@I Will Rock Your Face! Thank you for providing an example of ridiculous speech that I personally disagree with, but that I will defend your right to say.

She never says certain idea shouldn't be allowed to be said. She said certain ideas aren't worth being said based on how informed they are. In no way do I see that as censorship. I'm curious on what you see it though

@@drsoups and who's going to judge how informed I am?

Nick Nicholson Its not something that can necessarily be judged effectively especially because of each person's inherant bias. However, whether or not an opinion is well informed can still be at least determined at basic level based on legitimate logical deduction. For example, whether or not their arguments are fallacious or if the reasoning they are using for their arguments is legitimate, and/or if they actually prove their point.

@@drsoups That is true. She does not suggest censorship, she suggests open , logical dialog. I don't think many people here actually watched the video all the way through.

Facts

I don’t think she said this exact phrase. Can you give me a time stamp?

You have the depth of understanding of a goldfish.

Well, if you're not willing to become informed before forming your opinion, then your onion does not have value

@Channel 9 OÑO

What? You didn't watch the video?

That woman is a professional victim.

she said she's against censorship.

@Real Communism this man is a troll

@Real Communism ignore him. Leftists coming from there echo chambers don't recognize the truth when they see it

@Real Communism Don't lump her in with all women. There are many who do act as advocates for free speech. The Radical Left all in all would curb your free speech only because it would offend them

@@supersani21 Radical libtard

@@supersani21 yup! Anyone with a working brain would easily be able to see right away that she’s attacking our right to free speech. This channel is a joke. Always against our god given rights

What?! Future videos like this? These people have been promoting psychos for 2 or 3 years.

What is the very concept of TEDx talks. The way I understand it, excluding unpopular opinions (look at the like bar), would be going against the very concept of TEDx talks.

@@schwarzerritter5724 I thought it was supposed to be about technology entertainment and design.

@@fatbrownbuffalo2769 If that is what this is about then it lost itself a long time ago.

@@schwarzerritter5724 Can't argue with that. Seems like the talks are becoming more focused on MSM narrative.

Indeed gooseman

Ah yes, hypocrisy

Marco Galindo x means independently organized event. Anybody can do this.

@@annonymeandfish you don't get his comment

@@annonymeandfish No, when conservatives try to do this the radical leftists riot so TEDx charges prohibitively expensive for security fees effectively silencing right wing voices with violence.

TEDx is not TED.

If freedom of speech has the right to offend, then be ready for its consequences. Nothing in this world is free, we are bound by our body and death. It is pure human ignorance to assume and truly believe that there are no consequences.

Then have your comment actually say why you are offended by it so people can have a legitimate and civil discussion about it like she is calling for.

@@drsoups When you control the bounds of speech to the point grievances cannot be expressed, those effected resort to violence. Speech may be violence, but it is the least deadly. We need it to operate in the world. So, her judgement and curtailing of accepted speech, is offensive. Thereby, by her own declared standards, should be banned.

nicholas daley I disagree that she is saying people should control the bounds of what speech is being said, I believe her word is being misinterpreted. She calls for civil discussion on speech that one disagrees with, and argues that ill-informed opinions *shouldn't* be in the marketplace of ideas. But she is not calling for active suppression and censorship or said ideas.

@@drsoups You have the right to risk being offensive. You also have the right to be wrong.

@@drsoups Like I said, you have a right to be wrong.

I love to see that you support ladies with pairs :D Trans and Intersex rights!

Those goddamn adverbs! Makes me sick to my stomach

And a mafia of adjectives.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am glad to see you understand that hate speech causes violence, and how important it is to end both things.

@@eliashcroft6773 yup what you just said offended me now I’m gonna be violent towards you you should be in jail for it too … only weak and simple minded people will let others words control your actions

Exactly

Hate speech usually leads to violence

I kind of hope it is, who here does not realize immediately something is wrong in a video as soon as they see comments turned off?

Sounds just like someone who has not lived through difficult times or traveled somewhere that people are really living in difficult times. Ignorance develops people like this.

She isn't aware of the modern western world life comfort. Send her back to the dark age

Haha this chick is insane.

Raven Whiteduck I respect your concern and recognize that it is a difficult issue. This is why I definitely do not support censorship . I do think the issue of hate speech is still one we need to recognize, address, and talk about though as it does impact our society and our communities. Thanks for your comment. Ignoring it or pretending it isn’t real, as some on this thread desperately want to do, won’t get us to a better place as a diverse and democratic culture. But yes, I have Orwellian nightmares too so I do understand where you are coming from.

Could easily be misused? It's used to try to ruin people's lives every day NOW.

@@katiacampbell3737 With all the times "Hate Speech" is used to censor or jail people for things said online regardless of context, I'm not convinced that "Hate Speech" is anything more than just a means to get around the 1st Amendment for the sake of creating/controlling narratives.

@@katiacampbell3737 You challenge that speech Katia. Not through fists like some groups do, but through your own words and debate. Someone will always have something to say you don't like or is in fact hateful. Sadly, that is the way of the human beast. But you win by moving people to your side with words and peaceful acts. In fact, through this speech you DO support censorship. It's despicable. Like I said in my on its own post, by your own standards you should be quiet. That's how this game works. What we find acceptable today is tomorrow's ill informed and hateful. Now do I truly want you silenced? No. Because if you are silenced then I run the risk of being silenced as well. But don't tell us you're against censorship when you just had a pro censorship talk.

@@katiacampbell3737 do you see what lawmakers do when their are new laws in place? They add more and more rules to it until it's barely understandable, people getting fined for having the wrong tree in their backyard, kids getting stopped by the cops for selling lemonade, you will inevitably cause far more harm then good should this "hate speech" be taken to either a provincial or federal level, I mean do we wanna end up like china who've censored winnie the pooh

Limited free speech is not free speech, conditional rights are not rights

And... with that “free” does not mean without consequences. @fox

@@CrysWats right so stop trying to censor everyone you don’t agree with because you opinion offended me now it’s hate speech you should go to jail.. see how dangerous that is when you take away free speech

@@KingAries85 lol what? Where did I say take away free speech? Everybody has choices. With those choices come consequences. Consequences could be good or bad.

So happy to see most people defending free speech. Thank you all for this.

When education fails, fall upon persuasion

Hahahahaha yeah definitely not a shill bag

@Captain Jack yeah this chick made my brain hurt really really bad, she's an up-and-coming race Hustler 😬🤐🤫

Prot She's saying NOT all ideas are equally valid and true

Professional Noobs. Me!!

Me, I saw his brilliant response video first and that’s what sent me here.

Avshara Grastus How is she calling for censorship?

@QED FACT: Explicit calls to violence and murder are threats not hate speech. Prove me wrong.

@QED FACT: The term hate speech is not in any local, state or federal law anywhere in the USA. Prove me wrong.

Nailed it perfectly

@@drsoups well when you fight to take away someone’s right to say something because your weak and broken is censorship. When In fact letting someone else’s words control your actions is weak and childish .. no wonder so many of you are ok with letting the government think for you

Id stand next to you for it too, even if it cost me my life as well. If we don't take a stand and defend the document that protects our freedoms and way of life, when should we take a stand?!?!!

I literally spit my coffee out laughing. This is exactly the narcissistic insanity the left is presenting as serious argumentation. We’re well on our way to living in 1984.

This is exactly it

Adderrell sadly yes she is deadly serious

Unfortunately, yep.

This women is an egotist at best a narcissist at worst

BurtMeister3000 When exactly in my speech did I say speech is violence? When did I say silence is violence? Yes, I problematize rhetorical acts, but I would never simplify speech, or communication, in those ways. It is much more complex than that. I do recognize the persuasive and constitutive power of rhetoric, but your blanket criticism is a bit much. Please don’t put words in my mouth. And please know that what I say about hate speech is supported by many First Amendment scholars, critical theorists, and historians. It is unfortunate that you feel the need to insult me and my intellect because you obviously don’t like what I have to say.

BurtMeister3000 And in First Amendment theory, there is a concept known as “Speech Plus” or a “Speech Act”, which blurs the line between speech and action...this has been written about in case law. So before you baselessly assert “this lady clearly knows nothing about the First Amendment”, please stop and a do a little research for yourself.

BurtMeister3000 If you would like further understanding about the concept of speech acts, the following essays/books do a fantastic job of explaining the associated theories: Matsuda et al. “Words that Wound”, Judith Butler, “Excitable Speech”, and Catherine McKinnon, “Only Words”. You are welcome to disagree with their basic premises of course, but please don’t imply I have no idea what I’m talking about. In fact, you probably will disagree since you don’t think minority communities and experiences matter, only the individual matters as you stated, but it’s worth at least an attempt to consider a different perspective. Also, perhaps read up on the cases, “Dennis v U.S.”, “Schenk v U.S.,” and “Brandenburg v Ohio” for a more nuanced understanding of how we have historically and legally dealt with the question of speech and violence. Again, it is much more complex than you state.

@@katiacampbell3737 "When exactly in my speech did I say speech is violence? When did I say silence is violence?" Okay, maybe you didn't explicitly say that words are violence, but you do explicitly equate those being silent as being complicit with this made up notion of "hate speech" (which I do not recognize as legitimate in any way, shape or form).... 7:54 "Lets be clear about it, just because someone doesn't actively engage in hateful rhetoric doesn't mean they aren't complicit in it." 6:15 When you say "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence", exactly what consequence do you intend for the people who say things you do not like? I'm guessing when you advocate activism, you wish for via legislation some level of state based violence like imprisonment etc right? Which is what leads me to believe you equate words with violence. Now, where in my OP did I offer you or your intellect insult?

@@katiacampbell3737 There is no blur between words and action. There is a clear distinction between the two. Sure words can hurt your feelings, but you will survive. And their is no real objective way to prove in a court of law hurt feelings anyway as they are invisible and we only have one parties claim to rely on.

eh, about as much as a modern man

The job of scrutinizing these people is up to other people with a platform. And the job of protecting ourselves from bad ideas is ours. We do that by staying informed and talking to people. You will find that the more people you talk to, the more your ideas change as do theirs hopefully.

Wow no response, very telling

@@mst5g826 Then why do doctors lose their medical licenses and face prison time? News media pundits are the doctors of information. I'm not talking about the polarized talk show hosts, I'm talking about the main steam, prime time "news." When they misrepresent data, or leave out key facts in order to frame a information to fit their story. We don't let the doctor off the hook because his patient didn't do enough research about cancer, so why should that excuse work for the news pundits?

@@CriticalThinking83 If we're talking about the medical field, then the insurance companies would be a better comparison to the msm since they are owned by the same people in large conglomerates. The doctor would be a person with a platform such as independent YTube or paper reporters are to the msm. Just as new media is chosen by the viewer, the patient chooses a doctor who provides an informed diagnoses. You cannot know if your doctor is giving you good info unless you educate yourself and get multiple opinions. A doctor usually has to be similar to an A. Jones figure to lose their ability to provide service and they pop up in other places afterwards. With the insurance companies, we all know what their motive is and how far they will go to assert it by educating ourselves and knowing when to go outside of the insurance system. So, our main problem becomes a lack of education because there will always be a profit motive and soulless people willing to go to whatever lengths. Some of them get caught, but most know how to skirt the law. What can we do but learn to protect ourselves and look out for our friends and family? Beyond that, we can talk to people and spread ideas that don't originate from the elite. It is almost a guarantee that if we allow the gov to punish the media, it will be manipulated to advance their own protection and the flow of ideas will narrow even further than what social dictates allow. You already understand enough to not trust the media. That's a lot farther than most still, especially among older generations. Her best point is to learn rhetoric as the ancients propose in the trivium style. I'm not saying you should study the Greeks, but go out and practice talking to people with whom you would not generally share ideals. The action itself is educational. The most important part of this for yourself is to test your own beliefs. Recognize the assumptions made and built upon by your own ideas while you are trying to break down their assumptions. One will continually find that they have to go back to think and research which will strengthen your understanding. If you were able to have a human conversation, both parties will come back the next time with better understanding and a better debate. The more points of view you find on a subject, the more you understand a subject. And the ultimate truth is that no one has 'the' right answer. But the more ideas that are tested, the closer we all get.

Soccer Is a communist sport What are you referring to? I guess I lost the order of the comments. We don’t what? And in terms of our system being fine, that is debatable. Sure it’s fine for those that continuously benefit from it, but that doesn’t mean we can’t want to make the system better for more people.

I think republicans are wrong, but we should not be silencing them

Robin Tesmer Um, yeah...I specifically said I was against censorship and I said it again, repeatedly, throughout this thread. But you’ll hear and believe what makes you feel comfortable. Sure, hate speech is made up by people with a higher social status. Sure, that makes sense, despite research and experience and case studies to the contrary. Thanks so much for explaining this to me. How dare I even talk about such a made up thing. Shame on me.

@@katiacampbell3737 Hate Speech is Free Speech.

I challenge you to show me just one critical comment that was about something that is not in the video.

@@jamesmabry5776 and how do you suggest me to show you one? I could just make up one, and what if you can't find it? Just look for one yourself and you tell me

Someone said he's a conman, I don't think you need me to tell you that that is BS!

How about, stop being an a$$hole.. It costs you nothing.

except in harry potter

are you implying that words are not for the weak?

Hahaha nice!!! I love all the comments defending free speech but this one is the best I’ve seen so far.

@Aswath Vishali I disagree.

based

FACT: Katia Campbell does not believe in free speech. Prove me wrong.

@@limesox.420.69 FACT: People should only face consequences if they say something factuality wrong not because false accusers of hate speech think it is wrong. Prove me wrong.

YES THANK YOU FINALLY A GOOD COMMENT