, but not every individual rebelling against the tyranny of the majority (or the tyranny of the minority stepping over a complicit, silent, passive majority).
citation: not true. Obviously. This sentence is one of many, that wants us to declare guilty - but we are not. We never ever were. Elites decide, what government you will be in.
What is Freedom of Speech?
"Free Speech. It's the ability to express ideas without fear of government intervention." - Nadine Strossen, Attorney, Law Professor, & Past President of ACLU.
(Not exactly. It's the ability to express ideas with government protection against government and non-government intervention. Neither the government nor a thug may use violence against you for your speech.)
But should that freedom include Hate Speech?
"[Landmark U.S Supreme Court Case] Brandenburg against Ohio truly recognizes that free speech means not freedom of thought and speech for those with whom we agree, but freedom of expression for the expression we hate." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
"Hate Speech" is vague, relative, and cannot be used as a restriction on freedom of speech.
"We were not defending their speech. We were resisting giving the government the power to decide that their speech could be banned. Because once you gave the government the power to decide that their speech could be banned, you've also given the government the power to decide that your speech could be banned." - Ira Glasser, Past Executive Director, ACLU.
"Saying it's not good if people are mean to each other is different than saying people aren't allowed to say mean things to each other. Because then the question is, what does it mean to say something mean to each other? [..] Who gets to decide? What is the punishment? And what does it mean to be mean?" - Emerson J. Sykes, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU.
"If you want to give the government the power to ban hateful speech, you have to be willing to give people in power the right to decide what's hateful. And if you want to give that power, you have to imagine the people who don't like you exercising that power." - - Ira Glasser, Past Executive Director, ACLU.
My corollary: If you want to know who's in power, look at who gets to decide what's hate speech. Even if appears to be a "minority position", it has silent acceptance from the majority.
Unlike the US, Germany has laws against Hate Speech. It's not that Germany is unusual in prohibiting Free Speech, but that U.S is unusual in allowing it.
"If you don't have the right to make people aware of what's going on and to organize opposition to it then you can never address that underlying issue." - Ira Glasser, Past Executive Director, ACLU.
"Without Free Speech in The First Ammendment, the Civil Rights Movement would've been a bird without wings." - John Lewis, Voting Rights Activist
"Free Speech has always been the most powerful weapon in the hands of the marginalized, the powerless, because they may not have money, they may not have guns and tanks, but they can spread ideas." - Steven Pinker
Corollary: If you want to identify who's marginalized & oppressed, it's the group who's speech is being attempted to be controlled. The group able to demand the controlling is by definition not marginalized & oppressed.
"The abolitionist movement, the movement for women's equality, gay rights movement, the movement for marriage equality, all of these have depended on the expression of ideas that were unpopular to the point of being illegal in their own time." - Steven Pinker, Psychologist & Linguist.
"[Free Speech] is how we got women's rights, gay rights, and civil rights, and nothing out there breaks my heart more than seeing activists who represent (or claim to represent) oppressed minorities turn againnst free speech - our best and truest friend." - Jonathan Rauch, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
"Freedom of Speech requires more than words in a constitution or court decisions. It also depends on a supportive civic culture where all members of our society actually understand and exercise their free speech rights. Dialogue, debate, and tolerate the same rights for others. In other words, freedom of speech is not just a legal principle. It is real people actually speaking freely." - Nadine Strossen, Attorney, Law Professor, & Past President of ACLU.
look... if the tiniest of invonveniences will bring up some free/hate speech pile on, freedom of thought would be a very good minimum baseline to protect and defend. who would argue with that?
Never understood this. Why are we penalizing hatred? I am allowed to hate things or people or whatever. Hating something or somebody does nothing. It when actions are committed because of hatred that you should be able to prosecute or outlaw and not before. Banning hatred is stupid. Words, thoughts and ideas should never be actionable as in a court of law. Only actionable items, which require action, should be outlawed.
Hate breeds change, good or bad. The powers that be who make all the money and rule government bureaucracies don't want change. Change for them usually means less money and less power.
Nailed it Right and Exact 👍
The means to address hate is through more speech, not less. Don't create the narrative of oppressing hateful speech, lest you risk creating martyrs and the impression that you're afraid that what they have to say is true and right.
is it just me or the free/hate speech debate about where the line is... in legal terms can be tackled by asking: well, is (pick a contentious case) free speech or incitement? in semi public places like a pub or coffee shop, saying idiotic things loudly with the unambigous, deliberate intent (as in the person is well aware what theyre saying is offensive in the local context and likely to offend, thats definetly rude but pretty unlikely to be enforceable.
10:35 The call to violence clause should apply to Maxine Waters' news clip where she told people to go after Trump voters.
There is no such thing as hate speech
Where is your god now?
hes chillin
This is propaganda for socialism. It's dated. This propaganda.
1984 truth always the government can read your mind