Winston Marshall

There's still people, even within the Labour Party, who want a national inquiry because it's actually a lot of Labour constituents that were the victims of this. So anyway, this is all the context for what blew over last year. And we're sort of continuing this free speech where we have... They want to contain hate speech. They want to contain speech that might... This is the tricky bit.

It's all what incites and what technically incites. I know that we haven't got much time, but I'll put it to the why, if I may, quickly, which is that at the end of the war, the Second War, Naturally, of course, after we learned about the Holocaust, everyone rightly said, never again, this cannot happen again. But what happened was a set in motion school of thoughts.

It's all what incites and what technically incites. I know that we haven't got much time, but I'll put it to the why, if I may, quickly, which is that at the end of the war, the Second War, Naturally, of course, after we learned about the Holocaust, everyone rightly said, never again, this cannot happen again. But what happened was a set in motion school of thoughts.

And I think Karl Popper might be the genesis of this. which is the idea of the open society and then the closed society. And what they put in the open society was the idea of freedom, liberalism, and all of these things. And in the closed society, they put, rightly, things like fascism, but they also put in that, and this is directly in Karl Popper's work, all nationalism.

And I think Karl Popper might be the genesis of this. which is the idea of the open society and then the closed society. And what they put in the open society was the idea of freedom, liberalism, and all of these things. And in the closed society, they put, rightly, things like fascism, but they also put in that, and this is directly in Karl Popper's work, all nationalism.

And so there was a weird dichotomy that grew at this point. And then, actually, this is directly relevant to the speech laws we have in Britain. In the 50s, there was, I think he was American, Gordon, it was an American psychologist called Gordon, oh, I forget his surname, Gordon, I lose it, but he had this idea, which might sound familiar, was that He had the speech pyramid.

And so there was a weird dichotomy that grew at this point. And then, actually, this is directly relevant to the speech laws we have in Britain. In the 50s, there was, I think he was American, Gordon, it was an American psychologist called Gordon, oh, I forget his surname, Gordon, I lose it, but he had this idea, which might sound familiar, was that He had the speech pyramid.

And at the bottom of the pyramid, he had, it was hate speech or hurty words. And at the top was genocide. So then became this new paradigm where if you didn't deal with hate speech when it got to the bottom, genocide was the consequence. And I think that that philosophy or that idea has been behind a lot of all of the hate speech laws that grew over the coming 60, 70 years.

And at the bottom of the pyramid, he had, it was hate speech or hurty words. And at the top was genocide. So then became this new paradigm where if you didn't deal with hate speech when it got to the bottom, genocide was the consequence. And I think that that philosophy or that idea has been behind a lot of all of the hate speech laws that grew over the coming 60, 70 years.

I think what can be done in Britain is that once a new party is brought in, I don't think it's going to happen under Labour, that you gut out all of these hate speech laws and you go back to the common law rule of free speech. That's what can be done there. What's more bizarre, I think, is that when it comes to these issues, there's almost a denial that it's even happening.

I think what can be done in Britain is that once a new party is brought in, I don't think it's going to happen under Labour, that you gut out all of these hate speech laws and you go back to the common law rule of free speech. That's what can be done there. What's more bizarre, I think, is that when it comes to these issues, there's almost a denial that it's even happening.

If you are a progressive in Britain, you won't see that there's any injustice about any of the people who got arrested for hate speech because for them, if it's hateful, you shouldn't defend them and it's bad. So it's not seen as a bad thing. Now, I don't think that the conservatives are much better on this because whatever it is that they deem bad, they will have...

If you are a progressive in Britain, you won't see that there's any injustice about any of the people who got arrested for hate speech because for them, if it's hateful, you shouldn't defend them and it's bad. So it's not seen as a bad thing. Now, I don't think that the conservatives are much better on this because whatever it is that they deem bad, they will have...

many of them will have double standards. I'm even questioning myself for examining what's happening with Mahmoud Khalil, whose politics are directly opposite mine, and trying to think about whether what's going on there with him being detained now in Louisiana, is that his free speech being abandoned? But I'm not entirely sure I've come to the answer, but what I do note is

many of them will have double standards. I'm even questioning myself for examining what's happening with Mahmoud Khalil, whose politics are directly opposite mine, and trying to think about whether what's going on there with him being detained now in Louisiana, is that his free speech being abandoned? But I'm not entirely sure I've come to the answer, but what I do note is

Almost all conservatives are saying this is not a free speech issue, this is an immigration issue. And almost all progressives are saying this is absolutely fundamentally a First Amendment case. And so it seems to be that there's clearly a bias that both sides have in wanting to clamp down on speech which is not speech that they agree with.

Almost all conservatives are saying this is not a free speech issue, this is an immigration issue. And almost all progressives are saying this is absolutely fundamentally a First Amendment case. And so it seems to be that there's clearly a bias that both sides have in wanting to clamp down on speech which is not speech that they agree with.

Yeah, I can tell you that.

Yeah, I can tell you that.

Yes, they do, but non-citizens are also subject to U.S. code, Title 8, which is a set of rules and laws that applies to them because they are not naturalized citizens. And so the problem with Mahmoud Khalil is that on the one hand, if he was an American citizen, This wouldn't be a conversation. He's done absolutely nothing that is illegal if he was an American citizen.