Shami Chakrabarti | Freedom of Speech and Right to Offend | Proposition

"Everybody loves human rights, including free speech. They love their own. It's other people's are a bit more of a problem." Incredibly well said Shami.

"They weren't designed to keep us comfortable. They were designed to keep us free." Well said!

"Freedom of speech paid for in blood not designed to make us comfortable it was designed to keep us free." Good quote!

"Pedophiles, Jihadis or columnists." THE BURN IS REAL

"They weren't designed to keep us comfortable. They were designed to keep us free" Golden words!!!

"Everybody loves human rights, including free speech. They love their own. It's other peoples [free speech] a bit more of a problem" Truth be told!

"They weren't designed to make us comfortable, they were designed to keep us free...."

Thank you YouTube for not allowing your algorithms to block this video. It’s honestly the one time I have agreed with Shami. Usually on interviews and question time it’s not really that good. Thank you for changing my mind. You have a right to free speech, you don’t have a right not to be offended.

I love watching these Oxford debates. Free speech is paramount. I disagree with many of the speakers, but I would never, ever want them silenced. I always want to hear alternative views.

>pedophiles, jihadis and...columnists I died

Speech is only ever silenced wherever the oppressor is being offended. Without the right to offend, freedom of speech is meaningless by definition.

“I don’t denigrate the Other, not because I don’t have the right to, but because it would make me pretty unethical person.” — Gems of wisdom.

Holy shit, I think I found a reasonable feminist who isn't Christina H. Sommers.

Kate Brook's question clearly demonstrated the level of her thinking, and it's not impressive. "If the publication of those cartoons leads to women who want to take their exams in hijabs being subject to violent attack, would you still defend that?" Ms. Brooks genuinely believes that the publication of cartoons can lead to violence. If violence of that sort were to occur, there would certainly be a multitude of causes and influences behind it, and the odds of the publication of a cartoon being the deciding factor are minuscule. This is how someone like her justify censorship. She believes, or at least argues that, publicly expressed speech can lead directly to violence. If that were true, censorship would indeed be justified in some cases. Unfortunately for her, in reality no speech can lead to violence unless the people who are to commit the violence already are primed in some other way, by more important factors, to commit the violent act. If people are going to start attacking people with hijabs, it will be because over along period of time they have grown to hate people wearing hijabs and what they represent. A set of cartoons could have been some small part in strengthening that belief, but no one is so weak minded that a set of satirical cartoons is going to cause an otherwise non-violent reasonable person to attack a Muslim woman.

See, you don't have to be caustic when speaking. You can be both passionate and sober. I liked this one.

Shami nailed it hard.

Well presented. " they weren't designed to keep us comfortable, they were designed to keep us free."  Well said Shami Chakrabarti

A right is not a duty-- Shami. So well said.

Free speech is universal. YOU are in control of how offended you are. Other people don’t have to censor themselves for your feelings.

I find it rather hypocritical on the part of Oxford Union to private the video featuring Kate Brooks.