UCL "Hate Speech" Debate | Alex O'Connor (Opposition)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- The motion for this debate was "This house believes it is right for a liberal democracy to criminalise hate speech". The full debate is available here: • This House Believes It...
If you like Cosmic Skeptic content, please consider supporting the channel at / cosmicskeptic
In my opinion, we should criminalise all speech as it would give me a bit of peace and quiet
😆 I can relate
Does that include written communication?
If so I'll shut up. 🙊
Someone give this guy/girl a trophy ✨
Seems like it would be very tough to enforce lol😛
"I'm arresting you for speaking! Wait a minute, now I have to arrest myself too!"🤔
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What people always seem to forget that freedom of expression is 4 ways:
Freedom to speak
Freedom not to speak
Freedom to listen
Freedom not to listen
All are important. All are necessary and all need protection
Dang!
I'd love to have that right to not listening when it comes to all the advertisement I have to endure unwillingly and unwantingly ....
I guess we can already strike that off the list already ....
And no going full hermit is not an acceptable solution.
And people always forget that it includes also the responsibility for your speech. Speech may result in legal consequences for the speaker.
Freedom to write or not, freedom to draw or not; the list goes on regarding means of expression. The right to express oneself ends when/if trying to impose your thoughts onto somebody involuntary. The example of standing on a soap box in the square spewing opinions clearly conflicts with the freedom of expression as it violates any common public order act in causing disturbance for any passer-by. Opinions alike are to be published on a forum or a venue for (likeminded) attenders where anyone can leave or opt out or disregard any petition alike whenever they feel like it; noone is in that regard in the position to get involved in an exchange eventually to shout "foul" or "unjust" when and if the conversation goes awry to their disadvantage or leaves their field of expertise or comfort zone.
@@Florence00pi in what way don't you have that freedom? it is not illegal to skip an ad, mute it, close the browser or watch content without ads.
but you don't have the right to consume the work of others for free if they don't want you to.
_“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”_
― Salman Rushdie
Bullies Agree!
@@ilovenature9077 Are you offended by that?
@@tjblues01 I am offended by the stupidity of this statement! You can express a criticism even without offending, also because offending does not lead to confrontation, but to clash, then at the closing towards the speech of one's interlocutor.
@@ilovenature9077 Do you know who Salman Rushdie is and WHY he said what he said?
@@tjblues01 No, but the statement remains stupid for me! Nobody has the right to mortify the dignity of a person. You can safely express negative judgments about a person's behavior, or his idea, but in polite tones. Otherwise, you can also shut up! ... As Mahatma Gandhi said! Or as the greatest man who lived on this planet, Siddhartha Gautama, said!
At 0:29, the man in the middle raised his hand assuming Alex was asking who's going to be the arbiter *in that debate*. That got me laughing, idk why. XD
Hahah I was looking for this comment, that moment is actually hilarious
Measured, calm and concise. Hitch would be proud.
> hitchens extolling free speech: we must protect fringe opinions, not just their right to speak, but we should boost their ability to reach people and be heard, bc robust freeze peach. hitch fans: omg such a good take.
> hitchens at a lecture when a 9-11 truther appears in the questions queue: no, i dont want to hear it, kick him out, security take this fascist crackpot away, get out you fascist crackpot! hitch fans: omg so cool.
@@zelenisok its ok. you can admire a person who commits an act of hypocrisy, be it intellectual, emotional or both simultaneously.
not to mention, there is a wide gulf between personally objecting to a specific questioners subject matter at your own debate/speech and applauding those in power to restrict it outright. if someones in my house and they happen to spew a racial epithet, maliciously, im telling them to leave. whereas if someone says it on the street, i, myself am free to leave. but never do i want it criminalised, unless of course its directed at an individual in a threatening or harassing manner. though thats a whole new and separate argument.
@@zelenisok That's not what happened. Hitchens was actually the one who said "Leave him alone" when secruity approached him. He had his turn and Hitchens chose not to waste his time (and more importantly: the time of the whole audience). The only thing you're correct about is that he said he doesnt want to hear it.
@@User-jo7jp that gulf is irrelevant to the example, bc hithchens explicitly advocated "robust free speech" saying not only that people should not be restricted by the state, but also that private institutions and individuals should hear and amplify fringe voices bc they are fringe, bc there might be a kernel of truth there, bc we should question ourselves blah blah whatever else he says. then he kicked out a guy from a quaue bc he had a fringe view. which he was right to do. and which shows freez peach is not important in such cases of reactionary and conspiracist nonsense.
@@shooterxyz1838 Nope. He stops him from asking a question and tells security to throw his out. Clip is here: ua-cam.com/video/AkU3a2eor3U/v-deo.html
I think the first point is obviously legitimate and worthy of discussion but the same questions can be asked of all government power, the judiciary and significantly I think if you are seriously worried about this then the fact that the government sets school curricula should be much more worrying - my point being this is a vital question but not really a conclusive argument against hate speech laws. Also a small point which another comment pointed out but I do think there's a mischaracterisation of how hate speech laws function here, in the suggestion that the arbiter will hear ideas that none of us will - laws will be set by this arbiter and any speech that violates these laws will then be punished. The arbiter obviously has power in setting those laws but any speech has to be public before it can be punished by the laws. At no point is information being heard by this arbiter that wouldn't be available in the public domain.
I also think these laws should be viewed more in terms of preventing speech which is dangerous than immoral. We're not designating speech as morally inferior, but rather as dangerous. Because hate speech really is dangerous and can in many ways be violent. It's very real that people can be scared to leave their homes purely based on speech and rhetoric, and their fears are legitimate - if we want to look at history (which we should) then lets examine how every major genocide or mass violence enacted against a minority group begins with speech and rhetoric, and that by the time violence starts it is often too late - I'm hesitant to use this example because people on the internet get upset but hitler doesn't get elected without the context of centuries of antisemitic speech reinforcing attitudes in Germany and then him having the freedom to spread these antisemitic ideas before and during his campaign, and even though no violent acts had been committed prior to his election, it doesn't matter because the 'free speech' did the damage.
Also if we want a society which maximises personal liberty then you need to seriously consider how hate speech does impact on people's liberty. As I mentioned before it's very real for people to change their behaviour, purely based on hate speech and functionally if people are afraid to literally just walk out in public then do we really have a liberal society? And obviously there's a balance here between limiting liberties in terms of speech while protecting liberties in other areas and if you think complete free speech is the best answer to achieve that balance then fair enough but that discussion needs to be had. (and I don't want to see anyone saying 'but it's their choice to not go out', if significant portions of our society feel so unsafe in our society that they effectively set their own limits on their personal liberties then thats a societal issue)
Excellently put. 👏🏻🏆👏🏻
Yeah, I think Alex was about to address these concerns but he only has 5 seconds left as you saw. I've thought about that as well, and here's the difference: laws are discussed, amended, and appealed. To discuss whatever the supposed offense is, even if there were a council of supreme moral decision makers, it has to be read/said. To amend anything means the council was mistaken in the first place and what else are they mistaken with if they're the only ones privy to the information? To appeal it would mean making it publicly available and that would defeat the entire purpose, no matter how beaurocratic you make it. If it's overseen by them then an appeals process is effectively useless. If it's some other beaurocratic oversight, then the information is still propagated, unless you want an infinite regression with infinite councils, and not the branches of government with ambition against ambition, checks and balances that aren't supervised by themselves and others having opposite goals. There is no way to make it transparent to the public a process of which its precise purpose is to withhold information from the people.
Free Speech didn't do the damage. It's the lack of free speech that allowed evil to take hold. Remember the "First they came..." poem.
@@arletottens6349 yeah this is definitely a valid concern I did think this. But that's also why I would frame the laws in terms of damage and danger of the speech, since this would hopefully allow for debate on the nature of the laws without being punished by said laws - but definitely still a concern you're right
@@HaIsKuL I don't think I fully understood your point because I still cant see where this council is privy to information which we are not. In the process of writing the law they can only use examples of hate speech which already exist in the public domain, because that's literally all they can base the law on unless they start inventing their own slurs or something which is obviously absurd. The only process I can see which this objection fits into is if the laws function like an application process, where I send in what I want to say for this council to approve/reject before I say it, and if they reject it then they have been privy to information which the public have not. But this just isn't how these laws work, they stop hate speech only through being a deterrent, where the threat of punishment means someone will not say their hate speech to anyone at all or they will reveal it publicly and then face punishment. Maybe I'm still missing something but with both Alex's argument and yours the only way I can see information being revealed to only these arbiters would be some kind of that application process which just is not how these things work.
Also you misunderstand the poem in your second comment - in that poem the narrator has free speech but voluntarily doesn't use it, it's a critique of silence in the face of growing oppression but not a defence of free speech at all. And the problem with the 'lack of free speech' being the problem argument is that it assumes good ideas will always beat bad ideas but this is only true if all parties agree to debate all their ideas in good faith in public - which is obviously absurd and it's really dangerously naive to believe this.
What differentiates a good democracy from a bad democracy is its ability to withstand autocratic pushes (political and societal) against itself.
Restricting those pushes is necessary for a free and open society to function.
There are always people who want to dismantle the democratic system by utilizing democratic and legal means.
If you tolerate the intolerant, then it will overtake the tolerant.
The Weimar Republic for example was a bad democracy because it allowed for too many autocratic elements in its system to overtake and eventually be overthrown.
I'd like to hear your opinion on the tolerance paradox.
That's exactly what you do with the intolerant. You tolerate them. You can argue against them. You can ridicule their ideas for people to see. You present a better argument. You can lock them up when they commit a violent crime, but you never win the argument by merely taping their mouths shut. Karl Popper was wrong on this one.
@@HaIsKuL
The problem with the free market place of ideas is that it's not the best and most rational ideas that prevail, but rather the best _fitted/adapted/adjusted_ ideas. And those can be *bad ideas* as well. This is why nazism is a problem. It can win the free market place of ideas. And that's also why some ideas need to be restricted in order to have a free society. This is what the intolerance paradox is all about. Nazis.
I would like to hear your opinion on this video:
ua-cam.com/video/uETPDNOZ5o0/v-deo.html
@@romanski5811 Alex also addressed this in a separate interview. Free Speech doesn't guarantee the best argument to win, but restricting it does guarantee that authoritarianism now has a means to do so. I've heard Vaush before and didn't really much care for him, so you'll have to find a different speaker to convey the idea just because I'm biased against him. This is what I have to say: I am willing to stand by your side to defend your right to hold a sign insulting my race, wearing a shirt with my corpse drawn on it. I'll have a field day exposing how idiotic you are for all people to see.
@@HaIsKuL
Well, living in Germany and having laws against holocaust denying, seeing how much good it does, and looking at the history of the Weimar Republic, I'm gonna stay biased against opposition to the tolerance paradox, too. No nation is immune to nazism, and letting them spread at all costs, is something I will probably always reject.
@@romanski5811 "Letting them spread at all costs" not at all. I take it as my personal moral responsibility to fight such great evil, both in severity and numbers, when it happens. That should be done by others as well and convincing others would be part of that responsibility as well. I'm not a statist in that regard. I won't delegate the government to handle that. Remember the "First they came..." poem. Anyway, to frame it as such is conceding the point that free speech is what allowed the Holocaust to happen, but I say it's the lack of free speech, opposing it, only present when it was too late, that allowed it to happen.
Bravo, sir. After watching so many of your videos; I must say, the way to present your points, your cadence, your questioning etc...reminds me so much of Hitchens. It's a pleasure to follow you.
Given that the government has already banned discussion or teaching materials that are anti-capitalist as "extreme", I can't help but agree.
Nice in theory. Not so much in practice.
So what then? A failed bridge is proof we don't need civil engineers, or that we must turn to some other group of experts? Or is it proof that the process was wrong and requires revision?
@@artistryartistry7239 I imagine the point the person is making is that often in these discussions, the focus is rarely on thing such as the government banning teaching anti-capitalist materials in school and I would also mention the police and crime sentencing bill, where causing a nuisance in a public space will become open to a 10 year prison sentence.
the british government banned materials that are anti-capitalist in schools?
@@baphometic8767
Correct. They decided it was extremist and classed it alongside material that is anti democratic, which is ironic because in practice. capitalism is anti democratic.
@@michaelrch interesting. could you link a source? i hadn't heard of this before, i'm curious to learn more about it.
We have hate speech laws in Canada. If someone speaks to encourage others to inflict violence or harassment on a group of people who are a protected class (race, religion, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation) then that is deemed hate speech and disseminating such speech can result in prosecution from the law. I think it's pretty reasonable that people should expect to be able to exist in a society free of such hateful and abusive language. It's a pretty low bar to set for a society, IMO. I don't think we are diminished by not being able to hear such expressions.
I would argue such laws are badly named in such a case. The issue in those cases isnt hate, its the call to action. Harassment is an action, as is inflicting violence. These things have been laws long before hate speech became a hot button topic in a similar way that slander and libel are laws.
Hate speech, as we are discussing it, refers to expressing hatred. Calls to inflict violence or harass arent expressions of hatred necessarily, they are as i said, calls to measurable action. For example calling black people the n word is not encouragement to harass or physically hurt black people, to claim it is is to insert motive that was not expressed, ie thoght crime. Using racial slurs is what people call hate speech, calls to violence are called incitement, whether the motive for said violence is hate or a bitter sense of duty is irrelevant to whether incitement is a crime or not.
Even the reasonable laws you bring up arent followed objectively given the bible is still allowed to be traded in canada in spite of it containing words that can only be interpreted as calls to violence.
Except restricting people’s freedoms for what _might_ happen isn’t the mark of a civilised society. It’s Nannying by The Nanny State. The biggest threats to civil liberties are hidden behind,”This is for your own good!”. If we have innocent until proven guilty then surely we have innocent until acting guilty. Speech isn’t action and until someone acts upon it, I’d rather not assume someone will. Lest I fall foul of that same assumption some day.
I'm Canadian and appalled that we have Hate Speech Laws.
And who decide which are "protected class"
Alex, in the absence of much more precise words, accept my following observation to be well intended: I am glad you are getting recognized and known by the day, I hope you will grow to be even bigger.
Pop off, dawg
@@blibdox737 quite random, and obscure thing to say
You have equated making a thing illegal and censorship. For comparison, if we make murder illegal it doesn’t stop murder. It states that we as a society abhor this action, but it puts no physical bar on murder. There is a difference between making hate speech illegal(we will punish you for saying this) and censoring hate speech (we will remove your ability to say this).
Thank you, i usually agree with Alex but try as i might i couldn't find common ground with this argument. I mean if a judge can oversee a murder case, why not a hate speech case.
There are words here in South Africa for instance that are extremely derogatory and unlike the n-word in America, is not a cultural thing to people of color. Its seen by everyone, even the person using it, as insulting and demeaning.
If someone verbally abuses a person with such a clear cut word then it makes sense for the victim to be able to take the perpetrator to court on grounds of abuse , the judge will review context, the word, and the potential ways it was intended and pass an apt judgment.
Now sure you might have an issue with fairness and a flawed system, but you can make the exact argument for example against a murder case, etc. It does not take away the fundamental principle that hate speech should be considered a crime.
Also on his comments about censorship in the church, i believe its more a criticism on censorship being justified by dogmatic principles instead of censorship itself. You can for instance make a perfectly good case for cencorship based on rationality and skepticism.
And lastly on who decides to censor, its usually the society who dictates laws and regulations in a democracy using sound arguments debate and reason
My thoughts exactly. If someone utters [whatever deemed illegal], they might end up charged and taken to court. There the details will be made public and the case can be scrutinized.
Beautifully said! Your inflection and rhethoric are so similar to Hitchens here, uncanny. I love your usual restraint and making sure your opponents feel heard and understood, but this is a nice change of tone!
Elegant as always, Alex. Thank you.
Humbleness is the only key to opening hearts and minds. This is such a trivial phenomenon to comprehend; however, the latest so-called educated platoon is just beating around the bush.
Yes. Already at the first argument. Thank you.
A comparable objection: Who will be the arbiter of which acts we're allowed to commit?
If we accept this argument when it comes to speech, it seems that we'd be left with the unfortunate conclusion that any laws prohibiting acts (i.e. the entire legal system) has the same fundamental problem and shouldn't exist.
You could perhaps argue that we _already have_ arbiters in place, but did we decide on arbiters before we decided something needed arbitration? I doubt it. Also, one could likely just point at the legal system and say "that" - that will be the arbiter. We already have an extensive system in place for creating and enforcing laws (which is by no means perfect, but most presumably agree that having it is better than not having it), so I don't really see the problem.
The "only they are allowed to see it" thing that you speak of just doesn't really happen in the modern legal system. Illegal acts are mostly punished after the fact, and reporting of hate speech and legal cases involving hate speech would not (or at least should not) also be considered hate speech (unless, of course, this can be proven to be an attempt to circumvent hate speech laws, much like reporting on illegal privacy breaches can itself be a privacy breach if reported poorly), so such legal cases would be subject to the same level of scrutiny as any other legal case).
Going back to my original comparison, the main reason I might support more strict laws against hate speech (in principle) is exactly because it's inconsistent to punish someone for acts they commit because they cause harm, yet to tolerate someone speaking words that result in the same amount of harm to others (if not more harm). If someone can prove that any law that would prevent such speech, or any attempt to restrict hate speech at all, would cause more harm than it would prevent, then fair enough, but that seems like trying to prove a negative.
The fact that many are so quick to outright dismiss the idea of even seriously discussing restricting hate speech screams the same narrow-minded commitment to a belief that I see amongst the religious, conspiracy theorists and those who completely commit to their political beliefs against all logic and reason. Do we not first need to seriously consider something before we can truly know whether it would be good or bad? Yes, there are some serious risks and downsides, but that doesn't mean there aren't also upsides. Do the upsides outweigh the downsides? I have no idea (and it also heavily, heavily depends on the implementation), but you can't have any idea either if you just focus on the downsides.
For the record, I don't think a largely theoretical non-legal debate can really give us a clear picture of the topic. One needs to look at specific laws and how those might work or not work. This is especially true given that both the US and the UK (to name 2) _already have_ laws against hate speech or ones restricting free speech, so really the question is not "should we (begin to) criminalise hate speech", but rather either (a) "should we continue criminalising hate speech", for which you can look at the history of how those laws have worked, and not the restrictive laws in some dictatorships, but the actual laws we're questioning whether we should keep, and (b) "should we restrict hate speech/free speech further", for which these arguments, and most of the arguments against such laws, would fail at the first hurdle, given that they're based on the premise that such laws don't yet exist. We'd need to actually look at specific new or old laws to answer either of those questions.
Would it also allow religion to partially be silenced? Perhaps, but if it's silencing parts of religion that's bigoted, then... what's the problem?
Also, it seems like you're kind of skipping a few steps here. It's one thing to punish someone for actively calling for the stoning of gay people and it's quite another to ban an entire book for a few small sections within it. Also, you phrased it as if one would cause the other, when in fact they would be 2 completely distinct considerations - would we also ban Harry Potter if that was the inspiration for someone's hate speech? Would we lock someone up if they said something which was not hate speech, but someone else managed to extract a part of that to use for hate speech? What you propose here seems to be quite an absurd (or perhaps just a poorly worded) interpretation of the law. Some books should perhaps be banned, as this is a form of speech and otherwise it would allow people to easily bypass hate speech laws. But where to draw that line would not be a trivial question (and neither would any hate speech laws be), and a few small sections within a book almost certainly shouldn't meet any reasonable criteria for banning.
Idk I think ot is a bit different because our normal laws are discussed openly, and we know what is banned. While what Alex is purporting is the censoring of speech and subjects, which would be decided by one person or a small group of people.
The difference being in general law everyone knows what's illegal and with speech only a person or group is aware or whats being banned. so it allows for more corruption and spits on democracy.
Plus I think there is a potential mental harms to society caused by the stresses of banned speech and worrying you might be charged with a speech violation.
My thoughts are that the nature of acts and speeches are quite different in their direct consequences.
By acting in a hateful manner you compel your victim(s) to your own personal worldview, i.e. you believe it is okay to rape someone so a person gets raped wether they like it or not. Thus we prohibit the act of rape.
With hate speech you can only compel your victims to the consequences of your words...
I'm sure you can tell the difference of magnitude hate speech has on the victims. It still can be a violence but not as definitive as acts. The nuance can be a good justification for us to adopt a different approach in the way we regulate actions and words.
Also, *this is a dialectical problem*. I believe it is safe to say that we make laws trying to improve the well being of the largest amount of people. We do so by determining what is harmful and by agreeing on it.
i.e. virtually no one argues that legalising rape is good for people's well being. So we ban it.
But to do so we MUST have a system that allows us to come to a form of agreement on the terms. And that is done by dialectics. Which relies on free speech.
If we were to hinder free speech we would hinder the very tool that we use in our epistemology as a society. It is with free speech that we managed to ban rape. With free speech that we managed to ban all of the things that were once imposed to us by the law of the strongest. If we were to give the power to someone to pick and choose what is debatable or not it obviously would be contracting the whole system.
It would be like trying to ban science from discussing one topic because we judge it detrimental to the scientific method. Or going to a philosopher and request of him to not doubt one claim because we say it would make him more effective in his arrival at truth.
@@brandtgill2601 It might be that Alex is specifically focus on government-led censorship as opposed to normal laws, but the topic is just about criminalising hate speech (criminalisation, as far as I'm concerned, is a reference to "normal laws" - it's the process by which behaviors are designated as crimes).
Either he's saying those would be one and the same when it comes to speech, which I don't agree with, or he's focusing on one particular (and obviously bad) implementation of criminalising/restricting hate speech, while disregarding the much more intuitive and much more viable option.
@@brandtgill2601 The threshold for something to be classified as criminal hate speech should be high enough that the average citizen shouldn't have any rational fear that they'd be punished for just speaking freely. Even in a moment of anger (although within limits, of course - anger isn't a valid defence for physical violence, so it shouldn't be a valid defence for hate speech).
@@blueredingreen i definitely agree that there should be some restrictions. Threats of violence becauseof someone's identity, telling someone to kill themselves because of their identity, or advocating for genocide. Stuff like that I think could and possibly should have regulation.
Like maybe a fine and community service. Or up to a year in jail.
I think everything should be criminalised. Especially leaving comments on youtube videos! 😠
A thundering refutation of the “need” to constrain speech. Possibly the best argument I’ve heard in this particular arena and possibly the best work Alex has done generally. Incredibly powerful logic delivered with deadly accuracy. Absolutely brilliant.
Well said. Free speech must be protected even the immoral kinds. No one is without bias or an absolute moral perfection deliverer.
Hitchslapped! No....eeeh...O'connorslapped?
I think that while certain speech should be reviled and frowned upon, all speech should be legal.
Isn't the labeling of something as hate speech an example of hate speech itself? It would be interesting to see how far this would go but it's probably best to stop it early.
'he "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is quite hitch-like, and I like it yes
When they made alcohol illegal in the 1920s in the US, it did not stop people from imbibing. In fact, consumption of alcohol shot up. Does anyone seriously believe that banning hate speech will stop people from practising it? Apart from it being impossible to legislate against due to its subjective nature, banning it means the views of the person voicing it can never be challenged - or ridiculed.
Channeling Hitch, a higher compliment I cannot conceive. Kudos.
1:08 literally lifted a Hitchens phrase?
Christopher Hitchen's feel is there.
I want all speech to be free, no matter what, but I also want people to know that I am saying it as well, especially on the internet. If I am bold enough to say it, I should be bold enough to face any backlash and not hide from whatever thing I say.
Alex O seems here to be adopting the debating style and even the speech rhythms of Chris Hitchens. He makes his point well enough, but of course when he says 'Who should be the person who decides what is legal?' the same point could be made about any laws. Someone as to decide.
I was waiting for you at the end to say "do you know what can be done though?" and then advertise the VPN :))
This is a complicated issue but so many people don't release it if you are an atheist thinking it is ok to criticise religion but people saying to kill people of a certain religion is bad, but then religious people will say we should not criticise religion at all
_"My song🎶 "Rocky Mountain High" was banned from many radio stations as a drug-related song.... Obviously a clear case of misinterpretation.... Mr. Chairman, what assurance have I that any national panel to review my music would make any better judgment?"_ - John Denver's Senate Statement on Rock Lyrics & Record Labeling delivered 19 September 1985, Washington, D.C.
Snowflakes: But hate speech inscites hate, we need to protect the people from hate!!!
Me: If we start criminalizing hate speech, what guarantee do we have that it will just be hate speech and not any other kind of unpleasant political incorrect speech.
hate speech should be criminalized in the cases where it can be demonstrated to have a clear and strong link in motivating or inspiring an act of violence
Yeah especially if that hate speech is something along the lines of Peyton Gendron
Step one define hate, good luck.
IMO hate speech itself shouldn't be criminalized, HOWEVER, hate crimes, where you assault a black man for example and use explicit hate speech while doing it, SHOULD cause your sentence to be harsher.
There's a very strong utilitarian argument to be made for this, because if you have someone who hates an entire demographic of people so much that they would assault them just for being part of that demographic, then that person has a much higher likelihood of recidivism than a person who threw a punch due to a heated argument or smth.
Haters are gonna hate. Prove 'em wrong don't silence 'em. Where does it end when speech is prohibited?
I think Alex may have spent a similar amount of time as me in absorbing old Christopher Hitchens debates, it is a delight to watch.
The people who should be deciding what hate speech is should obviously be the victims of hate speech. And no, I don't think such a system will be perfect, but it is better than a system that allows bigoted attitudes to fester and prosper without any meaningful resistance to them. Violence against trans people is at all time high because of the equating of them to pedophiles and rapists, that makes people feel they have to "stop the trans menace", which is fueled by the media that gives them this attention.
I don't ever hear you talk about how slander and libel laws should be illegal. How do those not infringe upon free speech? What makes them deserve to be enforced by the law, but not protections against hate speech?
Sure, but why stop there? Why don’t the victims of crime decide the guilt and sentencing of those accused of crime?
First and foremost any arbiter would need to be impartial. Victims of hate speech aren’t.
@@hibernopithecus7500 decide the laws, decide what constitutes a hate crime, not serve on the juries to decide innocence or guilt.
It’s easy for Alex to take this stance when his very existence is not under continuous attack,
: his whole perspective on this topic is clearly marked by privilege and it’s painfully obvious. When your rights are not systematically denied and taken away, it’s so easy to advocate for “freedom of speech”. For such a well eduacated man, it baffles me he won’t acknowledge his huge bias.
@@leafbladie You will never be a woman
So hate speech is important to restrict in the work place and schools. Enforcement doesn't need some perfect being, just rules written and followed upon.
Anonymity is an issue. Spewing hate without a requirement to declare yourself (and reveal yourself to others) has contributed mightily to the dysfunctional discourse. It is shocking that here in the USA you can issue death threats anonymously and not have to face consequences.
excellent points. well argued
Love that you mentioned the immoral speeches thing which should be looked down upon. My country India rn is rampant with such speeches promoting violence against minorities and hatred among the youth and its disgusting.
Nicely done Alex! You might have strong rhetoric but careful not to fall into slippery slope fallacy land.
Indeed. But in this particular instance I feel like it's fair play. When we talk about censorship, it's paramount that we first talk about who will be responsible of doing the censoring and how.
@@DavidAguileraMoncusi I don’t disagree. Being a philosophy student, Alex knew better not to conflate the practical argument of how to implement such laws with the moral worth of doing so. He did express this nuance to be fair. But then he proceeds to worry about what the government would be capable of doing next, which is essentially an anti-vax case.
Flawed premise. The 'person' (jhonestly, that seems like misleading.wording) making the decision doesn't have to be any more qualified than a judge (for example) has to be qualified to act as a judge - relevant experience is all that's required. And in a representative democracy, that office can be replaced if the people do not think the people making those decisions (about what is and is not hate speech) are right.
Regardless - that's not actually an argument against a hate speech law, it's just changing the subject.
One of my big problems here is that "hate" is becoming the property of the speech, and not of the speaker. As soon as you label anything as "hate speech" you are automatically convicting big groups of people as guilty of hate crimes, no matter whether the people of the group are real criminals or just proponents of a different ideology. And you are doing so by using the many meanings of hate simultaneously. First, you associate people and ideas to "hate", meaning the strong dislike of something or someone. Something like "old people are ugly" classifies as hate according to this definition. Then you associate "hate" with the actual wish of bad things happening to people. This is horrible, but still just a thought infraction. Then you jump to hate crimes, meaning crimes done with the specific intent to harm a group of people that has a defining property. All of a sudden, saying that old people are ugly is no longer a possibly wrong idea, but a hate crime.
The concept of hate should be defined around the people who have the wish or intention to harm others, not around the properties of words.
This isn't hypothetical anymore, Count Dankula mentioned how the court outright said your intent doesn't matter. Any perceived offense is automatically an violation.
Very much inspired by Hitchens own "in defense of free speech" speech. Cudos!
We should not criminalize the expression of ideas that include direct calls for immediate acts of violence. Why should we allow the government determine what they restrict from us?
What does society gain from legalizing calls for immediate acts of violence? What do we as a society gain from allowing people to incite violence through speech?
@@ParisuSama The fact that we don't need to appoint someone from deciding what speech is and isn't valid. Exactly the same argument Alex made in this video. What does society gain from hate speech that's any different?
I've followed this guy before he became the beast he is now. I'm just here to state that.
Dude you speak exactly like Christopher Hitchens in this debate and I love it. Is it fair to say to the late Hitchens (rest in peace) that this was a Cosmic slap?
Hitchens had a richer and deeper voice.
Marked lack of diversity on the hate speech panel.
I think that some people don't seem to realize that laws are not the only thin that can impede free speed. Speech itself is also capable of doing just that as Benjamin Smith somewhat pointed out in his remark in this thread. If we allow "hate speed",( which, at least in my opinion, would be democratically determined just as we collectively decided not say the N word anymore), to flourish, it will cause minorities to be less likely to speak or even be able to speak up. When everything they will be presented with is hate, why bother talking or arguing. How could you even argue with hate? I think you can draw parallels to the paradox of intolerance or the question, if a free and democratic society should allow its citizens to destroy said society and create a totalitarian dictatorship in its place instead. Maybe hate speed is also just one form of freedom we need to give up to ensure the freedom of everyone else. Just like giving up murder, to ensure that we or others we care about don't get murdered.
An "absolute" form of free speech does seem paradoxical to me. There will always be something, which will prohibid you from being 100% free to express yourself, whether it is a law, the culture or even just your own speech or that of others around you. Maybe this is all considered by the opposition and the only problem they see is the arbiter, but in my view or utopia, this would be just everyone and not just one single person. But those are just my thoughts.
Don't know if you read these comments, but I would love to know what you think of the Nazi ban on twatter? To clarify I have been watching you for long enough to know you rightly think Nazis are aborrant just intersted to know.
I agree!
Superb Alex. Very well done. CH would certainly be pleased to see the candle still burning.
The problem with your view lies in the nature of your idealist analysis. As an example, fascist speeches and texts are not just expressions of abstract ideas, but are a conscious effort to organize like-minded people in order to bring about a fascist system. If we agree that stopping acts of racism, fascism or homophobia etc. is good, why should we allow the production and distribution of propaganda which promote those acts?
The question is not who should be doing the censoring, but what are YOU and the people you associate with willing to do against efforts of fascist organizing.
Speech is never free, it always comes at a price. Who´s free speech is heard by the public in the end is a question of who has the capital to broadcast it. So while most of us are limited in their free speech to a social media post, others can simply buy a newspaper, which in the end can be just as effective as censoring laws in deciding what ideas can be discussed.
The answer is quite simple: education. Those who want to promote bad ideas always can find the way to do so. But limiting the free speech would cause more problems. People should by judged by their actions and NOT by their thoughts or what they say.
Great proposition. You remind me so much of Hitch.
Criminalizing "hate speech" in and of itself should not be done for the very reasons Alex brings up... "hate speech" being considered as a "factor" in actual criminal acts like murder/assault/vandalism might have a place...
Well said, Alex. I have nothing more to add. You were well informed on your subject matter.
Well made points. great work
Cant run a government/country off of not trying to hurt someone feelings, you can’t please everyone! People just need sun thicker skin
Do not confuse legality with morality
Otherwise, these are definitely good points.
We should aim for a society where people
1. Know better than following horrible texts such as Leviticus
2. Be willing to speak up against those who promote such behavior and support those like Kopernicus and Galileo who had the guts to stand up for what's worth fighting for.
No, I don't trust a government official to do this for me. Only open and honest debate between individuals can find the firm ground.
ON fire.
The resemblance is wonderful.
Good training video for how to filibuster
more over. how do we justify war?
Absolute Class
in my country it is forbidden to say that the holocaust didn't happen, i never doubted that it happened until i heard of this restriction.
So you doubt the Holocaust happened now or what
@@SevenPr1me i think it happened, but the restriction does seem weird to me.
Morality progressed in society so far that we can say that someone should not make racist comments at someone.
No one has a right to make a holocaust joke in front of a jew if they don’t consent. What is this fetishization of free speech?? There are things where we can definitely say that they shouldn’t be said to someone.
@@arletottens6349 who is going to determine what hate speech is? The groups to whom the speech is directed to.
Also, some cases are so obvious such as the n word.
@@arletottens6349 The addressed groups will have the right to decide democratically what is offensive to them if it seems necessary to make such a decision. I mean what‘s the problem with criminalizing acts of speech where someone makes racist comments at someone?
Edit: We can also examine whether or not a speech act was intended as an insult which makes the question of criminalizing such speech acts more easy
@@arletottens6349 Could you give an example?
@@arletottens6349 Yes
@@arletottens6349 yes to the exception because black people should be able to use the word because that‘s a way of owning the racism.
*^*WARNING*^* This video shows a man murdering his oppositions *^*WARNING*^*
I do like that you know your stuff.
Stanley Fish is obnoxious
This objection seems poorly conceived to me. Laws against hate speech aren't criminalizing ideas or language in a vacuum. Rather they criminalize the expression of hatred against people for immutable characteristics in existing criminal contexts.
Interesting i was not aware of this. I'm used to the US and Canada hate speech laws.
Very well said.
Elegant as Hitch
dude, that was hard
Put those fossils back to the ground Alex! Lets go man! wp
I can see Hitchen's inspiration
Based alex
"Who's going to be the arbiter of all of this?"
Old, white man confidently raises his hand and points to himself.
Bloody Brilliant 👏
Spot on as always Alex.
People who implement hate speech laws should go to prison for life, no compassion.
Why?
@@exiledfrommyself I just want to show how holy it is to me and how disgusted I am by hate speech laws. I can't believe people want some bureocrat to control their mouths and then later some dictator. Fringe views are often right. The majority is the villain too often. So its dumbest thing ever. Every nation that has them is a banana republic. Maybe you're in a situation now where your opinions are accepted and you don't see the need for free speech, but society will go mad in all sorts of directions in the future and hate speech laws are the first step into dictatorships.
I'm from Canada and we have Hate Speech laws. They are very very specific. It has to be against a targeted group. It has to be inciting or promoting hatred, or promoting genocide.
I am thankful that we have these laws.
Unfortunately, here in the UK the story is very different. These laws are only used, like most laws in Britain, to harass, arrest, fine, subjugate and imprison the poorest and most marginalized people in our society. Rich people can afford lawyers, lawyers get them off any such paltry charges, which in turn disincentivizes the police from even charging them, not so the poor and disenfranchised. It's only a matter of time until your own country goes the same way.
Whomever the gal who will date Alex is one lucky lady.
What happened to just not giving a shit what people say about you
You are incredible Alex. Great content!
Uffff. The "I don't trust the government" is a very dull argument
As an atheist neoclassical liberal, I must say, this was priceless.
The way I see it, if you don't want hate speech criminalized, fine. But don't also argue that people should be free to broadcast their hate speech without social consequence. Can't have it both ways. You may personally think the best response is to ignore hate speech, but that isn't how the real world works.
Also, we have clear evidence of what happens when hate speech is given free reign all throughout the 20th century, and we have body counts to statistically track how effective it is to let hate speech go on without consequence
4:40
Just wanted to ask, do you think it would've been okay for people 15-20 centuries before to encourage homosexual behaviour knowing the fact that there were no protection / vaccination or any other heath facilities available at that era.
Imagine if not condemned that act, the kind of disease and health issues that would've spread .
I'm very much sure that entertainment industry has a good impact on young children's mind.
Fornication is romanticized, homosexuality is romanticized and hence the number of people identifying as such is also increasing.
Athiest people underestimate the range of evil a human being can have. It's good that people have much empathy but considering the vst majority, it's not like that .
If you allow people to make there on moralities, world would be a wonderful place to live (pun intended)
Also veganism is great when you have abundant food/ import of such in your country.
I've seen people quit being vegan after 3 -4 -10 yrs of being onedue to health issues.In my country there is a kind of pesticide used in vegetable to preserve which causes cancer in long term.
A women who escaped from north korea said she had cultural shock when she saw people having food allergy.
She came from a place where obesity is romanticized because they compare having big stomach to having good food to eat.
Call that women once on your podcast .
Considering there is inequality in income distribution and poverty whole over the world, being vegan is not the solution.
You are privileged if you have a choice to whether be vegan or not.
Why are Descartes and other writers offensive???
In Egypt, we have a law about 'hating religion'.. Where anyone criticizing Islam can go to jail. and its extremely vague that it has been criticized by muslims themselves because no one knows what is acceptable to say and what can get you thrown in jail for god knows how long.
Putting laws to prevent a certain type of speech or writing is never a good idea.
.. Sorry for my English.
That is brutal. Unfortunately, the Middle East has always been a point of contention. I remember Egypts civil unrest and attempted coup as a child and I assume the government clamped down of some freedom in exchange for what they may believe as stability, or selfishly power.
I hope the specfic law gets abolished, as it seems archaic to think you can't freely speak an opinion, for any topic, whatsoever.
I just made the connection that Alex is my generation’s Christopher Hitchens
That's an over reach. He went to Oxford specifically because he wanted to follow Hitchens' footsteps, but Hitch was much more than a degree and some philosophy classes.
@@Cheesesteakfreak hitch was a god of rhetoric but he was not a philosopher. Alex is/will be superior in philosophy and criticised Hitchens for this in the past. He isn’t really following the footsteps rather taking inspiration from his rhetorical style
1:09 I saw Hitch’s soul. Love Alex
God I wish Alex would have a realist, patriotic awakening like Hitchens.
@@kingprince3975 you do know Hitchens was an atheist, right?
Don't think this reasoning works. You could make the same argument against legislation in general, yet we find it has a vital utility. You seem to assume that the definition of hate speech is also not up to legislative interpretation; that exemptions would not be made in law. You cite the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church is not a liberal democracy. If you accept that in a liberal democracy, those checks and balances are in place that you would expect to prevent the overreach of any law, then you should accept that your question at the beginning of who would arbitrate this... is given to you in the opening premise. The workings and oversight of a liberal democracy will arbitrate.
There were several points in your speech where the inflection and intonation were channeled straight from the Hitchslap textbook. Bravo.
I felt the Hitchens the strongest 6:05 onwards.
@@nakshatpandey456 pardon me but im kinda thinking hitchens wouldnt have a problem with hate speech
Would freedom of speech make verbal abuse, threatening violence, or inciting violence permissable? Or can people be retroactively held accountable if measurable harm is a direct result of the speech?
Depends on what you mean. This isn't a debate on absolute freedom of expression, simply banning hate speech so I don't think you can take this and apply it to inciting violence. For me, there has to be some sort of test for whether violence is actually likely, the Brandenburg test is one, which could be used for this determination. I think this is better than banning all things that appear to be inciting violence or having absolute freedom even if there would be some inaccuracies. I certainly don't want to live in a society where a 12 year old is arrested for saying they'll kill someone over a video game. I would say that retroactively applying punishment may be a good choice too, but one would hope that the situation be monitored before any violence actually happens
I think we can put those under the personal harrasment.
If a person is mentioned individually as "you" or "that guy" etc. it goes beyond free speach and infringe on some other rights, such as privacy.
@@ashejoshy9332 I like that distinction. Now I'm thinking about a situation where someone makes a bigoted remark about a marginalized group, and then something akin to a criminal class-action law suit is filed on behalf of the marginalized group. Maybe that would be the corresponding situation to an individual harassment case
@@rorybessell8280 I hadn't heard of the Brandenburg test. Thank you!
It comes back to the same question; who decides what constitutes verbal abuse, threatening violence, or inciting violence?
Couldn’t you make this same argument against obscenity laws?
What’s the difference between protecting society from hateful speech and protecting society from public nudity?
Who gets to decide what is too immodest to be legal?
I guess you can
Nudity doesn't actively harm marginalized groups. Hate speech by definition does. How about a future where we as a society protect marginalized groups from harm and don't legislate folks personal choices where no harm is done?
@@thesayerofing where there is sufficient harm I think is what is up for debate I think.
I agree with your points, but some will argue that public nudity does cause sufficient harm and that racist speech doesn’t cause sufficient harm.
Do an extent I see this as a tu quoque fallacy. We can have that discussion, and cross that bridge when we get there, but I don't see how that is directly relevant to the discussion around freedom of speech in particular.
A quick note though: there is no real benefit to being allowed to be naked in public. There is a very large benefit to be allowed to speak in public
I contest! There is a huge issue of vitamin D deficiency in many locations where there is limited sun exposure. Lol, but really though, these are clearly archaic chastity laws and plenty of reasons we should chuck 'em. Even just legalizing mothers feeding their children wherever they need to would be a great start.
Honestly one of the best arguments I have heard. coherent af
We are proud of you Alex, we really are.
Absolutely