Hate Speech (Comment Response)

A brief counter-argument to a counter-argument.

[KeybladeMasterAndy]

I keep hearing people say "Free Speech", but I've looked it up and
...I can't find any instances of anyone named "Speech" being incarcerated.

[Jotakumon]

This is good. You actually read the comments and address them, and challenge us again to counter your argument, now that you made clear what you meant. Fantastic attitude. Keep up the great work.

[thatguyonyoutube]

The way I see it free speech is a needed absolute, without all ideas being expressed we can never learn how to analyse and properly dissect / debunk them. I mean it makes more sense to let the westboro baptist church for example show their hatred for gays and let them de-legitimise themselves in the public eye then to stop them speaking and give any onlooker the idea that "hey they could of had an actual argument here"

[wolfman]

I think freedom of speech should legally be imposed on college campuses that take money from the federal government and thus should be legally required to uphold the first amendment. If it is a 100% privately owned business they can do what they want, but if even 1%, or even less, comes from the government, they shouldn't be able to censor speech in any way.

[ZacharyShackary]

Two videos in one week from Counter Arguments? I'm in Heaven

[collinhennessy]

The government is not the only entity that can infringe upon a person's right to free speech. Private citizens and organizations can also infringe upon an individual's right to free speech through threats of violence, actual violence, blackmail, kidnapping, destruction of property, etc. I don't see any way to discuss free speech other than in it's legal context. In a moral sense, it may not be polite to say certain things, but that all depends on who you are, who you're with, who's around you, and where you are when you say those things. We can all use our freedom to assemble, a right which is also protected by the 1st Amendment, to choose who we associate with, and where we go. If you don't like what someone has to say, you have every right to voice your criticism, or not associate with that person at all, you do not have the right to be violent towards them, nor do you have the right to prevent others from hearing what they have to say. What is so hard about this?

[Mordewolt]

I don't exactly remember who said it, but the quote goes somewhat like this "it is vital, that we, as philosophers, have the ability to raise a question of whether or not it is feasible to eat children. It is our job to get to the bottom of it, and settle once and for all the answer to that question as well as the detailed breakdown to why we came up to that answer, because it's only a matter of time until someone misinformed or maliscios concocts an argument - not a good argument, but an argument good enough to convince a commoner - as to why it is absolutely necessary to eat children.

I think it was Sam Harris, but i'm not sure.

[paullamieux]

I'm fine with people saying that some speech shouldn't be allowed. Just don't pretend to support free speech if you do.

[NDUWUISI]

Being cool with the concept of free speech doesnt mean you have to accommodate anything anyone says regardless of how offensive or reductive it is. Dawkins said (or endorsed) what he wanted and the science org responded accordingly. Part of the philosophical approach to free speech also involves people's freedom to respond to speech they dont like in a manner that they choose while also not hindering someone's ability to express that view.

[apollosroman]

Corporations (google/youtube) want to have their cake and it eat it too. If they just said, "we are under no obligations to ensure your freedom of speech on our platforms, " there wouldnt be an issue. But to pay lip service to free speech, while restricting speech found disagreeable to management, causes this confusion.

[TakeoFR]

It may not be a Law, but the Article 19 of the *Universal Declaration of Human Rights* says:
- "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Article 30 says:
- "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, *group or person* any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

So even if it's not the government but any group or person, limiting the expression of somebody's expression is an infringement on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[paytonrichards]

Say whatever you want, outside of threats and things you have legally agreed not to say, in a public place, unincluding privately owned places and governmental organizations, and you should be fine, but others are allowed to react however they please in response as long as their actions are within the law.

[HaydenTheEeeeeeeeevilEukaryote]

So a man walks into a bar






and says “ouch!”

[MrTlong]

I think we should start saying things like "I support the free exchange of ideas." Because I support more than just speech being legal. I want ideas discussed and explored openly.

[Smashblood]

the way you deconstruct arguments to really break down what is actually happening should be taught in schools. This is one of the most underrated channels ever, I am learning so much from you thank you C.A.

[TakfirEnjoyer]

Considering that I'm watching this video a day after criticizing Muhammad is illegal in Europe, I'm very sad that we're losing ground both philosophically and legally on this matter. Godspeed good man.

[XxMeatShakexX]

The reason people run to the legal basis is because it's the only argument with a definite endpoint of someone being right/wrong. The actual argument it frankly stupid beyond belief and boils down to "I don't like this!" with no real logical pathway being followed. People pick and choose examples and play favorites to no end and it's clear that the argument's pointless.

[josephinefaoro]

I like your comment responses, i betcha you studied LD debate in HS or college. Your analytical analyses of ideas is so aesthetic to my brain. I do really disagree with some of your ideas, but you actually bring an argument down to the claim, the principle, examples, analogies and a thesis, all while separating claim, , thesis and principle, from stories or examples. So when you make a statement, it's based on principle, not on an example. This means that when i disagree with you, i know why, and i have more of an understanding of why people agree with you. You are very clear and direct and its so refreshing, so many people who tackle political ideas on youtube fly off the handle and base their claim on examples, or opinions from the ether. So many logical fallacies go unnoticed because of this, I will continue to support your channel, recommend it to others, and send occasional videos to my grandfather so he thinks that i'm really smart. Please continue this channel

[Fezman]

(for this argument I'm going to assume all parties are in a public space.)

I support free speech.
I dislike hate speech but I think you should be allowed to say it.
I equally have the right to tell you that I don't like it and that you shouldn't say (i.e. think) such things but I cannot stop you unless you choose to.
It's not censorship for me to tell you to stop doing something because I disagree with it.
Same goes for if it's ten or a hundred people saying that they disagree with what your saying.
Same goes for if I stop associating with you for said beliefs.
It is not opposing free speech for me to state and believe the opinion that certain things should not be said because I disagree with the intent and ideas behind that speech. But the right should exist to say them.

[alxjones]

The argument or counterargument that was given to you _is_ a good one because it points out an issue with the way you made your point. If all of your examples are bad examples, then it's hard to call your argument strong.

1) A private entity has more to worry about than the rights of people. Though they are endorsing free speech, inviting someone whose opinions fall under their idea of hate speech can be seen as an endorsement of those opinions, or at least a lack of condemning of them (which, contrary to many people's beliefs, is not the same, but can have the same effect on a private entity). In a similar way, disinviting them can have other negative effects, and the entity must weigh the pros and cons of each.

2) It's unclear who you think has the right to free speech here, the speakers or the audience member. Of course, they are both allowed to speak, but it is generally considered rude and disruptive to have screaming outbursts during someone else's assembly, and they are of course allowed to kick you out for it. Similarly, the University would have the right and the power to stop such an assembly if they believed it to be truly hateful. They, however, would probably receive more backlash for that than the entity in example 1 for many reason (which I won't cover).

3) This example really has two sides to it. The first is the action that Twitter took, which is completely reasonable. Twitter is essentially a forum, and like any forum, there are moderators who make sure that the things that go on are appropriate for said forum. Twitter wants to be a forum where it's members feel like they will be protected from things which many classify as unnecessarily aggressive, negative, or hateful. Where they draw the line isn't always consistent, and it could be argued to be in the wrong place, but it is necessary for them to do so in order to accomplish their goal as a forum. There are plenty of forums where this is allowed (4chan for example), so it's not like people don't have an outlet for it. The other side is what the woman states, which is that free speech and hate speech are two different things. I don't think there's a correct way to interpret this, because it's not a sensical statement. My personal interpretation is that free speech doesn't protect you against the consequences of hate speech, so when you are punished for hate speech but retaliate by saying that the punishment violates your right to free speech, you're making an invalid argument.