Freedom of Speech—Why Free Speech Is Important

Something that’s come under attack progressively
over the past decade or so is freedom of speech. I’m not someone who cares less about that
of the religious stuff, you know, I’m not a religious person. Unfortunately, you do
get the whole thing where the sectarian divide between Rangers and Celtic, the protestant
and catholic thing and then the whole thing bleeds into the whole political division.
For me personally who stands back and analyses everything, as a political libertarian, I
do believe in people’s right to freedom of speech and this isn’t as such to do with Rangers
and Celtic, but from a personal experience and I came across in a recent argument on
Facebook. This was something over a month or so ago, Rangers had played Aberdeen. Two
Aberdeen supporters were arrested for racial abuse of a Rangers player, Alfredo Morelos.
By no means do I condone racial abuse, it’s wrong and of course, I will explain the very
reason why I view it wrong to give the government that power. And of course, you can see many
examples for why it’s a very big problem, once you give government that power it basically
opens up a can of worms where you end up finding innocent people come under attack for that
very reason. I may never, ever agree with what you say, but I will defend your right
to say it. And this is important to that of a free society and people think: “Well, if
this is what a free society is, I don’t want anything at all to do with it.” Well, hang
on a second here, what about the alternative, the opposite of a free society? Because I’ll
tell you something, it’s far worse, especially when it bleeds into other areas. The reason
for why it becomes a very big problem is because of context. A good example of this was a guy
called Markus Meechan, who is a fellow Scot and he was being, you know, arrested for basically
a Nazi pug video which was a joke and as he stated, you know, the courts took context
completely out of it. So, in other words, what I’m saying is that context did not matter
to the court, in other words, it’s how they define it. It’s how they define, you know,
hate speech. So if they view something a certain given way, you will be punished for it and
your context does not matter at all. There have been issues where people have recently
been arrested for things to do with gender, to do with, you know, the transgender community
and people saying things that are deemed offensive. If saying something that’s offensive is deemed
a crime, then, where do you draw the line? Because there could be so many things that
could be deemed offensive and regarded as hate speech in that context. Let me give you
a small example and this is just a tiny example: what if I said I support control over immigration
and also because of threat of the Islamic ideology, especially of the extremists; does
that then mean that I’m a racist, does that then mean that because I’m a critique of Islam
and because I’m someone who supports controlling immigration, not just for safety but for economic
reasons, for the laws of supply and demand, does it mean that everybody who is a critique
of Islam and supports controlling immigration, should that then mean that they should be
arrested? What if I said we should privatise the NHS? That might be deemed as offensive
to a certain number of people, for example; that might be deemed as offensive to socialists
and many other people because the first thing that comes to their head is: “Well, you only
support a healthcare system that’s only affordable for the rich, therefore, I find that offensive,
therefore, that’s regarded as hate speech.” When it comes to hate speech, it’s all well
you personally, as a person who lives in society, who lives and works in Britain or for whatever
reason you might not be currently working, whatever, but you currently live in Britain,
you’re just a person, you’ve nothing at all to do with the government; it’s all well you
having your personal view of what you deem as racist, but every person’s view of racism
is different from another and a good example of that is a lot of leftists who are throwing
around freely this word and loosely, they throw around words like: “You’re a Nazi” or
“You’re a Fascist,” or, you know, “You’re a racist.” You could say: “I support control
of immigration” and they say: “You’re a racist.” You know, this is what I mean because all
it takes is for someone to brand you a racist and if the government, you know, adheres to
that, you’re in trouble. The issue being is the fact that, when you give the government
the power to basically define what hate speech is, when you give the government the power
to basically regulate what hate speech is, it’s the government that gets to decide on
those things. Not you or not the person who, you know, is accusing the person of racism,
but all it takes is for the government to have its own, you know, definition of, you
know, say for example, racism. Yet and you know yourself that these politicians are far
removed from, you know, reality, they’re far removed from what the people think. How often
have you seen, you know, politicians claim that you are something that you’re not? They
throw around these words like: “Oh, you’re a right-wing extremist,” you’re a right-wing
this, you’re a right-wing that and everything gets blamed on the right-wing. Well, what
does that mean? Does that mean that once you give the government that power to regulate
everything over speech that all it takes is for the government to brand you as something
that you’re not; let’s say for example the government defines the far-right as something
Fascist or a Nazi, does that mean to say that because in government’s context that the government
should, therefore, have the right to then arrest you? And this is the danger of where
Britain is going over the past decade or so and a lot of this came from the Communications
Act in 2003, which I’m pretty sure was passed by the Labour Party and, you know, people
can say: “Oh well, it’s all the Labour Party’s fault,” but hold on a second here; from the
time that the Tory government has been in power, why haven’t they, you know, reversed
this act? And when you look at who has been in government from the likes of David Cameron
to a remainer like that of Theresa May, then, you can pretty much see the reason why. We
don’t have something like a Jacob Rees-Mogg. If being offensive is an arrestable offence,
then ask yourself this question: what is it that offends people? You might disagree with
someone and that might be offensive to someone, for example; supporting the complete privatisation
of the NHS, that might be deemed offensive, therefore, an arrestable offence. You know,
as much as you might not like something that you hear, you have a choice, no one forces
you to listen to it and you have a choice over what you do with your own life. I’m not
saying that, you know, hateful things are right in what people say; I’m not saying that
if someone comes out and says something really nasty such as a racist remark that, you know,
that it’s correct. However, what I am saying is is that I believe that the free market
should regulate itself over hate speech. For people’s choice of expression, if they wish
to, you know, speak wrongly, if they wish to be racist, if they wish to be sectarian,
if they wish to be whatever it is and say such hurtful and nasty things, let society
regulate that for themselves and what that means is is this person is not going to be
a very well liked person and most certainly is not going to be very successful in business,
is not going to do well for themselves when it comes to, you know, employment, because
who is going to want to employ someone who is like that? I’ve hope you’ve enjoyed the
video, if you’ve taken anything from it, if you’ve got anything you would like to personally
add yourself, comment in the comments section below and I’ll be sure to get back to you.
Thank you for watching my video and of course, I shall talk to you’s later. Cheers!

22 thoughts on “Freedom of Speech—Why Free Speech Is Important

  • I support free speech, however since the massive censorship online people are now advocating for the nationalization of the internet and say the free-market has failed to protect free speech. Even thought this is not true the massive censorship was the result of government regulation of social media.

  • There is no "Slippery Slope" anymore man, it's totally in plain sight and it's happening day by day, there are countless examples, Freedom of Speech is being eroded very horrifically!

  • Freedom of speech is absolutely essential to a free society. You are 100% right here. I have heard somewhat about the suppression of free speech in Britain but I do not know enough to comment my thoughts on it yet.

  • I was banned from Twitter. Again. And nothing I said was untrue and I even was polite in how I said it. One can't politely state the truth at Twitter.

  • Did you see the footage of that little old English lady that was arrested for calling the police to report the Muslims illegally praying in the park?

  • Free Speech will never and has never existed. Too many people use it to their advantage to spread hatred and pass off what they have said as "Free speech". There is and always will be a limit to what you can and cannot say. If what you are saying is the truth then there should be no problem.

  • The right to give offense is the entire purpose of free speech. If all you have to say is what everyone else is already saying and is considered perfectly agreeable, what’s the point of speaking?

    Infringement upon the right to free speech helps and does not hinder racism from spreading. If you have a roach infestation, is it not better to know of it? Sunlight kills infection.

    I hate to say this, but I believe you’re much further down the road to serfdom in the U.K. than here in the U.S. because of the forfeited right to bear arms. It’s no mistake that the Second Amendment of our Constitution concerns the right to bear arms. It’s what guarantees the First Amendment, the right to freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. That’s not to say that we needn’t be vigilant defenders of free speech on this side of the ocean, though.

    You mention context as being important to understanding the intent of speech. Sadly, hard-core leftists seem to have trouble with context (and logic, and nuance, and irony, and many other aspects of thought and debate that intellectuals and philosophers have taken for granted for millennia). I don’t even engage anymore. It’s hard to reason with someone who’s got their fingers in their ears, saying, “La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-laaaaa…” to drown you out.

  • @Libertarian Views Scooty M :
    There's no such thing as Hate Speech. That fabricated SJW term is only thrown out there by those, who can't handle objective reality and have a horrendous habbit of wallowing in self-pity and in being victims, like pigs wallowing in mud. Those kind of individuals (who only seem to be good at faulting and pointing the finger at others and thus refuse to better themselves) always fallaciously and cowardly seek refuge in being "oppressed".
    Welcome to the Oppression Olympics (on steroids by the power of X mulplied by Y).

  • Hi Scotty, it is a interesting video that you made about free speech and I totally agree with you. I fear the way things are going now it could lead to civil war in the future.

    The conservative MP's of Today barring a few exceptions like Jacob Rees Mogg are nowhere conservative as they are now another version of the Labour party of the 1990's and 2000's as they keep promoting the same old failed ideas. As you had heard of last night that we would not leave the EU on 29th March unless something dramatic happens as this is an absolute disgrace.

    Why can't these MP's just respect the result even some people who voted remain they had enough as they want to get on with Brexit.

  • Bahahahaha. Just watched Scotty get absolutely obliterated by DS01. You're one of the biggest hacks on YouTube. Btw, happy belated anniversary on the death of Margaret Thatcher. Scumbag!

  • Aha! However, the Free Market will save Free Speech. After just releasing a Decentralized, Blockchain Authenticated, Messenger (Governments Can't Block This) we are working on Decentralized, Censorship Free, Channels. Anyone and everyone will be able to Host their own channel to broadcast straight to their subscribers without any Middle Man involved. The host of the channel will make their own regulations and rules, this can be run anonymously. No more YouTube pulling videos due to Copyright infringement, Language, Theme, etc etc. The Free Market will Provide.

  • Hate is almost entirely if not entirely subjective depending on the person. Hate speech is just a way to stifle free speech. Racist is one of the biggest buzzword now as well.

  • Could you please take a look at this channel, and refute some of his claims:

  • It's things like "unconscious bias tests" which really annoy me. The state and employers putting out these tests – which havent even shown to have worked – to re-train your perceptions in accordance with their demands. Let idiots speak, so decent people can hear what they have to say and reject whatever it is that they're saying. They will only harm themselves by what they're saying instead of having a law which prosecutes those for "hate speech", which god knows how much it's costing the taxpayer with court costs and such.

Leave a Reply

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