What are the limits of free speech and cancel culture? | Peter Tatchell | IAI
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лип 2024
- @TatchellPeter discusses the debate over the right to free speech and legitimate reasons for 'cancelling' hate and prejudice.
Watch the full talk at iai.tv/video/cancel-culture-v...
When debating the right to free speech, we've always faced a dilemma. Do people have a right to say whatever they want for society to be truly democratic? Or should our priority be protecting those most vulnerable?
With today's cancel culture, our freedom of speech is being challenged more than ever. So where do we go from here? Legendary campaigner Peter Tatchell sets out his vision for reconciling free speech and cancel culture in today's world.
#PeterTatchell #LimitsOfFreeSpeech #CancelCultureDebate
@TatchellPeter is a human rights campaigner best known for his work with LGBT movements, a member of the gay rights group Outrage! and director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation, a human rights organization. Peter also identifies as a humanist, believing that reason, science and ethics are the best way to promote human rights and welfare.
To discover more talks, debates, interviews and academies with the world's leading speakers visit iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
If I had the right to cancel you, then, by the same "law", you have the right to cancel me. The action of the strongest will prevail. The "strongest" is not necessarily the "right".
And why should fictional dogma be used to cancel? Women,LGBT and others have a right to freedom!
An individual alone has no power to "cancel" someone. It's either an enforceable law or it is not. There is no point for having laws if they will not be enforced.
So it comes down to who can make AND enforce the laws.
@mrD66M
It is the victims of bigotry and hate who should cancel. Victims of racism,sexism,lbt hate,disablism political dissent and who are harrassed and more.
Awesome speech, getting to the very detail of why sometimes it's okay to use all the might you have to cancel someone and sometimes not.
Use of the phrase, "canceling someone" is really just a euphemism for really wanting to put people in the gas chamber.
It is simply a leftist issue. Just because you can name one 'right wing' news outlet who fired someone doesn't mean it's cancel culture... I love that this dude is getting his just due. Now he's up here and he's bragging about not being cancelled, he will for sure be cancelled and that's good.
These discussions about 'free speech' are as productive as the proverbial 'How many angels fit in a headpin?'; obviously anybody is free to express whatever they want with their speech - what is always debated is the freedom of the State or whatever other authority to curtail that with consequences. BTW - ain't this a reupload?
Is it "free speech" when I use my words to put someone else in a box?
Is it "cancel culture" when I'm told by my employer not to do something, but I do it anyway, and lose my job?
What are your thoughts on the limitations of free speech? Comment below! If you want to watch more of this solo visit iai.tv/video/cancel-culture-vs-free-speech-peter-tatchell?UA-cam&+comment
For free speech for the cause of freedom,, one needs moral courage.... One should be less timid.... one should refuse to be cowed into submission.
This video left out the gender differences. Like how w men on this platform can get away say things m3n can't. I have to misspell words just to get this message through.
I have seen reddit allow grown w men call little boys ''scotes''. I notice none of this gets mentioned by this speaker
@4:42 - yeah, there were efforts to cancel this speaker - because this speaker is male. Cancelling has nothing to do with racial identity. It is only about your s$x
@@citycrusher9308 canceling has to do with thinking differently it doesn't mean race or sex exclusively...
I hope this guy does get canceled, he deserves it. I love how he said he stood up for 'our minorities' against who? If these people who he stood up against have had their name drug through the mud like Donald Trump has then who knows what's the truth anymore. I can't believe how many leftists still think Trump said there were good people amongst the KKK and white supremacists groups after charlotsville. If you rewind that speech 35 seconds he literally says," I disavow the white supremacists" but all of still say that he didn't.
Tatchell says “suffi” muslims sometimes called for violence against shia muslims. I’m sure he meant “sunni”.
He doesn't have a clue because that's not what matters to him, what matters to him is he's grandstanding and earning his social credit. What a waste of human life and energy. People want to know why people are still impoverished I point to fruitless scientific endeavors like this one.
Also I was thinking I should elaborate. Sufism or Sufi islam also known as tasawuuf is often confused as a separate sect of Islam but it's not. It can seem to outsiders that it's different but it's just a more in depth form of Islam coming from a more ancient way with mysticisms.
It always struck me as curious that speech, over other actions one might take, are considered to need special rights.
As John Stuart Mill writes in On Liberty: "Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action."
Actions--especially government actions, e.g. making laws--should be justified by actors.
In order for an action to be justified, it must be shown to hold strong against the critiques of those who oppose it.
Speech has special protections because only through speech can action be justified.
Inhibiting our speech is an attempt to inhibit our minds, the most personal assault government can make.
@@JW-es7yo Speech inhibition unleashes physical violence and forces the expression of thoughts underground, thus making any debate impossible.
Instances where free speech should be restricted;
1) Making false, damaging allegations such as a person is a rapist, a tax fraud, a pedophile;
2) Words that amount to harassment, menaces, threats or intimidation;
3) Incitements to violence.
That sounds good except… free speech cannot be held hostage to ANY fear, even of violence. All of these things are punishable under law and should be.
Speech is either free or it is not.
God help us if thinking like this prevails, for it fear-based and suggests tyranny to combat mostly discomfort.
I agree that number 2 is...questionable, at best.
But I think the examples given by the speaker are good food for thought.
For example, is "women who cheat should be killed" or "non-believers should be killed" an opinion like any other, or does it constitute a violent threat?
I don't think the answer is clear, and I'm someone who is otherwise a strong supporter of the right to free expression.
Who decides what is intimidating, what is incitement of hate or violence.
So some the slightest of offence is literally genocide or another buzzword you can pick. I've heard of mind rape.
@@TheStygian Can you address the 1st point (making false allegations)? I assume you believe freedom of speech should have no restrictions, so therefore, you should consider all forms of speech, such as defamation, and explain why it shouldn’t be restricted.
5:00
I mean you wouldn’t say I’m celebrating the N word culture. I’m celebrating N word human rights?
human choice decentralization; God focus centralization
End political government making choices for people; God focus human choice
God is a fiction. Wake up.
substantive democracy choice for God's kingdom
🇺🇳6:45
So he is for cancel culture but only when it goes his way...
He looks surprised of being cancelled by his own kind. He expected to go around cancelling others without it backfiring because he is on the "right side" (the left), but that just shows he doesn't really understand cancel culture nor free speech.
You are so ridiculous , I must believe either you are a troll, or really you must have problems.
@@cipaisone An ad hominem attack is not much of an argument. I think Em Martin makes a good point, and you offer no counter argument.
Political government / democracy / republic making choices for people focus can be overcome with God focus for human choice; kingship authority for priests and ministers; substantive human rights confederation
Even though it seems like you'd be putting God in charge, you'd really only be putting priests in charge. It's too easy to interpret God's word in ways that are politically convenient.
What you'd end up with is another flavor of despotism.