Does Free Speech Offend You? | 5 Minute Video
Should offensive speech be banned? Where should we, as a society, draw the line where permitted speech is on one side, and forbidden speech is on the other? Should we even have that line? And should free speech be limited by things like trigger warnings and punishments for microaggressions? Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, answers these questions and more.
🚨 PragerU is experiencing severe censorship on Big Tech platforms. Go to https://www.prageru.com/ to watch our videos free from censorship!
SUBSCRIBE 👉 https://www.prageru.com/join/
📲 Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app!
Download for Apple iOS ➡ https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/prage…
Download for Android ➡ https://play.google.com/store/apps/de…
📳 Join PragerU’s text list! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
SHOP! 🛒 Love PragerU? Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/
Script:
Freedom of speech. The ability to express yourself. It’s a cherished idea — as well it should be. Most of us who live in liberal Western democracies think of it as a basic human right. People have fought and died for it. But now we may be in danger of losing it.
The threat is not coming from without — from external enemies — but from within. A generation is being raised not to believe in freedom OF speech, but rather that they should have freedom FROM speech — from speech they dislike. This is a threat to both pluralism and democracy itself.
We see this in Europe where “sensitivity-based” censorship attempts to ban anything deemed hateful or even just hurtful, and to ban criticism of religion, especially Islam.
But the United States, despite its strong Constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights is far from immune from the rising trend of suppression of speech, or what is sometimes called political correctness. This is especially true at America’s colleges and universities, the place where our future leaders are educated and where you’d expect speech to be the most free.
Highly restrictive speech codes are now the norm on campuses, not the exception. According to a study by my organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education — FIRE — 54% of public universities and 59% of private universities impose politically correct speech codes on their students. And thanks to recent Department of Education guidelines 100% of colleges may adopt speech codes in the coming years.
How bad is it?
At a public campus in California on Constitution Day in 2013, a student who also happens to be a decorated military veteran was told he could not hand out copies of the Constitution to his fellow students. The objection from the university was not ideological; it was out of control bureaucracy imposing limits on speech.
That same day another college student in that same state was told he could not protest NSA surveillance outside of a tiny “free speech zone,” an area that comprised only 1.37% of the campus.
Months later, college students in Hawaii were told both they could not hand out the constitution to their fellow students and that they could not protest NSA policies outside the school’s free speech zone! FIRE took these colleges to court, but the that fact we had to shows you how bad it has become.
Recently, students and sympathetic faculty have joined forces to exclude campus speakers whose opinions they dislike. At FIRE we call this “disinvitation season” although the season lasts all year round.
Since 2009 there has been a major uptick in the push by students and faculty to get speakers they dislike disinvited. These speakers have included former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; the Somali-born feminist and critic of Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali; and the director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde. And that’s only the obvious part of the disinvitation problem. Few conservative speakers are invited to speak at colleges lest they have to be “disinivited” later.
For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/does-free-speech-offend-you
source
One may notice that they only seem to be in favour of feminism when it opposes Islam 🤔
"oh nooo speakers that our campus collectively doesnt like cant speak here the tragedy!!!"
Free speech also means universities can oppose free speech. I don't see this guys point.
PragerU pretends to be for free speech, but it's only conservative speech they want protected. You don't support the free speech of leftists.
משה פייגלין צריך להיות ראש הממשלה
Neal Mohan placed political correctness on YouTube comments by adding Community Guidelines. They targeted me for cyber bullying, harassment and hate speech. They placed a 24 hour ban on me for comments that they find “offensive”. They have to go.
Depends, buddy. Does "free speech" entail having my cell number doxxed because I spoke about Palestine, which wasn’t allowed on Musk's free speech Twitter?
Not me but youtube
For college leftest academia free speach policy has been one of my speach is free but yours needs to be controlled for my own good. Progressive leftist cultists can say anything regardless of how biased, racist, factually deprived or politically slanted. Conservatives however must be monitored to insure that no part of the lefts dialog is challenged, can't have free speach cluttering the young minds they're trying to convert to leftest agenda.
*Critique and Counter-Argument: "Does Free Speech Offend You?" with Historical Context*
*Critique:*
1. *Generalization:* The video presents a binary view of free speech, suggesting that any limitations or critiques are inherently negative.
2. *Misrepresentation:* The video equates "freedom from speech" with efforts to create inclusive environments, ignoring the historical dangers of unchecked speech.
3. *Selective Examples:* The video uses specific instances from modern campuses without providing broader context or historical parallels.
4. *Misunderstanding of Trigger Warnings:* The video portrays trigger warnings as censorship, rather than as a tool for trauma awareness and mental health.
*Counter-Argument with Evidence and Historical Context:*
1. *Unchecked Free Speech and the Rise of Fascism:*
– *Evidence:* In the early 20th century, leaders like Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy utilized the principle of free speech to propagate their ideologies. Their unchecked rhetoric, filled with hate and prejudice, led to the rise of fascism.
– *Argument:* While free speech is a cornerstone of democratic societies, history shows that unchecked propaganda can lead to the rise of dangerous ideologies. Democracies need to be vigilant against such abuses of this freedom.
2. *Cultural Revolution in China:*
– *Evidence:* The Cultural Revolution, initiated by Mao Zedong, suppressed free speech and led to the persecution of millions. It was a state-sponsored effort to align the country with Maoist thinking, and dissent was brutally silenced.
– *Argument:* This historical event underscores the dangers of suppressing free speech to an extreme. It led to societal upheaval, widespread suffering, and the stagnation of innovative thought.
3. *Communist Revolution in China:*
– *Evidence:* The rise of communism in China was marked by the suppression of counter-revolutionary speech. While it aimed to create a classless society, it led to the silencing of dissent and the establishment of a single narrative.
– *Argument:* The suppression of free speech can lead to a single narrative dominating a nation, stifling diversity of thought and leading to potential abuses of power.
4. *Purpose of Speech Codes and Historical Parallels:*
– *Evidence:* Many democracies, learning from history, have implemented laws against hate speech to prevent the rise of extremist ideologies. For instance, Germany has strict laws against the promotion of Nazi ideologies.
– *Argument:* While it's essential to maintain open dialogue, history has shown the potential dangers of unchecked extremist rhetoric. Balancing free speech with protections against hate speech is crucial to prevent history from repeating itself.
5. *The Role of Universities and Historical Context:*
– *Evidence:* Universities, as centers of learning, have historically been places where ideologies, both beneficial and harmful, have taken root. They have the power to shape societal thought and have been battlegrounds for free speech debates for centuries.
– *Argument:* Given their influential role, universities have a responsibility to ensure that they foster environments of genuine debate while being aware of the potential for harmful ideologies to spread. They must strike a balance between promoting free speech and ensuring the safety and well-being of their students.
In conclusion, while the video emphasizes the importance of free speech, it's crucial to understand the broader historical context. The unchecked spread of extremist ideologies under the guise of free speech has led to some of the darkest periods in human history. Balancing the principles of free speech with the lessons of history is challenging but necessary for a pluralistic society. I agree with the video's emphasis on the importance of free speech. However, it's essential to approach the topic with a nuanced understanding of history.
Always question everything!
More and more relevant every year.
YouTube hates free speech.
We’re on the track to communism
Now this is an America after 7 years ago.
Sometimes yes, but so what!
Political correctness: Euphemism to hide truths too painful to say out loud for a leftist
Truth
I hope my free speech offends all these blue haired freaks. The only way anyone will get me to stop speaking my mind will be to take my life and these jelly back libs dont have it in them to take me out.
I have a question!! im writing a speech for school on how free speech is in danger in america, but in addressing censorship by companies (like facebook) and universities, isn't this technically constitutional? the "freedom of speech" phrase in the bill of rights protects us not from universities, but the government. How do i combat this argument? plz help a girl and her debate speech out!😂 thankyou so much, your videos are so helpful
I am OK with free speech, even if I hate what I hear. But in the other hand, I want the right to answer to this as rude or as polite as I want. No more, no less.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeqBbO_jpXk&ab_channel=PragerU friendly reminder that Prager does NOT support absolute free speech in schools, as he wants to ban speech that he considers vulgar, and wants to ban students from using their teachers names.
I don't understand why Republicans refuse to take control of the Dept of Education and take control of programming rules if they accept gov money. It must be according to the Constitution. Trump missed this opportunity.
I'm an israeli and unfortunately I find it very hard to support my country.
Because of those very dumb and violent people that think they understand everything about my country even though they clearly don't.
This is a biased video. Of course, freedom of speech is precious and it's wrong to enforce political correctness. But it's justified to restrict hate speech in universities. Hate speech is a separate issue from political correctness.
It is a sad place for education, especially at Universities where offending people used to be a thing, through intellectual debate. Refusing to offend people, is actually closing down the ability to debate. Isn't this the purpose though, to put in place what Society in general knows is bad and yet cannot argue in debate against it! Did not Stalin successfully cause a whole nation, to lose the ability to have an opinion, unless it fitted in with his own! That is the road we are on! It needs to change, or we might as we close the Universities!
1:29
Nope.
Nope