my favorite argument: John stuart Mill, a political philosopher argued for free speech, including that of hate speech, saying that if we censor hate speech, our fundamental beliefs of what is right and wrong won't be tested. If our beliefs aren’t argued against, then we won’t attempt to rationalize what we believe to be true; we don't’ think about why our beliefs are right, and when we don’t question our beliefs, we don’t think about them. When we don’t think about our beliefs we don’t learn new things about these beliefs, or improve to advance our thoughts on what is right or wrong. Even if a person’s argument is wrong, doesn’t mean that it is useless, it serves as a tool to let us rationalize and think about our own arguments, and why they are right, or improving our beliefs by discussing opposing viewpoints with others.
Many of the smaller individual problems in the US on their own wouldn't be so bad, but there are so many individually bad problems that together they create a really vicious circle. For example, because the US has such a strongly two party system, there is nowhere for the anger to go but onto supporters of the other parties and the people who tend to support it, even if they are only there grudgingly (like how many black people don't like having to be in the same party as certain types of businessowners), and so hate speech is really easily directed towards them. Or someone who says that some Jew is running a secret cabal and that anyone in the same policial party must be either brainwashed, stupid, or corrupt. The hate speech is bad enough, but you manage to tick off a hundred million people wirth a statement like that.
ThePoshBoy 1 Hello. No problem, I'm open for discussion. What I meant was, absolute freedom of speech entails ridicule and mockery. While liberalism in a social perspective, is that any action is acceptable as long as there's no harm. So when someone says the "n" word in front of a black person, or make holocaust jokes, that causes harm. Which is why I believe that in order to have absolute freedom of speech, then liberalism is suppressed. And in order to have absolute liberalism, then freedom of speech is suppressed.
Can people also please learn that "freedom of speech" doesn't translate into "freedom from being criticized for saying stupid things", or "everyone has to always be super-nice to me because I have the right to say whatever I want"? A lot of people seem to get these mixed up.
It's funny but it is absolutely true! Whenever you disagree with someone harshly they think you are attacking their free speech! No, others are attacking your stupidity!
"you can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre" reminds me of an incident I read about in World War Two, in a cinema in London during a film, a firebomb went off just outside the actual screen... room? whatever, anyway, the audience started panicking thinking it was the Germans until someone got said "don't worry, it's only the Irish" everyone calmed down and went back to watching the film
Freedom of speech is an amazing thing. Everyone has the right to voice their opinions and speak their minds, as long as they are not meant to be offensive. If you don't like someone or something, it's okay. You are free to like who/whatever you want to like. However, there is a difference between voicing an opinion and insulting someone. No one has the right to insult another person just because of religion, race, looks, sexual orientation, personal views and preferences which are not meant to offend anyone etc. People should only be judged because of their personality.
Kerry Wichterich The episode's out, so I'm a little late to the party, but basically if it's blatantly false and is likely to cause negative repercussions, then it's not allowed. i.e. "Obama is a stupid Kenyan" is fine, but a local newspaper printing that someone attempted murder is not.
It is also within your first amendment right to not have to stand and say the pledge of allegiance if you're in school. People often forget about this.
I'm glad you finally talked about this. I hear whenever certain celebs get into trouble for saying certain things on tv or radio and almost get fired, some play real,"FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!". But, to what you said in the video, what they say ON THE JOB is not protected by free speech cause they are offending technically the studio's costumers, shall we say, and that means ratings go down, or in the case of this one incident, they lose sponsors, and the host or celeb could get FIRED FOR OPENING THEIR BIG FAT MOUTH! Some people try to pull the free speech card when it comes to the talk shows, but money is money and if people are offended and stop watching cause of it, they got to fix that.
Great video series, I've shown it to my high school broadcasting students. The only issue is Craig talks way too fast. The students had trouble understanding at some points. Otherwise, very well done and great tool to teach 1st Amendment.
Freedom of speech was one thing, but the right to be heard, to have what is said comprehended and not ignored; that was the basis for freedom. Without love, there IS no freedom. They all fall together, freedom, beauty, joy, kindness, gentleness, humanity, logic, reason ..... love
I recently heard about a paradox regarding free speech, which basically states that if you have some form of EXTREME free speech, like allowing parties that in practice would condemn free speech, is a paradox because A) if you allow those people to have a platform for people that would like to condemn free speech and then allow them to grow and then they eventually condemn free speech, that's anti-free speech because it basically you're basically allowing for the destruction of it. B) if you DON'T give a platform to those people that's ALSO anti-free speech because you're not allowing someone to express their views.
I would be in favor of law supporting the protection of employees speaking out against company policies. If corporations want to have such entanglement with the government through billion dollar lobbyists, then they should fall under the same constraints.
24680kong There are constructive ways to go about it. I just think it should be acceptable to open discussion from within without being fired because the company has crap policies or is actively working against its own people.
Juxtavarious Then you would never get rid of the lobbying, and such restrictions would be used as justification for lobbying. Also, those constraints would themselves would be up to affect by lobbyists, and would ultimately just create another compiling mess. Essentially, you would open the door for Freedom of Speech to become a tool of lobbyists, the way other laws are used now.
Juxtavarious If its that bad, then quit. You'd be creating a situation where the employee was staying (so they clearly think that working for the corporation is a net benefit) but the employer can't fire them, even though the are causing the Corporation a net benefit by being an active agent against them.
Except that that attitude isn't how we got a limit on the number of hours or days an employer can require someone to work without paying overtime. With that attitude, we wouldn't have had laws passed to aid whistle blowers and hinder discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, disability, creed, and sexual orientation. If "just shut up and go find another job" were an actually viable solution then employees could vote with their feet and companies wouldn't be able to hold onto crap, abusive policies that extort their workers. The fact is, corporations have a strangle hold over the workers where the alternative for many of them is to go starve to death in the street if you don't like being treated like garbage.
SasquatchBean I think you miss my point. Free speech has a history, not just an American context. The title of this video, as well as the content, do not represent free speech as a concept, but rather as an American idea.
ShoutingCoffee And people like you will be the cause of the shitstorm. The only extant laws that restrain anyone's ability to operate firearms apply only to convicted felons. Anyone of age anywhere in the United States can acquire and use a firearm (provided an acceptable target and reasonable location).
icedragon769 Lots of things ARE restricted in the FA world. Suppressors, FA Guns, specific types of ammo, types of guns allowed to import. I personally think its ok, could be worse. But a LOT of people hate the idea that the simple and broad idea of unrestricted access to arms is infringed.
I'm glad you cleared up the issue of hate speech. while I wish you went more in-depth in that regard since it's now a pressing issue with its relevance to freedom of speech (ridiculous I know), I appreciate you showing the clear precedent for why hate speech is protected since many people can't wrap around their heads that exceptions to freedom of speech only comes when said speech can result in lawbreaking action or an event occurring that violates the core values of the United States which otherwise wouldn't have happened said expression didn't occur. Thanks.
This video really cleared free speech for me. Before, I thought free speech meant that you could say whatever you wanted to without being punished for it. Thank you for explaining free speech, it was really helpful.
If we can all agree that Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from criticism can we also agree that criticism doesn't mean doxing, forcible or illegally shutting down events or assaulting people?
gnhtd1 The term "political correctness" was coined to make "not being a prat" a political - and thus arguable - thing. It encouraged people to take pride in their terribleness.
Employers, State and Federal do in fact threaten employees with termination for speech vaguely defined by labels like harassment, types of derogatory remarks, and many other words and phrases. The employer can fire anyone it wants for any or no reason including retaliation. And it is the fired employee's burden, being cut off from his income and now facing bills, mortgage and car loan, to find funds to hire a lawyer and fight an uphill legal battle against the government. What happened to our Federal laws protecting employees from getting fired for no reason? The government uses employment as leverage to threaten it's employees if they say anything the employer doesn't like.
Also, people DO have the right to say something that OFFENDS you. As atheists say things against religion, leftists can say things against freedom of speech itself, conservatives can say things against abortion, and racists can say things against blacks. Of course, you don't have to hear or embrace those ideas, but you must respect the fact that they are free to say them.
My question is, why can government stop the sale of certain songs and albums. A couple songs from ice t were not allowed to be sold Bc of their highly controversial topics. Why isn’t that protected?
I'm surprised there was no mention of libel or slander. Also, a Dixie Chicks reference would have been cool with the reaction of people after a particular comment about George Bush.
There's a saying in my country:" your freedom ends at the freedom of others" Dunno about other cultures, but this is pretty important around here. You can't just verbally bully someone and claim it's free speech.
Inorganic Vegan You can say whatever you want. People are free not to associate with you because of it. This extends to people speaking out against you (exercising THEIR free speech) as well as not associating with or supporting with your place of employment.
You should talk about how corporations and businesses are becoming so huge that they are essentially mini governments. They curb free speech much worse than any government can. There is a quote by someone i forgot their name but it essentailly says that corporations and society are worse for freedom of speech than government. you see this in many colleges where you have thought policers on what words you can't say.
PsychicChris that's kind of scary, because walmart/google (might) take over the world one day, but their entire wealth is based off currency that is regulated by a (might soon to be) lesser body than them.
Thank you so much for this course! It really helped me understand 1st amendment rights and due process of law better! and Craig you are just hilarious and your puns are amazing :)
Speech in America is our right unless you're telling someone to kill. Opinions are a right we always have had and will always will have. No such thing as hate speech in America. Fight for your freedom to speak freely. When they take that away there's no more freedom and rights by the first admendmenit. Sorry for the spelling.
Someone said "falling back on 'free speech' as a defense of your words is the weakest possible argument. It means that the best defense you can scrounge up for what you're saying is that it is not literally illegal to say."
Plagiarizing someone else doesn't make you look intelligent, especially when you plagarize a complete idiot who didn't understand fallacious arguments..
People should have freedom of speech, but they shouldn't have freedom from the consequences of that speech. If you tell people that a certain person you don't like is an evil and horrible person, and he also happens to be your boss, the boss still has the right to fire you. And if you plan on overthrowing the government, you have the right to speak, but as soon as you actually start rallying people and giving them arms to physically overthrow the government, the government has every right to destroy and detain your Revolution
Who is watching this in 2020 when all of the protests are hapining. also when he showed the mouth speaking with the police it remindeds me so much about the protests lol
What's messed up is that politicians can outright lie in political ads & not fall under the definition of false advertisement because, *get this,* people should expect to be lied to in political ads.
I would like to have history from other world. I mean we generally study Eurocentric history. we talk about great roman and Greek, The Renaissance period and industrialisation etc etc. We most of time talk about great philosophers mathematician or astrologers mostly from Europe. Even in medieval times we talk about dark ages and The Renaissance period, than industrialisation we again focus in Europe. It sometime it looks like all of scientific discovery or exploration happens in west and other didn't done anything. What were other doing like Egyptians, Indians Chinese, Arabic world or Mayas azectac or any other part of world. They were also great civilizations and sure they also have had done many many developments. But we don't know about them at all. I would like to have some videos talking about history about these people.
khanalprabhat we don't know much about other people because a lot of them didn't have a written language, in a lot of class rooms you learn about the medieval middle east/Ming China (and yuan china) and usually have something small about the mayas/aztecs and you usually learn about the fatimids and mughals too. the reason why a lot of focus is placed on Rome/Greece is because they had empirical records of almost everything.
khanalprabhat tf? In my school we didn’t learn enough about Eurocentric history. We mainly focused on the North American history and South American history. I could name a dozen Native American tribes and their relations before I could name the leaders in WWll. Trust me, be grateful, Eurasian history is very interesting and basically everything else sucks
***** I've taken a look into all cases the media popularized and from your comment I can read that you're just pretending to have done the same in order to pass on some right wing bullshit - It's sad, honestly
***** while true, CNN is definitely one of the more liberal news companies. (This of course is an opinion... on the internet... I am not willing to fight over this)
The sign at 4:25 that reads "Free speech: use it or lose it"... Doesn't that kind of defeat the point of 'free' speech if you're forced to use it. What if my opinion is a lack of opinion?
So my boss being a money-grubbing, politician-bribing enemy of freedom: THAT'S free speech. Me telling him any of that though: that's NOT free speech. But him firing me for saying it, or for finding out I said it to someone else: THAT'S free speech. Hmmm, it's almost like corporations are making the laws now, anyone else get that vibe?
GelidGanef No, you telling off your boss IS free speech. You are more than welcome to do that, as far as the government is concerned. You won't get arrested for it.
My country has as First Amendment that no-one is allowed to discriminate. This applies to speech as well. You'd think that's a bad thing, but I see it as a neccesary precaution to combat extremists group getting ground in politics. There are some exceptions to the law. For example: A company can't discriminate on who you are (race, sex, nationality etc) for a job, but can dictate who you are based on the requirements of the job. A movie studio can for instance refuse a black woman for the role of Abraham Lincoln. The law also prohibits companies to refuse service based on their religious views, meaning they can't refuse selling wedding cakes to gay couples. Which in the US, that is legal to do.
Remember, free speech is not the right to be given a platform to speak upon, not the right to force others to listen to you, not the right to have people agree with you and most certainly not the right to not have people hold what you say or do against you. Free speech is not something to unburden yourselves from the responsibility of what you say and what you do. Too often people who bitch about "political correctness" are just complaining that they're being held responsible for things that they say and do, something those complainers do to other people. Its the hypocritical crying of somebody who hasn't the backbone to stand up for what they believe in or the maturity to be responsible for their own actions.
Inorganic Vegan People have been fired for their opinions going back pretty much forever. Its part of the reason why secret ballot elections became popular. The difference between that and when some celebrity says something stupid is that most of the companies you find firing people are companies where the higher-ups are legally obligated to shareholders to make the best business decision. Even if they aren't obligated to do so its still generally a fair business move if its deemed a risk to profits to keep them. If somebody potentially pushes away part of your consumer base, you'd get rid of them. Its no different from firing somebody who gets in an argument with a customer or shows up to work drunk. Thats basic business. Its no different from when a company spokesperson says some racist shit as when an employee of a company pulls into a Chick-fil-a drive-through to yell at a minimum wage employee. Whether you like it or not, employees are representatives of the businesses that employ them. Just because one employee doesn't care what somebody thinks of them doesn't mean that a business doesn't likewise care about its perception. As for universities, I hate how they handle speech. While I don't view them as massive indoctrination camps like some folks do, they are harmful in that they don't treat students as adults, they don't treat the university experience as a real world experience. They treat adult students like four year olds, and I'd be less worrisome if not for the fact it happens at universities that accept federal aid. As for their employees, tenure exists specifically so that they can pursue fields of researching and philosophical thought without having to worry about their jobs. Those sorts of firings you mention are literally the primary reason tenure exists. Its why UC Berkely has an AIDS denialist on its payroll.
If what they're promoting is hateful speech that promotes harmful ideologies and can incite prejudice and harmful action against other classes, then a business or person has every right to fire someone or kick them out. A person's humanity trumps someone else's right to hateful free speech. What a person says has consequences, and it should because it holds whoever saying those things accountable. It was the founding fathers who came up with the 1st amendment and the government to uphold it. So when people say their free speech is being taken away because they're seeing the consequences of it, they're being dramatic.
I think the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" speech *should* be protected. I know there is already a weird thing at schools where students aren't allowed free speech as long as no one is, but it seems that the supreme court ruling focused more on the point that the speech was about illegal drugs. Although, it is important to note that the ruling was close, 5-4, and that the dissents referenced the violation of free speech. If a government makes something illegal, people should be allowed to protest it.
I'd like to get people's opinions on a specific case about the first amendment, dealing with the free of speech and assembly. In Wisconsin there is an ordinance in the capitol building that say that you need a permit to hold any kind of large gathering. It doesn't matter what it's about, and the permit limits people on where and when they can assemble and how loud they can be. It recently came into scrutiny with the recall of the governor, because many people were arrested for protesting without the required permits. The government basically said that since the law applies to everyone regardless of what the gathering is about, it's not impeding anyone's freedom of speech. The people who were arrested claimed that any restrictions were a breach of the first amendment. I forget if it was ever brought to court and if so what their ruling was. But what do you guys think?
Seems like the law would be in place to protect people from hazardous situations, like a max capacity of a building for fire safety reasons. It's not like they made the rule about permits just to stop the protesters.
Fakjbf This is what's known as a "time, place, and manner" (aka TPM) restriction on speech. Basically, depending on the kind of place you're planning on using, the government is allowed to restrict your speech somewhat for practical reasons. For example, if you want to throw a lgbt pride parade on public streets in your city, your city can require to to get a permit in advance so they can reroute traffic. However, in that scenario, the city can't try to change the /message/ of your speech. They can't say "You may not have a lgbt pride parade, but we WILL let you have a support-our-troops parade." The restriction has to be for some practical reason, like not blocking up city traffic or something. This "TPM" doctrine is pretty complicated, and to make matters even more confusing, the courts recognize different levels of how "public" a public forum is. The Wisconsin capitol building would be considered a "limited public forum," which means the government can impose /some/ restrictions (such as the permit thing you mentioned).
Wow, the "fighting words" thing seems really dangerous, because it's a way to avoid responsibility for your own actions, by claiming that these "fighting words" somehow hypnotized you to act violently, without your control. I wonder how easy it would be to extend this to other situations, for example a guy rapes a woman, then claims she said some "raping words" to him (ie the old "she seduced me, I had no choice", but now with constitutional backup)
pete275 No no, the "fighting words" doctrine doesn't let people off the hook for committing crimes after hearing speech. They're still legally responsible for their actions. They can't claim they were "hypnotized" by someone else's fighting words (well, they can try to claim that, I guess...). The fighting words doctrine just lets the government ALSO punish the person who made the speech that prompted others to commit their crimes. It's not a criminal defense. And it's also never been applied to something like "raping words," don't worry.
you can't go in and reveal classified info. Snowden isn't under fire for saying the government is spying on us.. he's under fire for detailing the systems and networks of US intelligence agencies
1234kalmar Yes, but it is still government action that they bribe for. Google can't involuntarily tax you, or raid your house, or force you to buy a product. The government does have all that power, and in having that power, it is bribed out to corporations. By pretending that you can somehow insulate from corruption the one entity in the United States that can make people do something against their will, with no consequences, you are only compounding the problem with ignorance. You can't grow the federal government to have limitless power to accomplish what you percieve as a good, without seeing that immense infrastructure abused.
Naudious I didn't say governments should be all powerful, in my country, it is, and it has devastating consequences. I just say that there should be a healthy balance, from which America is very far away from.
1234kalmar It isnt a balancing act, the more powerful the government is, the more power is available to Special Interests. If corporarions didn't have Legislation and Programs to abuse, they could only associate with you voluntarily
I am not sure my country has 'Free speech' but I do know there is a 'Freedom of expression' which is somewhat the same, but does not have the same level of protection. But I am curious as to whether a person in America under the protection first amendment, basically has the right to discriminate?
+Surithi Yogalingam Depends who you are discriminating against, and what state you're in. If you want your business to discriminate against people who don't wear shoes, you can. If you want to discriminate against blacks, you can't, if you want to discriminate against gays, depends which state you're in.
I wish you'd actually used the quote from Holmes's decision in Schenck, which is very frequently misunderstood: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." Note: FALSELY shouting fire. That is almost always elided when people talk about limitations on free speech, but that adverb is operative.
What about the channel where the criticism is being made regulating/banning/filtering it? For example: 1) The owner of a private property banning or regulating the usage of his property for political/symbolical speeches? 2) The admins of a gaming website redacting all political or religious comments from its public forum? 3) A news channel with bias reporting on political issues? Since these are private entities, does it mean that they are not governed by the 1st amendment right?
Rockerchavnerdemo it can though. An institution that does not randomly apply "consequences" to its members for ideological wrongthink has more "free speech" than one who does. Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. which take money from the Democrats do not support free speech and this is how we can tell you commies want to turn us into western Europe.
You CrashCourse guys mention US versus Schenck. He was clearly disrupting the draft using free speech, but until then no law had been written to say, " you can't do that." So what happened to Schenck? More importantly, what happens to people that the supreme court has to rule against in special cases like this? I understand they broke a law, but they were the first to discover that the law could be broken that way.
Heath Crothers I looked it up, and I guess Charles Schenck ended up spending 6 months in prison after the Supreme Court ruled against him (I'm not sure if they counted time already served). But more generally -- if the Supreme Court rules against you, you lose, just like you would with any lower court! So if it's a criminal trial, you face criminal penalties. If it's a civil lawsuit, you lose your chance at whatever money or right or whatever you were trying to get by winning the lawsuit. It doesn't matter that the Supreme Court is using your case to make a new rule in a previously uncharted area of law. As far as you're concerned, you lose! :/
The case about burning their draft cards is not Schenck v. U.S. It's U.S. v. O'Brien. The Schenck case refers to Schenck distributing leaflets to men that urged them to purposely avoid the draft.
as an arab of course i dont like your gov , cause they love war , and god how many civilians died in iraq and palestine and i mean just look at the middle east now , isis .... god .... but i have to say something , i Love this video and love your laws .. yes of course there is some corruption like in any other gov , your cops are bad , say bad word they put a gun on use ... its easy to get killed , but just laws like these . body cams . its really something big that i wish i had in my own country .... Good job Americans , keep fighting for ur freedom and rights , good job .
What do you know about domestic law enforcement as someone living in a far off country. What do you know about the methodolgy and application of Anglospherian military action (as those troops "killing those people" also include British, Canadian, Australian and more) loving in the very region that can't keep it's shit together? The gall of you people is astounding. The verberations of your dark age, war ridden area affect people the world over, and then you have the gall to claim that responsive action (from the entire world mind you, it isn't just Americans) isn't justified? Simply absurd. I've never seen that kind of conciet so proudly displayed.
Beasty wo wo wo, we Aussies have an incredible track record of NOT killing non-combatants. Cannot speak for the other nations in the Coalition but our army is built around the infantryman and we generally speaking, have highly trained soldiers who follow a strict ROE and place a high importance on civilian protection. This has been the case for decades, not saying we havnt had kills on civvies but we deffs have a lower ratio than a lot of other nations (might have something to do with not using drones and airstrikes as liberally as some military's) so please, dont cite us as a military does have a track record of civilian casualties. And what would he know about your law enforcement? Well he would know what he see's in the media wouldn't he and you have to be frank, US Police have been in the spotlight A LOT for gunning down people who appeared to not be a threat to the Officer doing the shooting which gives the impression that your Police have only 2 modes, polite or trigger happy, whether this is a true trend or not is not the point, it is what gets headlines and again it has been in the news a lot, even in Aus we get the news of most lethal police shootings. Our cops have been cunts too but USUALLY they are cunts using TAZER's or batons because they get into lengthy and very public investigations when ever there is a shooting. And deny all you want, ISIS is ,in a huge way, our fault (our=Coalition Forces that went into Iraq to remove President Hussain. That includes my nation and yours) because we had no really action plan for what to do AFTER we won (Militaries are great at planning for war and action, its what comes after that they have never been good at dealing with) and we left the region in a fucking mess without any real structure of government that represented the people which left the region open to regional conflicts and a power vacuum for ISIS to explode into, as they now have done. All our Gov's share the blame for that as much as the Iraqi people. And he is an Arab, which im assuming means citizen of the UAE. Which while being a Sharia Law guided country, is still a hugely developed and modern state and the only real war the UAE has had in recent history is their repeated efforts to attack Israel and its been awhile since they last tried. Im just saying that he doesn't fit the insults you fling at him because he lives in a state that is quite frankly, doing superbly well considering and is incredibly modern. Basically, calm down, he is saying your GOVERNMENT is something that does seem to not always operate with logic or truth. He has actually said that he supports the very laws and freedoms you enjoy which is more than what I can say for your freedoms (ill agree its true freedom when you choose your President based on the peoples vote, thats my only heckle with the USA's Freedom boasting, that and that its a thing you guys do boast about and its gets old and annoying is all) but still, he isn't insulting your country, simply the people who represent it and run it on your behalf. Though this said, Obama is the first president ive liked since ive been sucking down air (Well liked in a professional manner, Bush i liked cos he just seemed to get into shit.). So again, calm down, the guy is not insulting yo, he actually complemented your nation
***** I agree with you bro. Also, UAE and also Dubai's Police department must wear body cameras since last year and also google glass and i hope this law move to another middle eastern countries and the rest of the world soon.
What would be the law against someone (or group of people) standing up in the movie theater, and start reading a children's book? I've seen people try to claim this is their freedom of Speech, but what is the law that prevents this? Would this be disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, or what? This should still fall under a business's right to refuse service, but people claim they paid for a ticket to be there, even though other people paid for tickets to see the movie, not hear a reading of a children's book. By expansion, what about people who are allowed to ask a question at an event? Say.... a Star Trek Convention, and an audience member is given a mic and is allowed to ask the cast a question, then refuses to part with the mic, because they have like 50 questions, and feel they are bonding with the cast? What about the use of air-horns, or loud speakers with music, to drown out a speaker at an opening to a new coffee shop? It's not paid to attend, it's outdoors, and some people just don't like coffee. Blocking a roadway with signs, or people? None of these would be a call to violence, or harm. What law would they be breaking, or how does this fall/not fall under Freedom of Speech?
Freedom of Speech allows us to see what is wrong with Society
Robert free speech for the dumb
my favorite argument: John stuart Mill, a political philosopher argued for free speech, including that of hate speech, saying that if we censor hate speech, our fundamental beliefs of what is right and wrong won't be tested. If our beliefs aren’t argued against, then we won’t attempt to rationalize what we believe to be true; we don't’ think about why our beliefs are right, and when we don’t question our beliefs, we don’t think about them. When we don’t think about our beliefs we don’t learn new things about these beliefs, or improve to advance our thoughts on what is right or wrong. Even if a person’s argument is wrong, doesn’t mean that it is useless, it serves as a tool to let us rationalize and think about our own arguments, and why they are right, or improving our beliefs by discussing opposing viewpoints with others.
Many of the smaller individual problems in the US on their own wouldn't be so bad, but there are so many individually bad problems that together they create a really vicious circle. For example, because the US has such a strongly two party system, there is nowhere for the anger to go but onto supporters of the other parties and the people who tend to support it, even if they are only there grudgingly (like how many black people don't like having to be in the same party as certain types of businessowners), and so hate speech is really easily directed towards them. Or someone who says that some Jew is running a secret cabal and that anyone in the same policial party must be either brainwashed, stupid, or corrupt. The hate speech is bad enough, but you manage to tick off a hundred million people wirth a statement like that.
Reid Larsen I
Reid Larsen
Absolute freedom of speech and liberalism are contradictory
ThePoshBoy 1
Hello. No problem, I'm open for discussion. What I meant was, absolute freedom of speech entails ridicule and mockery. While liberalism in a social perspective, is that any action is acceptable as long as there's no harm. So when someone says the "n" word in front of a black person, or make holocaust jokes, that causes harm.
Which is why I believe that in order to have absolute freedom of speech, then liberalism is suppressed. And in order to have absolute liberalism, then freedom of speech is suppressed.
Thanks for the reply you have cleared up a lot.
Can people also please learn that "freedom of speech" doesn't translate into "freedom from being criticized for saying stupid things", or "everyone has to always be super-nice to me because I have the right to say whatever I want"? A lot of people seem to get these mixed up.
Siegfried Kircheis Especially here on UA-cam.
MissNayNay Or you know...real life.
It's funny but it is absolutely true! Whenever you disagree with someone harshly they think you are attacking their free speech! No, others are attacking your stupidity!
but it's also mean the people making criticisms are open to criticisms.
@@SpyrosD Tell that to the antifa idiots.
Just came here to refresh my memory on true freedom
(Comments are disabled for this video)
:X
:ˆ
"I'm trying to talk about free speech, shut up."
you shut your mouth when you're talking to me
pretty ironic right
wow
free speech applys to all people even the ones you dont agree with... that is the point...
That is funny. Thank you. I needed to laugh.
*This comment was removed by the US government*
Viacom
Hey, this whole operation was your idea
This will never be the case with Everchat (everch.at) :P
Ok
Free speech for the dumb!
"you can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre" reminds me of an incident I read about in World War Two, in a cinema in London during a film, a firebomb went off just outside the actual screen... room? whatever, anyway, the audience started panicking thinking it was the Germans until someone got said "don't worry, it's only the Irish" everyone calmed down and went back to watching the film
"Oh no, it's Jerry!"
"Nah, it's only Patrick"
"Oh, ok".
Field Marshal Fry auditorium or less specifically theatre. Not trying to be a dick but either uses less key strokes than not knowing does.
Freedom of speech is an amazing thing. Everyone has the right to voice their opinions and speak their minds, as long as they are not meant to be offensive. If you don't like someone or something, it's okay. You are free to like who/whatever you want to like. However, there is a difference between voicing an opinion and insulting someone. No one has the right to insult another person just because of religion, race, looks, sexual orientation, personal views and preferences which are not meant to offend anyone etc. People should only be judged because of their personality.
What about libel/slander?
Kerry Wichterich That would indeed be a good topic.
Libel and slander has to be blatantly false, have malicious intent, and visibly damage someone's reputation
Kerry Wichterich You're a step ahead of us! We're going to talk about libel next week in our episode on freedom of the press. -brandon
Johto Symphony So like every news channel on TV... LOL
Kerry Wichterich The episode's out, so I'm a little late to the party, but basically if it's blatantly false and is likely to cause negative repercussions, then it's not allowed. i.e. "Obama is a stupid Kenyan" is fine, but a local newspaper printing that someone attempted murder is not.
It is also within your first amendment right to not have to stand and say the pledge of allegiance if you're in school. People often forget about this.
Even though you have free speech. You are accountable for what you say.
I'm glad you finally talked about this. I hear whenever certain celebs get into trouble for saying certain things on tv or radio and almost get fired, some play real,"FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!". But, to what you said in the video, what they say ON THE JOB is not protected by free speech cause they are offending technically the studio's costumers, shall we say, and that means ratings go down, or in the case of this one incident, they lose sponsors, and the host or celeb could get FIRED FOR OPENING THEIR BIG FAT MOUTH! Some people try to pull the free speech card when it comes to the talk shows, but money is money and if people are offended and stop watching cause of it, they got to fix that.
I know this is really off topic, but would you guys consider doing a crash course on music theory???
Great video series, I've shown it to my high school broadcasting students. The only issue is Craig talks way too fast. The students had trouble understanding at some points. Otherwise, very well done and great tool to teach 1st Amendment.
Freedom of speech was one thing, but the right to be heard, to have what is said comprehended and not ignored; that was the basis for freedom. Without love, there IS no freedom. They all fall together, freedom, beauty, joy, kindness, gentleness, humanity, logic, reason ..... love
I've watched this 10 times to help with my business law midterm. I hope all of this kicks in
Three eagle punches in one video?! You spoil us Craig.
I recently heard about a paradox regarding free speech, which basically states that if you have some form of EXTREME free speech, like allowing parties that in practice would condemn free speech, is a paradox because A) if you allow those people to have a platform for people that would like to condemn free speech and then allow them to grow and then they eventually condemn free speech, that's anti-free speech because it basically you're basically allowing for the destruction of it. B) if you DON'T give a platform to those people that's ALSO anti-free speech because you're not allowing someone to express their views.
Interesting
One important thing that people often forget is that free speech is only the right to talk, not the "right" to have other people hear you.
I would be in favor of law supporting the protection of employees speaking out against company policies. If corporations want to have such entanglement with the government through billion dollar lobbyists, then they should fall under the same constraints.
Juxtavarious Why would a company want to have employees that are actively dissenting against the company?
24680kong
There are constructive ways to go about it. I just think it should be acceptable to open discussion from within without being fired because the company has crap policies or is actively working against its own people.
Juxtavarious Then you would never get rid of the lobbying, and such restrictions would be used as justification for lobbying.
Also, those constraints would themselves would be up to affect by lobbyists, and would ultimately just create another compiling mess.
Essentially, you would open the door for Freedom of Speech to become a tool of lobbyists, the way other laws are used now.
Juxtavarious If its that bad, then quit. You'd be creating a situation where the employee was staying (so they clearly think that working for the corporation is a net benefit) but the employer can't fire them, even though the are causing the Corporation a net benefit by being an active agent against them.
Except that that attitude isn't how we got a limit on the number of hours or days an employer can require someone to work without paying overtime. With that attitude, we wouldn't have had laws passed to aid whistle blowers and hinder discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, disability, creed, and sexual orientation. If "just shut up and go find another job" were an actually viable solution then employees could vote with their feet and companies wouldn't be able to hold onto crap, abusive policies that extort their workers. The fact is, corporations have a strangle hold over the workers where the alternative for many of them is to go starve to death in the street if you don't like being treated like garbage.
"We're trying to talk about free speech, shut up."
- Craig
YOUR RIGHTS END WHERE MY FEELINGS BEGIN. BAN ALL SWEAR WORDS BECAUSE THEY TRIGGER ME
No one has the right to insult another person.
Yes they do
Anonymous Top Secret You most definitely have the right to insult someone, but you also must accept the consequences that come out of it
@@dannguyen626 and what should those consequences be in your opinion?
@@dannguyen626 - unless the "consequence" is violence.
"Crash Course Government" should be "Crash Course US Government", as Craig says in the video.
I wholeheartedly agree. This touches on nothing but U.S. history and policy.
Sponsored by PBS, a US government corporation, made by Americans in the US. Ya, it's our government. Duh
SasquatchBean and the title should reflect that, because i'd guess at least a good number if not a majority of CC viewers are not American :)
MrGeekGamer No, it should be Craig's Course US Government.
SasquatchBean I think you miss my point. Free speech has a history, not just an American context. The title of this video, as well as the content, do not represent free speech as a concept, but rather as an American idea.
I can't wait for the shitstorm that will be your episode on the second amendment.
ArmageddonAngel It will read if done properly; Every law restraining your ability to own and operate a firearm is a violation of the second amendment.
ArmageddonAngel I did not feel right about liking this statement, as I am not a fan of shit storms, but you are most likely right.
ShoutingCoffee And people like you will be the cause of the shitstorm. The only extant laws that restrain anyone's ability to operate firearms apply only to convicted felons. Anyone of age anywhere in the United States can acquire and use a firearm (provided an acceptable target and reasonable location).
icedragon769 What about New York City? ;D
icedragon769 Lots of things ARE restricted in the FA world. Suppressors, FA Guns, specific types of ammo, types of guns allowed to import.
I personally think its ok, could be worse. But a LOT of people hate the idea that the simple and broad idea of unrestricted access to arms is infringed.
1:02 "oh that's right, I'm in the US. It doesn't matter"
Made me lol a lot
the poor eagle doesn't deserve this abuse !
Idiot: "Moon landing's were a hoax!"
Me: "Them's fightin' words!"
[Fisticuffs ensues, legally protected?]
If you're Buzz Aldrin, yeah.
The idiot is the barbarian resorting to violence
Favorite episode so far, by far.
This guy.
I'm glad you cleared up the issue of hate speech. while I wish you went more in-depth in that regard since it's now a pressing issue with its relevance to freedom of speech (ridiculous I know), I appreciate you showing the clear precedent for why hate speech is protected since many people can't wrap around their heads that exceptions to freedom of speech only comes when said speech can result in lawbreaking action or an event occurring that violates the core values of the United States which otherwise wouldn't have happened said expression didn't occur. Thanks.
"Alright, we're trying to talk about free speech, shut up!" Lol I can't. xD
Thank goodness for this video. I feel like there are way too many misconceptions on how the first amendment actually works for a lot of people.
This video really cleared free speech for me. Before, I thought free speech meant that you could say whatever you wanted to without being punished for it. Thank you for explaining free speech, it was really helpful.
Bro, i wish this guy was my teacher. he makes it so much more fun and it dosent even seem like he is trying hard. Good job crash! I love yjis channel!
If we can all agree that Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from criticism can we also agree that criticism doesn't mean doxing, forcible or illegally shutting down events or assaulting people?
*"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."*
Now make a crash course about political correctness, the bane of free speech.
gnhtd1 The term "political correctness" was coined to make "not being a prat" a political - and thus arguable - thing. It encouraged people to take pride in their terribleness.
gnhtd1 Wait, Eskimo is offensive now? What?
Political correctness preserves free speech; it does not oppose it.
Antenox citation needed.
Robotputty citation needed for your claim for a citation as opinions do not require citation
Employers, State and Federal do in fact threaten employees with termination for speech vaguely defined by labels like harassment, types of derogatory remarks, and many other words and phrases. The employer can fire anyone it wants for any or no reason including retaliation. And it is the fired employee's burden, being cut off from his income and now facing bills, mortgage and car loan, to find funds to hire a lawyer and fight an uphill legal battle against the government. What happened to our Federal laws protecting employees from getting fired for no reason? The government uses employment as leverage to threaten it's employees if they say anything the employer doesn't like.
Also, people DO have the right to say something that OFFENDS you.
As atheists say things against religion, leftists can say things against freedom of speech itself, conservatives can say things against abortion, and racists can say things against blacks.
Of course, you don't have to hear or embrace those ideas, but you must respect the fact that they are free to say them.
My question is, why can government stop the sale of certain songs and albums. A couple songs from ice t were not allowed to be sold Bc of their highly controversial topics. Why isn’t that protected?
Fighting words? You mean like the recent debates?
I'm surprised there was no mention of libel or slander. Also, a Dixie Chicks reference would have been cool with the reaction of people after a particular comment about George Bush.
Daniel Sobczak I agree.
Daniel Sobczak a boycott of their products. Kind of like how Liberals boycott Israeli goods with the divestment sanctions act
With freedom comes responsibility and vice versa, responsible people are given more freedom.
I really love the Thought Cafe graphics. They're almost my favorite part.
Respectful or in good taste - something that is really missing in our culture.
There's a saying in my country:" your freedom ends at the freedom of others"
Dunno about other cultures, but this is pretty important around here. You can't just verbally bully someone and claim it's free speech.
Inorganic Vegan You can say whatever you want. People are free not to associate with you because of it. This extends to people speaking out against you (exercising THEIR free speech) as well as not associating with or supporting with your place of employment.
Inorganic Vegan His post didn't have the word "offended" in it anywhere. Please re-read it.
Fifi Steiner You don't have a right to not be offended.
Inorganic Vegan Harrassment is illegal in every state and by the feds if done on an interstate basis. It is not protected speech nor should it be.
You should talk about how corporations and businesses are becoming so huge that they are essentially mini governments. They curb free speech much worse than any government can. There is a quote by someone i forgot their name but it essentailly says that corporations and society are worse for freedom of speech than government. you see this in many colleges where you have thought policers on what words you can't say.
PsychicChris that's kind of scary, because walmart/google (might) take over the world one day, but their entire wealth is based off currency that is regulated by a (might soon to be) lesser body than them.
Thank you so much for this course! It really helped me understand 1st amendment rights and due process of law better! and Craig you are just hilarious and your puns are amazing :)
Speech in America is our right unless you're telling someone to kill. Opinions are a right we always have had and will always will have. No such thing as hate speech in America. Fight for your freedom to speak freely. When they take that away there's no more freedom and rights by the first admendmenit. Sorry for the spelling.
I'm happy to see the show has expanded to other branches!
Keep it up guys! :)
The first amendment so simple but still violated
Someone said "falling back on 'free speech' as a defense of your words is the weakest possible argument. It means that the best defense you can scrounge up for what you're saying is that it is not literally illegal to say."
That was Randall Munroe, in the mouseover text to one of the best installments of XKCD ever. xkcd.com/1357/
It is not an argument to day you have freedom of speech. It is a fact.
Freedom of speech does not make you right or wrong... it make you free.
Matthew Prorok He's where I found it, but even that just has "someone once said", so I still don't know where it originated.
+JarinArenos Agreed.
Plagiarizing someone else doesn't make you look intelligent, especially when you plagarize a complete idiot who didn't understand fallacious arguments..
You can say anything or protest anything you want, as long as no actions that disobey the law are an outcome of the things you say.
People should have freedom of speech, but they shouldn't have freedom from the consequences of that speech. If you tell people that a certain person you don't like is an evil and horrible person, and he also happens to be your boss, the boss still has the right to fire you. And if you plan on overthrowing the government, you have the right to speak, but as soon as you actually start rallying people and giving them arms to physically overthrow the government, the government has every right to destroy and detain your Revolution
I feel like people don't understand that the 1st does not protect them from criticism for the things they say.
Who is watching this in 2020 when all of the protests are hapining. also when he showed the mouth speaking with the police it remindeds me so much about the protests lol
What's messed up is that politicians can outright lie in political ads & not fall under the definition of false advertisement because, *get this,* people should expect to be lied to in political ads.
I would like to have history from other world. I mean we generally study Eurocentric history. we talk about great roman and Greek, The Renaissance period and industrialisation etc etc. We most of time talk about great philosophers mathematician or astrologers mostly from Europe. Even in medieval times we talk about dark ages and The Renaissance period, than industrialisation we again focus in Europe. It sometime it looks like all of scientific discovery or exploration happens in west and other didn't done anything.
What were other doing like Egyptians, Indians Chinese, Arabic world or Mayas azectac or any other part of world. They were also great civilizations and sure they also have had done many many developments.
But we don't know about them at all.
I would like to have some videos talking about history about these people.
khanalprabhat we don't know much about other people because a lot of them didn't have a written language, in a lot of class rooms you learn about the medieval middle east/Ming China (and yuan china) and usually have something small about the mayas/aztecs and you usually learn about the fatimids and mughals too.
the reason why a lot of focus is placed on Rome/Greece is because they had empirical records of almost everything.
khanalprabhat tf? In my school we didn’t learn enough about Eurocentric history. We mainly focused on the North American history and South American history. I could name a dozen Native American tribes and their relations before I could name the leaders in WWll. Trust me, be grateful, Eurasian history is very interesting and basically everything else sucks
What happened to the exoplanets Astronomy episode? I hadn't had the chance to watch it yet...
yay now I can criticize cops you are not very polite police
*Gets arrested and is sent to Death Row*
General noob Are you black ? if yes : they'll just shoot you and say "self defense" or "he reached for my gun"
***** I've taken a look into all cases the media popularized and from your comment I can read that you're just pretending to have done the same in order to pass on some right wing bullshit - It's sad, honestly
***** while true, CNN is definitely one of the more liberal news companies. (This of course is an opinion... on the internet... I am not willing to fight over this)
***** CNN is leftist? Are you serious? CNN is considered political left in the US?
In Brandenburg Vs. Ohio the supreme court ruled that the state cannot restrict free speech unless that speech does what?
0:58 "Or should I say you would be put in jail" Put in... Putin jail, hm "Don't put me in jail"
Nice reference to Russia!
CrashCourse Craig, you're my favorite CC host! I can't stand listening to politics, but I don't know how to quit you.
So basically we don’t have free speech. Got it
The sign at 4:25 that reads "Free speech: use it or lose it"... Doesn't that kind of defeat the point of 'free' speech if you're forced to use it. What if my opinion is a lack of opinion?
Stop talking about freedom of speech on a app that doesn’t have freedom of speech. Literally doesn’t apply for UA-cam
Pickering v. Board of Education is indicated by the graphics to have been decided in 1942 but as stated in the video later was decided in 1968.
So my boss being a money-grubbing, politician-bribing enemy of freedom:
THAT'S free speech.
Me telling him any of that though:
that's NOT free speech.
But him firing me for saying it, or for finding out I said it to someone else:
THAT'S free speech.
Hmmm, it's almost like corporations are making the laws now, anyone else get that vibe?
***** Actually, property laws generally are written by those with large amounts of property.
GelidGanef No, you telling off your boss IS free speech. You are more than welcome to do that, as far as the government is concerned. You won't get arrested for it.
***** That may be, but the First Amendment doesn't protect you from the consequences of your speech.
@@cj-seejay-cj-seejay Most unfortunately!
My country has as First Amendment that no-one is allowed to discriminate. This applies to speech as well. You'd think that's a bad thing, but I see it as a neccesary precaution to combat extremists group getting ground in politics.
There are some exceptions to the law. For example: A company can't discriminate on who you are (race, sex, nationality etc) for a job, but can dictate who you are based on the requirements of the job. A movie studio can for instance refuse a black woman for the role of Abraham Lincoln.
The law also prohibits companies to refuse service based on their religious views, meaning they can't refuse selling wedding cakes to gay couples. Which in the US, that is legal to do.
Remember, free speech is not the right to be given a platform to speak upon, not the right to force others to listen to you, not the right to have people agree with you and most certainly not the right to not have people hold what you say or do against you. Free speech is not something to unburden yourselves from the responsibility of what you say and what you do. Too often people who bitch about "political correctness" are just complaining that they're being held responsible for things that they say and do, something those complainers do to other people. Its the hypocritical crying of somebody who hasn't the backbone to stand up for what they believe in or the maturity to be responsible for their own actions.
IllCaesar THIS, THIS, THIS!!! - standing ovation -
Inorganic Vegan People have been fired for their opinions going back pretty much forever. Its part of the reason why secret ballot elections became popular. The difference between that and when some celebrity says something stupid is that most of the companies you find firing people are companies where the higher-ups are legally obligated to shareholders to make the best business decision. Even if they aren't obligated to do so its still generally a fair business move if its deemed a risk to profits to keep them. If somebody potentially pushes away part of your consumer base, you'd get rid of them. Its no different from firing somebody who gets in an argument with a customer or shows up to work drunk. Thats basic business. Its no different from when a company spokesperson says some racist shit as when an employee of a company pulls into a Chick-fil-a drive-through to yell at a minimum wage employee. Whether you like it or not, employees are representatives of the businesses that employ them. Just because one employee doesn't care what somebody thinks of them doesn't mean that a business doesn't likewise care about its perception.
As for universities, I hate how they handle speech. While I don't view them as massive indoctrination camps like some folks do, they are harmful in that they don't treat students as adults, they don't treat the university experience as a real world experience. They treat adult students like four year olds, and I'd be less worrisome if not for the fact it happens at universities that accept federal aid. As for their employees, tenure exists specifically so that they can pursue fields of researching and philosophical thought without having to worry about their jobs. Those sorts of firings you mention are literally the primary reason tenure exists. Its why UC Berkely has an AIDS denialist on its payroll.
Freedom of speech is great, because unlike freedom of action, it doesn't harm anyone.
IllCaesar Fuck you fascist.
Nobody should be put in jail or fired for their opinion from a university.
If what they're promoting is hateful speech that promotes harmful ideologies and can incite prejudice and harmful action against other classes, then a business or person has every right to fire someone or kick them out. A person's humanity trumps someone else's right to hateful free speech. What a person says has consequences, and it should because it holds whoever saying those things accountable. It was the founding fathers who came up with the 1st amendment and the government to uphold it. So when people say their free speech is being taken away because they're seeing the consequences of it, they're being dramatic.
I think the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" speech *should* be protected. I know there is already a weird thing at schools where students aren't allowed free speech as long as no one is, but it seems that the supreme court ruling focused more on the point that the speech was about illegal drugs. Although, it is important to note that the ruling was close, 5-4, and that the dissents referenced the violation of free speech. If a government makes something illegal, people should be allowed to protest it.
I'd like to get people's opinions on a specific case about the first amendment, dealing with the free of speech and assembly. In Wisconsin there is an ordinance in the capitol building that say that you need a permit to hold any kind of large gathering. It doesn't matter what it's about, and the permit limits people on where and when they can assemble and how loud they can be. It recently came into scrutiny with the recall of the governor, because many people were arrested for protesting without the required permits. The government basically said that since the law applies to everyone regardless of what the gathering is about, it's not impeding anyone's freedom of speech. The people who were arrested claimed that any restrictions were a breach of the first amendment. I forget if it was ever brought to court and if so what their ruling was. But what do you guys think?
Seems like the law would be in place to protect people from hazardous situations, like a max capacity of a building for fire safety reasons. It's not like they made the rule about permits just to stop the protesters.
Fakjbf This is what's known as a "time, place, and manner" (aka TPM) restriction on speech. Basically, depending on the kind of place you're planning on using, the government is allowed to restrict your speech somewhat for practical reasons. For example, if you want to throw a lgbt pride parade on public streets in your city, your city can require to to get a permit in advance so they can reroute traffic. However, in that scenario, the city can't try to change the /message/ of your speech. They can't say "You may not have a lgbt pride parade, but we WILL let you have a support-our-troops parade." The restriction has to be for some practical reason, like not blocking up city traffic or something.
This "TPM" doctrine is pretty complicated, and to make matters even more confusing, the courts recognize different levels of how "public" a public forum is. The Wisconsin capitol building would be considered a "limited public forum," which means the government can impose /some/ restrictions (such as the permit thing you mentioned).
*comments for this video are disabled*
No court case showing how a speech can be limited due to a compelling state interest? for example United States vs O'Brien
Wow, the "fighting words" thing seems really dangerous, because it's a way to avoid responsibility for your own actions, by claiming that these "fighting words" somehow hypnotized you to act violently, without your control. I wonder how easy it would be to extend this to other situations, for example a guy rapes a woman, then claims she said some "raping words" to him (ie the old "she seduced me, I had no choice", but now with constitutional backup)
pete275 No no, the "fighting words" doctrine doesn't let people off the hook for committing crimes after hearing speech. They're still legally responsible for their actions. They can't claim they were "hypnotized" by someone else's fighting words (well, they can try to claim that, I guess...). The fighting words doctrine just lets the government ALSO punish the person who made the speech that prompted others to commit their crimes. It's not a criminal defense. And it's also never been applied to something like "raping words," don't worry.
Does it mean that someone writing a newspaper for a school cannot be fired when he/she expresses his/her political view on things?
what about Edward Snowden? he was working for government branch. i hope someone reply to me
Freedom of speech only protects verbal. Snowdens situation is very complex and different
Next episode addresses it, freedom of press.
you can't go in and reveal classified info.
Snowden isn't under fire for saying the government is spying on us.. he's under fire for detailing the systems and networks of US intelligence agencies
Snowden was tried on espionage and treason.
The "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" sign was at my high school lol
Every time someone tries to invoke Freedom of Speech against a private entity on the internet, Thomas Jefferson rolls in his grave.
Naudious so corporations have more power than governments?
PsychicChris That was a rethoricalquestion, right? Of course they do. Bribing politicians is legal in the USA. Hell, even in Europe of all places!
1234kalmar Yes, but it is still government action that they bribe for. Google can't involuntarily tax you, or raid your house, or force you to buy a product. The government does have all that power, and in having that power, it is bribed out to corporations.
By pretending that you can somehow insulate from corruption the one entity in the United States that can make people do something against their will, with no consequences, you are only compounding the problem with ignorance.
You can't grow the federal government to have limitless power to accomplish what you percieve as a good, without seeing that immense infrastructure abused.
Naudious I didn't say governments should be all powerful, in my country, it is, and it has devastating consequences. I just say that there should be a healthy balance, from which America is very far away from.
1234kalmar It isnt a balancing act, the more powerful the government is, the more power is available to Special Interests. If corporarions didn't have Legislation and Programs to abuse, they could only associate with you voluntarily
I am not sure my country has 'Free speech' but I do know there is a 'Freedom of expression' which is somewhat the same, but does not have the same level of protection. But I am curious as to whether a person in America under the protection first amendment, basically has the right to discriminate?
+Surithi Yogalingam Depends who you are discriminating against, and what state you're in. If you want your business to discriminate against people who don't wear shoes, you can. If you want to discriminate against blacks, you can't, if you want to discriminate against gays, depends which state you're in.
Freedom of speech: this video is closed for comments
I wish you'd actually used the quote from Holmes's decision in Schenck, which is very frequently misunderstood:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
Note: FALSELY shouting fire. That is almost always elided when people talk about limitations on free speech, but that adverb is operative.
Here are some fighting words for ya: I hope you have nightmares about eagles. Boo!
What about the channel where the criticism is being made regulating/banning/filtering it? For example: 1) The owner of a private property banning or regulating the usage of his property for political/symbolical speeches? 2) The admins of a gaming website redacting all political or religious comments from its public forum? 3) A news channel with bias reporting on political issues?
Since these are private entities, does it mean that they are not governed by the 1st amendment right?
luvdocumentary Correct.
Free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.
Rockerchavnerdemo it can though. An institution that does not randomly apply "consequences" to its members for ideological wrongthink has more "free speech" than one who does. Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. which take money from the Democrats do not support free speech and this is how we can tell you commies want to turn us into western Europe.
If you are not free from systematic consequences then you are not free at all.
obviously, and thats the beauty of it
I concur
Rockerchavnerdemo well from the government, otherwise you could easily say you have freedom of speech but get locked up as a consequence.
You CrashCourse guys mention US versus Schenck. He was clearly disrupting the draft using free speech, but until then no law had been written to say, " you can't do that." So what happened to Schenck? More importantly, what happens to people that the supreme court has to rule against in special cases like this? I understand they broke a law, but they were the first to discover that the law could be broken that way.
Heath Crothers I looked it up, and I guess Charles Schenck ended up spending 6 months in prison after the Supreme Court ruled against him (I'm not sure if they counted time already served). But more generally -- if the Supreme Court rules against you, you lose, just like you would with any lower court! So if it's a criminal trial, you face criminal penalties. If it's a civil lawsuit, you lose your chance at whatever money or right or whatever you were trying to get by winning the lawsuit. It doesn't matter that the Supreme Court is using your case to make a new rule in a previously uncharted area of law. As far as you're concerned, you lose! :/
Other than the eagle-punching getting really old, the series has been very informative.
The case about burning their draft cards is not Schenck v. U.S. It's U.S. v. O'Brien. The Schenck case refers to Schenck distributing leaflets to men that urged them to purposely avoid the draft.
Stop animal cruelty 2k16. He beats the eagle almost every episode.... LOL
Freedom of speech is not freedom of hate.
Freedom of speech is not a right but a concept.
as an arab of course i dont like your gov , cause they love war , and god how many civilians died in iraq and palestine and i mean just look at the middle east now , isis .... god .... but i have to say something , i Love this video and love your laws .. yes of course there is some corruption like in any other gov , your cops are bad , say bad word they put a gun on use ... its easy to get killed , but just laws like these . body cams . its really something big that i wish i had in my own country .... Good job Americans , keep fighting for ur freedom and rights , good job .
What do you know about domestic law enforcement as someone living in a far off country. What do you know about the methodolgy and application of Anglospherian military action (as those troops "killing those people" also include British, Canadian, Australian and more) loving in the very region that can't keep it's shit together?
The gall of you people is astounding. The verberations of your dark age, war ridden area affect people the world over, and then you have the gall to claim that responsive action (from the entire world mind you, it isn't just Americans) isn't justified? Simply absurd. I've never seen that kind of conciet so proudly displayed.
Beasty wo wo wo, we Aussies have an incredible track record of NOT killing non-combatants. Cannot speak for the other nations in the Coalition but our army is built around the infantryman and we generally speaking, have highly trained soldiers who follow a strict ROE and place a high importance on civilian protection. This has been the case for decades, not saying we havnt had kills on civvies but we deffs have a lower ratio than a lot of other nations (might have something to do with not using drones and airstrikes as liberally as some military's) so please, dont cite us as a military does have a track record of civilian casualties.
And what would he know about your law enforcement? Well he would know what he see's in the media wouldn't he and you have to be frank, US Police have been in the spotlight A LOT for gunning down people who appeared to not be a threat to the Officer doing the shooting which gives the impression that your Police have only 2 modes, polite or trigger happy, whether this is a true trend or not is not the point, it is what gets headlines and again it has been in the news a lot, even in Aus we get the news of most lethal police shootings. Our cops have been cunts too but USUALLY they are cunts using TAZER's or batons because they get into lengthy and very public investigations when ever there is a shooting.
And deny all you want, ISIS is ,in a huge way, our fault (our=Coalition Forces that went into Iraq to remove President Hussain. That includes my nation and yours) because we had no really action plan for what to do AFTER we won (Militaries are great at planning for war and action, its what comes after that they have never been good at dealing with) and we left the region in a fucking mess without any real structure of government that represented the people which left the region open to regional conflicts and a power vacuum for ISIS to explode into, as they now have done. All our Gov's share the blame for that as much as the Iraqi people.
And he is an Arab, which im assuming means citizen of the UAE. Which while being a Sharia Law guided country, is still a hugely developed and modern state and the only real war the UAE has had in recent history is their repeated efforts to attack Israel and its been awhile since they last tried. Im just saying that he doesn't fit the insults you fling at him because he lives in a state that is quite frankly, doing superbly well considering and is incredibly modern.
Basically, calm down, he is saying your GOVERNMENT is something that does seem to not always operate with logic or truth. He has actually said that he supports the very laws and freedoms you enjoy which is more than what I can say for your freedoms (ill agree its true freedom when you choose your President based on the peoples vote, thats my only heckle with the USA's Freedom boasting, that and that its a thing you guys do boast about and its gets old and annoying is all) but still, he isn't insulting your country, simply the people who represent it and run it on your behalf. Though this said, Obama is the first president ive liked since ive been sucking down air (Well liked in a professional manner, Bush i liked cos he just seemed to get into shit.).
So again, calm down, the guy is not insulting yo, he actually complemented your nation
***** I agree with you bro. Also, UAE and also Dubai's Police department must wear body cameras since last year and also google glass and i hope this law move to another middle eastern countries and the rest of the world soon.
Allah snackbar
+Lol Problem? | did you just use the first amendment ?, noice.
Is hate speech consider, fighting words? because it makes people fight each other.
"We're talking about free speech, shut up."
XD
Phrase of the week: Shut up, we're trying to talk about free speech.
5:15
thanks for pointing out the big hole in free speech. employer retaliation.
so what you're saying is that I could say anything I want but I shouldn't say anything to anyone
Lefty: Real socialism hasn’t been tried
Me: Dem’s fighting words!
*Fighting ensues*
Me: [Gets arrested anyway]
OMG if I could only hear this today
Neo Nazis and the KKK should have as many rights to have political rallies as any other party or also protest fornthat matter
What would be the law against someone (or group of people) standing up in the movie theater, and start reading a children's book? I've seen people try to claim this is their freedom of Speech, but what is the law that prevents this?
Would this be disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, or what? This should still fall under a business's right to refuse service, but people claim they paid for a ticket to be there, even though other people paid for tickets to see the movie, not hear a reading of a children's book.
By expansion, what about people who are allowed to ask a question at an event? Say.... a Star Trek Convention, and an audience member is given a mic and is allowed to ask the cast a question, then refuses to part with the mic, because they have like 50 questions, and feel they are bonding with the cast?
What about the use of air-horns, or loud speakers with music, to drown out a speaker at an opening to a new coffee shop? It's not paid to attend, it's outdoors, and some people just don't like coffee.
Blocking a roadway with signs, or people?
None of these would be a call to violence, or harm. What law would they be breaking, or how does this fall/not fall under Freedom of Speech?