TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

- "The red line, if we don't have a red line with the Supreme Court, we have lost a major part of our balance of power." - "it isn't only Latinos. It's any black people." - "It is racially profiling, but it is coming for everyone." - "there is by some estimates 11% of military that are white supremacists or other white extremists in the military." - "as we've seen in other countries that have faced this kind of authoritarianism, it is when the military says we won't do it anymore." - "We have seen blockades in city streets for no reason deciding who to pull over, and it is people who are Asian or Pacific Islander or Native American or black."

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

I'm willing to collaborate with anyone serious about censoring Americans and pushing a progressive agenda, but the problem is they're just not serious enough. Try to violate our First Amendment rights, and we'll respond by exercising our Second Amendment rights.

Right. It's not illegal to say Charlie deserved to die and you're glad he did. They have a right to say that, but we have a right to fire you. You can't walk into the office and say you're into homicide. You can't work at CNN and tweet, I'm comfortable with cold blooded murder. Speech is free, but you're not free from the consequences. If you're glad Charlie's dead and thought he had it coming, I'm supposed to sit next to you in the break room, you're going to teach my kid at school or serve in government, and I'm supposed to just say, free speech. You're advertising that you're a maniac and that you have no decency, compassion, or humanity. That you're indifferent to death. That makes you a threat. What do we do with beasts? We leave them out in the wild. We're not saying these people should be put in prison. We're saying they're not walking into my office. I don't want to be anywhere near them.

A 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. Why do they believe that? Yeah. Probably. But what it really is Is twelve and then sixteen years of indoctrination in our schools at the hands of people who tell them that who say exactly what the attorney general just said 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. Any attempt to impose hate speech laws in this country, and trust me, there are a lot of people who would like them. That's got to be the red line.

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.

First, they came for Alex Jones, and you did not speak out because you were not right wing. Then they came for the Tate brothers. You did not speak out because you were not a Tate brother. Then they came for Donald Trump. You did not speak out because you were not a politician. Then they came for Russell Brand. You did not speak out because you are not a celebrity. But next, they are going to come for you, and there will be nobody left to speak out.

Counselor Lisa Robinson argues that Bill C8 and Bill C9 are not protective measures but power grabs in disguise, aimed at expanding government control at the expense of Canadians’ freedoms. She claims Bill C8, titled the Cybersecurity Act, would allow the government to seize control of telecom networks, issue secret orders, and cut off access without notifying individuals. Under C8, the government could tell internet providers what to block, remove, or silence, justified by cybersecurity and national security, effectively giving the government power to “pull the plug on your voice.” Regarding Bill C9, she describes it as the hate propaganda and hate crime bill, asserting it would let the government decide what symbols are hateful and what speech is intimidating, with prosecutors able to pursue cases for “the wrong things.” She emphasizes that C9 removes the attorney general’s oversight, meaning prosecutors could pursue hate speech actions without a second opinion or accountability. She frames this as ideology with a badge and warns it would target speech rather than stop hate, undermining free expression. She stresses that combined, C8 and C9 erode digital independence and freedom of speech, enabling the government to determine what you may say and how you say it, and to shut you down if you dissent. She warns that such power could be abused over time and that history shows powers granted in this way tend to be used against ordinary people. She opposes the idea that protecting democracy requires censoring speech, arguing instead that democracy is defended by defending the right to offend, to question, and to challenge power. Her call to action is direct: contact MPs, flood inboxes, call offices, and tell them to vote no on C8 and C9. She warns that passing these bills would not only reduce privacy but strip the freedom to discuss them, turning Canada toward a “digital dictatorship run by bureaucrats and hate speech committees.” She concludes by urging Canadians to wake up, defend freedom now, and reject C8 and C9, presenting herself as the People’s Counselor who will “never whisper the truth to protect a lie.” She ends with a plea to follow, subscribe, and share the message, and a final exhortation to stand strong and say no to the bills.

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.

I want to address the climate of fear in America, where people are afraid to speak out due to potential repercussions from the government. This fear extends to businesses, federal workers, and ordinary citizens, and it's a tactic used by dictators to consolidate power. Freedom from fear means living without the threat of government reprisal for expressing our views or associating with whom we choose. To combat this, we must be courageous and speak out, despite potential consequences. I face attacks and intimidation for speaking out, but my response is defiance. We cannot succumb to this fear. As Americans, we must be brave at home as our troops are on the battlefield.

Donald Trump and the mag of Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic. Are they a threat to democracy? Yes. Are they going to take our rights away? Yes. Are they going to put people's lives in danger? Yes. Are they going to endanger the planet by not dealing with climate change? Yes. People need to start taking to the streets. This is a dictator. They're still gonna have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump, and that's a fact. We have to preserve our democracy or speak out against lies and hate. There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there is unrest in our lives. Donald Trump is an existential threat to our democracy and and our most fundamental freedoms. Enough is enough.

"These universities are complicit in allowing conservatives to be harassed on campus. And what happens when you allow a university to harass conservatives and don't expel or don't take an action is what happened last week." "There is free speech, and then there is 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."

When will you resist? How far will things go before you say no? Liberty means drawing a line and standing your ground, even if no one else does.

That is why we exist, not to knuckle under, not to do what we're told, but to stand up and to say, listen, if you want to pull these licenses, then we're going to go to court and we'll be in the court of public opinion. But you don't get to go on a podcast and set policy for American media, for an American media institution that's been around a lot longer than me, you or Donald Trump. This a red line that has been crossed for our industry, for the First Amendment, for the right of people to speak. There was nothing hateful about And what was even hateful speech is protected. This is this is not acceptable.

"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."

"Please keep doctor Martin Luther King Junior's name out of your mouths." "How about we'll quote whoever we wanna quote? How about that's my first amendment right? We will quote who we please to quote, and we will continue to speak freely because, yeah, I'm a veteran." "That's the country that I serve. That's a constitution I sworn allegiance to, and that oath has no expiration date." "When I started off in radio, we would get complaints, complaints about words or phrases or crossing the line, ideas, we would offend people." "If somebody complained about something you said, they were always from the religious right that wrote a letter to your program director saying, you need to be canceled." "Now, that sounds quaint and comical now."

The courts will take care of things, and "we're gonna elect ourselves" in November. References are made to "Tuna in a can" and "Tampon Tim." Kamala Harris is repeatedly referred to as "Comrade Kamala Harris." "They are stupid." There is no guarantee to free speech, and one should not shy away from progressive values. There are "so many hands of truth." References are made to "being a bitch." "One person's socialism is another person's neighborliness." "How dare we speak merry Christmas? Some merry Christmas, everybody."

"Charlie Kirk was assassinated two weeks ago today in an event that clearly is gonna change American history, changed a lot of people inside." "free speech is a virtue. It is, in fact, the foundation of this country, not only its laws, but its culture, and that we should protect it." "Section two thirty is a section two thirty within the 1996 Communications Decency Act, and it is the piece of legislation often credited for creating the Internet." "The distinction allows the platforms to let other people post whatever they want without getting sued for it." "Section two thirty needs to be repealed. If you're mad at social media companies that radicalize our nation, you should be mad." "More than 12,000 people arrested every single year for criticizing their government in The UK."

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.

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.