6.6M views · Aug 15, 2018 · 9:06 · 3 HN recommenders · 8 mentions · discussed 2020–2023
Rowan Atkinson's speech at the launch of the Reform Section 5 campaign in Parliament in 2012. He argues against criminalizing insulting words and for answering speech with more speech.
Why Hacker News points people here: Recommended as an eloquent defense of free speech against laws on offensive or insulting speech.
“Rowan Atkinson made an excellent speech on the matter back then [2]”HN comment, 2022
“I recently watched an excellent speech concerning freedom of speech and freedom of protest by Rowan Atkinson”
Rowan Atkinson speech on freedom of speech and protest
I recently watched an excellent speech concerning freedom of speech and freedom of protest by Rowan Atkinson, and feel it's very appropriate to share here: this video
“Rowan Atkinson made an excellent speech on the matter back then [2]”
Atkinson's speech against criminalizing insulting words
Sadly, this kind of behaviour is on brand when it comes to the UK state. It is less than ten years since Section 5 [1] was reformed to remove the display of “insulting” words and writing in public as an offence (Rowan Atkinson made an excellent speech on the matter back then [2]). However, the overall mentality and other laws are still very much at large. [1]: link [2]: this video While I still do not claim to fully comprehend British culture, there is always an odd undercurrent of authoritarianism whose chill I can feel now and then – it is worth noting that it bridges the political divide. I have talked about this with my British colleagues and heard numerous explanations, but none that I feel satisfactory. At times when I feel particularly dark I joke about this with said colleagues and say: “You say that you went to war with the Germans on behalf of the free world. But at times I wonder: Was it not that they in a way were outdoing you and you were feeling a bit envious?” Now, clearly this is intended to be offensive and not something that I genuinely believe, but like many jokes, it somewhat works because there is some kernel of truth at its core.
“he delivered this amazing speech”
Atkinson defending free speech in comedy against UK legislation
Rowan is a staunch defender of Free Speech in Comedy. When it looked like the UK government were going to legislate against it, he delivered this amazing speech: this video
“Rather than censoring people, we could take the approach that our worldview is robust enough to withstand competition / challenge.”
Supports argument that more discussion beats censorship
Rather than censoring people, we could take the approach that our worldview is robust enough to withstand competition / challenge. More discussion should in theory wither the fragile ones: this video The real issue is echo chambers, and getting people to voluntarily cross- pollinate their bubbles. Censoring actually makes this issue worse though.
“Rowan Atkinson on free speech”
Companion to Peterson talk on free speech and offense
If that is the case then we should stick out more because later it will be even harder and hiding would not work anyway. Jordan Peterson: Free Speech & the Right to Offend: link Rowan Atkinson on free speech: this video
“The answer to the speech is... more speech”
Atkinson's point that the answer to speech is more speech
this video "The answer to the speech is... more speech" And I agree that this is exactly the problem - winners are who have more energy and opportunity to speak. "Drowning the voices" as you pointed out. But, how to determine which voice is normal? Per your suspicion that fake news and misinformation make money, fact checking is alleged to make money to Facebook and fact-checking Facebook affiliates. The links on fact checking materials divert viewers from one arrticles to other and increase clicks and retention at Facebook. Yes, you are right again - misinformation may bring money to FB, at the very least, when FB tries to fight it. I guess it is a nature of capitalism, to try to make money out of everything.
Cited in argument against accepting censorship
> hasn't actually led to the terrible outcomes people predict I guess censorship is perfectly fine for most people, and that's the scariest outcome. "Too bad for them, they should have been thinking like us." No wonder we descent into authoritarianism. Thanks to well meaning crowds of well mannered citizens cheering because the big bad got ousted. this video
Cited in support of free speech against speech laws
"So this is how liberty dies... with thundering applause." The amount of people defending these laws in this thread is a frightening proof of this. Everywhere these days you can find someone smart and utterly naive with their "but actually..." argument pushing the Overton window closer and closer to a censorship state, and there are not enough neutral people arguing for free speech itself. Only the weirdos and racist ones which are easy to hate and root against. So all this playing Devil's advocate is actually helping along the normalization of these free speech bans. this video
