In my opinion, we should criminalise all speech as it would give me a bit of peace and quiet

@kathleendubois7128

2 жыл бұрын

😆 I can relate

@loki6626

2 жыл бұрын

Does that include written communication? If so I'll shut up. 🙊

@starskrllzofficial4273

2 жыл бұрын

Someone give this guy/girl a trophy ✨

@pseudonayme7717

2 жыл бұрын

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!"🤔

@Jspore-ip5rk

2 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

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

@vignesh1065

2 жыл бұрын

Dang!

@Florence00pi

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@jukkahuuskonen

2 жыл бұрын

And people always forget that it includes also the responsibility for your speech. Speech may result in legal consequences for the speaker.

@patriklindholm7576

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@-morrow

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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.

I just made the connection that Alex is my generation’s Christopher Hitchens

@Cheesesteakfreak

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@nitroh7745

2 жыл бұрын

@@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

@bigol7169

2 жыл бұрын

1:09 I saw Hitch’s soul. Love Alex

@kingprince3975

2 жыл бұрын

God I wish Alex would have a realist, patriotic awakening like Hitchens.

@jpe1

2 жыл бұрын

@@kingprince3975 you do know Hitchens was an atheist, right?

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.

Wow! Beautifully presented argument. Thanks. Definitely want to listen to the whole debate.

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?

@rorybessell8280

2 жыл бұрын

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

@ashejoshy9332

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@MichaelTaylorYT

2 жыл бұрын

@@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

@MichaelTaylorYT

2 жыл бұрын

@@rorybessell8280 I hadn't heard of the Brandenburg test. Thank you!

@hibernopithecus7500

2 жыл бұрын

It comes back to the same question; who decides what constitutes verbal abuse, threatening violence, or inciting violence?

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!

There were several points in your speech where the inflection and intonation were channeled straight from the Hitchslap textbook. Bravo.

@nakshatpandey456

2 жыл бұрын

I felt the Hitchens the strongest 6:05 onwards.

@gerritkruger4014

2 жыл бұрын

@@nakshatpandey456 pardon me but im kinda thinking hitchens wouldnt have a problem with hate speech

The only thing missing was the mic drop at the end. Well said.

Damn it, well done, man! So well done that I'm now going to watch the whole thing, because I want to know how it went. Please don't let the other side be lame... they're arguments are lame, aren't they? Damn it. I'm watching it, anyway. Thanks, for the video!

Measured, calm and concise. Hitch would be proud.

@zelenisok

2 жыл бұрын

> 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.

@User-jo7jp

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@shooterxyz1838

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@zelenisok

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@zelenisok

2 жыл бұрын

@@shooterxyz1838 Nope. He stops him from asking a question and tells security to throw his out. Clip is here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/c5-JlcNrldLYY7g.html

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.

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)

@Steve-hu9gw

2 жыл бұрын

Excellently put. 👏🏻🏆👏🏻

@HaIsKuL

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@HaIsKuL

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@benjaminsmith7307

2 жыл бұрын

@@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

@benjaminsmith7307

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

Honestly one of the best arguments I have heard. coherent af

_“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”_ ― Salman Rushdie

@ilovenature9077

2 жыл бұрын

Bullies Agree!

@tjblues01

2 жыл бұрын

@@ilovenature9077 Are you offended by that?

@ilovenature9077

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@tjblues01

2 жыл бұрын

@@ilovenature9077 Do you know who Salman Rushdie is and WHY he said what he said?

@ilovenature9077

2 жыл бұрын

@@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!

Cosmic ur sucha damn beast bro! Cogent, clear, and unapologetically skeptical standing both on solid reasons and good reasoning supporting them. Keep on going on brotha!

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.

@artistryartistry7239

2 жыл бұрын

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?

@lozzybozzy234

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@baphometic8767

2 жыл бұрын

the british government banned materials that are anti-capitalist in schools?

@michaelrch

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@baphometic8767

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaelrch interesting. could you link a source? i hadn't heard of this before, i'm curious to learn more about it.

Elegant as always, Alex. Thank you.

Yes. Already at the first argument. Thank you.

Bloody well said! Was their counter argument convincing?

I was waiting for you at the end to say "do you know what can be done though?" and then advertise the VPN :))

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

@InfinityProTeam

Жыл бұрын

Hahah I was looking for this comment, that moment is actually hilarious

Totally feeling Christopher Hitchens-esque vibes here. Great stuff!

Great points as always!

A very good point very well argued. I think this is your best work.

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.

@HaIsKuL

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@romanski5811

2 жыл бұрын

@@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: kzread.info/dash/bejne/p3mIsqaHf72bn5M.html

@HaIsKuL

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@romanski5811

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@HaIsKuL

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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.

We are proud of you Alex, we really are.

@marishasveganworld2240

2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely

excellent points. well argued

Amazing as always.

Well made points. great work

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?

@jefgir

2 жыл бұрын

I guess you can

@thesayerofing

2 жыл бұрын

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?

@xenoblad

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@alexrandall8557

2 жыл бұрын

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

@thesayerofing

2 жыл бұрын

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.

Of course you're allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre, when there's a fire! Who gets to determine whether there's a fire or not? It's for everyone to see with their own eyes!

Channeling Hitch, a higher compliment I cannot conceive. Kudos.

As an example, criticising Israel is seen as antisemetic hate speech in uk, so presumably, all sorts of political opinions could be deemed hate speech.

@SevenPr1me

2 жыл бұрын

This. Even in America you can find it a taboo topic to try and say anything about Israel that isn't blind worship of the place.

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).

@gerritkruger4014

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@gerritkruger4014

2 жыл бұрын

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

@hybridwafer

2 жыл бұрын

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.

Even stuck the landing with 5 seconds left. Incredible clip.

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.

1:09 Hitch? ……… is that you?

Alex, you are awesome. I have loads of respect for you, you are articulate and free to say many things that I feel that I dare not say yet

I agree!

Well said, Alex. I have nothing more to add. You were well informed on your subject matter.

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.

@blibdox737

2 жыл бұрын

Pop off, dawg

@mohammedphilonous6856

2 жыл бұрын

@@blibdox737 quite random, and obscure thing to say

Well said. Free speech must be protected even the immoral kinds. No one is without bias or an absolute moral perfection deliverer.

Fantastic, Sir.

Wow I’m saving this one in my favorites. everyone should be able to defend free speech like this

@Reason1717

2 жыл бұрын

Rob, I hear you. I saved this to favorites too.

I like Alex but I wasn't convinced. There's a clear difference between saying "christianity is stupid" and "we should hurt christians". The latter is clearly hate speech, the former isn't. Court procedure can easily decide that.

@mashruralam5795

2 жыл бұрын

It is not clear at all why the latter is hateful but the former is not. I am Christian and I find both statements offensive and hateful.

@felicianofrontado3134

2 жыл бұрын

@@mashruralam5795 Sure it is. The former is clearly my personal opinion. The other is a call to violence. I understand your underlying point however, I'm aware part of this falls into the realm of subjectivity but It's not that difficult to make decisions about what constitutes as hate speech and what doesn't.

@tayh.6235

2 жыл бұрын

@@felicianofrontado3134 in the US, the standard is pretty clear that in order for speech to be illegal there has to be a clear immediate call to harm. So staying "someone ought to punch him" is not illegal. If I direct one of my cronies "see that guy there? Go punch him right now." That would be illegal. So the line isn't whether it's hateful, but whether it's actually inciting or threatening direct violence in a scenario where it's possible to act on such a threat.

Great proposition. You remind me so much of Hitch.

Very well said.

Brilliantly done as ever Alex.

'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.

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.

Wow, that is an intelligent and well spoken argument. Well done.

I do like that you know your stuff.

Absolute Class

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 think everything should be criminalised. Especially leaving comments on youtube videos! 😠

Have you ever heard of the work of Hans-Hermann Hoppe? xDDDDD

"Crime can and should be objectively defined by the concept of individual self-ownership" - The Nations of Sanity project.

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.

Beautifully said Alex. Is it just me or does the lady in the rightmost column of the second row, look like Claire Underwood?

Thank you, Alex!

As a christian it’s fun to see Alex arguing something I agree with, lol.

@mitesh8utube

2 жыл бұрын

What do you mean?

@TheQuestionIsInTheAnswer

2 жыл бұрын

@@mitesh8utube I think he means because he is a Christian he agrees with hate speech 🏃🏃🏃🕳️ 😂😂😂😂

@AlexDBrot

2 жыл бұрын

@Shaz man786 touché, haha

Then according to Alex, who decides ANYTHING on our behalf? Who should we trust? Who is worthy enough to do ANYTHING? How should we trust parents to raise their children properly? Who among us is good enough or flawless or trustworthy enough to decide how are taxes should be allocated? How can we trust mankind to defend our borders and keep us safe, who is good enough among us to do any of this?

@artistryartistry7239

2 жыл бұрын

@@arletottens6349 And so it is that we would have a public debate about these matters as well. I do not recall where it was said that A) society has no input on such matters B) those making decisions are accountable to no one C) that all decisions are final D) opposers are not allowed to speak. You face this exact same scenario any time society raises the notion: we really ought to do something about thing X. Who else but people are we to trust? Alex makes it sound as though because people are fallible that they aren't suited to do anything or to be trusted to carry out anything, when the reality is that entrusted groups of people are the ONLY things that make our daily lives possible as we know them. Trust HAS benefited us. Trust HAS made our lives better. The very same objections Alex raises here could've been applied to any number of dilemmas for which trust in others has been the only possible solution.

@arletottens6349

2 жыл бұрын

@@artistryartistry7239 Very few things depends on unverifiable trust in people to do the right thing while they benefit from doing the wrong thing. In addition, hate speech has very vague and flexible criteria. And yes, when the government decides that your speech qualifies as hate speech, you no longer are allowed to speak about those things. When a censor removes something you write, nobody will come to your defense, as they are unable to see what was just censored.

@artistryartistry7239

2 жыл бұрын

@@arletottens6349 So you're adding a lot of qualifiers and assumptions here, i.e., there's no review process, there are no checks and balances on power, the process would move forward even if the majority felt it was flawed and in need of revision, that it's not possible to do more good than harm, that trust would unverifiable, and that those affected would have no recourse to air their grievances. There are simply too many assertions and assumptions here. But to stay close on topic, the heart of the issue is really, can any group of people be trusted to do something important on behalf of others? The answer is indisputably "yes." Alex is cherrypicking the worst example of people abusing their power and making a summary judgement that we cannot place trust or power in the hands of people, and that is objectively untrue. We already do it across countless disciplines, and it literally keeps society running. What the unique dimensions of this issue that make it different from any other trust-model?

Well argued Alex

Superb Alex. Very well done. CH would certainly be pleased to see the candle still burning.

Well done!

I should preface this by saying that I think hate-speech laws are not great. That being said, the first argument of "who is perfect enough to determine hate speech?" seems like a non-question as an American. Not sure how the British justice system works, but in America we have juries and our laws have a lot of vague words like "reasonable" or "unjust" that are meant to be interpreted on a case by case basis by the jury. The thought is that one person may not be able to disentangle the complexities of a case but a community can, which I would agree with: if the vast majority of people think it's hate speech, then it probably is. Not to say the mob is always right, but in a society if everyone else follows a principle then you have two options: convince people otherwise (that hate speech is okay) or to go with the flow.

@freshairkaboom8171

2 жыл бұрын

I can practically see the obvious mob mentality problems and oppression of minorities bound in this argument.

The resemblance is wonderful.

I think in theory we might be able to distinguish hate speech between expressing an opinion/philosophy/religion and an expression of hatred that’s just simply a statement of hatred against someone. In other words you could only express hatred if it’s necessary in order to express what you think about something. For example, the person quoting Bible verses would be expressing an opinion, whereas the holding homophobic signs at a funeral could be told to leave by police or else face a fine. Still I’m on the fence about if this would be a good idea in practice. We’d have to be extremely careful about the terminology and the laws not being broadened over time.

Very much inspired by Hitchens own "in defense of free speech" speech. Cudos!

Spot on as always Alex.

Has anyone here read Mary Anne Frank’s The Cult of The Constitution? Her chapter on free speech fundamentalism was pretty interesting.

5 seconds would have been plenty time for a mic drop ;)

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.

Without free speech, other candidate "rights" may not ever see the light of day or enter public discourse. Free speech is therefore a prerequisite for any discussion regarding morality - including any potential constraints on free-speech e.g. "hate-speech".

@PianoDentist

2 жыл бұрын

@G Sure, there are limits to free-speech, like inciting violence or making false claims that damage peoples reputation. But as a principle, outside of the control of professional bodies e.g. doctors and lawyers codes of conduct, free-speech needs to be valued and not diluted in it's application.

I've followed this guy before he became the beast he is now. I'm just here to state that.

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.

@brandtgill2601

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@Esspyyy

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@blueredingreen

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@blueredingreen

2 жыл бұрын

@@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).

@brandtgill2601

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

Who ought it be? Who is this moral savior that shall be ordained with the task of protecting us from hearing hurtful ideas? Like Alex suggested, it is this person that will most likely be harmed by the ideas if they are in fact harmful. It's a catch 22. The task of making everyone always say nice things simply cannot be completed. How about just try and say nice things yourself? Shutting the fuck up also works really well to make sure you don't say hurtful things. Put it on yourself to infuse the world with kindness, not others.

1:08 literally lifted a Hitchens phrase?

I think that while certain speech should be reviled and frowned upon, all speech should be legal.

Cosmic Skeptic, Alex, damn, I was so right about you. That was beautifully said! 👍🥰❣✌

Sounds like a slippery slope argument.

The issue of how difficult it would be to administer has nothing to do with whether or not it's the right thing to do. I think this entire segment is irrelevant.

Hitchslapped! No....eeeh...O'connorslapped?

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?

@MarlboroughBlenheim1

2 жыл бұрын

Hitchens had a richer and deeper voice.

I hear tinges of Hitchens in Alex's speech patterns, which is quite laudable.

Good training video for how to filibuster

Bloody Brilliant 👏

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.

ON fire.

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.

Thanks softly, night-night.. stay cool

Wow Alex is just so darn eloquent in his speech. I wish I had half of his fluency and eloquence.

I've seen this argument made a lot. That who decides what is hate and what isn't. All I can say is that MANY, if not all laws have a degree of ambiguity and flexibility. This is why we have a court system to determine if a defendant is guilty/not guilty of a crime. Alex gives the example of someone quoting the old testament reciting hateful bigotry. Let me ask, why is their right to free speech more important than my right to live safely in a secular society?

Alex, you have never failed to impress me

Christopher Hitchen's feel is there.

Although philosophically I see all speech as valid, as a consequentialist I can also see that some speech can be used oppressively. What good do we get materially from allowing hate speech? We may get a sense of justice, but What societal benefit do we get from allowing like, Nazi ideas to stick around? I feel like In some cases, to maximize freedom you have to curtail it. As for the arbiter, that’s a good question. I would assume probably some kind of democratically elected council run by the government, but honestly thats like an npc answer haha. Keep up the good work though!

@spoonibus2602

2 жыл бұрын

I liked the Old Testament bit too, Honestly do we really want people standing out in the streets preaching about violently killing gay people? To be honest, I don’t. I don’t mind people having a relationship with god, but I don’t want that relationship to impact the lives of others. Yes, it’s just speech, but what if that preacher got a big following, and he keeps telling his congregation “Those gay people really ought to be stoned. Someone really should do something about all these gay people around everywhere.” Not only does it spread hate about gay people, it can also leads to someone in the following eventually “doing something” about the gay people. Straight Christians are also in a position of power to use that kind of language oppressively, while gay people are not. I suppose I just don’t see that kind of speech as very beneficial