reSee.it - Related Video Feed

There were very fine people on both sides of a white supremacist rally. I’m not referring to the neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who should be condemned entirely. However, there were many individuals in that group who were not neo-Nazis or white nationalists.

I am signing a law in Texas to protect free speech on college campuses, as some colleges have been banning it. This law ensures that the First Amendment rights are upheld.

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.

There is a substantial component of the left wing in America that is in favor of banning speech. The speaker's first published work was a defense of the First Amendment in the GW Hatchet. Now, supporting free speech has become a right-wing idea. The best cure for bad speech is more speech. People determining what is misinformation often end up being wrong, like CNN and MSNBC on the Hunter Biden laptop story. The speaker believes in robust, uninhibited debate and that the cure for false speech is more speech. The NFL is playing a game in Brazil, where free speech is restricted. The speaker believes the NFL should support free speech around the world, but doesn't think individuals in uniform at work should make political statements. The speaker suggests the NFL should pull the game out of Brazil and put it back in the US to show they believe in free speech. The speaker believes the NFL is committed to money, not principle.

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.

Ernst Zundel, a Toronto publisher, was charged with publishing false information about the Holocaust. The trial sparked a debate about freedom of speech and the validity of Holocaust denial. Zundel argued that the Germans did not kill 6 million Jews and that the Holocaust was a hoax. He faced protests and threats from Jewish organizations and was eventually found guilty of publishing anti-Jewish literature. Zundel was sentenced to 15 months in jail and there were calls for his deportation. The trial highlighted the sensitive nature of the Holocaust and the importance of historical accuracy.

I disagree with the assertion that free speech was used to conduct the Nazi genocide. The genocide was carried out by an authoritarian regime that hated Jews and minorities; there was no free speech in Nazi Germany. The point of the speech in question was that there is an erosion of free speech and intolerance for opposing points of view within Europe. This is eroding the values that bind us together in this transatlantic union. Allies and partners should be able to speak frankly to one another in open forums without being offended. Many foreign ministers may not have agreed with the speech, but they continued to engage with us on issues that unite us. This forum is meant to invite people to give speeches, not to be a chorus where everyone is saying the same thing.

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 First Amendment exists because people came from countries where they couldn't speak freely. Freedom of speech is crucial for democracy, as without it, there is political coercion. The United States has strong protection for speech compared to other countries, like Canada. Preserving freedom of speech is essential, as it is the foundation of democracy. Without it, there is nothing.

A group in Scotland protested a new hate speech law, criticizing it as draconian. The law criminalizes free speech, including misgendering, and can lead to arrests for insulting speech. This issue extends beyond Scotland, with censorship efforts in the US and EU. The focus on foreign manipulation is seen as a political tactic. The solution to hate speech is free speech, exemplified by Daryl Davis's approach to persuading KKK members. The fight against censorship and hate speech policies continues globally.

There were very fine people on both sides of a white supremacist rally. I'm not referring to the neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who should be condemned entirely. However, there were many individuals in that group who were not neo-Nazis or white nationalists.

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.

"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?"

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals lack standing to challenge government pressure on social media companies to censor content. The decision allows government officials to indirectly violate the First Amendment by pressuring platforms to censor certain viewpoints. This ruling essentially renders the First Amendment ineffective, as individuals cannot sue to prevent censorship. The dissenting opinion warned that this decision gives the government a green light to censor free speech. The speaker expressed disappointment in the lack of protection for free speech and highlighted the negative impact on public health and policy.

In Hamtrack, Michigan, a city with a significant Muslim immigrant population, the majority-Muslim city council in 2023 banned the pride flag because it clashed with the religious beliefs of local residents. They sued, and a federal judge—described as a Democrat—ruled that banning the Pride flag didn't violate the constitution, didn't violate the First Amendment, because they were only banning it on public property, and apparently, the all Muslim city council was allowed to do that. The speaker says cities should be able to do what they want, but claims liberals would riot if this happened in Florida, and notes that the LGBTQ community is amazingly silent. "If this happened in any city run by a republican, there would be riots." "Democrat judge in America's Muslim capital bans gay pride flags after Islamic outrage."

"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."

A Christian preacher, Damon Atkins, was arrested at an LGBTQ pride event in Pennsylvania for quoting bible verses and holding a sign that said, "Jesus said go and sin no more." Despite being told by an officer to respect the event, Atkins continued preaching and was subsequently arrested. The crowd applauded as he was taken away. However, the charges against Atkins were dropped within days by the local district attorney, who acknowledged that his detention violated his first amendment rights.

The speaker identifies as a free speech advocate but expresses concern over the head of a platform retweeting "the worst of the tweets." Referencing the Supreme Court's decision to allow Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, the speaker acknowledges that a truly free speech channel may include Nazis. The speaker questions whether the head guy was retweeting Nazis, admitting they don't follow it closely but are going off what other people say. They mention "that salute," clarifying they don't believe the person was intentionally expressing Nazi sentiments, but that being "that close to the fire" is problematic.

Jonathan (Speaker 0) and Michael (Speaker 2) along with Jonathan Conricus (Speaker 1) discuss the Australia Hanukkah attack, antisemitism, and the political context surrounding Palestinian statehood and Islamist extremism. They also touch on free speech, protests, and potential international implications. - Jonathan’s initial reaction to the Australian shooting: He was not surprised, framing it as part of a broader pattern he terms “globalize the Intifada.” He cites experiences in Australia, including Bondi Beach visits and conversations with the Jewish community, who he says feel betrayed by legislators and exposed by law enforcement. He argues the atmosphere in Australia has allowed antisemitic attacks, with radicals allowed to shout antisemitic slogans and attack synagogues. He accuses the Australian government of being weak and cowed, quick to side with Hamas and Palestinians while demonizing Israel, and contends this climate enabled violence against 2,000 Australian Jews celebrating Hanukkah. He calls for full support and protection for Jews in Australia and for leadership to change its stance toward global affairs. - Netanyahu connection and limiting principle: Michael notes Netanyahu’s August letter to Australian Prime Minister Albanese warning that support for a Palestinian state fuels antisemitic violence and benefits Hamas. Conricus is asked about a limiting principle: could endorsing Palestinian statehood by various figures (Ehud Barak, the UN Security Council’s Oslo-era blueprint, etc.) be linked to such attacks, potentially implicating many figures including Donald Trump? Conricus responds that the situation in Australia goes beyond a mere recognition of a Palestinian state and highlights the disquiet in Israel across political spectrum about linking Israel’s actions to global support for Palestinian statehood, especially after October 7 atrocities. - Protests and incitement: Jonathan argues the protests in Australia, including chants like “gas the Jews,” reflect incitement and a broader systemic failure by authorities who allowed Hamas supporters to dominate public spaces and harass Jews. He recounts encounters with Hamas supporters in Melbourne and claims police and local government enabled harassment against Jews, including demands Jews remove kippahs to avoid incitement. He says hate crimes against synagogues have gone unsolved and that this atmosphere of violence and antisemitism needs to change. - Pro-Palestinian vs pro-Hamas distinction: Michael asks where to draw the line between pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas protesters. Conricus argues the distinction is artificial and notes that polls show Hamas is the most popular Palestinian political group, suggesting that many demonstrators imply support for Hamas even if they do not explicitly say so. He believes the dominant sentiment among protesters on October 7-8 was supportive of Hamas, even if framed as pro-Palestinian nationalism. He also mentions paid protesters, particularly in US/UK campus contexts, but emphasizes ideologically driven protesters. - Free speech and incitement: Michael insists that if protests include chants and actions that incite violence, this becomes a free-speech issue, citing First Amendment protections in the US and contrasting with other countries. Jonathan counters that incitement can justify restriction when it explicitly calls for violence against a protected group, noting that “gas the Jews” crosses lines beyond free speech, and criticizes Australian authorities’ tolerance of violent incitement. - Chronology and retaliation: The participants discuss the October 7 Hamas attack and Israel’s subsequent response. Jonathan clarifies that Hamas conducted an unprecedented, unprovoked attack killing 1,200 Israelis, with later identification of missing and abducted individuals. He describes Israel’s border closure and subsequent major offensive in Gaza. Michael points out debates around whether attackers’ motives included broader geopolitical narratives, while Jonathan underscores the gravity and scale of the October 7 killings and the need to acknowledge the initial atrocity. - Islam and Western integration: Jonathan addresses Islam as a monotheistic faith with nearly 2 billion followers, expressing no issue with Islam as a religion but concern about Islamist ideology and an imperialistic mindset. He cites Sweden’s immigration policy as an example of perceived societal strain and argues for cautions about cultural integration, border policies, and governance standards in Western societies. - Acknowledgment of individual bravery: They remark on Ahmed Ben Ahmed, a Muslim shop owner who helped defend Jews during the Australian attack, acknowledging his bravery and suggesting he should be recognized for valor. - Iran, Israel, and alleged blame: The discussion covers claims about Iran or Israel behind the attack. Michael asserts there is no evidence linking Mossad or Iran to the attack, while Jonathan suggests Iranian involvement is possible but not proven, noting Iranian propaganda and the potential for blowback, while maintaining that the attackers’ exact affiliations remain unclear. They note Iranian condemnation of the attacks, with skepticism about Iranian statements.

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.

Defense witness Ditleid Felderrer compared himself to Voltaire, defending free speech. He visited Auschwitz 27 times, claiming to find amenities like a swimming pool, banquet room, sauna, and dance hall. He called a crematorium a Hollywood set. Ernst Zindel used Felderer's research in his work. During cross-examination, Felderer read from leaflets mocking the Holocaust and gas chambers, for which he faced prosecution in Sweden. Translation: Defense witness Ditleid Felderrer compared himself to Voltaire, defending free speech. He visited Auschwitz 27 times, claiming to find amenities like a swimming pool, banquet room, sauna, and dance hall. He called a crematorium a Hollywood set. Ernst Zindel used Felderer's research in his work. During cross-examination, Felderer read from leaflets mocking the Holocaust and gas chambers, for which he faced prosecution in Sweden.

The Nazis shut down all press and means of conveying information when they came to power. It is claimed that social media and freedom of speech would have made it impossible for them to hide. The First Amendment in the United States guarantees freedom of speech because those who came to the United States from other countries did not have it. It is asserted that, in their countries of origin, people could be imprisoned or killed for speaking freely. The ability to say what you want without being imprisoned or killed was the first correction to the Constitution.

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.