reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0, a veteran, expresses their opinion about someone wearing a Palestine flag in New York City. They assert that in the US, everyone has the right to express themselves freely, but throwing the flag on the floor is disrespectful. The speaker threatens to litter on the floor with the person if they continue to disrespect the flag. They also mention that the person is not Jewish, but it doesn't matter. The speaker challenges the person to prove their claims and tells them to stop lying. The transcript ends abruptly.

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.

Somebody has to stand up to the bullshit going on in this country and in this city.

This type of violence is not okay and is becoming too common. It doesn't matter which side, party, or person it's directed at; it has to stop. We have a responsibility to be better.

I understand your pain over the election being stolen, but we must have peace and respect law and order. We can't give in to those who want to cause harm. Please go home peacefully. We appreciate you, but it's important to maintain peace.

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.

This person is calling for accountability for those who burned the flag and defaced monuments. They emphasize that while everyone has the right to protest, violence and destruction are not acceptable. They urge for those responsible to be found and face legal consequences.

The speaker addresses someone who appears to be angry, stating that it's okay to be mad. The speaker then pivots to the topic of free speech in America. They claim that the essence of free speech is protecting the speech that people hate, not the speech they like. This protection is necessary to prevent the government or individuals from censoring what others can hear. The speaker concludes by saying that disagreement is welcome and encourages the other person to express their views, even through actions like writing an act or performing on stage.

There is nothing wrong with protesting, but burning cars, looting, and throwing bricks at law enforcement officers loses the message. Kylie Perkins is making uneducated videos about compassion, probably to save brand deals. Compassion should be for those who come here the right way, law enforcement officers, and people who can't get ambulances due to blocked freeways. There is no problem with people coming to America, but they need to do it the right way. The claim that we're on stolen land is false; people need to research the difference between a settler and an immigrant. The speaker anticipates losing brand deals and followers for these statements but is not sorry.

The speaker claims they are attacked for not believing in democracy, but the most sacred right in the U.S. democracy is the First Amendment. They state that Kamala Harris wants to threaten the power of the government, and there is no First Amendment right to misinformation. The speaker believes big tech silences people, which is a threat to democracy. They want Democrats and Republicans to reject censorship and persuade one another by arguing about ideas. The speaker references yelling fire in a crowded theater as the Supreme Court test. They accuse others of wanting to kick people off Facebook for saying toddlers shouldn't get masks.

"there is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that ever, and there never will be." "Because if they can tell you what to say, they're telling you what to think, there is nothing they can't do to you because they don't consider you human." "Hate speech, of course, is any speech that the people in power hate, but they don't define it that way." "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." "Because, again, when they can do that, what can't they do?"

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.

"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."

Canada is committed to defending freedom of expression, conscience, and peaceful protest. We also stand against violence and hatred. It's crucial to remember that the actions of a few individuals do not reflect the entire community or Canada as a whole.

I disagree with the protest. It is completely wrong to burn a country's flag, absolutely unacceptable.

My coworker was all in a tizzy because she gonna tell me that Charlie Kirk got shot, and I said, good. So we get into this whole conversation about it, and she goes, well, you can't hate people for their political views. And I'm like, yes. I can. Like, that's specifically why I hate people sometimes. You can't hate me for my views because my views don't infringe upon your rights. You don't hate me for what I believe in because it doesn't interfere with your life. Some of these views are dangerous, and I'm glad he got shot. Hopefully, he dies. I don't care.

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.

I just got kicked out of Target for wearing a hat, and I was told to go back to my country. This made me question where freedom of speech and the right to wear what I want are. People can dye their hair or get tattoos without issue, but my hat seems to provoke a reaction. Everyone should want their country to thrive, regardless of political views. If people are so concerned about freedom, why aren't they practicing it? It feels contradictory to advocate for freedom while restricting it based on differing opinions. Can anyone explain this?

The speaker discusses the right to protest and counter protest in a free country. They believe that as long as it remains peaceful, a counter protest should be allowed to take place in order to engage in conversation with those they disagree with. However, the other speaker argues that counter protesting is an infringement on their rights as parents trying to protect children. They question whether the other person would be okay with counter protests at pride festivals, as they disagree with that lifestyle. They suggest that opening this discussion could lead to a contentious situation.

Entering a discussion about Israel often leads to accusations of racism or anti-Semitism if there's any disagreement. Free speech is a fundamental right, and no one should dictate what you can say or think. When questioning U.S. support for Israel, critics are quickly labeled as bigots, regardless of their background. This tactic is used to shut down debate and deflect criticism. Every American has the right to express their views openly, and that should be respected as part of the nation's values.

There is a small fringe element in this country that is angry and doesn't believe in science. They are lashing out with racist and misogynistic attacks. These voices, special interest groups, and anti-vaxxer mobs are not protesters.

Get your hands off of them! I just want to know what's happening. These people are not following the law. This is so wrong. She has the right to speak. I want to hear what he has to say. Let's listen to his perspective.

Speaker 0: The speech opens with a critique of denouncing and a reference to the red guard/ c ultural revolution, questioning why nobody denounces others the way that era was denounced. The speaker recalls that the entire point of Charlie Kirk’s public life was to have actual debate, and asserts that Charlie “died for it.” The last several months of Charlie’s life were devoted, in part, to arguing about this event and this speech, which he asked the speaker to deliver earlier this year, this summer. The speaker notes that Charlie faced immense pressure from people who fund Turning Point who wanted him to remove the speaker from the roster. This has all become public, and the speaker describes the situation as sad, stating that Charlie stood firm in his often stated and deeply held belief that people should be able to debate. The speaker emphasizes that if someone has something valid to say and is telling the truth, they ought to be able to explain it calmly and in detail to people who don’t agree with them, and that they shouldn’t immediately resort to “shut up racist.” The speaker adds that “shut up racist” is the number one reason they voted for Donald Trump. They declare that if they were a racist or a bigot, they would simply say so, noting that it’s America and one is allowed to be whatever kind of person they want. They insist they are not a racist and have always opposed-bigoted views, but criticize the style of debate that prevents the other side from talking or being heard by immediately going to motive, asking why the question is asked, and stating they detect “a certain evil in your soul” in the question. They say that listening to such a question implicates the listeners too, and that someday they may be asked to denounce that person; they assert that friendship is not a reason to defend someone and that love is no defense. The speaker reflects that they thought that phase had ended and that they are not going to engage in those rules. They affirm that if someone doesn’t like what they think, that’s fine as long as they get to express it. That remains their view.

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.

We need to stand up against oppression. If people want to harm us for expressing ourselves, we should respond in kind when they try to suppress us. I'm just tired of this situation.