reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker recalls that Charlie once said, "guns save lives after school shooting" and was willing to debate and downplay the death of George Floyd in the hands of Minneapolis police, "you called him a scumbag." They note that Charlie also "downplay slavery and what black people have gone through in this country, by saying Juneteenth should never exist." The speaker counters that many claim he only wanted a civil debate, a complete rewriting of history. "Yeah, there is nothing more effed up than to completely pretend that, you know, his words and actions have not been recorded and in existence for the last decade or so."

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.

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 exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

And I was being attacked too. By the way, it was a huge effort by people, some of whom I know and have helped and like Seth Dillon, the Babylon Bee, for example. Seth Dillon was out there demanding that Charlie Kirk take me off the roster, pull me off stage because I had said things that BB didn't like or that he didn't like or whatever. Shocking that someone whose whole persona is wrapped up in the idea that we all get to speak and if you don't like it, make a more compelling case. That that person and many others like him were advocating for me getting pulled off the stage because they don't like what I'm saying. This is a trend and one that we should be really concerned about. The trend is really simple. People with power don't want to hear disagreement.

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.

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.

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.

It takes courage for those who criticize others to stand on stage and lecture about morality. Everyone here is part of a tolerant majority that has endured insults and disrespect for too long. It's unjust to reward the most destructive individuals in society while hard-working, decent people are overlooked. If we allow bad behavior to continue unchecked, it will only escalate. Just like a parent must discipline their children, society must set limits on unacceptable actions. The upcoming election represents a chance for change, and the atmosphere suggests a return to freedom of expression. People are tired of being misled and manipulated. It's time to reject the narrative that has dominated for years and assert that enough is enough. We will no longer tolerate the destruction of our communities and values.

"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?"

"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."

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.

They are false. I will be coming to college campuses, many of them, this year. So will we all, I am sure, because we're Americans, and we're not going to be deterred. Charlie's voice is not silent. We're gonna pick up that bloodstained microphone where Charlie left it. And to those who would intimidate, who would seek to stop us, who would seek to end free discussion, who believe that they have ownership over public spaces and can violently threaten and kill people who speak freely. We are not going to stop, and I have two words. Fuck you. We will not stop telling the truth. We'll never stop telling the truth. We will never stop debating and discussing. We will never stop standing up for what America is and for what you should be, and we will never let Charlie Kirk's voice die. Goodbye to my friend, Charlie Kirk. May your memory be a blessing for your family and for your country and for all of us.

And I was being attacked too. There was a huge effort by people, some of whom I know and have helped and like Seth Dillon, the Babylon Bee, for example. Seth Dillon was out there demanding that Charlie Kirk take me off the roster, pull me off stage because I had said things that BB didn't like or that he didn't like or whatever. Shocking that someone whose whole persona is wrapped up in the idea that we all get to speak and if you don't like it, make a more compelling case. That that person and many others like him were advocating for me getting pulled off the stage because they don't like what I'm saying. This is a trend and one that we should be really concerned about.

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.

The speaker discusses the concept of free speech, stating it is the essence of democracy, but claims it is often suppressed for those against the existing system. The speaker mentions a canceled debate at the London School of Economics, alleging they were denied a platform to speak. They express gratitude to the audience in East London for consistently providing them with freedom of speech. The speaker welcomes opponents to hold meetings and show themselves to the people, believing that the more people see them, the better. The speaker then asks what they are ready to debate.

The speaker argues against prematurely identifying an enemy and using it to silence discussion about who we are as a country. “we're going to identify an enemy” and “use that as a rationale for trying to silence discussion around who we are as a country.” He mourns Charlie Kirk and says, “he's a young man with two small children and a wife,” calling for grace. He says, “I disagree with the idea that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake.” He adds that controversial topics can be discussed honestly while respecting others' right to say things that we profoundly disagree with. He praises Governor Cox and Josh Shapiro for engaging adversaries and notes, “it's possible for us to disagree while abiding by a basic code of how we should engage in public debate.” He recalls Dylann Roof and Bush: “we are not at war against Islam” and “we went after the people who perpetrated this.” He warns that “when we have the weight of the United States government behind extremist views, we've got a problem.”

"Charlie Kirk should not have been assassinated." "That's what I said that caused tens of thousands of Democrats to come into my comments and mentions literally hurling homophobic slurs at me." "The ultimate irony is that that's the reason why you justify the assassination of Charlie Kirk was because he was such a bigot and he said all these horrible things, which aren't even real quotes, by the way." "You hate him for things he never even said." "Meanwhile, you guys are actively saying things that are infinitely worse than anything that Charlie Kirk said." "And you guys don't see it." "You don't have that ability to self reflect." "You have no ability to self reflect." "You guys you guys can literally sit there being the nastiest, meanest, most cruel hearted people ever and genuinely believe that you're the good guy because you're doing it to bad people." "Oh, yeah. What is wrong with you?"