Hate Speech Isn't Real (2nd Edition) | Change My Mind

you asked me for sources one country that has better net results for human freedom and human rights by restricting speech what's your source one time for the latest installment of change my mind unedited conversations on controversial topics providing an opportunity to rationalize one's own position as always comment below with the topics you most like to see in the future today we revisit a controversial topic in hate speech so it was perfectly fitting that we revisited our most controversial location Texas Christian University not given the largely productive and mostly civil nature of the last installment I've changed my mind at TCU that the school not only condemned our setup on public property claiming it to have literally adversely affected the health of the student body but the school even went as far as to offer counseling to students who might have been faced with the trauma of someone politely expressing a difference of opinion so to prove that the students are more robust than the administrators and they're tweeters give them credit for we had to go back only this time if we were asked to apply for a permit for the safety of students which never transpired then we were asked to change location then we were told that our table and chairs would now be considered a public obstruction keep in mind this is the same school which a year ago approved a student permit before kicking us out anyway so we decided that we'd roll the dice hate speech isn't real change my mind I are you I've been your mind change oh sure yeah I do you disagree with me on the outs traffic because we don't have a table chair was taken away from us what yeah so okay you mind scooting scooching in but let me remind you about the school yeah these are the cameras here so these cameras are on you and myself all right great I'm not gonna bite you you can come on in don't worry so no I'm saying you don't worry I'm nervous okay in the middle everything's good yeah we're gonna like hug it out we will afterward yeah depends hi my name is Eric I'm from originally from Portland Oregon okay so I'm experienced with a lot of like protests and things like that people hang out of cars and punch in the face something like that so I was one time I was in did you hear about the May Day protests that happened about three years ago was the first I guess before we did you said you are you interested in having your mind changed I'm interested I'm changing you changing my mind on hate speech yes sir okay so let me kind of establish the definition of hate speech actually we both kind of agree on terminologies here because we're matter what I'm talking about is not that people can't speak easily can and I would discourage that yes I'm talking about as any kind of speech that should be differentiated legally as you see in the UK or in my home country of Canada okay based on its level of offense or a quote-unquote level of oppression not a real thing don't agree with it if you disagree you can change my mind okay so I think that there should be one problem I see in schools is the issue of having like racist thought and that sort of thing isn't like I feel there should be limits on what should we say and campuses just as in the census of like if there's someone saying like blatantly racist things I think it'd be better just for all involved so there isn't that sort of hateful attitude just because it could lead to conflict that isn't necessary so you just don't like it front of private campus I'm talking in general like if someone let's say there's a member of the KKK that starts walking around campus and starts saying like this is not my personal leaf but says like white people are the superior race I don't think that person should be allowed to speak just simply because it would violence and I think only on campus I'd say on campuses probably not obviously there is I know there's a Supreme Court case that allows that speech to happen they can regulate time and marinara are you talking about in general you know what the government shouldn't allow that person to speak that way there should be legal consequences are you just talking about a student on campus shouldn't be able to say I'm talking on a student on campus because I know there is a Supreme Court case that says Garman can regulate time and manner I believe by on a college campus I just don't think it's necessary for this kind of speech to happen because again there's not going to be a dialogue change if someone's obviously saying white people are the superior race I think there does need to be some kind of limit but obviously people do need to have their voice heard so what I disagree with you is are you sure that Minds what we change your dialogue might not be raised by a racist viewing racist I just don't think there's any benefit to having someone say white people are the superior race when there's obviously people people of color that have gone through stripes obviously I I don't believe that I've been oppressed before but I think that if someone's saying blatantly racist things there should be limits and I don't think there's any time like that on campus yes sir what about in the country I don't want to sound like a racist if I say that but I just don't think it's I'm trying to formulate a good argument here sure do you mind stepping back in a little bit because we're yeah just gonna always come close to me here I don't mind you I'm just a we're very limited in where we can be as far as not you know being obstructing the sidewalk of course I talk about on campus on a public campus you know publicly funded campus you need to provide an equal platform to both political points of view right but I asked you about the country at large the contrail so again that's that's what I'm talking about here hate speech you're talking about legislatively sounds to me like you think there should be limitations on speech not obviously colleges are gonna have their own rules we've cut we've covered that for the country at large I think that it should be more of a taboo obviously if you're a group that has race racism so how are you changing my mind it's already a taboo to say white people are better than black people yes sir okay so what what's what would you change what's the issue that's just offensive speech but it's protected under the First Amendment right that's true okay I'm a little nervous Smith that's fine that's fine I said you said oh you already have your mind changed so I'm gonna assume that meant that you disagreed with something that I'm just so I agree yeah just to clarify so like you agree that racism is bad and no one should say that what's your thoughts on that no racist do I think people should be allowed to be racist sure why is to two but do you see just coupled two very different questions that's can you review that sorry yeah you said can you do we both agree racism is bad yes but then you in that same sentence to ask me if I thought it was okay should be allowed sorry for someone to be racist if Kutcha yes yes to both questions I think it's bad and I think someone should be allowed to be racist so do you think there should be any like what is the benefit to allowing people to be racist is like my thing like why should the government protect that right is my question what is the benefit to allowing you to say that it's bad to be racist well I guess my viewpoint wouldn't have just to play devil's advocate my viewpoint I don't think would cause harm the problem I see with racism that it it can cause harm to people but when I'm saying I don't think you should be allowed to make bad comments on people's race I feel like just from a utilitarian standpoint is right the racist thinks that you're causing them harm so my point is the benefit is allowing freedom of speech for all even speech with which we disagree otherwise it's not freedom of speech okay I understand otherwise how do you how do you decide who decides what speech is permissible and what speech isn't I suppose well I suppose there's two ways to do that one you have mob rule which kind of just decides and it makes taboos like you were saying or you could also have the government but the problem with there is obviously like from your viewpoint the garment would therefore be the deciding class from your viewpoint is there a problem with that it depends obviously if there's obscene speech if something's going to cause harm like if you yell fire in a movie theater you shouldn't be allowed to say that well that's not free speech though that's that's a call to act that shoot is that's actually because people can be physically harmed because you're lying about to be you can actually yell fire in a crowded theater you know you can but you'll see the concept but if there's a fire you you're helping people right but if you lie and cause a stampede that's your problem that's the issues not the speech it's the call to action gotcha so you said I you know you presumed that I would have a problem with the government being in charge of permissible speech I'm asking you since you're the one suggesting that some speech should be allowed and some speech shouldn't do you think there's a problem with the government being shot in charge of determining permissible speech I guess it's just tricky just because racism is such a touchy subject and I'm sure like I'm gonna get just like kind of y'all that just because like what I've been saying no no but I guess it's not really a touchy subject everyone almost everyone in this country agrees except for a few extremists and there you talk about single-digit numbers right you could probably count them on both hands feet and maybe read you know that your flippers how many people are actually racist in this country who believe that white people are superior to black people it's not like you're gonna get right right I guess I guess my thing is like maybe now that I think about it I think that yes it's like can you say racist things I suppose yes but my thing is should you like should you as a person say that no I just don't think it's a good idea for you because we should just respect everyone well it's not me I didn't say anything racist of course of course I'm saying like you like as a pert like just a general shorten it's like can you do this yes should you do that probably not I'm very good but I think the more important question is could you be a country like or could you be a place like Canada my home country of cans out before a place like the UK in Germany and legislate speech that is offensive and put people in jail for it well you can't right now in the United States some people would like us to be able to should you know okay so they've got some more question we agree on that I think we do yes thank you I've watched your show before I just wanted to be all that I feel like thank you man I think it was [Music] hi I can't really shake your hand coming up yeah we kind of 30 months definitions cuz we don't want to cause no stress we're like right here yeah if that works okay this way you might have read into college paper one time I hate speech another about people speaking hatefully people can say hateful things obviously I'm talking about any kind of speech that's differentiated or should be differentiated legally based on its level of offense cause or quote-unquote oppression yeah I'm saying the United States the definition that's used for example on campus quite a bit or what was lobbed against me for example for the rape culture isn't real I was accused of hate speech that's not realistic okay if you disagree you're more than welcome to change my mind I'm just concerned about your definition because like the merriam-webster definition of hate speech is like the speech that is hateful based on someone's like race gender or sexuality so you're saying it like differentiates from like the normative definition talk about a legal definition here in United States okay so just the legal definition so what someone can yes I believe I believe that any kind of speech that would be differentiated it out from under the umbrella of freedom of speech doesn't exist I don't think there's speech offensive enough or egregious enough to warn any kind of legislation so unequivocably like all speech is protected yes speech freedom of speech okay a few questions sure go ahead oh oh thank you I appreciate you being so considerate i 100% agree that free speech should be protected I'm actually from Russia so like this is like a very personalized issue for me I can imagine yeah I'm from Canada it's terrible over there - I just wonder what about like fear-mongering like speech that is a call to action for violence to occur like pure teach or the rhetoric that was perpetuated in like the case of the pulse nightclub shooting like hateful speech that like monger sphere yeah so what speech are you telling that led to the pulse nightclub shooting perhaps religious rhetoric that insinuated that is okay perhaps from whom okay it was terrorists who like had like a perpetuation of like fear-mongering and free speech you Jim what the post nightclub feeder himself well certainly but like they're hitting provocations as well that use their free speech in order to like perpetuate hateful rhetoric sure so let's define hateful rhetoric okay rhetoric that is hey I like difficult to define hateful rhetoric is something that incites like well just girl within I don't know okay so how would that be defined legally I think that anything that discriminates against someone based on their sex ability or disability sexual orientation or gender can be considered hate speech okay yeah and as something that should be an actionable offense should be limited or controlled or legislated by the government your America you've heard it like sapir-whorf right like language constructs reality I feel like even if speech is protected unequivocably oftentimes that speech is misconstrued and that rhetoric becomes violence that's what would happen with Hitler it was fear mongering it wasn't really misconstrued I think Hitler was pretty clear about what he wanted to do I think he told the masses like I'm gonna go kill six million Jewish people like I don't think that was like his initial message it was his initial message you know he eased into it but I think to compare Hitler's for example his rhetoric and being a part of you know the National Socialist Party of Germany comparing that to someone who might say something that someone could misconstrued as hateful and uses inspiration to commit an act of violence is not at all the same so I guess you know used to get some questions for me what would be an example of speech that you think should be controlled or legislated by the government if someone tweets out you should go kill this person because they're gay I certainly believe that they of course free speech no okay no we already have laws in the books for that and that's because an active call to violence it's the action so for example you could say I hate steven crowder that's fine say you could say yeah you could say I hope Steven credit gets I don't know gets stabbed with a pitchfork okay that's probably fine I hope he gets run over by a car you can't say go run over steven crowder with a car or I'll pay five hundred dollars to someone who runs over steven crowder with a car it's the call to action they're already laws in the book well the law drives draws a line at an active call to action okay in 2016 during the election at TCU people went around on bulletin boards writing the three-fifths compromise needs to come back would that be considered the what was the three-fifths compromise needs to come back okay what about the considered hate speech like would you protect that what would I protect that well I don't know what your rule is on shocking or painting or whatever it is but don't think those students should go to jail do I think they should know I also think I wasn't there wasn't a TCU that there were people talk about the eight words I'm some of the neo-nazi or time ago that 8888 okay let's party poop swastika which is proven to be a hoax so uh no I think I think people should be able to say things that are wildly offensive whether it's racist whether it's you know quote-unquote homophobic I think I have no problem with it doesn't mean I agree with the point of view I think it should be freedom of speech for all I believe in the First Amendment or then you have to determine for me what the line is where's the line I guess because I you know I noticed you have a lot of questions want to ask you questions you answer with a question where's the where's a line for freedom of speech right what do you disagree with me on what do you want to change my mind though I think that certain expressions of free speech lead to violent actions occurring okay I think that it's very hard to say that there's no correlation there you know I didn't say there's no correlation okay but then how do we exist in a society when we're allowing people to like directly influence or like indirectly violent actions well there's a very big difference isn't there please explain we just what you just said directly or indirectly directly or indirectly yeah so directly so violence is like so eagle so if you're calling but what if like your speech the rhetoric that you're putting out to the public is the reason that eventually a hate crime occurs like shooting should be held to some kind of penalty for that so could you give me an example of what kind of speech because again I gave an example of direct so I think this is important because as you said you're in the debate team yes right so direct and indirect are important right there there antonyms right so direct like I said would be kill steven crowder with your car okay will be an example of indirect hate speech that would lead someone to commit violence that you believe needs to be controlled or legislated if someone is constantly tweeting out like racial slurs like well I was gonna trying to go with the simcard example but let's say okay let's say I'll say this someone says black people are inferior to white people or someone says black people are inferior to Asians or Russians whatever it's take your pick okay and then someone later on that's it that's the sound of that's the sound of losing an argument so someone said something racist down the line someone says I was inspired by this racist statement to commit an act of violence that was incorrect that correlation is what's dangerous I think because language constructs reality because what people are putting out there is oftentimes the reason why certain actions occur I think that there's not necessarily limitations or censorship I don't believe in that at all but there has to like be a line drawn at some point well if there's if you're not did you just say that you don't support any kind of legislation or censorship but there does need to be a line I certainly don't think that like the government should be interfering and what's put out in the media but I think that's different than what someone's like tweeting out if someone's tweeting out this violent like I'm trying to like draw a distinction but I don't think you're getting me that's fine no I think I am getting you just said you don't supporting kind of legislation or censorship but there does need to be a line drawn so what do you mean by line like decency humanity I think that agree yeah I agree so I don't understand what you're arguing then I'm talking about hate speech as legislation as an exists in my home country of Canada you said Russia so we just talked about this with I believe Nick was his name in Canada you can be fined for hate speech I have a friend as a comedian who was put before human rights tribunal for telling a joke in the UK it's over 3,000 people per year alone just recently a girl was a charged with a hate crime for posting Snoop Dogg lyrics on her Facebook page because it included the n-word I'm sure you're familiar with count dank you love the dog for the Nazi salute right so in other countries you can be charged convicted for criminal behavior based on speech we have the First Amendment so we don't have that here the term hate speech in those countries is used to create that line which by the way that authority has been granted to their government in the United States thankfully we don't hate speech doesn't mean anything it's in a legal terminology lots of people would like to change that that's what I'm talking about but if you'd seem it seems like we agree if you don't believe that the government should have any role in legislating speech at all and you're good with them then I think we agreed no okay so if someone were to draw a swastika in our Commons is their speech protected well hold on a second here speech is given from freedom of expression people express their speech through differently no no legally they're not the same thing so that being said the campus of course can do what they want especially it's a private campus they can do what they want just like a private business can do it the one I saw you brought up Twitter earlier but freedom of expression is actually not in the Constitution anywhere freedom of speech is as a reason for that is as you said people express themselves in different ways some people can express themselves in ways that are very destructive physically as a matter of fact matter are given if you look at artists they actually often do things that are physically damaging if not to their own bodies to other people speech by itself speech is not destructive to that degree that's why freedom of speech is protected and the First Amendment of the Constitution and freedom of expression isn't so I'd like to give a conversation to speech because every time with the written word yeah I just which is important to cadets action important elimination because of libel versus slander but yeah so sounds like you agree that speech shouldn't have any limitations the government shouldn't disagree on is that I believe that oftentimes hate speech can be the catalyst towards violent crimes and violent actions and acts of hatred I don't think we're agreeing on that point okay so how do you how do you fix it then perhaps speak in a culture where hate speech look isn't normalized I feel like hateful rhetoric has become normalized recently like especially like in the status quo you believe that like they can put anything out there or say anything without any let's see there oh you keep kind of cutting yourself their punishment would me punishment by yeah I mean you're you're you're in a debate right what is it what is punishment mean it depends like the body of like okay but the person who would be administering punishment would have to be in a position of authority perhaps winter BOTS were regulating Twitter well that's more aware time in a colloquy Nicole but we're done with actual punishment right he said without punishment punishment would have to come from some authority figure right someone has the authority to punish somebody else so that would be I think that you're Metro sizing hate speech to something that it's like I don't by your definition that it's only like what can't be legislated as it is in Canada like hateful rhetoric it is yes I said that right at the outset people say hateful things but you said that they should be allowed to what should be like what in the status quo is like legislated or like laws or police action as far as what as what we're talking about today hate speech as its lobbed on this campus for example let me give you kind of a jumping-off one the reason we're back here I was accused of hate speech okay or the last time I was here on this campus where the sense that rape culture is a myth well change my mind I will actually say that I like entirely disagree I think you have a right to be here you have a right to like engage in peaceful discourse with students I think it's kind of ridiculous when they start screaming and crying and can't control their emotions I appreciate it thank you but a lot of people said that was hate speech okay so it again it serves to eliminate that many different people have different lines of what determines hate speech that's why it has to come down to some kind of a legally identifiable definition in the United States it doesn't exist okay I agree with that I'm Pro hate speech not existing as a legal term I'm Pro First Amendment I am never going to disagree with anyone who says that some people speak hatefully now you keep going back to sometimes people speak hatefully or they use hateful rhetoric and someone misconstrues that to commit an act of violence I of course don't think that's protected so you think that like religious leaders like let's say like Ayatollah Khomeini who constantly goes like death to America and consoling perpetuates rhetoric that like Americans are like Western invaders who are horrible and deserve to die because his speech protected if Iran didn't have such terrible loss well I think it I was gonna say maybe more fair to use an American example like Louis Farrakhan okay do you think that his speeches protects is protected so when people like religious zealots go out and commit crimes like in the name of their religion like McGarry is incited that violence should continue to be protected yes now unless it's a direct call to action for example Louis Farrakhan goes out and he's called jewel Jews everything I think from the white devil to mongrels he's been very anti-semitic he has the right to speak freely absolutely now if someone goes out and says I killed somebody or I beat up a Jewish person at a pro Palestinian protest because Farrakhan called them white Devils Farrakhan speech is still protected do you think it's not I just I certainly believe that if a nation isn't doing anything to stop like the rhetoric that's inciting these horrible like shootings at synagogues like perhaps the person who like did the shooting or heard like some inflammatory or sorry if your mom's rhetoric like in it I just like don't understand how we continue to allow this type of like rhetoric and speech to exist in the status quo and we know that it directly correlates and directly creates and incites violence like how do we as a country like well first up we don't we don't know that it directly correlates to violence what we do know is that if you look at every single major free rights human rights movement in the United States started with speech I started with speech from minority groups whether you're talking about civil rights movement the 60s whether you're talking about even more recently where people would use you okay marriage is an example starts with people in the minority who are afforded the same rights as those in the majority to speak freely I believe that those minorities should be afforded the exact same liberties and freedom as anyone is in a majority regardless of how many electoral votes they represent so I think it's if it comes down to what you're talking about you said we continue to allow that's actually interesting language to me because we don't allow anything I mean if we believe in the First Amendment right it's we don't grant basic human rights birth rights okay the term inalienable I'm sure you're familiar with means these rights come from God God yeah yeah let's just say the universe let's see if you don't believe in God right the point is they're not granted by government they're not granted by a Supreme Court not granted by voters it's a birthright so when you say we allow this hateful rhetoric yeah we're not allowing anything people are speaking freely and we can't interfere with that that's what our basis of laws is a fundamental do you have any like if I were to bring to you a study I don't have it but I have studies on both sides that show everything exists if I were to bring you a study that said that there's a direct correlation between hateful speech and violent crime yeah you would say that nothing needs to be done and we can just allow that continued to exist in the status quo I would ask you what do you think needs to be done let's say you have that study and it says hateful speech first up we need to define hateful speech it's something offensive I think hateful speech like the definitions that I've seen from like Marian Webster Oxford like directly state that this hateful speech is like targeted towards minority groups like normally like that's what this defined us okay so can be like conservatives on college campus yeah I agree okay does it include for example someone posting Snoop Dogg lyrics to their Facebook that's where I think that there's a problem I think that people misconstrue what hate speech is like when it's truly like ridiculous like people like take it out of hand people can't control their emotions people are enraged by it like stupidity honor right yeah but you understand for example would count dang Fela though right but these are the most modern examples yeah right the more severe example like you mentioned being from Russia would be Stalin would be Adolf Hitler so the best examples we have have still resulted in unintended consequences and gross violations of human rights and they're on the freedom of speech there is no good example okay so do you think it would be a slippery slope of the United States implemented laws for hate speech I think it's the only place left that actually well first up it's a place that created freedom of speech as we know it it's the only place that exists I think that's a good thing and I don't think that should change and I don't think that that should change regardless of whether there's a study or not that would say someone says something hateful and there's an increase in violent crime let's go with you on that and say that that's true I think that the good far outweighs the bad I think there's a far greater risk in limiting people's individual freedoms and granting the authority as to what's permissible in the religion as it relates to speech to a centralized government so do you think the good speech can outweigh that bad speech in like those violent crimes like I'm trying to like understand like I think I think that's the best way to combat hateful speech she has is good speech I just don't think the government's role to step in and say which speeches what kind of speech is permissible it sounds like you agree I do think that I'm like I'm drawing a distinction nuts to like I truly believe that there's a correlation between the two and if we're not doing anything even as a people or as a government legislating like some okay okay so there we go this is what kind of debate going on around around right now it comes down to the truth right you said as a people we need to be doing some kind of legislating what legislating and what speech is worthy of legislating I don't think we have a good country to take an example off of I don't think anyone's done it properly I think that they've taken it either too far like the count thank you lot example that you continue to bring out but good what I don't get I brought up several examples you're gonna cycle through them again okay good cuz the bay you're misrepresenting me there but go ahead continue I just I don't believe that we can exist in a country that respects democracy and equality if we're allowing people to continue putting forth hateful rhetoric that incites violence so again I ask you what legislation you've already said you are okay what you think would be a superior choice to give the authority over to the government to legislate speech how so well certainly we don't have like a really great definition of hate speech thus far like I mean like hateful rhetoric is okay so you decide I'm not the one advocating legislation right you are so you define it we should legislate Blanc kind of speech that we're not right now I think speech that has the ability to incite violence but again how do you weigh that I think that it's a tricky balancing act that has occurred with us I am NOT a politician nor am i part of the legislature in the United States so I wouldn't be able to come up with like but you're willing to give that power over to the legislature if they properly implement laws okay how would they properly implement no one here I certainly don't think this is North Korea I don't think it should be imprisoned for like exercising their free speech but I do think that we need to draw a line in order to these like incendiary forms of speech from perpetuating throughout the masses I guess I'm still what what is that line what is that line yeah what is that line that's very difficult to say and now I understand why you say that hate speech isn't real there's no real definition of hate speech that exists in the status quo that can be applicable to like legislate and as you acknowledge everywhere else that it has been applicable has been terrible from the extreme examples to the most modern examples you just said no country that is basically incorporated what you're proposing is sort of vague legislation right now no country has done it well so you said the United Kingdom had 3,000 about 3,000 per year okay do you have a statistic showing how many of those are like righteously like deserved well I don't think that any of them are righteously deserved outside of actual threats of physical violence in other words so again that's what's most important I don't think any any example in Canada the comedian being fined or put Freeman rice tribunal is okay but I'm not the one proposing legislation I'm good with the First Amendment you're the one who is proposing a change but you can't draw the line as to what should be permissible and what isn't permissible but you're willing to give that huge swath of control over to the government and I'm sure that we can both agree that's a very dangerous idea let's say we had an epic soccer scene like who was gonna take charge of hate speech like the best of the best most intellectual people who were like defined hate speech or something that's like parametric eyes to be accurate and like functional would you be okay with that who picks the group I don't know we take a test everyone takes a test and the smartest the smartest 2% of the nation is like taken and they get to decide what is hate speech and what watch me put forth so do we this is based on the premise that the smartest 2% of the population would be the most effective at preserving laws and the liberty of we're creating laws it's creating I don't agree I don't agree that only that only the top 2% of intellectuals should be in control of birthrights the people's right to freedom of speech so I want to make sure they understand correctly we disagree I appreciate being respected we disagree on the idea that there should be some legislation on speech they're not exactly clear as to what that line is but you're willing to give that you're willing to give that roll over to not necessarily the government but an appointed Board of the top 2% of America but I do we should take people for like highly intellectual and no on the subject like communication scholars sociologists like people who directly study humanity and communication yeah when we say the founding fathers were intelligent I do think the founding fathers are intelligent I moved to this country for a reason but I do also think that they were part of the elite and perhaps didn't know what it's like to be part of a minority group what can you name me a tool I guess it has been used more by minority group to improve their lives and then the freedom of speech freedom of speech has certainly helped them but it's also like harm to them when them like majority uses it against them okay yeah so again but you do understand if you're offering that power over to a government right you've mentioned the matter for a constitutional republic but it would be even worse with our democracy right now you have mob rule if you have people who are in charge of determining speech laws you say that's even more difficult then you have for example Nazi Germany yeah not necessarily I wouldn't say majority don't want to miss you the term but a plurality right at that point for example in Canada we don't have a two-party system so you can have someone elected means 30% of the vote a plurality of the people who believe in one particular set of they believe one world view yeah and they can implement that on minorities as you saw in Russia as you see in the Castro regime that's dangerous so allowing anyone to determine what basic fundamental human rights are permissible or allowed to use your language it's just it's antithetical to the founding fathers view of government that's the whole reason for freedom speech is so that the majority as mob rule can't infringe on the rights of a minority and I think the same freedom of speech should be afforded to everybody whether the majority of minority because it's ever-changing we both gonna grow now absolutely yeah that's my point of view and it just it hasn't changed I think I agree with you on most things except for great representation of our campus I do appreciate the respectful discourse I think we agree on like a lot but also disagree on like very little I don't think I'm gonna change your mind but I do think that this was like good discourse before we move on to seconds to plug mug club what is my club well it's what allows us to continue producing these videos to the amount of ization and shadow banning not only do you get this wonderful hand-painted hand edge mug and get support the kind of content that you're watching right now but you get to watch the 1-hour daily show as well as all of the contents available at CR TV bladder excited calm slash mug club on with the show now it's important to note that the point of change my mind is not to debate rather to rationalize one's position and sometimes common ground just is nowhere to be found so you would be okay with restricting freedom of speech you would be okay with restricting or increasing creating actually speech laws if that were voted on by the masses if the masses want it absolutely more on that in a second but sometimes you find kinships in the most surprising of places all right my hands are icicles what was your name my name is Felicia Felicia all right so you know at the end of this interview it's gonna be an easy Landers bye Felicia sorry it was my water I did not spit I swear to you I moved it that's what happened no no I just wanted to regret I wanted to read it we're gonna get to that bye Felicia sooner than I thought oh no I doesn't even bother me anymore I bet you people do that all the time because it's like as soon as you show somebody that something bothers you them they're just kind of troll you I believe which is why you keep coming here right no it's not the troll we've had really productive conversation so no we're not we're not here so you just mentioned that your boyfriend was a fan big fan biggest rompers he loves Steve he asked me to bring a Steve King sign really for y'all who don't know he's the congressman I was there why would he ask you to bring that because he looks anyway yeah but you were and you said that you've never been more disappointed I've never been more disappointed and embarrassed by the people who claim to share my same values how so at some point when you disagree with somebody or you don't like what they're saying that doesn't mean that you just have to start attacking them you have to figure out a way to intellectually come up with your argument stop putting shame all over what people work tirelessly for to make life better yeah at the end I mean that's like from the left and the right everyone so yeah I guess I would relate kind of to today's topic where you see a lot of people on the left or did you see a lot of people to campaign going I can't believe that this person said that should be hate speech you know I can't remember what sort of non-disclosures I signed at the beginning of the car you were disappointed but I was just as far as the specifics as far as our weekly communication calls we're all we were told to do was to attack Donald Trump weekly on communication calls as to pivot away from whatever controversy Hillary found herself in yeah so from there you can just see it seeping down I'm into teenagers alike it's just it's embarrassing I'm ashamed well don't be ashamed you don't have any shame done being honest hate the fact that I want to be able to call myself a progressive or a liberal or a Democrat but all that happens is people will just assume that I'm gonna come over here and scream or spit or rip or cry because I don't like what somebody says right hate speech is just speech it's mean yes right there are social norms that we should try to abide by a decency just don't go around calling people bad words right right doesn't mean that you should get thrown in jail for it it doesn't mean the government should legislative there's a soul which is a whole nother you know right a couple call-to-action exact so it's interesting you say that you you know your progressive kind of more liberal I want of it so you would like to be able to but because you're so concerned with your insane on this on that but the fact that that label is now associated with something so radical at some point you can try to be so inclusive so this or so that but you just exclude people I was an active member and donor of our County Democratic Party and at some point I didn't agree with Nancy Pelosi didn't want to go see her I think she's a terrible choice for Speaker of the House yeah and I was told just to go to a Republican meeting really yes so at this point that's crazy I mean I would have thought that most Democrats don't really like Nancy Pelosi she's just a necessary evil you know but you're not supposed to go and are you some of the woman was denied communion the previous Pope so even the pre I think what the previous Pope was like so you got flack for that they said well you might he'll be a Republican is that does that sort of tell you that maybe maybe the current democratic party like they're more narrow-minded then I would say generalize it that hard I really and just I'm really against the generalizations I really hate the concepts like I said like why I don't want to be generalized in this group of people that I but they kicked you out yeah I know but my boyfriend Connor you said hi to says I'm in an identified entity crisis I think so a little bit all right let me ask you this cuz you seem like you're supportive of the First Amendment of freedom of speech I'm a supporter of all five articles of the Constitution really mm-hmm okay so then you right away or that disqualifies you from being a modern democratic okay let me ask you this who who would you feel on a national platform and the Democratic Party represents your values as they relate to things like freedom of speech things like individual liberty and it seems like you're against identity politics obviously it's hard for me to say you know this one person dan I'm taller I've got moose height so I can stand here as I help you know okay I can't name one person on the Democratic Party that I would want to you know stand there and lead us to victory in 2020 name one person I think that if Amy clothes are out of Minnesota anybody senator from Minnesota would denounce Keith Ellison just as you know everybody traveling that was an odd kind of an odd spell with a me too and then Keith Ellison okay it's hard to justify that in an argument but I would say currently she's kind of my favorite centrist a centrist as you can get Democrats okay I think that if she could just denounce Keith Ellison I'm waiting kind of worried maybe she didn't do it because she was worried about her reelection so now she's been reelected hopefully she can come out and okay all right well thank well I appreciate it wasn't even I forgot to do that I'm not gonna say that bye Felisha thing I appreciate you standing here in discussing Felicia now in contrast to that some folks these events just can't be reasoned with want to take up all of the time at the podium and just will not let you go even after the conversation has ended multiple times I appreciate that you go on for a while but let me kind of laser it on this question so you would be okay with restricting freedom of speech would be okay with restricting or increasing creating actually speech laws if that were voted on by the masses if the masses want it absolutely really if the masses and again I'm wanting legitimate masses what the bulk of the people in the country want yes I absolutely would and I'm gonna use actually I'm actually gonna use conservative logic for a second and conservatives frequently say if you don't like it leave I'm not saying if you don't like it leave but I'm saying that the typical logic is if the people if the multiple of people want something from both sides typically that's what everyone says should happen no give me an example the first amendment again doesn't matter if you don't get to vote on it humans still chose that humans still wrote the first amendment and said yeah matters and it's the only country that has the first amendment until a human that said that it's lost excuse me humans that said that and humans were the ones who said this law is in a level as you said this law is this right it's given to us no matter what humans still sent that in humans to absolutely have the right to change I think if you're just saying that all laws should just be determined by Mat by mob rule particularly freedom of speech I think it's really a scary thought honestly I disagree with you I will qualify guess what Donald Trump Mike Pence and a Senate majority right now can determine that what you say is hate speech I will fly down for a second I will qualify that not just straight up mob rule but mob rule an actual evidence based science critical thinking things like that yeah no I disagree I disagree I don't think that people should be okay with someone taking it away as long as it's taking away things that hurt people as long as it's taking away things that we as a science know does lead to lower well-being does eventually incite hostility and eventual hate crime which I know hate crime pastries not the same thing but does eventually lead to that that does become a problem and that's where the discussion needs to happen is what speech is protected what speech is not protected when it does lead to problems that does affect the prosperity of people and the prosperity of our country yeah I think it's pretty I think you've just laid out a very subjective definition and left it in the hands of not only mob rule but then eventually bureaucrats to determine a fundamental human right I just don't agree with you but I appreciate taking the time yeah thank you for chatting with me thank you man unfortunately you've not used my mind I've not changed your mind my goal wasn't to change your mind your goal is to change mine a mock mob rule I just rule of the masses and critical thinking you don't get totally you don't get to vote on a fundamental human right we chose the rights we can choose to get rid of there you go well I guess that's that's a very different worldview and I'm not okay with anyone removing your rights at all okay with anyone stepping in and saying you don't have the right to believe what you believe or speak freely but you're okay with someone walking in and telling some what they can and can't say that's terrible what I'm not and as a sociology major it is it is striking to me I'm the geology mate I'm psychology psychology okay so let's go with psychology as a psychology major do you not see the grave risk the much more grave risk in centralizing the power to a government or allowing it to be tossed to a vote every single time because that changes that cultural fabric a fundamental right like freedom of speech as opposed to allowing it allowing people to speak freely do you not see that historically the mini-vac universe question before I mentioned the psychology sociology I'd like to talk about that before I do mention that really well I don't know could you remind me of it so I can make sure I'm responding correctly I just the question before I miss yes I don't know what the question was so my question is this I'm surprised that's when you say you're a PhD candidate so you're obviously a very smart person how you don't see the grave risk the much more I mean historically just the the unbelievable risk of violence associated with centralizing the power and who determines speech and what's permissible you know it could backfire you really can't it always has it's never not but a is never not I would like to see evidence for that can you point me to any single country that is restrictive sorry okay can you give me just Nazi German a Soviet Russia Castro chikka very regimes current UK Canada Maoist China need I go on absolutely you said every country every can you provide an example with one country I'm sorry but you said every this is every single country that has limited freedom of speech has it has resulted in a net loss argument this is on you for that you were the one okay you said okay let me put it this way every single country that's not the United States it's worse than the United States and in relation to free speech please give me an actual citation to back up your claim I not know a citation please that is a scholarly source that you were going to be able to rely on that is actually done the research for this okay so you would say that Nazi Germany Soviet Russia Maoist China Che Guevera Castro regime Canada where people I'm just can't listen I can't go through every single country come on I'm not I'm just asking you forgive me a scholarly source that says that okay I don't have a scholarly source with me right now saying that Nazi Germany is worse off with speech laws than United States what'd I say there's going to take my word for and exactly what I said was there are plenty of examples doesn't work you're absolutely right I don't disagree meetings we can possibly get to the point where a camera and we need to keep trying that doesn't because it hasn't worked one we don't give one well you asked me if resources one country that has better net results for human freedom and human rights by restricting speech what's your source one okay thank you very much I appreciate it brother thank you so much hopefully once we put in that one example that'll be great oh well they can't all be gems by the way notice anything even though he returned to TCU where they screeched and warned about the perils of this program the students were by and large peaceful civil engage and most left surprisingly on dramatised even more we couldn't walk through campus without students both left and right expressing their appreciation for our for your efforts really which begs a question our students really too far gone beyond saving or is it just the loudest voice is amplified by the far left administrators who've made us think that to be so this video watch another one of our videos or subscribe hit the notification bell those don't really mean anything anymore today in youtube I would say hit a like was a thumbs up but that might be gone or comment below but that most likely will be censored so bookmark the page of course if you're using Google Chrome they'll find a way to with your bookmark so just join up at Lara's credit comm slash mug Club that's lighter with credit comm slash mug Club you get a hand at Remagen you get access to the full daily one-hour show and you're not beholden to Susan Wojcicki slash Clint Howard

Channel: StevenCrowder

Views: 5,978,373

Rating: 4.9345102 out of 5

Keywords: steven crowder, stephen crowder, louder with crowder, LwC, mug club, not gay jared, Change My Mind, Crowder Confronts, comedy, politics, culture, news, entertainment, funny, right, left, conservative, liberal, libertarian, Hate Speech, Hate speech isn't real

Id: hBPbd_JYIdw

Length: 47min 25sec (2845 seconds)

Published: Tue Nov 13 2018

Reddit Comments

[u/summerfest2009]

The last guy who claimed he was a potential PhD student is one of the dumbest people I’ve ever seen speak and the dumbest person in which Steven has engaged. Dumber than Michael Ian Black.

[u/MountainPlantation]

What did the guy scream at 17:10?

[u/[deleted]]

favorite subtle thing was 30:50 when the girl suggests having a test to find out who is the smartest so that they can determine what speech is bad, then the guy in the back mouths: "what the fuck??? a test? a test!"

[u/ItsMeTK]

Why not just say "Government shouldn't legislate hate sleech - chsnge my mind"? That's really want he wants to discuss.

[u/curb_stomps_sjws]

Hate speech is a basic human right. If I hate something, I have the right to say so. Hang anyone who disagrees.

[u/Mac4491]

I have to agree with a point that the guy in the purple shirt made.

SC: You don't get to vote on a fundamental human right.

Guy: We chose the rights. We can choose to get rid of them.

Americans have Freedom of Speech because people decided that they should. Why can't people decide to take it away?

Why is that terrifying? Why are some Americans so protective of the rights that other people said they could have? Why can't people today disagree with those rights and take them away? Help me understand why that's a bad thing.

Not that I agree they should. I think free speech is incredibly important. I could get arrested here for telling a racist joke for fucks sake, which is ridiculous.