reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I find it insulting that someone like JD Vance would come to Europe and lecture us on our laws. He should run for office here if he wants to change things. It's outrageous, especially at a security conference focused on the real threat to Europe: Russia. To say the threat comes from within, from attacks on free speech, is completely wrong. We're a country that values women's rights and enforces laws to protect them. Vance's claim about eroded liberty, like private prayer being criminalized, is false. Our laws protect women from harassment when accessing abortion services, and buffer zones are in place for that reason. Praying silently within these zones is against the law. He is wrong to come here and say such insulting things, especially given the real security threats we face.

All legislation restricts freedom for the common good. Our constitution balances rights with the common good. Legislators have a responsibility to restrict freedoms if someone's views on others' identities make their lives unsafe and cause deep discomfort.

Just a few months ago, this past October, the Scottish government started sending letters to residents within certain "safe access zones." These letters warned that even praying privately at home could be seen as breaking the law. The government encouraged people to report anyone they suspected of "thought crime." I'm concerned that free speech is declining in Britain and throughout Europe.

We support free speech, but there are limits, especially when it incites violence or discourages vaccination. It's important to define these boundaries. If we establish rules, how can we enforce them effectively, perhaps using AI? With billions of activities occurring, identifying harmful content after the fact can lead to significant consequences.

Can we discuss the implications of free speech in pubs? The proposed employment bill from Angela Rayner is concerning, as it could restrict conversations in public spaces. If discussing sensitive topics like transgender issues leads to complaints, it might result in people being silenced or even removed from pubs. This situation feels reminiscent of a dystopian reality where only approved speech is allowed. While the intention behind the bill is to prevent workplace harassment, its wording could lead to overreach, stifling open dialogue. Existing laws already address harassment; instead of adding more regulations, we should focus on teaching respect and politeness to foster a more open environment.

I am mad. You're mad too? That's okay. The best thing about America is free speech. It's not about protecting the speech you agree with; it's about protecting the speech you hate. The government, or anyone else, shouldn't control what people hear. If you disagree, that's your right. Write an act, get on stage, and share your views, just like I'm doing.

Well, there's free speech, but then there's also hate speech, and woe to those who engage in it because it's a crime. That's a lie, and it's a lie that denies the humanity of the people you're telling it about. And so any attempt to impose hate speech laws in this country, and trust me, there are a lot of people who would like them. There are a lot of people who'd like to codify their own beliefs by punishing those under The US code who disagree with their beliefs. Any attempt to do that is a denial of the humanity of American citizens and cannot be allowed under any circumstances. That's got to be the red line.

All legislation restricts freedom for the common good. Our constitution balances rights with the common good. If your views on others' identities make their lives unsafe and cause deep discomfort, it is our duty as legislators to restrict those freedoms.

I disagree with the assertion that free speech was used to conduct the Nazi genocide. The genocide was carried out by an authoritarian regime that hated Jews and minorities; there was no free speech in Nazi Germany. The point of the speech in question was that there is an erosion of free speech and intolerance for opposing points of view within Europe. This is eroding the values that bind us together in this transatlantic union. Allies and partners should be able to speak frankly to one another in open forums without being offended. Many foreign ministers may not have agreed with the speech, but they continued to engage with us on issues that unite us. This forum is meant to invite people to give speeches, not to be a chorus where everyone is saying the same thing.

Some members of parliament are pushing to nullify existing laws. This action would send a toxic message to the New South Wales community. Advocates for these changes need to explain what type of racist abuse they want people to have the right to say and be able to lawfully see on the streets of Sydney. Australia does not have the same freedom of speech laws as the United States because it aims to maintain a multicultural community where people can live in peace, free from vilification and hatred seen elsewhere.

We support free speech, but there are limits, especially when it leads to violence or discourages vaccination. It's important to define these boundaries. If rules are established, how can they be enforced effectively? With billions of online activities, relying on AI to monitor and enforce these rules is crucial, as catching harmful content after the fact can lead to irreversible damage.

All legislation restricts freedom for the common good. Our constitution balances rights with the common good. If your views on others' identities make their lives unsafe and cause deep discomfort, it is our duty as legislators to restrict those freedoms for the common good.

In democracies, free speech is like doing laundry in public. It may reveal dirty laundry, but it's important to have open debates, even if you strongly disagree. Censorship supporters should realize that without allowing disliked opinions, there is no free speech. Once censorship starts, it won't be long before it affects them too.

It is natural to hope, but we must face the truth. We must stand up for freedom of speech and our rights. Censorship and silencing are unconstitutional. The 9th amendment protects our rights during a pandemic. We must have respectful debates and honor free speech. Give me liberty or give me death. Thank you, senator.

"A human being with a soul, a free man, has a right to say what he believes, not to hurt other people, but to express his views." "that thinking that she just articulated on camera there is exactly what got us to a place where some huge and horrifying percentage of young people think it's okay to shoot people you disagree with, to kill Nazis for saying things they don't like." "Well, there's free speech which of course we all acknowledge is important so so important." "But then there's this thing called hate speech." "Hate speech, of course, is any speech that the people in power hate, but they don't define it that way." "They define it as speech that hurts people, speech that is tantamount to violence." "And we punish violence, don't we? Of course, we do."

Looking at Europe today, I'm concerned about the erosion of freedoms. In Brussels, there's talk of shutting down social media during civil unrest to combat hateful content. In another country, police have raided homes over anti-feminist comments. Sweden convicted a Christian activist for Quran burnings after his friend's murder, with a judge stating free expression doesn't allow offending any group's beliefs. Most concerning is the UK, where conscience rights are threatened. Adam Smith Connor was charged for silently praying near an abortion clinic. He was found guilty under a new law criminalizing silent prayer within 200 meters of such facilities. Recently, the Scottish government warned citizens that even private prayer at home could be illegal, urging them to report suspected thought crimes. Free speech is in retreat across Europe.

In Europe, we lack the First Amendment, limiting our ability to freely criticize the government or certain groups. Tomorrow, my friend Raisa Blomestang stands trial in the Netherlands for allegedly offending a group while criticizing the government's mass migration policies. This reflects a politically motivated judiciary that targets right-wing politicians, as seen with others like Geert Wilders. I can't attend the trial due to health reasons, but I want to raise awareness about the situation in Europe. Raisa's case highlights the risks of expressing dissenting opinions, especially regarding immigration policies. I encourage everyone to support her and remember how fortunate those in America are to have the freedom of speech that we do not enjoy in Europe.

All legislation restricts freedom for the common good. Our constitution balances rights with the common good. Legislators have a responsibility to restrict freedoms if someone's views on others' identities make their lives unsafe and cause deep discomfort.

Innovation and creativity cannot be forced, much like thoughts and beliefs. Looking at Europe, it's concerning to see actions like EU commissars threatening to shut down social media for "hateful content," police raids for "anti-feminist" comments, and the conviction of a Christian activist for Quran burnings. Even more alarming is the UK, where a man was charged for silently praying near an abortion clinic, and Scotland warned citizens that private prayer within their homes could be illegal. Free speech is retreating across Europe. Ironically, the loudest voices for censorship sometimes come from my own country. The prior administration bullied social media companies to censor "misinformation," like the lab leak theory of the coronavirus. In Washington, under Donald Trump's leadership, we will defend your right to speak freely, even if we disagree with your views.

I'm tired of feeling like a hostage in my own country. I support a man who does missionary work and speaks hope into people's lives. I'm tired of people silencing discussions on politics and religion. I'm criticized for wanting school choice, while others push for harmful things like pornography in schools or puberty blockers for kids. I believe the power these people have is illusory, and it's time for men to stand up against it. You're free to live your way, but don't impose it on me.

The Irish government's proposed Hate Speech Bill threatens free speech, potentially impacting artistic expression and campaigning on political and civil issues. Possessing certain materials could lead to criminal charges, even without intent to share them. Help oppose this law by visiting www.freespeechireland.ie/takeaction.

Free speech should exist, but there should be boundaries regarding inciting violence and causing people not to take vaccines. Rules are needed, and AI could encode those rules due to the billions of activities happening. If harmful activity is caught a day later, the harm is already done.

Speaker 0: There's free speech and then there's hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society. Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them that some action is better than no action. We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything, and that's across the aisle.

We must protect free speech, especially when it involves someone we disagree with. Censorship can backfire, as it may eventually be used against those who advocate for it.

Just a few months ago, in October, the Scottish government started sending letters to residents within designated "safe access zones." These letters cautioned that even private prayer inside their own homes could be construed as a violation of the law. The government encouraged people to report anyone suspected of engaging in such "thought crimes". I'm concerned that free speech is diminishing in Britain and throughout Europe.