Home / Modern Technology / Free Speech 2: Censorship Boogaloo (Infowars, Steven Crowder) | Very Important Docs²³

Free Speech 2: Censorship Boogaloo (Infowars, Steven Crowder) | Very Important Docs²³

Free speech. (belches) Yeah, we’re still arguing about this shit. Three years ago I made the very first episode of this series about freedom of speech. First of all, I ask the question, is it free speech of hate? I answered no, but I also indicated that I was a little suspicious and uncomfortable regarding the adoption of laws. It’s almost like when people ask those in power to pass a law relating to something concrete, the structure restores the language, forcing a transformation that makes it useful for institutionalized power. I also said that I believe that freedom of speech is too subjective to be useful in (grunt) discourse. And yes, Bako, three years have passed, and little has changed. I mean, I suppose we have three years of life for which we are looking forward to, so everything is different. But media representatives from the establishment are still talking about this shit, as if it’s 2016. as it was 1990-16. So I’m going to do something that is a big freedom of speech, motherf * ckers! Oh, yes, it will be a good nuclear option. Do you know how this is really a popular argument to say if this is not done by the government, then this is not censorship? Do you know a statement that gives a lot of reasons for removing platforms from reactionaries? For example, how, if a private institution decides not to pay someone, is it not censorship? For example, when InfoWars banned Facebook, Twitter and Uber videos, was it not censored? Well, this is wrong. This is censored. (rock music) – You will never win! – Yes, hate figures are really censored. Mat, Libs. (belches) But what does this mean? Does this mean that I became right? I mean, I really like the Matrix, and people who really don’t spend much time thinking about the matrix define it as something that right people think is cool, but (groans). In the same way, I think that what people say is important. Words are valid, and, well, in the USA, I doubt that hate speech will ever be a bit of a legal distinction. For some reason, I classified the hate speech as something other than free speech. It is simply detrimental to people, both in terms of their overall well-being, and in terms of their ability to speak. But before we proceed to the study of weeds, let’s check the “Oxford English Dictionary” to determine censorship. According to them, censorship is “the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books,” films, news, and so on, that are considered obscene, “politically unacceptable, or a security threat.” I think this is a decent definition. It covers most of the bases and for the most part we do not live in ancient Rome, so I am going to use it with one small change. I am going to stretch what is valuable for the whole expression, because I really do not think that the environment is really relevant. You can just say something controversial in something other than a book, film or news. Click “Like” and subscribe, click on the notification button and become a patron if you like such things. So, although these are pretty obvious perspectives, what does indecent really mean? How about what is politically unacceptable? What exactly is a security threat? Is interracial marriage obscene? Is socialism politically unacceptable? Is the condemnation of the continuing conquest and exploitation of the non-industrial world a security threat? Well, it depends on what criteria we evaluate? If we are talking about my personal criteria, the answer is no to all three questions. Loving someone from another race is not even strange, not to mention obscene, socialism is the only acceptable direction for politics, and the continued conquest and exploitation of the non-industrial world is abominable. However, I have no right to dictate these things to be a fact, even though I? None of the personal standards, especially mine, is universal. How are you, everything? This is your boy, Panda Papa, and today we will talk about why Captain Marvel was objectively bad, and you’d better not watch him. We do not need to go too many decades into the past if we need to find the Western world with a clear lack of interracial marriages, a clear lack of socialism and a clear absence of those who look at the non-industrial world as something other than a good thing to conquer and exploit. So, if things were a bit more caricature and obvious, bringing people and institutions together, which we could call the structure of power, could answer these three questions, whether interracial marriage is obscene, socialism is politically unacceptable, condemns the ongoing conquest and exploitation of non-industrial world of security threats with yes yes and yes! But actually it is not. Either way, these excuses for these things are preserved in less obvious ways, in ways that are harder to overcome. Anyone who has spent any

Check Also

Message In A Bottle Connects Across An Ocean And Decades | NBC Nightly News

The Florida Keys has a rhythm in all its vibrant colored houses, soaring in the …