"Offensive Ideas" - Campaign for Free Expression PSA #1

[Gidwan]

And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter? (Milton, Areopagitica)

[Chelsea4lyfe8]

Put this shit on the fucking telly

[mike4ty4]

The real problem is when you say something deliberately intended to offend/harm someone. THEN you have done an EVIL.

[treehugger625]

Unfortunately the church doesn't want us to change the world; they don't want progress. such a shame that they'd rather grasp at what's not there rather than use science to try to improve the world we live in.

[SirFakeName]

Is "ironic" the right word to describe the first one?

[spartinpastic]

it simply means hat people have the right to speak freely no mater how offensive

[McSibiss]

Great message!

Video Copilot for the win! ;)

[huyked]

Chop off the hands of the two (thumbs down) that didn't support freedom of speech.

[DrJonezzz]

They changed the world, but many of the examples given were for the worse.

[leorozas]

@DrJonezzz "Many"? Only four examples here:

- Translating bible to English

- Insisting in facts over dogma

- Promoting contraception

- Protesting against fraudulent election

Which of these actions you think were for the worse?

[IgorAusDemKeller]

Good video.

[CvijaFaQ]

Censorship offends me as someone born naked in front of the universe, so who's gonna back down?

[happyjoel]

Great entry, hope you win!

[bumsausage]

When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.

Desmond Tutu

[colourmegone]

Free speech gives not only the right but the duty to offend. It is impossible to state any position which doesn't offend except, "Yes, I agree completely with you". So if you have an obligation to put your point of view, which is the point of freedom of speech, then you have a duty to offend.

[Multimixvideos]

I hope the Muslims are watching this!

[labmonkeyguineapig]

@ProggerSteve - we need freedom of expression without censorship, but we also have reponsibilities - to do no harm. But methinks @zvezdafutbola and @bumsausage are getting their wires crossed. And rhondaH is stirring. Nazi Germany, Nicolae Ceausescu et al no longer exist, so those are moot points

[kingthamus]

@labmonkeyguineapig

"but we also have reponsibilities - to do no harm."

What does picking pockets and breaking legs have to do with speech? Offense is not harm.

[ProggerSteve]

Which of these voices would you choose to censor?

[bumsausage]

Islam is for irrational uneducated under achievers.

[zvezdafutbola]

@bumsausage I am a Christian, and let me tell you...Islam culture knows way more about theirs and ours religions then we ourselves do. As for the "under achievers"...buddy they pray five times a day, when was last time you truly prayed for anything?

[bumsausage]

@zvezdafutbola Aren't I allowed an opinion? Isn't that the whole point of this video? ... and buddy I do not pray nor worship any god, and certainly do not spend all this life preparing for the 'next'. I was born with a backbone and need no ancient book to tell me how to live . Amen

[zvezdafutbola]

@bumsausage Your opinion suggests that Islam followers are inferior to the rest of us,same ideology Hitler used when exterminating Jews!The point of this video is freedom of ideas which enhance progress,not divide people into unequal groups. As for your religious point;we,as humans,are flawed.Thus while ones like you choose to settle for your imperfections,people like me follow a perfect being as an example of pure soul.Someday you will find that it is much easier to reject God then accept him.

[warpz0ne]

@zvezdafutbola You are partially correct. The purpose of this video, and of the Campaign, is not freedom of ideas which enhance progress, but freedom of ideas, whether considered positive, uplifting, offensive, or blasphemous, which will -inherently- lead to progress as the ideas are judged on their merits, and in public discourse, rather than suppressed due to the offense of certain groups.

[ginonaval1]

@bumsausage not just islam but all kinds of religion.

[om3g488]

@bumsausage Religion is for irrational under achievers.

[lightupthefireflies]

@bumsausage you are obviously the one who is uneducated if you can make such prejudiced comments without any real reason behind it.

[bmangenz]

The idea is that people are to be protected and that ideas a not to be protected. It is permissible to express even a repugnant idea like "All Chaldeans are inherently inferior and should be denied the privilege of eating ice cream." Such an idea can be soundly refuted and the stupidity of its proponents made a laughing stock. Incitement, harassment, commands to kill or injure, libel, slander and spurious alarms do not allow the possibility of refutal, so are forbidden under free speech laws.

[amoxtlacatl]

Thank you for such a beautiful, reasonable ad.

I would love to learn where the quote by Galileo came from. Would it be possible to get the exact reference?

Thank you.

[1000235335]

I agree that suppression of free speech is detrimental to our global society; however, specific ideas and speech that would support the destruction or persecution of other humans should not be supported. Without limitation - chaos reigns.

[RhondaH]

@1000235335 You may have a point, but might I ask you -- Who, what people should be the ones you (and I) could trust to appropriate draw those limitations? Who among us human beings is so extraordinarily wise to make those decisions? We must be careful not to place that sort of authority and power in the wrong hands, Wouldn't you agree?

[1000235335]

@RhondaH We already have laws that prohibit certain speech and/or ideas, ie. disorderly conduct, treason, etc. However, I agree it is a very slippery slope and I must admit that I don't have an answer to specific situations. I tend to be libertarian so I support the most restricted role of government in our lives. But without the limitation on ideas/speech that would incite genocide, society itself would be ultimately doomed just like Nazi Germany. Your ideas?

[thelordmemnoch]

@1000235335 I disagree of course because the exchange of ideas is what stopped Nazi Germany. That and bombs of course, but funny when you look at it this way. The religious that want to censor "insulting things" to religion would never dream of having William Tyndale silenced. To think that the very thing they want to silence is the very thing that enables them to have what they do today. It's a common theme among us. Many of us bites the hand that feeds us.

[1000235335]

@thelordmemnoch Nazi Germany wasn't stopped by the exchange of genocidal ideas. I am an atheist and in no way want to censor genocidal ideas on the grounds of religion. I simply don't believe that any person has the right to an idea that places another human in harm's way (short of self-defense and/or defense of a 3rd party). These are the only ideas that I don't believe should be exempted under the free speech laws of free societies.

[thelordmemnoch]

@1000235335 Well wait a minute, you are not asking for anything to be changed. Any speech that starts a riot is not free speech. The KKK has every right to say what they feel. It's the American way, but as such, an anti-KKK group has just as much right to say something against the KKK. Now if you feel that beheading someone for disagreeing with you is just, then that is where you and I differ.

[RhondaH]

@1000235335 My previous post was to entice you to use your mind to think about the consequences of stifling free speech. You want to throw around Nazi Germany but I disagree and think you have much to learn about history and how things got out of hand there. I cannot teach you history here, you will have to do your own reseach and learn by actually reading history books. Your nativity is showing.

[islamis4cowards]

@anthonzi Yeah we so often see those zionists murdering people for NOT being zionists , flying planes into buildings, screaming in the streets " death to the non zionists" , blowing up train stations or bars full of non zionists , murdering anyone who draws a cartoon of a zionists Yeah we all now who the SCUM are !

[PhuqueUTube3]

99minerkc I must assume you are being sarcastic. I know thre are actually theists that stupid but you write too well to fit that mold.

Looking at this video, it is even more evidence that most of the problems of the world are, and always have been, cause by religion. Mankind will never truly be free until the black yoke of religion is lifted by the clear light of truth, logic, and rational thinking.

[JemyM]

It's often fun to mention Jesus and Muhammed when speaking about free speech. Doesn't matter if they exist or not, according to the story they both ran into problems with religious authority.

[99minerkc]

Galileo was let off way to easy! He should have been burned at the stake like Tyndale! Margaret Sanger was let off to easy! She wanted to stop life via contraceptive? Then the church should have stopped hers! One bad deed deserves another!! I should have been born in the middle ages, I would have fit in better than I do here! The dam law is weak, look what it's getting us(in the USA), a Godless country! TRUE people of God would be soldiers of God not cream puffs like today's christian!

[oggleman]

@99minerkc fail troll is fail

[DancingHorses26]

@99minerkc

Haha... "I should have been born in the middle ages"

`

That says it all.

[99minerkc]

@DancingHorses26 I would have you in shackles in the public square for laughing at me, and God would be pleased as it says in the bible to respect!

[TheSpearthrower]

Full support. While I don't ever set out to offend people, if people are offended by what I say, even when I am not intending offense, then they should inspect their emotional response not blame me it.

[hellojason69]

Fabulous!

[phodgson1980]

Beautiful, effective video, Adam.

[LordNapalm]

Awesome :)

[NoKiddingMan]

Superb!

[socrates856]

Freedom of expression is not for when it's easy. It's for when it's hard, it's for when it's against the most powerful, the most violent, the most established. And it's exactly because expression is always better than violence.

[xunatz]

I support free speech, with reasonable limits.

[WickedJargon]

There is at least one inaccuracy in this video. Neda Agha-Soltan did not March in a protest! she was driving to the protest but had stopped her car to get some fresh air. She was observing the protest from a distance outside her car when she was shot.

[easytorememberme]

@WickedJargon source?

[WickedJargon]

@easytorememberme Well i can't post a link but if you google " Death video woman 'targeted by militia' " the first result should be a BBC article where it says "She was feeling very tired and very hot. She got out of the car for just for a few minutes. And that's when it all happened. That's when she was shot dead."

[mirt001]

@WickedJargon:

The article leaves out a lot on info, but it does say that she seems to have been deliberately targeted.

Quote: "Eyewitnesses said they clearly targeted her and she was shot in the chest."

That implies that she was either involved in some capacity, or the gunmen thought she was. Even if she wasn't actually marching in the demonstration at the time, she may have been involved in other protests and was therefore targeted.

However, the video does seem to be poorly worded.

[WickedJargon]

Neda Agha-Soltan was not marching in the protest when she was shot (she hadn't even made it to the protest). That much is fact. It is clear to anyone who is familiar with the story. And so the video is incorrect. to call it "poorly worded" is an understatement.

[mirt001]

@WickedJargon:

True but that doesn't mean that she wasn't killed for being involved in the protests, even if she wasn't at that EXACT moment marching in that particular protest.

Being murdered by authoritarian thugs for opposing them, is still being murdered for opposing them. Regardless of whether you were actively engaged in a protest at that exact moment or on your way over to join in it.

[WickedJargon]

@mirt001 Strawman. I never said that she wasn't killed for being involved in any previous protests. She could've been killed simply to send a message to the public and not have anything to do with her involvement in a previous protest. So much is speculation. The fact is (and the point i was making) that what the video says about Neda's death, "shot dead in the streets of tehran while protesting", is completely false. future participants should take note of this when they submit a video.

[mirt001]

@WickedJargon:

We seem to be talking past each other

The line can be interpreted in 2 ways since it's ambiguous.

1- She was shot while at a protest. (Which is how most people would interpret the wording & is not accurate. I agreed with you there.)

2- She was shot for being active in protests. (Which is supported by other information).

You seemed to be playing down her murder, by obsessing on the semantics of the phrase which could have been cleared up by simply using "for" instead of "while".

[mirt001]

@WickedJargon:

Was she not engaged in the protest movement at the time? Did you yourself not say that "she hadn't even made it to the protest"?

Like I've said twice so far, I agree that it was badly worded.

Now you don't even seem to be reading what I actually said.

If they had used the phrase "shot FOR protesting" instead of "while" it would have been more accurate. Do you disagree with that?

What is the point of playing down her involvement (and murder) over such a pedantic quibble?

[mirt001]

A correction to try and avoid any further misunderstanding.. I should have typed....

If they had used the phrase "Shot dead in the streets of Tehran FOR protesting" instead of "while", it would have been more accurate.

Do you disagree with that?

[mirt001]

@WickedJargon:

If she was engaged in the protest movement, for which there are other sources to support that conclusion, then she was shot WHILE part of the protest movement, for being a part of it.

Once again, I agreed with you that the way it's worded in the video is misleading, but when just one word corrects that meaning. It's not as big a deal as you are pedantically making it out to be.

You seem to have been obsessing over one word, rather than offering anything constructive.

[WickedJargon]

@mirt001 you're changing words. the video did not say "protest movement". One word can change the entire meaning of a sentence as it does here. it is not an incremental change. BTW, if she had protested earlier this does not automatically mean it is the reason why she was murdered. That just doesn't cut it as good evidence. I think i've laboured these points long enough so i wont respond to any of your next few replies.

[anthonzi]

Zionists are the new Nazis

[nutty01]

@anthonzi lol u funny

[kamuy8]

@anthonzi Even trolls should have the right to free speech. But I also have the right to say you're a moron.

[anthonzi]

@kamuy8 I'm 100% serious.

[kamuy8]

@anthonzi :D I know you are. I am too.

[anthonzi]

@kamuy8 So you don't see the Israeli state as being in anyway fascist or bigoted? Interesting.