Brandenburg v. Ohio: Hate Speech Is Free Speech | 5-Minute Videos | PragerU
Is all speech protected under the First Amendment or is there a line that can’t be crossed? In 1969, the Supreme Court answered this question in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. Joseph Fornieri, Professor of Political Science at Rochester Institute of Technology, explains why free speech is the liberty from which all other liberties flow.
📲 Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79
Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85
Follow PragerU:
Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/)
X ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru)
Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/)
TikTok ➡️ (https://www.tiktok.com/@prageru)
source
Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
This is why the constitution of the United States will always have my respect.
The thin line of free speech and hate speech can be blurred by activist judges who make their own rules to fit their opinions/narratives. This is why the left wants to "Pack the Court" with those who fit their narrative.
If you try to silence speech, it will only grow stronger. The best way to fight speech is rebuttal (more speech).
Bro let me read my yaoi , stop sending me here!
0:49 "We all recognize that there must be limits". um.. speak for yourself. Sweeping generalizations like this are placative and presumptive at best. Making this type of statement then spending the rest of the video arguing against it is ironic. "inciting violence" is still free speech. If I tell you to do harm to someone, and you do it, who is actually to blame? All you've done with the "incitement" issue is allowed the government yet another loophole to quell speech they don't like. Which is exactly the type of speech that should be protected. So, we don't "all recognize that there must be limits".
The "fire in a crowded theater" example is a poorly employed and erroneous interpretation of a SCOTUS ruling. Google it for yourself and get educated. The long and short of it: What if there is a fire? If there was no fire, did panic ensue (was there actual harm)?
In fact, the cost of trying to shoehorn your ideas into a 5 minute video is that you misrepresent several key points. Do better.
Yes, unfortunately hate speech is free speech in the obvious answer to hate speech is simple more speech against it. We don’t need laws. We need common sense men and women standing up and pushing back verbally against his speech.
Another observation beware of those claiming it’s hate speech, simply because it goes against what they’re pushing, and trying to force you to accept there are those out there trying to pair the truth by claiming that what people are obviously observing to be the truth is hate speech
If states can require a citizen to have a "Duty to retreat" from an assailant, why not a "Duty to ignore," from someone running their mouth? Like some Governors of Minnesota.
At the very least…one should be able to plead to the lesser inclusive charge of "Loathing speech."
Unless it threatens violence like somebody threatening to kill someone, it’s free speech; law can’t punish that. But get out of your cave if you think social consequences can’t occur.
That group. Are and were Democrats.
The freedom of speech exists to overcome, as a society, the challenges presented by its existence. Censure by society should be the natural evolution under free speech. Take free speech away and it festers and has zero chance of adoption through normal means.
We cannot evolve as a society without free speech.
The Right to be Free is very hard for some to understand.
We’re so Free, we forget what restrictions are
The 2 amendment helps protect the 1 st, just look at the UK they get rid of guns now they arrest people for memes
Free speech in the constitution is about the right to criticize the politicians in office, not to say anything you want. Though definition of hate speech can be abused. Web sites like youtube will censor anything negative about Muslims (people who are terrorist). It is not hate speech if it tells a truth about something.
when "hate speech" is defined by a gument known for its corruption we b in the deep sh t
What we want is justice, not revengeance.
Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of the Western world and one of the reasons the West is so successful.
Trump should pardon Assange and Snowden immediately!!!
Yup , the right-wing loves free speech when it comes to hate speech and disinformation. 💯 When it comes to "wokeness" or tolerance , then they start banning books , banning ideas like CRT , arresting people for criticizing Israel , etc. 💯 Hate is their religion…💯💯💯
Freedoms comes with responsibilities
– Calling your competitor birdbrain? NewScum!? stupid
… From the leader of a great country ???
– Calling "stolen elections" with no credible proof
– Accusing our neighbor country of allowing fentanyl into ours
– Accusing an invaded country of starting the war
– Trusting enemy more than own intelligence services
– Firing employees for telling the truth
Interesting. However. You either have it or you don’t. According to your very constitution. Government cannot censor, even if it is insgfull. You can only convict the actual violence. Or am I missing the point. So should these laws from the 1920 be removed. ??
We should be allowed to criticize Israel.
Exactly right, hate speech is free speech.
I have aright to my feelings. I have a right to express them in any way that does not violate the equal inalienable rights of another. The advantage to society is clear: you don’t tell rattlesnake’s not to rattle; you prefer they express their feelings with speech.
Likewise I’m pretty sure we want to know if the cook hates us. A sign at the bakery expressing this is preferred.
At the same time, the government of us all (an entity without feelings, clearly) must refrain from expressing the feelings of public servants or the voters. We can best express ourselves.
Inciting violence is a huge red flag. It gives us time to evaluate the threat. Possibly run out and get a warrant or extra liability insurance. Platform and soapbox owners have a right to shut them down. The proper response is opposing views and wire taps if probable cause is present.
How do children learn to deal with the expression of feelings, conflict with others, or how to behave in society if they don’t see it in action?
We don’t allow sticks and stones.
Free speech is good but you do need moderation to keep out the trolls and the people who are contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, and people arguing in bad faith ect.
Like people who spout 1+1=3 should be banned from social media platforms such people should be de platformed as they're obvious trolls and are essentially spamming the website.
We need a decentralized social media but the ability to also ostracize trolls
This is my take on speech and free speech. I think that no one should be able to infringe edit or stifle someone else’s speech and this goes on to any platform whether it be online or whether it be in public everyone has the right to say something if they deem necessary And some people may disagree with each other and that is the exact problem we have with the liberal lip they think that any speech that doesn’t reflect their values is hate speech and should be suppressed, and that is exactly why it shouldn’t every kind in form of speech should be allowed because of the fact everyone should have their own ideas that is exactly with the framers of our constitution Intended and it has been the passion of the liberal left to stifle free speech and to put in its place what they deem appropriate speech mean anything and everything that they agree with and nothing that they do not agree with you can say what you want as long as it agrees with me that is a Democrat thought process right there I think that everyone should have the right to say something even if you don’t agree with it in fact, that is the very point I’m making here is people who have different ideas different ways of doing things should be able to speak their mind whether platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and other others do not like it and do not like certain words here’s the fact those words exist and you can’t make them go away and you can’t make people speech go away we had a little revolution about that very. Thing and it is time that people realize that free speech is just that free speech not speech that’s deemed appropriate by one or the other side of the aisle.
Lying is also free speech
Good video. Freedom of speech includes, among other things:
1) Flag burning (one's own flag)
2) Kneeling during the anthem
3) Referring to the Gulf of Mexico
4) Reporting news unfavorable to the administration
5) Releasing polls that turn out to be wildly wrong
6) Editing news interviews, even in a way some deem to be selective
7) Protesting against or writing op eds critical of a foreign ally, even if done by a foreign national
I find that terms like, "Hate Speech" and "Misinformation" are labels used to justify censorship of ideas the left doesn't like. On the surface, it sounds like protecting the public, but in reality, the group that can define what is or isn't Hate Speech and Misinformation is the same group that controls what can or cannot be said. These labels are how the left wants to censor Free Speech.
this video is banned in uk
how about burning flags
This also applies to any criticism of Israel. BDS laws are unconstitutional. Criticism of Israel is NOT antisemitism and NOT hate speech.
And yet, the government does nothing about social media, restricting what THEY don't like. I'm 71 and have been kicked off every social media out there. Even from Truth Social and "X", both of whom allowed me back after two years (when Trump was elected in 2024) stating that it was a mistake. YouTube regularly removes comments I post, I'm guessing because it doesn't align with their narrative. If any social media or other public channel can ban you for something you say, when there isn't vulgarity, or threatened violence, only something that doesn't fit their agenda, then there is no free speech, there is only speech you are allowed to say.
If you use the phrase "protected speech" you don't understand the topic and your opinion dismissed. The 2nd Amendment is NOT a power for the federal govt to use to protect, it is a BAN on govt power to punish!!! Why is this such a difficult concept? I'm disappointed in Prager U's failure.
Never forget, in Canada the bill of rights protects speech in relation to ALL federal statutes unless competently legislated and preserves (savings clause) ALL RIGHTS adopted from English law that also need to be competently suppressed constitutionally
Provincial offences are never criminal or indictable.
As long as it is done peacefully as stated there is very little I would complain about.
Yet if it is targeting a people that I would believe by the terms of the amendment would not be protected.
Like no one should be ok with the KKK talking their nonsense in a public space. Even if ATM there is no violence the idea being spoken is directing one to violent action.
Same thing with speech that is accusing. Such as the Lafferty vs Jones. Speaking falsehoods as truth is not protected because again it is violent by damaging one's name, brand and estate.
can't have hate crimes and still consider it a justice system any more than you can have a hate speech clause and still consider it free speech