The Case AGAINST Free Speech?

The Case AGAINST Free Speech?


It’s great to welcome to the program today,
P E Moscowitz, the author of the case against free speech, the first amendment fascism and the future
of descent. Also author of how to kill a city, gentrification, inequality, and the fight
for the neighborhood. Uh, so great to have you on today. I appreciate it. Thanks for
having me. So to start with, I think most of us have some concept of the idea of free
speech, even if it’s not directly from the law of the constitution, the first amendment
or what is, uh, existing in precedent and court decisions. Where do you think that our
general concept of free speech comes from at this point in time? Is it more social and
cultural rather than a legal framework? [inaudible] I think that we have of kind of very convoluted
understanding of what free speech actually means and what the first amendment actually
means. Um, and you know, it’s kind of drilled into us very early. Uh, we learn about the
first amendment obviously in school, uh, from a very early, but the, the kind of rhetoric
of free speech and, and uh, yeah, this culture of, of freedom of expression, um, is used
again and again by, uh, you know, you see it on TV, you see it a politician saying,
Oh, this is what makes America the greatest country on earth. Uh, and you just hear these
kind of platitudes over and over again, um, all the time. I mean, and once you start noticing
how much you hear it, uh, then you’ll realize it. It’s happening all the time. But I, I
think there, that’s a diff, there’s a difference between hearing this, this kind of platitude
about we have freedom of speech, uh, every single day of your life versus actually learning
what it means or, or whether we actually have it. Is there a particular distortion or incorrect
understanding about what we mean when we say free speech that is affecting the political
discourse right now that you can identify? I think there are a couple of them. The first
would be that people think freedom of speech applies to kind of everything they want it
to. Um, and uh, you know, in the, in the framers of the constitution and the amendments mines,
it just applied to the government. Um, being able to, uh, stop your speech or not being
able to stop your speech. So, you know, people will always, you know, you see this on college
campuses for example, someone will get disinvited from a college and people will say, Oh, that’s
a violation of freedom of speech. No, it’s not. Cause the government was not involved
in any way. You weren’t being arrested for speaking or anything like that. Um, and that
you see it all. It’s, you know, if someone gets banned from Twitter, people will claim
that’s a violation of freedom of speech, put Twitter as a private company and can do whatever
it wants. Um, that the other, uh, the other misconception I think people have is that
we have universal free speech in this country, which we just simply don’t, I mean, I can’t
wander into your house and say whatever I want in some States you could shoot me if
I do that, if we’re going to stand your ground state. Um, although I guess arguably to steel man, that
argument, it wouldn’t be necessarily the same of something in someone’s house, but the fact
that you entered on invited, I guess that would, you know, opened the door to a self
defense shooting. Right? Sure. Yeah. Um, but that kind of proves that
we’ve add value, some things over freedom of speech, I. E. private property and, and,
uh, uh, privacy. Um, and you know, same thing, if I go into a Walmart, they can kick me out
for protesting on their store grounds. Um, because we value the idea of private property
over the idea of freedom of speech. So when we talk about freedom of speech, what we’re
talking about is speech that isn’t, uh, impinged by the government is on public property or
your own private property. Doesn’t violate copyright laws, um, doesn’t, uh, threaten
anyone. Um, and you know, even in, uh, once you tick all those boxes, you can still be
arrested for protesting. You can still be, uh, you know, denied a permit to protest the
government. The idea that we have universal freedom of speech, uh, once you start looking
into it, just, it kind of, it, it strikes me as ridiculous that we even have universal
freedoms. It’s also sort of become a proxy to other
political battles in a sense. I mean, a lot of the questions around the right to refuse
baking a cake for someone on the basis of where, what kind of an event the cake will
be used at the idea of being able to wear political clothing while working at a particular
corporation. For example. A lot of these, I guess I, I, let me ask it to you, are a
lot of these really issues of speech? Are they issues of something else where we’re
free speech is being used as a proxy to try to make a political statement? I think that freedom of speech can end up
kind of, uh, you know, mucking up what’s actually happening a lot of the times. Um, and yeah,
you see this with, uh, you know, uh, Nazis marching on the streets of the United States,
for example, and, uh, liberals saying, well, we have to defend their right to March, um,
because of freedom of speech because of the first amendment. Um, and, and there are a
couple of things I would say to refute that. One, every other Western democracy doesn’t
have a first amendment and gets along fine in terms of freedom of expression. They recognize
that there’s no Universalists kind of platitude, uh, that they can, uh, that they need to use
in order to guarantee democracy. They recognize that some things like hate speech based on
race or gender and those kinds of things, um, might end up doing more harm than good
if spoken, uh, without being challenged. Um, and you know, I don’t think anyone would
consider Canada, for example, uh, any more of a failing democracy than the United States
is. Um, and they, they do that without the first amendment. Um, and the other thing is,
yeah, I mean, I think we can use freedom of speech to allied these much stickier issues
if we say well as defend Nazis, right to March because of freedom of speech. We ended up
not asking why are there Nazis marching on our streets? Um, we ended up not asking why
are people denying a baking cakes for gay people? Um, it’s a way to kind of live and
let live with the Israeli, uh, terrible issues that we shouldn’t live and let live. We should
be asking, why are there Nazis on our streets? We should be asking, uh, you know, why is
there discrimination against gay people? And instead we just say, well, they can say whatever
they want. Yeah, I mean, I think that, so there’s a couple
of things that are mixed in here. One is obviously the idea that, Oh, the fact that someone may
not necessarily deserve being proactively stopped from speaking doesn’t mean we need
to go number one out of our way to make sure that there are no consequences to their speech.
Free speech when it exists also is not, does not entail freedom, have consequences to that
speech. Right. But to make a more practical, I mean, so, okay. With the straight pride
parade that we had in Boston a couple months ago, I talked about this cause we shoot out
of Boston. Um, I said that without even getting into should the permit or have been granted
or not because you can sort of take different, uh, positions on that. To me, the ideal thing
would have been that just no one pays attention that the 60 marchers or whatever show up and
they do their thing, but it doesn’t look like no one cares and it’s just kind of a waste
of their time. I thought it might be a way where we don’t even have to have the argument
about free speech, but that’s not everybody’s approach. I mean, what, what would, how do
you think those types of events should be handled? I think that there, I mean, there are a couple
of ways you can look at that. I agree that maybe no one should pay attention. But in
that case, I think that also, um, you know, the government shouldn’t pay attention to
them either. I E dedicate many resources like cops and, uh, you know, barricades and all
of this. I mean, I’ve been to, you know, as a reporter and as an activist, I’ve been to
many, uh, far right marches where it’s five, you know, neo-Nazis or whatever it may be,
and then drink cops surrounding them. And, uh, if you, even if you listen to like people
in the far left to, you know, want to punch those Nazis in the face or whatever, they’re
not saying, uh, don’t let them Nazis March. They’re not saying the government should arrest
them or something. They’re just saying, why is the government spending thousands and thousands
and thousands of dollars, uh, protecting them when, you know, if I go, if I go out on the
street and say some ridiculous stuff, I, I don’t, uh, have police protection guaranteed.
Um, and so, yeah, with the straight pride people, I think there would be a lot less
people marching in the streets. Uh, spouting white supremacists or anti-trans or whatever
slogans, if they didn’t know that a a thousand cops would be there protecting them. That’s true. And I mean, so, so this is where
it’s sort of like a chicken egg thing because I agree 110% with what you’re saying. And
yet if it wasn’t known that there would be more protestors than marchers or whatever,
there probably would not be resources mobilized. And that’s not a defensive anything by the
way too. Just to be clear, it sort of becomes this self perpetuating thing where if no one
paid attention, you probably wouldn’t really need resources cause it’d be 40 people walking
down the street and then going, you know, to Chick-fil-A and getting chicken sandwiches
and going home or whatever the case may be. Yeah, I mean, I guess I agree and disagree.
I think for one, the internet in general has made us all closer in this bad way. I think
we need to respond to everything. Um, you know, like Nazis were still organizing before
Twitter existed, but now I just see them organizing all the time. Right. So, um, so I think that’s
given us this sense of immediacy that’s not really healthy. Like, Oh, we need to be there.
We need to be counteracting this at every single moment. That being said, you don’t
want, you know, Nazis to go unchecked on your streets. Uh, I think if you allow 20 to March,
then there’s nothing to say that, uh, in, you know, six months, a hundred Nazis won’t
be marching on your streets and so on and so on. I think there’s an argument to be made
that, um, the less you protest these things, even if it is just five people, um, you know,
protesting some ridiculous cause the, the less you protest them, the more you kind of
allow people to think they’re socially acceptable, um, and allowed that to grow unchecked. So,
so yes, I understand not, um, not responding to every single one of these ridiculous protests,
um, and kind of fanning the flames. But at the same time, I think that sometimes it is
important to show that this is not a socially acceptable thing to do. Yeah, it’s a, it’s sort of a, I mean it’s
the same decision I make when I decide is this particular extremist art, am I better
off ignoring them or are there ideas becoming mainstream enough that it’s actually worth
responsibly challenging them? And there is no sort of like guide necessarily. Sometimes
it’s a judgment call, right? There is no hard and fast rule and
I think that’s really important to recognize, you know, a lot of the book. Um, and I should
say this isn’t just like a think piece of a book. Like this is a reported book. I go
to Charlottesville, I go to Washington DC, I go to standing rock. I go to like five different
college campuses to interview people about, um, you know, blocking conservative speakers
there. Um, and when I was on those college campuses, I think, you know, these students
get this totally unfair representation of, Oh, they just want to, uh, cancel all speech
that they hate, but they’re thinking about this tactically to their, you know, when it
comes to Charles Murray, the guy who invented the bell curve and it’s kind of like a modern
day Ray scientists, they thought that he specifically was worth protesting because he was taking
these far right racist, uh, concepts and pushing them. Oh man. A very, uh, important conversation
with P E Moskowitz. That is, um, someone doesn’t want it to happen because we are having significant,
uh, connection issues with PE. Um, that may be as far as we can get with it. Um, so I
will remind you that we’ve been speaking with PE Moscow, it’s author of the case against
free speech, the first amendment fascism and the future of dissent. Um, we will, uh, do
what we can, uh, to try to get PE back, but certainly something going on with our connection
today causing a [inaudible] major, major issue for which I can only apologize.
We will take a quick break and be back with much more right after the

100 thoughts on “The Case AGAINST Free Speech?

  1. This is the most ludicrous and muddle-headed guest you've ever had on, David.

    "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it." – Voltaire.

  2. I believe you are 100% entitled to free speech, but you also not free from the consequences of that speech. You are free to tell lies about someone, but you can be sued for defamation/libel. You are free to threaten someone, but you can be arrested for harassment.
    But these laws that are imposing fines or even jail time for calling someone a b***h or something else is ridiculous.
    I do not support racists, but instead of stopping them from speaking, legally "stop" them with boycotts and counter protest. Take away the attention. Instead of spanking a child to stop the attention grabbing tantrum, ignore it and they learn it won't work.

  3. This guy needs to talk to Sam Harris, I think Sam may be confused on the nature of free speech in America.

  4. You can't trespass and say something = we don't have freedom of speech
    What a fucked up argument.

    I think the fundamental misunderstanding this individual has is, there is a difference between freedom of speech and being free from the consequences of said speech. You can say whatever the fuck you want, people and private companies are then free to respond. What's his alternative? You can walk into a stranger's house and start talking?

    Then we don't have freedom of speech, but I'm against freedom of speech? Are you donald trump's speech writer?

    I wonder if he considered preparing for this interview? I gave up at 6:48

  5. Dude is hilariously pathetic and wrong…

    Every case he is making here is acting as if nothing will shift in terms of what is socially acceptable speech…

    I'd love to see him make these arguments if an ACTUAL fascist was in power and you didn't have the ability to express left wing views….

    This is why you can't be against free speech for views you don't agree with, it isn't about defending those views, it is about the ability to express any views at all no matter who is in power and/or what happens to be socially acceptable views at any given time, to set that precedent…

    This is an absolutely mind bending part of the anti free speech left..they say we have a full blown fascist in the white house, and all in the same breath, feeling no possible recourse from going outside, or online, on social media to criticize or dunk on, make fun the president. What they don't seem to realize is how lucky they are that he obviously isn't an ACTUAL fascist, otherwise no dissent would be allowed….

  6. As a European I learned about Americans and their freedom of speech when I was a child, Americans seemed to say the most stupid stuff I've ever heard WITHOUT BEING ASHAMED because it was their God given right to say those things and they were oh so very proud of it. I was flabbergasted! I saw it as their freedom to voluntarily look like fools and they seemed to enjoy that in like an arrogant way. Now, 40 years later, with this nightmare of a presidency I started watching American politics for the first time in my life and it seems the freedom of speech thing is a hot issue. Trump seems to use 'freedom of speech' to spread his message of hate, Fox News seems to use it to spread lies. It looks like Americans can still make themselves look like extremely arrogant (and yes stupid) assholes, you make me feel flabbergasted again!

  7. It's clear that the far right tactically use free speech as a framing mechanism. They always have. Just ignore it and shout out louder than them how they plan to take away rights from everyone. Not how they are supposedly "defending" one right that they are not really defending at all.

  8. This guy is full of shit. Like massively. Did you have them on to fight their points? Or to help express his opinions? Freedom of speech is far more complicated then this person expresses it to be.

  9. Neoliberals and right-wingers: "Those 'SJWs' are shutting down the 'marketplace of ideas'!"
    Also neoliberals and right-wingers: "We must pass laws to make boycotts of Israel illegal."

  10. There are some big new free speech issues where I really don't know the answer.
    * Free speech cannot be a social media that can be totally manipulated by people with money (AI web-bots to actually owning the platform and controlling the algorithms.)
    * Verifying identity might fight web-bots, but now you have given big money more tools to gather data and build psychographic profiles on everyone to bias elections.

  11. I cant even make a counter argument because he doesnt even understand what free speech is! he should get educated on it first. He used entering someones home and screaming as an example to be against free speech its hilarious

  12. It’s scary how heavily the government is trying to regulate Facebook and google. It may favor the Left for today, but after we’ve given up our free speech, with the government really still have our best interest at heart?

  13. So who is this guy to decide what speech should be free and what speech shouldn’t be free? That’s the point of free speech, nobody is virtuous enough to decide what’s acceptable. That’s why the line is drawn at a call to violence, almost anything short of that is no concern of the governments.

  14. I totally trust that guy to decide what I can say, what I can’t say, and what ideas I can hear. Because if it wasn’t for my neighbors disapproval I’d definitely be a Nazi.

  15. Dont dislike the Video Just because you disagree with the other person 😂😥 . Like it For David Pakman and always willing to interview peoole from all sides of the spectrum and see what their about

  16. a recent example of supposed free speech is POTUS' claim during the last presidential campaign that he could murder someone on 5th Avenue and not lose support AND then having his lawyer, Attorney William Consovoy use that example in US Second Court to claim the POTUS is immune to any criminal investigation or detainment while he is in office…to me that sounds ridiculous and dangerous and is beyond any slippery slope and sounds like a push by Trump to become dictator AND we damn well pay attention to his desires and any attempts to be above reproach.

  17. Because everyone wants to listen to a guy with a bull ring in his nose and eye shadow on about how freedom of speech and expression doesn’t need to be protected and defended. Have fun with that argument, without it being protected. Sure, we could potentially find a way to prevent overtly racist and xenophobic protests and marches. But their protests and marches aren’t enough to just throw away freedom of speech and expression, simply because it will be an easy way to prevent those people from being able to do such things. But that also leaves room for a group of people to decide the same thing about any of the groups you claim to be a part of. It’s just not a particularly effective way of going about it. You can change the legal definition of what it means to incite violence to include inciting hatred toward a group of people as well. That would be a smarter plan than removing your own human rights and freedoms, simply to restrict the rights and freedoms of someone that you disagree with.

  18. This person is pushing a dangerous agenda. Freedom of speech shouldn't be decided by a certain group. Ideas should be freely exchanged and the remedy to bad ideas are critical thinking skills. I will never support suppression of "bad" speech. It's really all relative.

  19. Hmm I wonder why the government is forced to spend $1,000's of dollars to protects some protesters.. it's almost as if if there was some violent group of people that show up to counter-protest any right-wing event.

  20. Actually if it is a public university banning a speaker then the government is involved. How did this idiot write a book on the subject.

  21. This guy seems very misinformed to have written a book arguing against a vital part of the countries founding.

  22. In terms of say the neonazi marches or straight pride that was held can we separate freedom of speech from freedom of hate?
    Another challenge is the overgeneralizing people do in assuming because one person defends or argues against X-topic, that makes them believe the exact opposite.
    I also agree when they said if people didn't pay attention to the neonazis it would hurt their cause more, but that isn't realistic to expect or hope that people will ignore.

  23. David doesn't get the right to bitch when his speech gets censored anymore since he wants to put double standards in place for his political opponents like the fucking weasel he is. Shame.

  24. It is amazing that David adopted the Dave Rubin approach with interviews: agree with everything (including the framing) and offer no counter arguments.

  25. I genuinely wonder how different these comments would be if this was a radio vs video broadcast. After reading alot of the comments, it seems that alot of people are biased against this guy from the come out purely on his appearance.

  26. This guy is a fucking imbecile. He defends taking away other peoples freedom of speech by using his own freedom of speech.
    "There are a couple of things I would say to refute that…"
    Heads up dummy if it can be taken away from them, it can be taken away from you as well.

  27. I’ve only been watching for a short time but I’m honestly disappointed with how this interview turned out. For someone to say punching nazis is ok since it expresses disapproval with the government and not be challenged by a liberal on it is really problematic. You gave good pushback with Dave Rubin and Sam Harris, please don’t hold this person to a different standard. I won’t unsubscribe, but if you have PE back (which I encourage), please give the same pushback you would to others.

  28. This androgynous snowflake wants to curb free speech. He represents a disturbing puritanical and authoritarian trend that's growing on the Left.

  29. If Twitter is to be considered a private corporation for free speech purposes, then why are public officials barred from blocking people for free speech reasons?

  30. This balding twat waffle completely ignores the principle, the spirit of, free speech in favor of a literalist, limited conception of it. What a butt fucking, putrid fecal mass of an excuse for a human being.

  31. in some cases it makes sense to value the idea of freedom of speech beyond the first amendment and those are 1. employers forbidding the expression of political ideas wile not working (like an employer firing employees of the opposite party or that support workers rights) 2. huge platforms like YouTube censoring (or demonetize when advertisers want to advertise) political ideas instead of being public utilities as they are the modern public square and it is like the power company not selling power to people with some political views . but free speech works both ways so if someone is saying something offensive you should criticize them like white supremacists, as in some respect the left has allowed those deplorables to say there ideas without substance criticism the left sometimes criticizes there right to say those things and so the right wingers can aper to win the debate only by wining the free speach debate and no the substance. so the best thing to do as a leftist is to allow them to speak and then criticize there stupid ideas wile making it clear you agree they have the right to speak, in that way the loose the substance debate and don't win the free speech debate

  32. Your content is become increasingly sensational, biased, omitting, angry and out of touch with normal people.

    Your fans are rabidly smug and regularly believe that disagreement is a moral issue.

    David, you are feeding the divide in our country in the worst way imaginable. Please stop inciting radical stupidity through half-baked points, one-sided stories and semantic games. Some people actually want discourse, and you’re well aware of what you’re doing – it’s pathetic.

    Notice how you have 750k+ subscribers and if you’re lucky 1% of them watch your new videos? It should tell you something when most of your viewers are making fun of you and your inability to make a coherent argument or salient point. It’s like watching a house fire.

  33. "…attempts to blur the line between violent actions and distasteful speech with false equivalencies" is a sentence he heard quite a lot when presenting his ideas like this i think.

  34. i cant imagine this is helping pakman in any way he might thought it would. if you cant dispose of an idea with a good argument i guess you can only prohibit it. education is the solution not prohibiting ideas

  35. I’m not sure why you have this guy on? Who is making the argument that freedom of speech includes entering private property or disruption of business on their grounds? It’s like having on a person to argue against raping children..

  36. Students at Middlebury didn’t just protest Charles Murray. They assaulted him & Alison Stanger. Stanger was hospitalized.

  37. What does he mean no one asks why the Nazis are marching? Of course they ask. They counter protest. You can let extremists demonstrate and respond to them.

  38. The students at Middlebury thought long and hard whether they should protest Charles Murray. They can protest all they want. But some of them didn't do that. They decided they had a the right to use violence and intimidation to stop someone else from speaking. This is all hypocrisy.

  39. This is so silly. You cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Ergo, there is no absolute freedom of speech. Ergo, it is just about WHAT the rules should be, and not IF there should be rule. The end.

  40. Freedom of speech can't be "hijacked" by a specific voice or viewpoint. That's not in its nature or definition. The problem is that these voices aren't being contested by their contemporaries in a proper way. The public arena of ideas and expression is very neutral.

  41. Freedom of speech can NOT come ahead of the freedom to live without fear of persecution. That's the issue that those on the extreme right don't seem to understand.

    They say that words can't harm you but words are the precursor to every human-made tragedy in the history of our species.

    Words lead to kids being locked in cages, irresponsible business practice that damages the environment, the murder of 6 million people in concentration camps, the murder of 20 million under Stalin, all terror attacks… Words lead to actions, allowing freedom of speech without limits is a dangerous idea as proved by history.

    Those who say, 'I don't agree with what you say but I'll fight to death to allow you to say it' are people who haven't actually thought this through. You'd fight to the death to allow people to rile up hatred against minority groups? Really? And when they're successful and minority groups get targeted, do you take on some secondary guilt or do you pretend that your actions and words didn't play a part in it?

    Social media is effectively what a world where absolute freedom of speech basically exists. It's a fucking dump of hatred and idiocy. Do we really want modern society to be like that? Is it acceptable if you overhear someone else's conversation about putting pineapple on pizza for example, to just lean in and call them a cunt? That is what limitless free speech enables and it's an absurd, aggressive way to exist. Because of social media and it's lack of action against hate speech we've seen a huge rise in extremism and people still want to defend it?

  42. 5:20 "Every other Western democracy doesn't have a 1st Amendment, and gets along fine."

    Do they? All of them? Yes, they're ahead of us in some areas, but Britain is prosecuting people for everything from obvious jokes to posting rap lyrics in memory of a friend.

  43. "If you allow 20 Nazis to march, there's nothing to say that in 6 months there won't be 100 Nazis on your streets."

    Yes, there is. It's called Psychology. Attention-seeking people are like addicts. They don't care if it's positive or negative, they just crave attention. A giant freak-out bc a handful of losers wants to hold a protest gives them legitimacy and sends a message to other attention-seekers that this works. Ignoring them tells them they need to try something else.

  44. What a dumbass argument. "If we allow Nazis to march in the street, it prevents us asking why Nazis are marching in the street!" The answer to one man's speech, even "hate speech" isn't a suppression of their speech, it's using your own speech to push back. You want to stop Nazis and KKK members marching in your street? Gather as many people as you can, line the street, and laugh hysterically at them. If everywhere they try to intimidate people into accepting them is met with raucous laughter and teasing, they'll figure out their message isn't working. And you want a chilling effect to freedom to speak your mind, invent "hate speech" laws, and then apply them to whatever you want. People in Canada and the UK have been arrested for hate speech and weren't being hateful, but because they were speaking about a protected minority, something itself that is anathema to genuine freedom, they were put on trial or fined.

  45. Reading these comments I can see that a lot of people are just outraged at the idea
    that someone doesn't like the first amendment. David has apparently committed the ultimate sin of bringing on guest whose opinion isn't popular. Free speech absolutism includes protecting the idea of limiting speech.

    The current president of the United States campaigned on banning all Muslims from entering the U.S. He failed because he didn't have enough support for the ban but what if the congress had been filled with people sharing his sentiments? The U.S. has much fewer protections for minority groups and classes of people than a lot of European countries, and it shows when presidential candidates can call Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists and still get elected.

    One thing that very few people seem to acknowledge is that many Western nations don't have laws similar to the 1st amendment and they are doing just fine as PE pointed out. People need to look at the practical effects of having certain laws and not just what they think the principle should be.

  46. Freedom of speech is an idea, not just a law. The government should not regulate "hate speech" because what is hateful is subjective.

  47. PEM is biased and a poor choice to be taking to about freedom of speech in general. He says, ".. you don't want – you know – NAZI's to go unchecked on your streets" 9:50 so I have to assume that his interest is only in how he can use freedom of speech laws to advance his own agenda.

    His complaint that NAZI's have the government spending ".. thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars .." to protect them while he and his agenda propagators never get such attention is just whiny complaining and ignorant of the facts. The government deploying security personnel during a protest march is for the public's safety first, as well as the safety of the protestors. Should the government be arbiting over which public speech is worthy of protecting and which not? NO! That would be the opposite of freedom of speech.

    And this at a time when the government is accusing FB of not censoring its content, which is very close to the government using FB as a bludgeon against freedom of speech and then hiding behind, "but FB is a private company; they're not subject ot the first amendment". That is a far more important discussion to have, with very far reaching consequences.

  48. David, a while back I saw you criticizing Dave Rubin for “not pushing” back on ideas/opinions being presented by his interviewees. I must ask… was there nothing said by guest that required any push back from you?

  49. "saying lets punch them in their face is not saying dont let them march" wtf is this bozo talking about??
    So we should let people violently suppress ideas they dont like, so you dont mind if right wingers hunt down and gay bash queer people, who cares its not like they have a right to express themselves because you know what they say "if you let 20 gays march down the street there is nothing to say in 6 months there will be 100"

  50. And finally a smear on poor old charles murphy, too bad he didnt read his book because he would have found out that Murphy is warning our societies inequality is being pushed by IQ difference and it is a warning not a celebration.

  51. The issue is the word "fascism" gets thrown around like the word "witch" did in Salem. It's being used to manipulate public opinion and scare them into being against a political target. Not only that, but it prevents honest discussion on fascism and its potential merits as to why it can be attractive to many. Believe it or not, "fascism" has certain origins to human evolutionary behavior.

    Nowadays people want "freedom" FROM speech. You cant be proven wrong if there isnt anybody left to voice their opposition to you.

  52. It is difficult to credit the guest's ideas about restrictions on free speech. He says (in effect), "oh no, how can we have 20 Nazis march today, there will be 100 next year?" That same argument, if legally acceptable, would have been used after the first, small Pride marches in 1970 to stop them in their infancy. The Skokie decision and Phelps decision, letting Nazis march and letting the Westboro Baptist Church protest funerals, were correctly decided. Believe me (sorry for the Trumpian phrase), if unpopular speech were to be shut down, the David Pakman Show and Pride Parades would be shut down in this country long before Nazi parades.

  53. Free speech has consequences but removing that person ability/platform to express their speech is not a consequence, its downright authoritarian. Speaking, shouting and protesting against someone speech is a consequence.

  54. I'm very disappointed.. someone please tell me why I should not unsubscribe. Pakman I need you to clarify your views on this

  55. Canadian here, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms wherein the fundamental freedoms of expression, thought, religion, belief, and peaceful association are ensured – per the 1982 Constitution Act

    Freedoms hold a higher place in the charter than rights since they cannot be taken away. Rights may be restricted in cases, for example, where the law has been broken.

    We do, however, have hate speech laws. Our Supreme Court considers these laws to be mostly symbolic and to represent the decency expected of Canadians, but they’ve been used in a few exclusive situations (one in which a Saskatchewan school teacher who happened to be a holocaust denier was imparting such views onto his students)

    The charter does unfortunately have a notwithstanding clause which Quebec loves to invoke – see Bill 21

  56. Why should I care what Bill Corgan’s botched clone has to say on free expression?

    Come to think of it, why should I care what Pakman thinks on the topic, seeing as he supports a cyberpunk corporate dystopia where private interests get to decide what speech is said in public?

  57. If we’re going to ban Nazis, we also have to ban communists.

    We might as well ban Islam while we’re at it, actually. One could very easily argue that the Koran is as bigoted as Mein Kampf.

  58. Progressives: “Society is improved when people live in too much FEAR to speak freely”

    Have fun losing 2020, you evil pieces of shit.

  59. This would backfire in 2 seconds when criticicism of Israel is deemed "antisemetic hate speech". It's unimaginable that this idea would actually benefit anyone except those in power.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *