Christopher Hitchens on free speech, pt 1 of 3
Chοісе frοm a Canadian symposium. Hitchens mаkеѕ a brilliant historical case fοr thе defense οf free speech аnd open, hοnеѕt discourse. Hitchens wаѕ invited bу thе University οf Toronto’s Hart House Debating Club tο voice hіѕ opinion οn thе theme οf thе evening’s debate: “Bе It Resolved: Freedom οf Speech Includes thе Freedom tο Dеѕріѕе″. Following a formal debate аmοng four students, Hitchens сlаrіfіеѕ whу іt іѕ аn intellectual duty tο defend thе aptly οf people wе mау disgree wіth. Even revisionists lіkе David Irving hаѕ a aptly nοt bе imprisoned fοr hіѕ views аbουt thе Holocaust.
@joelhowells Yeah, you’re not making a very clever statement here…. People are very apt to assume that the First Amendment meant then exactly what it means to us now… but that’s because they don’t have any concept of what it meant then. Common Law and precedent changes the interpretation of things over time. At Holmes’s time, his verdict was in line with the common interpretation… and HE is the hero responsible for changing it to what we have today by dissenting two years later.
@instereovideos Surely the First Amendment had the same wording when Justice Holmes sat on the bench?
(cont) Holmes dissent in the case was used in a later case to change the precedent about free speech during war time. Its why people today can complain about the Iraq war and not go to jail under acts like the 1917 “sedition act.” The truth is, freedom of speech the way it is today is a honestly recent thought, at least in the legal sense. Hitchens is on the aptly side of the issue, just on the incorrect side of Holmes.
yeah sure. you’ll want to compare supreme court cases: Schenk vs. United States (holmes margin opinion) with Abrams vs. United States (holmes dissent), both are 1919. In Schenk, holmes agreed to condemn the socialists hitchens is talking about (under his “clear and present chance”). In Abrams, the court argued a similar circumstance but holmes dissented. Holmes had altered his mind, and realized that even in a time of war, freedom to criticize the government is necessary. (cont)
A sincere question for:
Please provide me with a reference for this.
I get the impression that you are on the side of freedom of speech so i do mean this question for sincerely – even if you aren’t!
It’s a bit asinine to take a stab at Oliver Wendell Holmes here… Holmes’s choice in the case he is referring to is bogus by today’s free speech standards, but we hadn’t gotten that far yet… it was HOLMES’S dissent in a case a couple of years later that GAVE us the broadened free speech thought that hitchens is trying to argue for here. Holmes is the reason that outspoken people like Hitchens have the freedom of speech that they do. Incorrect man to call “over praised” on this issue.
Holy Lucifer!
and he’s black
Can i get this with subs somewhere?
The guy with the sarcastic intro sucks.
Hitchens makes the point about free speech because he doesn’t dread debate.
Who is that ignoramus opening the speech?
Thank you for posting this speech.
“What Kaufman calls some individual is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with me.”
You bigots have the same mentality.
“I know all about him, been conception his crap for years.”
And still no clue as to his actual views.
“Look at who you subscribe to.”
I subscribe to to everything from liberal channels to conservatives, religious and atheists, art, politics and philosophy. Not excellent enough. State your case and prove your charges.
“Look at what Joe Kaufman typically puts on people profiles who dare to disagree with him”
What Kaufman calls some individual is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with me.
“Obviously not with his views.”
I know all about him, been conception his crap for years.
‘Then prove your empty charges. Prove that I’m a “nut”. Should be simple with someone of your intellectual stature.’
Look at who you subscribe to.
“As long as you keep shooting off ad hominems without arguing your points you come off looking like an mad child.”
Look at what Joe Kaufman typically puts on people profiles who dare to disagree with him
TerrorFreeOil | July 19, 2007
Go islamofuck yourself
“Why should I take a nut like you seriously?”
Then prove your empty charges. Prove that I’m a “nut”. Should be simple with someone of your intellectual stature.
If you have any honesty whatsoever you’ll state your case and make a reasoned line of reasoning as to why. As long as you keep shooting off ad hominems without arguing your points you come off looking like an mad child.
“I an quite familar with Hitchens, contard.”
Obviously not with his views.
“You seem sloping to making unsubstantiated claims. I prefer people who really argue their case.”
Pearls before beast. Go jack off to some more Joe Kaufman videos.
“Doesn’t strengthen your case at all. It only confirms my point – the audience was acting shockingly.”
Hitchens was baiting the audience and they booed him. Weep me a river.
“Last time I checked freedom of speech included the aptly to call people things.”
Repeatedly calling people traitors when they are obvious not in any legal sense is a propaganda technique used to marginalize them. It’s particularly pernicious when others of Hitchen’s ilk are openly calling for traitors to be executed.
“Are you even aware of Hitch’s many progressive views?”
I an quite familar with Hitchens, contard.
“Ah, what a nice, tolerant leftist. You’re so inclusive, so open to different viewpoints.”
Why should I take a nut like you seriously?
“in a pathetic have a crack to marginalize them.”
I didn’t know you could read Hitch’s mind.
“Fuck off.”
Ah, what a nice, tolerant leftist. You’re so inclusive, so open to different viewpoints.