Does Free Speech Offend You? | 5 Minute Video
Video Overview & Insights
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.
I just did 8 months in jail for posting non-threatening videos on my own YouTube channel
🚨 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/
Since at least the 2016 election, and perhaps going all the way back to 2010, Progressives have demanded more restrictions on freedom os speech. The Founding Fathers would have tarred and feathered Hillary Clinton, tied her up in a burlap bag, and sent her back to Britain.
📲 Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app!
Download for Apple iOS ➡ https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/prage...
Apparently "progressive" colleges now accept 3 yr olds as freshmen - no matter their actual age.
Oops, forgot to issue a trigger warning for the patriarchical word "freshMEN".
Download for Android ➡ https://play.google.com/store/apps/de...
📳 Join PragerU's text list! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Yall don’t actually like freedom of speech because you HATED all those hilarious Charlie “the racist red fountain” Kirk jokes, yall ban books, yall ban the free press, just admit it you want to say the nword.
Just admit it, you like Trump because he’s a silly willy guy. You don’t actually care about his policies.
Yall don’t like the 2nd amendment because you believe in fighting tyranny, or protecting your family, or hunting your protein, you like guns because they go boom boom and make things ‘splode.
Republicans are the most fragile fakeazz little fakers.
SHOP! 🛒 Love PragerU? Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/
Script:
I don't know. What do you mean by "does", "free", "speech", "offend" and "you"?
I can find a way to answer that question both ways.
Luckily we don't have to put up with this much longer.
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.
This needs to be updated for 2025, when free speech can be deadly to the speaker!
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?
3:38 This is so funny, it is ridiculous. Fast forward to 2020, the conservative right is BANNING BOOKS. 🤡🤡
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.
0:39 It's the freedom of the actions that comes after the free speech. People should be able to say whatever they want. If you speak hateful things, you should be punched in the face, right?
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
"We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which - as We have before said and must again and again repeat - it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State. The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak. And this all the more surely, because by far the greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with great difficulty, to escape from illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially such as flatter the passions. If unbridled license of speech and of writing be granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail. Thus, too, license will gain what liberty loses; for liberty will ever be more free and secure in proportion as license is kept in fuller restraint. In regard, however, to all matter of opinion which God leaves to man's free discussion, full liberty of thought and of speech is naturally within the right of everyone; for such liberty never leads men to suppress the truth, but often to discover it and make it known."
~ His Holiness Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (23)
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html
The Pope is right. These intellectually dishonest liberals who call themselves conservatives, are wrong. Facts don't care about their feelings. 😎
More User Perspectives
"So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from life, from laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action."
~ His Holiness Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (32)
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei.html
The Pope is right. These intellectually dishonest liberals who call themselves conservatives, are wrong. Facts don't care about their feelings. 😎
Well, it's gay pride month, so I'm not sure if I want to hear all about the perversion. :(
@andrewthomas6312In social media like YouTube there is also No freedom of speech
@eduardorocharev8021only gotten worse wow
@wsaj41221No free speech is a must no one should be offended by free speech
and if I abuse your religion and you don't like it Tough
I may hate what you say about me or My religion BUT I WILL DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT but hen I am a Christian
Just because you are offended does not mean you are right.
@Publius-24One may notice that they only seem to be in favour of feminism when it opposes Islam 🤔
@gettingaroundyoutubesconentres"oh nooo speakers that our campus collectively doesnt like cant speak here the tragedy!!!"
@appleturdpieFree speech also means universities can oppose free speech. I don't see this guys point.
@blessingsabondo9764PragerU pretends to be for free speech, but it's only conservative speech they want protected. You don't support the free speech of leftists.
@WillyBraggTVמשה פייגלין צריך להיות ראש הממשלה
@אליהברזל-ק3קNeal 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.
@Vanny1999-SBDepends, 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?
@punkysnarksNot me but youtube
@blondiibluFor 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.
@michaelhoffman5201*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.
@SheonEverYouTube hates free speech.
@brennanworthy6043We’re on the track to communism
@Just_Me10122Now this is an America after 7 years ago.
@funtable-huiSometimes yes, but so what!
@BroonziedPolitical correctness: Euphemism to hide truths too painful to say out loud for a leftist
@krassilverfang5504Truth
@tomchristian9932I 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.
@secondarytrollaccountI 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
@abbie_dawn11I 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.
@florianpierredumont4775https://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.
@tobak952I 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.
@monkeystank5241I'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.
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!
@uknighthuntingvision93Nope.
@AlanRoehrich9651Nope
@godssara6758Jacinda Ardern has spoken publicly at the UN demanding 'hate speech's laws!
@sandralibeau4795"your rights end where my feelings begin"
@SISKCERTWaJaVlogsI saw a comedian who started a video with "Trigger warning to vegan people. This vedio will contain flavor."
@shinyanovikov2502SAY NO TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
@sunderlandbertram931LMAOOO WHY ARE THE 2K DISLIKES ON THIS
@aaron68071:20 yeah dude
@askmeier359