reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Free speech should exist, but boundaries are needed when speech incites violence or discourages vaccinations. The question is where the US should draw those lines and what rules should be in place. With billions of online activities, AI could potentially encode and enforce these rules. A delayed response to harmful content means the harm is already done.

Speaker 0 argues that it is difficult to hear, but it is time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it. They state that we need to control the platforms—specifically all social platforms—and to stack rank the authenticity of every person who expresses themselves online. They say we should take control over what people are saying based on that ranking. The government should check all the social media.

We must address anti-vax campaigns to save lives. I am willing to collaborate with the government on emergency legislation to combat misinformation. The discussion of censorship on morning TV in the UK is concerning, as it threatens freedom of speech and individual rights. It is important to be skeptical about products and protect our collective duty to question.

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.

I don't think it's right to always take the concerns and worries of the population seriously. What concerns and worries do they even have? I don't understand.

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.

Old Twitter was heavily influenced by the government, which violated the First Amendment. The reason for this amendment is to protect freedom of speech, as many immigrants came from places where it was restricted. If we allow censorship, it won't be long before we ourselves are censored. That's why the First Amendment exists.

I don't care if it's a small business or a large corporation; when the government threatens you, you should take it seriously. Blame the government for the issues we're facing. Those upset about free speech now are just mad they can't control the narrative anymore. For years, they've spread misinformation and now they're worried about others doing the same. It's not about the danger of misinformation; it's about losing control. They were wrong about everything and forced compliance, and now they resent others having the same freedom. It's absurd to pretend their concerns are about safety when it's really about power.

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 could be one of the last clips by the White Rabbit podcast and me, Nicola Charles, if Australia passes its legislation on online misinformation and disinformation. It's concerning that Australia is following the footsteps of China, North Korea, and Nazi Germany by restricting satire, comedy, and challenging government decisions. Speaking out against government mandates online is a form of peaceful protest, but this will no longer be allowed if the legislation passes. Online dissent and voices like mine will disappear.

Back then, you couldn't say anything about masks or vaccines without facing censorship. It was considered a public health threat. Now, two years later, we're seeing news admitting that there were mistakes due to censorship. No one was interested in the truth or studying the situation. People were more focused on imposing restrictions and control. We need freedom to debate. It's concerning that a public organization can gather and accuse someone of lying on the internet without any consequences. Is this the solution? Is this the way forward?

My concern is that you believe the First Amendment limits the government too much during critical times. How can the government protect citizens if it can't remove harmful information? It seems like you're saying the government can't address these issues. Can you clarify your stance on this?

We must address anti-vax campaigns to save lives. I am willing to collaborate with the government on emergency legislation to combat misinformation. The discussion of censorship on morning television in the UK is concerning, as it threatens freedom of speech and individual rights to be skeptical about certain products.

Justice Jackson is concerned that the First Amendment significantly hinders the government during critical times. She questions what actions the government can take, suggesting that simply posting its own speech, like "kids, this is not safe, don't do it," is insufficient. Some argue the government has a duty to protect citizens, but Justice Jackson appears to suggest this duty cannot involve encouraging or pressuring platforms to remove harmful information. She expresses worry about the First Amendment's impact in threatening circumstances, questioning whether the government can interact with the source of these problems.

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.

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.

The government crossed a bright red line when it suppressed scientific and policy discussions during COVID, treating dissenting voices as akin to those of international terrorists. This suppression is wrong; free speech, allowing debate among scientists, policymakers, and the public, is a fundamental American norm. The government's actions prevented this debate, leading to harmful lockdown policies, vaccine mandates, job losses, prolonged school closures, and economic devastation. This censorship, ironically, cost lives. Contrary to claims that free speech is dangerous during a pandemic, upholding the First Amendment would have saved lives and reduced the damage and destruction we experienced.

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.

Should the Judiciary Committee be concerned if European law results in the censorship of Americans? Absolutely, especially after recent events. I shared information this morning on X about a judicial ruling in Europe asserting their right to censor. We're seeing similar trends in Australia, where authorities believe they should censor the entire global Internet of disfavored information. This is very disturbing and really makes you question our alliance with Europe.

Our agenda being unchecked may corrupt your kids. Funny, but you're right.

I don't care if it's a small business or a large corporation; when the government threatens you, take it seriously. Blame the government, absolutely. I'm not calling anyone a hero, but the frustration is valid. To those upset about others speaking freely now, stop complaining. You've created misinformation for years and are now angry that you can't control the narrative. It's not about danger; it's about control. You were wrong about everything, and now that others have a voice, you dislike it. If misinformation is the concern, what are we really discussing? It's absurd to pretend this new freedom is dangerous when people start making their own choices.

Free speech is being attacked. The 25th amendment won't harm me, but it will haunt Joe Biden and his administration. Be cautious about what you desire.

Free speech is being attacked, and I want to mention that the 25th amendment doesn't pose any threat to me. However, it might have consequences for Joe Biden and his administration. Remember the saying, "be careful what you wish for."

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.

I'm concerned about the person currently in the White House. In my opinion, they're acting against the interests of the United States, despite having taken the same oath as others. They are endangering us to manipulate their followers into thinking they should be a dictator who never leaves office and disregards elections. I'm struggling to understand what's happening and what it will take for people to recognize the severity of the situation.