reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker vents about Candace Owens becoming the focal point of a fierce, circular attack from people who supposedly defend free speech. He describes the scene as a firing squad of individuals who built their public identities on defending speech, yet now rush to “push people out of the way,” attack Owens, and demand she be silenced or erased. He emphasizes the speed, ferocity, and hypocrisy of the reactions, noting that those who champion speech and dissent are now labeling Owens as crossing a line that must be punished. He stresses that there is a figurative (and sometimes explicit) bounty on Owens, warning that coming after her endangers people and signals a broader, dangerous trend. He points to Owens’s prominence as a disruptor who bypassed traditional gatekeepers—“what she represents” is independence and the end of permission-based relevance. Owens’s direct relationship with her audience, he argues, terrifies established institutions and gatekeepers who cannot throttle her platform. The speaker condemns the shift from defending free expression to calling for deplatforming when Owens surpasses rivals in reach, influence, and commercial impact. He accuses the critics of jealousy, commercial self-interest, and intimidation, rather than genuine concern for standards or safety. He asserts that the same people who once defended speech now call for suppression when it serves their own interests, and he suggests this is driven by power and censorship-loving impulses. He recalls his own stance on Owens’s controversial remarks about Brigitte Macron, acknowledging concern about defamation but insisting he never urged silencing her; he warned about legal risks but still defended her right to speak. He argues that the current backlash is not about disagreement but exclusion, labeling, and isolation—a strategy to turn Owens into a pariah. The speaker asserts that Owens’s influence demonstrates how a single, authentic voice can bypass institutions and speak directly to millions, provoking panic in those who built systems around control. He warns that this machinery does not distinguish between allies; once activated, it can target anyone who deviates from the “new approved line.” He accuses some critics of being paid to push deplatforming and of using the pretext of standards, safety, or responsibility to mask envy and loss of control. He frames the issue as existential: is opinion allowed to breathe in the digital public square, or will dissent be tolerated only when it is small? He argues that free speech is not about agreement but about allowance and expansion, trusting that truth will emerge through conflict. He urges consistency: defend the right to speak for all, even those you disagree with, and resist turning this into a partisan battle. The video closes with a rallying call: this is bigger than Candace Owens; it’s about whether we will stand by the principle of free expression. He thanks viewers and asks for engagement and dialogue, emphasizing that the moment is about defending speech itself, not winning a feud.

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.

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.

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.

The problem of fake news is not solved by a referee, but by participants helping each other point out what is fake and true. The answer to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech. Critical thinking matters more than ever, given that lies seem to be getting very popular.

The speaker expresses concern about the shift in the left's stance on free speech, noting that censorship goes against the principles of the First Amendment. They highlight the importance of free speech, citing the historical context of countries where speaking freely was not allowed. The speaker mentions that speech laws in some countries, like England and France, are more restrictive. They argue that even though they find certain speech abhorrent, it should still be protected under free speech. The speaker emphasizes the need to protect free speech, as censorship can eventually affect everyone.

The speaker discusses the issue of criminalizing insulting speech, arguing that criticism, ridicule, sarcasm, and differing opinions can all be interpreted as insults. They criticize the culture of intolerance that has emerged, advocating for more freedom of speech to address underlying issues. The speaker emphasizes the importance of allowing offensive speech to build societal resilience and promote robust dialogue. They highlight that restricting speech can silence critics and oppress minorities, advocating for more speech as the strongest weapon against hateful speech. The speaker concludes by stressing the need for the right to insult or offend in a robust society.

I defend free speech and oppose the introduction of thoughtcrime laws. Monitoring citizens' thoughts is not the job of elected officials. Intent should not be criminalized, as it's impossible to regulate thoughts. While I support punishing bigoted actions, restricting speech is not the role of local government. This has led to oppression in Europe. Let's not forget the importance of free speech and the dangers of limiting it.

I believe in the freedom of speech, even if it means losing advertising dollars. It's acceptable to choose where your ads appear on Twitter, but it's not acceptable to dictate what Twitter will do.

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.

"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.

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."

You can't sue me for criticizing you. The US Constitution protects my right to speak freely. I'm quoting Supreme Court case law that allows for robust debate, even if it's harsh. You can't silence me. If you don't like it, move to Russia. I demand the immediate termination of Dr. Charissa Gibson and the resignation of the school board for unconstitutional censorship. We have the right to critique you in any lawful way. This is America.

The speaker discusses the issue of lifetime bans for individuals who have apologized for their offensive remarks. They argue that the focus should be on censorship rather than the specific case of Alex Jones. The speaker mentions how defenders of free speech warned that banning Jones could set a dangerous precedent, and this prediction came true when Twitter started banning other individuals, such as a Stanford doctor who had made accurate statements about COVID. The speaker believes that creating censorship power attracts powerful entities, like the government, who can abuse it. They emphasize the importance of free speech, even if it means tolerating wrong or hateful speech and misinformation.

in the last twenty four hours, you locked the accounts and shut down the accounts of two guys, Nick Fuentes and Alex Jones. it's better if you unlock those accounts and let the guys be heard. censorship isn't good for America. It's antithetical to our culture. If you tell people they can't speak, that's when they scream. And if you tell people they can't scream, that's when they tear things down. free speech is a precondition for peace. There's a different category of saying that you may demonetize certain people. What I'm talking about is not a legal point. It's just a cultural point. because of who you are, you deserve not to be heard. restore the accounts of those guys, believe me, it will be a down payment on beginning to reunite this country.

Mister Musk's recent Twitter activity sparked a discussion on freedom of speech. While we also value this freedom, we acknowledge the need to address illegal content online.

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.

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.

Censorship has always been done by those who aren't the good guys. They've been silencing arguments for a long time, claiming it's for the greater good. They use virtue as a weapon, always in the pursuit of tyranny. Anyone trying to silence one side of an argument, be it about COVID-19, immigration, or anything else, is evil and seeks to control people's minds.