Podcasts about offensive speech

Tommy Robinson has been banned by almost every major social media platform on Earth, and even many right-wing leaders have disavowed his activism. Should free speech be defended even when it's offensive? Tommy Robinson – the controversial UK activist and English Defense League founder – has been the subject of countless lawsuits and protests against his alleged anti-Islam and anti-immigration speeches. Robinson, born Stephen Yaxley Lennon, has a criminal record of convictions for assault, falsifying documents, mortgage fraud, and stalking. In June 2024, Robinson was arrested again in Canada. Follow him at https://x.com/TRobinsonNewEra Dr. Harvey Risch is Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at Yale. He provided testimony to the US Senate regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and has spoken widely about his opposition to masking, vaccine mandates, and the reliability of PCR tests – along with his research on COVID prevention and treatment with existing drugs. Follow him at https://x.com/DrHarveyRisch Jennifer Sey is an author, filmmaker, business executive, and retired artistic gymnast. Jennifer began working at Levi Strauss & Co. in 1999, rising to Chief Marketing Officer and then Global Brand President. In January 2022, she was asked to resign because of her public opposition to the extended closure of San Francisco's public schools. Previously, Jennifer Sey was the 1986 USA Gymnastics National Champion, and a 7-time member of the U.S. Women's National Team. Sey's first memoir, “Chalked Up,” was released in 2008. She also produced the 2020 Emmy award-winning documentary film, “Athlete A.” Follow her at https://x.com/jennifersey and find more at https://SeyEverything.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Niall delves into the contentious debate over whether laws should be enacted to prevent people from posting and saying offensive things. The discussion stems from a call by a senior Fine Gael TD to abandon hate speech legislation and move the party away from "left-wing" policies.Niall opens the lines to callers, revealing contrasting views on the matter. Some argue in favor of implementing laws to curb hate speech, emphasizing the importance of protecting minority groups from discrimination and promoting inclusivity in society. They believe such laws are necessary to prevent the spread of harmful rhetoric and uphold fundamental human rights.Conversely, other callers express reservations about the idea of legislating against offensive speech. While acknowledging the harms of hate speech, they raise concerns about the potential infringement on freedom of expression and the subjective nature of defining hate speech. They advocate for alternative approaches such as education and dialogue to address offensive speech without resorting to legal restrictions.As the discussion unfolds, Niall navigates through these divergent perspectives, highlighting the complexities surrounding the issue of regulating offensive speech in a democratic society.Date:3/25/2024

Show is Sponsored by https://www.expressvpn.com/yaron & https://www.fountainheadcasts.comJoin this channel to get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/@YaronBrook/joinLike what you hear? Like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on new videos and help promote the Yaron Brook Show: https://bit.ly/3ztPxTxSupport the Show and become a sponsor: https://www.patreon.com/YaronBrookShowOr make a one-time donation: https://bit.ly/2RZOyJJContinue the discussion by following Yaron on Twitter (https://bit.ly/3iMGl6z) and Facebook (https://bit.ly/3vvWDDC )Want to learn more about Ayn Rand and Objectivism? Visit the Ayn Rand Institute: https://bit.ly/35qoEC3#mentalhealth #affirmativeaction #freespeech #Economy #education #capitalism #Economy ​#Objectivism​ #AynRand #politics #individualismThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/3276901/advertisement

Malcolm Byrne, Fianna Fáil Senator; Annie Hoey, Labour Senator; Michael Collins, Independent TD Cork South West; Craig Hughes, Political Correspondent for The Irish Daily Mail

Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V78QpJcxnASupport the show

What is Offensive Speech, Northwestern Mutual's Big Move and Undecipherable Texts.

In this Labor Law Insider podcast episode, Tom Godar is joined by Husch Blackwell attorney Sonni Nolan and firm alum Kat Pearlstone, as they conclude their exploration on protection of employee's speech under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In episode #10, the first in this series, the Labor Law Insider explored how disrespectful, crude and offensive speech may still be protected as concerted expressions under the NLRA. In this episode the panelists look at the standard for review of potentially protected speech, how threats of violence are treated under section 7 of the NLRA, the tricky world of social media comments that target people or business, and some best practices to eliminate or at least reduce the risk of an unfair labor practice charge.The good news is the return to the more helpful standard for assessing whether protection should be accorded an expression made by the employee. First, the employee will have to demonstrate that he or she engaged in protected conduct, that the employer knew of such conduct and the employer acted with animus against the protected activity by counseling, discipline or discharge. Upon this proof, the employer would have the burden to respond and offer a legitimate business reason, not based on protected Union activity, for its action. General Motors LLC, 369 N.L.R.B. No. 127, 2020 BL 270474.One area which can cross the eyes of an employer is related to possible threats of violence, and whether they would be entitled protection under the NLRA. In those cases, the Board may assess whether a provocative statement, is mere hyperbole, or a legitimate threat of violence. Kiewit Power Constructors Co., v. NLRB, 652 F.3d 22 (D.C.Cir. 2011). Employers would be asked to excuse certain threatening words as essentially not credible but are left with the near impossible task of ferreting out real threats from just excited expressions.Another focus of the discussion is on statements receiving protection made via social media comments. Indeed, as employees work from home at an increasing rate during and following the COVID pandemic, more of these offensive and possibly harassing or threatening comments may come through the internet and social media as opposed to directed activities in the workplace. As a result, employers will have a very difficult job of not only interpreting whether these statements may be protected, but even investigating these comments. For instance, it is not unusual that employees who are identified as making these social medial comments would deny making those statements and merely claim that their account was hacked. This presents a very difficult burden for the employer to prove or disprove that an account was hacked, yet at least some decisions experienced by our Labor Law Insiders suggest that that is precisely the burden the employer would carry. This may be true in the context of a disciplined or fired employee claiming an Unfair Labor Practice, or if actions were challenged, not under the NLRA but, for instance, in the context of an arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement appeals process. Further, other “innocent” employees complaining about comments, may not offer sufficient proof of harassing or threatening conduct if the victim making the complaint has since deleted the text or other comment from his or her social media feed.  At least one option for the employer is to ignore gross or disrespectful comments on the internet or through social media, with the hope that they will soon fade away, and with the recognition that rising to the bait of such comments with a response may only render greater public dialogue and further exposure of often untrue statements.As with so many of these issues, the panelists urge hiring and retaining excellent supervisors who are trained not to react, but to act with deliberation upon receiving or reviewing such obnoxious comments. Most employers have crafted policies which prohibit disrespectful speech, but supervisors must be trained in filtering through such policies to understand the implications of protected speech under the NLRA. In those cases, of course, counsel should be consulted for the latest iteration and interpretation of the breath of protected concerted action as interpreted by the NLRB and the Courts.

In this Labor Law Insider podcast episode, Tom Godar and fellow Husch Blackwell attorneys Sonni Nolan and Kat Pearlstone explore the breadth of National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protection of employee speech that can be disrespectful, crude or offensive. These protections extend to both the non-union workplace and the unionized workplace. Employers are charged with drawing a line at the workplace, curbing offensive, disrespectful, harassing and discriminatory remarks. These disrespectful remarks can be oral or written, placed on employer-maintained bulletin boards or disseminated through social medial. However, under Section 7 of the NLRA, employees have great latitude to engage in protected speech, even when considered offensive or crude or when it targets individuals or businesses. As both National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and court decisions reveal, there are many instances when employers, whether dealing with a union-represented or a non-unionized workforce, cannot discipline or terminate an employee for what might otherwise be considered prohibited conduct either in the workplace or impacting the workplace. Oftentimes a protected comment or statement can occur in a non-union workplace when employees are criticizing management or management policies, disrespecting specific managers or owners, or even harassing co-employees. These aggressive and offensive expressions can also occur when a union is attempting to organize in a non-union workplace. An employer's initial reaction is often to discipline or discharge, consistent with a policy that prohibits such disrespectful or harassing speech. These expressions can also take place when a unionized workforce is engaging in a strike or picketing activity. Indeed, some of these statements can be seen as discriminatory or harassing, based on protected characteristics such as race, but may still receive protection under Section 7 of the NLRA. Employers are called upon to exercise extraordinary discretion in the balancing of Section 7 rights of protected and concerted expression with the rights of employees to work in a place free from discrimination or harassment under federal and state law. This podcast explores many of these issues and reviews both cases as well as practical circumstances in which these questions arise. A companion podcast, to be released in about two weeks, will delve more deeply into the issues of expressions which might be construed as a threat of violence, as well as those made in the social media context. Our expert panelists will then describe when these free speech protections become so disloyal, reckless or maliciously untrue as to lose protection. Kat and Sonni will also assess other cases in which the NLRB may find such obnoxious expression merely to be “protected hyperbole.” This podcast will begin to offer guidelines on recognizing where those lines are drawn, and how to avoid the enormous cost and distraction of serious NLRB litigation focused on employee speech. Importantly, that companion podcast will also explore with greater depth the steps employers can take to curb such expression in the first place, and how to respond to disrespectful and offensive speech, threading the needle of enforcing well-drafted policies and keeping away from violation of employee rights under the NLRA. Stay tuned, and look for that podcast in mid-April.

This episode is also available as a blog post: http://donnyferguson.com/2021/08/17/court-rules-in-suit-over-school-program-in-which-children-spy-on-each-other-to-report-offensive-speech/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/donny-ferguson/message

You might not agree - but even OFFENSIVE speech is protected under the First Amendment! Learn the history of free speech laws with Isabel Brown today!Tune into Freedom Seeds and get your ammo to win America's culture war every day at 10 AM Pacific, 1 PM Eastern on IGTV, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube!

Clean Speech Ottawa is a movement backed by more than 25 Jewish organizations. Their goal: encourage people to be mindful of the ways in which their flippant, offensive, condescending or insulting language can hurt other people. Their goal is to spread peace across communities "one word at a time." One of the founders, Rabbi Zischa Shaps, joins the show to talk about the birth of the movement and why it matters so much in 2021. What we talked about: Read the Senate bill that could bring Kindness Week to Canada Follow Clean Speech Ottawa on Facebook at facebook.com/CleanSpeechOttawa Learn about Rabbi Shaps's organization, JET, at jetottawa.com The CJN Daily is written and hosted by Ellin Bessner (@ebessner on Twitter). Victoria Redden is the producer. Michael Fraiman is the executive producer. Our theme music is by Dov Beck-Levine. Our title sponsor is Metropia. Find more great Jewish podcasts at thecjn.ca.

There has been much debate recently about the impact of offensive speech particularly on social media. Should we allow people to write and say things that offend others? Should we block people from such offensive speech or even "cancel" them? A fascinating discussion about the Jewish ethics of curtailing offensive speech.

Today we go in to a discussion on what are Offensive Speech, Hate Speech, and Harassment. We go in to the implications as they relates to freedom of speech, and the cultural implication of being able to punish offensive speech.

A talk with psychologist and expert on cursing Dr. Timothy Jay about some lesser known factors that can be present when people use offensive language, with a focus on the modern phenomenon of videos widely shared on social media showing people saying or doing offensive things. We discuss factors that may influence offensive behavior, including Tourette's Syndrome, brain disorders like Alzheimers, substance abuse, mental illness, and personality disorders. Dr. Jay is the author of the books Why We Curse, Cursing in America, and We Did What?.

In this episode, Josh and Ian debate the merits of the culture surrounding political correctness within the framework of free speech. They talk about the possibility of certain speech leading to violence; the ancient Greek philosophical understanding of the logos; the history behind the idea and uses of political correctness (PC); comedians lampooning PC culture; the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis; PC as a matter of nicety and respect for others; the use of the term woman within the LGBTQ+ community and feminist circles; biological sex vs. gender identity; being offended by speech and having a tough skin; intent, impact, and separating art from artists; rhetoric and the power of persuasive language; draft dodging and the use of symbolic speech; Mark Twain and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn; flag burning and protest speech; consequentialism and responsibility going hand-in-hand with the unrestricted expression of ideas; Bill Maher and the use of the "n-word"; and the Orwellian culture of wrongspeak in the current political/social sphere.On this week's segment of Read/Watch/Play, they talk about Nietzsche's Biography, Kafka's The Metamorphosis, CW's The Arrowverse, Color out of Space, Stranded Deep, and The Last of Us Pt. II. Follow them on Twitter at:Josh @theonlyoneblogIan @modernovermanand the podcast @NecessaryBSPodWebsite: https://www.necessarybspod.com/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/necessarybspodLinks:λόγοςPolitical correctness - Encyclopedia BritannicaOn Conversation: How Free Speech is the Tool for Sit-Down DiplomacyThe First AmendmentFirst Amendment Court CasesRecorded 25 June 2020Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/necessarybspod)

The NLRB’s Standard for Protection of Profane or Offensive Speech In this episode, we discuss what constitutes protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act, in the context of profane or offensive speech, and how that standard may be changing. Podcast Participants Mary Kate Liffrig Attorney with Hall Render. Brad Taormina Attorney with Hall Render....

The NLRB’s Standard for Protection of Profane or Offensive Speech In this episode, we discuss what constitutes protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act, in the context of profane or offensive speech, and how that standard may be changing. Podcast Participants Mary Kate Liffrig Attorney with Hall Render. Brad Taormina Attorney with Hall Render....

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BLOGGING , WHISTLEBLOWING AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/burl-barer/support

08-08-2018 - Offensive Speech And The First Amendment - part 02 - audio - English THE ASSOCIATION FOR EDUCATION AND JOURNALISM AND MASS COMMUNICATION HOLDS THEIR ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON THIS WEEK. A PANEL EXAMINED THE LIMITS OF FREE SPEECH

08-08-2018 - Offensive Speech And The First Amendment - part 01 - audio - English THE ASSOCIATION FOR EDUCATION AND JOURNALISM AND MASS COMMUNICATION HOLDS THEIR ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON THIS WEEK. A PANEL EXAMINED THE LIMITS OF FREE SPEECH

On today’s program the 1st of 3 episodes on Speech. More specifically, Freedom of Speech. Are we free to say anything we want? What happens if someone doesn’t like what you have to say? What you say can and will be used against you and anything you say could be presumed as perhaps hateful. Today we talk about Hate Speech. We’re going to discuss some supreme court cases involving speech implicating hate. We’ll also find out the consequences of Offensive Speech around the globe and find out the differences between hate and free speech. Plus, we dive into Universal Health Care later in the news.  But first, we got the Brew World Order.

Bill and his guests – Michael Avenatti, Jordan Peterson, Frank Bruni, Gov. Jay Inslee, and Alex Wagner answer viewer questions after the show. (Originally aired 04/20/18)

Deborah Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, and Rebecca Tushnet of Georgetown University discuss Lee v. Tam, a big First Amendment case. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Deborah Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, and Rebecca Tushnet of Georgetown University discuss Lee v. Tam, a big First Amendment case. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Even if virtually everyone agrees that certain speech is offensive, it still deserves protection. Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education explains why. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Far from being something Americans should try to wipe out or even merely tolerate, the presence of offensive speech indicates that we live in a free society. It should, therefore, be vigorously protected. Trevor Burrus comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

. The post Why Society Is Better Off Tolerating Rather than Prohibiting Offensive Speech appeared first on RealClear Radio Hour.

--{ New World Order: The Past Destroyed to Bring in the New, By Giant Cartel, Ruled by a Few: "Masses are Guided by Men of Action, Foundation-Funded to Bind Each Faction, Consensus-Building and Steering the People From Pen to Pen, Bewildered Sheeple, These 'Action Men' have Sworn Obedience To the Paymaster - No God of Lenience, Economics, Academia, Joined with Science, Backed by Bankers, the Deadly Alliance, Brute Force Used in Past, You Will Find Today the Coercion is by Control of Mind, We're Cogs in the Wheel to the Psychopaths, Who in Godlike Humanism, Sniggers, Laughs, They've Moved Culture from Junction to Junction, Destroying Society, Family Teetering Dysfunction, In Each Generation, All this Known by a Few, Who Teach Others What Rich Psychopaths Do" © Alan Watt }-- Experimental Laboratory of Britain, Forced Movement of Workers into Cities, Record-Keeping of Slaves - "Great" British Empire - Management of Culture, Conditioned Generations, New Normals - "Jobs for Life" in Industrial Economy - "Public Opinion" book by Walter Lippmann - "Great Beast" of the Masses, the "Bewildered Herd" - "Responsible" Elite Ruling Class - Manufacturing of Consent - Post-Democratic Era. Big Business of Policing, Tickets, Fines - So-called "Primitive" Independent Tribes - Societal Morality Upside-Down - Breeding of Specialized Workers - H.G. Wells, Introduction of "Free Love" and Pop Culture - Abolition of Family Unit and All Taboos - UK-Liberal Democrats Push the Envelope for Child Pornography - Degradation and Indoctrination through Entertainment - Crime of "Offensive" Speech. Mainstream Religions Supporting the State - New Roman Catholicism - Religions Changed to Suit New World Order. (See http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com for article links.) *Title/Poem and Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - May 3, 2010 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)