Protected versus Hate Speech

What a time to be a live what a time to be a human being. Particular living in that states, America has always been a great time to be a human being living in the United States of America, always. Well, maybe that’s not necessarily true. There have been times, it’s not been great to be a human being living in the United States of America. If you were a certain kind of person, I mean, that States of America, you get the idea today, though, today, live in the United States of America, it’s pretty good time. Compared to what well, compared to the majority of human history, I suppose, is a great is a perfect, no, nothing is perfect. But it’s always wise to not let perfect be the enemy of good. keep things in perspective, what’s really, really, really hard to do, because that’s we’re just not I don’t think that we’re designed as human beings to, to keep things in perspective, to be able to take a long term view on things, we oftentimes have a hard time seeing past the bridge of our nose and seeing anything past what is directly affecting us at that very specific moment in time. But I just want to reinforce what a great place we’re living in. And, more importantly, that we need to be fighting for, and advocating for the freedoms that we have, and figuring out how to work together. Because, like your parents, if they divorced, you recognize and know what a disaster that is having to do holidays at two different households. Now, of course, if your parents were having a terribly abusive relationship, and there was bad stuff going on, then that’s one thing. But if it’s just irreconcilable differences, like your folks just didn’t want to get along anymore. So they got divorced, you recognize that probably would have been better if mom and dad could have just figured out how to get along, then to not and we recognize that relationships are really, really difficult. And certainly not easy. And no different than our relationship right now with with two sides of the country, for lack of a better term, let’s call them progressive and conservative. There’s actually talk about national divorce and stuff like that. And that’s just not I don’t think that I do think that we should do everything within our power to try and head that off. To figure out how to make this thing work, instead of just tearing it all down. Because I can’t imagine we’re going to replace it with anything that’s better. Anyway, a couple of weeks ago, a week or so ago, I did a deep dive into into our ability as United States citizens to burn the to burn the American flag. And it is it was a conversation really about the First Amendment so our freedom of speech. And I wanted to continue on that and talk about think about and have you think about hate speech. This is another one of those issues that has been top of mind on the tip of our tongue as of late and we’ve got new words out like microaggressions and deep platforming and protected speech and hate speech. These are not new terms, deep platforming aggressions micro aggressions, these absolutely are. And I remember hearing about micro aggressions for the first time and thinking, well, how dumb is that, like, life is full of micro aggressions. I micro aggress against myself all the time. And, you know, just because somebody micro aggresses against me, doesn’t mean that need to turn the world upside down. And to get retribution against that person that’s just part of living with other human beings in a society is we’re gonna do things that rub each other the wrong way. So, micro aggressions made me think about that whole old term Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt. And that’s true, it’s not true. Because words certainly do hurt, you can say really mean things to people, and you will 100% hurt their feelings, you will give them a potential complex that will stick with them forever. You probably remember some of the worst things were ever said to you, and it stays with you today. Now, all these things being true, because multiple things can be true at the same time. That doesn’t mean that we should stop people from saying it. The antidote to bad ideas is not stopping from but it’s stopping somebody from saying them. The antidote to bad ideas is better ideas are good ideas. And I would far rather know what is in the heart and the mind of people, then to not, I would rather have somebody get on stage, and tell me about how much they hate me, or hate another group or another team or whatever. I’d rather know where they stand versus them, you know, lurking around in the shadows, and, and planning and making plans without me knowing about it. Until she gets too out of hand or it’s too late. I would rather know where everybody stands as much as I can. Doesn’t that make more sense? And ideally, then I would like to be able to challenge that person to find out why it is that they think the way that they think like, where did these opinions come from? How did you develop them? Have you developed them? Or are you just saying them, and then I’d like to bring you around in my way of thinking or to give you some different ideas to chew on and think about. I think that that is a, a healthier way to go about living together. Because that’s what I want, I want all of us to really coexist, not to just lead parallel lives. Because that’s where this is all sort of going, is parallel economies and parallel communities and neighborhoods and everything else, where it’s just all sort of sectioned off. You know, that Germany used to do that. I don’t know if you know that or not. I wonder. The Berlin Wall separated? Germany. So if you’re curious about that, that was tried, didn’t work took the wall down. So the good thing or bad thing? That’s interesting. I imagine that that’s a net positive. But that’s not where we want to get to. I don’t think that’s not what I want. That is not where I want to get to. So I guess I can only speak for myself. How about you? What do you think? What do you think about this idea of, of hate speech and deep platforming? And it’s an aggression against me if I am, if somebody comes to my college campus or my city, and is able to deliver a talk, is that violence against me? Or words, actually violence? Now, I am curious as to how many people actually think that how many people actually think that words are violence? Maybe it’s a lot of people, maybe it’s very few. And it’s just one of these made up sort of nonsense thing that gets floated around and people sort of continue talking about? I don’t know.

But I certainly do not think that words are violence. Now. What is hate speech? What is hate speech? It’s any form of communication, whether spoken or written or behavioral. That belittles or discriminates against individuals or groups based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender. It often incites violence or prejudicial action against these groups or individuals are intended to intimidate or press them. So there you go. That is a definition of hate speech. What about protected speech? Many countries, especially those with strong free speech protections, like ours notes most most, most speech is protected under the law. It’s includes the right to express opinions, ideas and criticisms, even if they are unpopular or controversial. However, it’s not protection. This protection is not absolute and does not cover certain types of speech, like incitement to violence. So if you are saying things that are intended, and likely to incite imminent lawless action that crosses the boundary and his loan no longer protected truth threats, statements were the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of intent to commit an act of unlawful violence is not protected. Obscenity speech that is considered offensive, particularly with sexual content and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value is not protected. defamation. These are false statements that damage someone else’s reputation, not protected. It’s important to understand and differentiate between impact and intent. Hate speech often aims to demean or harm individuals or groups based on specific characteristics that lead to the discrimination of violence. protected speech can include offensive or disagreeable ideas, but does not necessarily incite violence or discrimination. There’s legal boundaries, laws, and various countries set boundaries for what constitutes hate speech, often including criteria like incitement to violence threats and severe harassment. protected speech is generally broader, but excludes actions that fall into these legally defined categories. And context is also really important. The context in which the speech occurs is a factor. A statement made in a political debate might be protected, while the same statement made with the intent to incite violence or hatred might not be talked about last time. Why it’s really important to have highly qualified justices on the Supreme Court and how to qualify justices at every level of our judiciary system, because there’s so much nuance and so much interpretation that goes into each individual scenario or situation, that you want somebody who is wise enough to take past judicial decisions as well as the laws and interpret current events based on through the lens of those past decisions and laws. And there’s so much nuance and does demand a degree of wisdom versus simple interpretations. so, so important. Speaking of the United States Supreme Court wanted to talk about some of the decisions that have shaped our understanding and the limits of hate speech and protected speech. 1969 Brandenburg versus Ohio Supreme Court ruled that speech advocating for illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment, and the less it’s likely to incite imminent, lawless action. It involved a Ku Klux Klan leader who made a speech at a rally. And what happened was the impact was the establishment of imminent lawless action test, which is a high bar for restricting speech. So that’s where that came from. imminent lawless action. So does did what this person say, cause or lead to lawless action, imminent lawless action. So it’s a high bar because we want as a society decided a long time ago, that it was important to protect speech to allow speech versus limited. 9092 Our a V verse, the city St. Paul, Court struck down a city ordinance that prohibited the display of symbols, such as a swastika or a burning cross that could arouse anger, alarm or resentment and others based on race, color, creed, religion or gender. The impact was the it emphasized that the government cannot prohibit speech based on its content, even if the speech is hateful, unless it falls into a category of unprotected speech, like threats or incitement. So they were saying that somebody can display a swastika. Somebody can display a burning cross, so long as it is not threatening or causing imminent violence. It’s not inciting violence. 2003 Virginia versus black, the Court held that a state law banning cross burning with the intent to intimidate was constitutional. really distinguish between cross burning as a form of expression and cross burning, intended as a threat. So in this example, the Court held that it law was that a law that banned cross burning with the intent of intimidation that is constitutional, so it’s a fine law. This decision clarified that true threats and intimidation are not protected by the First Amendment, but expressions of ideas are protected. So there’s clarification if what you’re doing is a threat of intimidation is a threat and intimidation. It’s not protected speech. Hey 2011 Snyder versus Phelps Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church. Those lovely human beings. Yikes. Which had picketed a soldier’s funeral with offensive signs. They make the most offensive signs. They it’s crazy. How, just if you’re not familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church, they are. They are a crazy organization. Again, Supreme Court ruled in favor of them, which had picketed a soldier’s funeral with offensive signs the court held that their speech was protected under the First Amendment because it addressed matters of public concern. The impact was it reinforced that speech on public issues, even if it is deeply offensive, is protected by the First Amendment. So you and I can recognize how awful certain speeches but we also recognize that it is of greater societal value to allow people to say it, than to restrict their ability to say it because we’re offended by it. Okay, so that’s the wisdom right there. We can all universally agree to hate something that doesn’t make it hate speech. 2017 Matala versus Tam, the court ruled that the government cannot refuse to register trademarks that might be considered disparaging. The case involved an Asian American band called The slants seeking to trademark their name. Okay. So government cannot refuse to register a trademark on an Asian American band, the slants said we want to trademark the name of our band. Government said no, you can’t. Supreme court said no, you can. So the impact was that the Court affirmed that the government cannot restrict speech based on its viewpoint emphasizing that even offensive speech is protected. So there you go. A musical band comprised of Asian Americans co opted the it the racist term slants and went to the United States Government trade market government said no, you can’t do that. It’s offensive. Supreme Court said you They absolutely can do that. It may be offensive, but it’s still protected. So here are some of the key points when we’re trying to understand protected speech versus non protected hate speech unprotected hate speech. There are content based restrictions. Supreme Court generally disfavors laws that restrict speech based on its content. Even offensive speech is usually protected unless it falls into a narrowly defined category like true threats, incitement or obscenity. They also one of the key takeaways is that context matters context of the speech, like whether it addresses a matter of public concern can influence whether it’s protected. There’s a high bar for restricting speech. The threshold for restricting speech needs to be high, particularly for speech that addresses public issues or does not directly incite imminent illegal activity. These cases demonstrate the strong protections for free speech in the United States,

even when the speech is question in question is deeply offensive or hateful. However, the court has also recognized that certain types of homeschool harmful speech, like truth that are incitement to violence are not protected. So anytime that you’re thinking about these issues, and you think how can somebody be allowed to say that, take a step back and think back to some of these parameters or what the wisdom behind these decisions are, is that we are placing our ability to communicate and say what’s on our mind above somebody else’s? being offended, we place higher value on our freedom of speech and ability to say things and express ourselves and to protest. We place a higher value on that than somebody being offended. Does that make sense to you? Does that make sense to you? Maybe it doesn’t. Another individual’s ability to express themselves is supersedes your your being offended by it. Change the last one on burning the flag talk to about the famous Voltaire quote says, I may not like what they have to say, but I will defend to their death to the debt to my death, their right to say it. And that is a profound and important thing. So the next time you find yourself feeling like you’re the victim of little micro aggression, and you want somebody to do something about it, I say, toughen up a little bit. Not that big of a deal. It’s probably something that you have to say an opinion that you have, that could be offensive to somebody else being offended is okay. It’s not illegal. Too harsh? I don’t think so. I don’t think so. What somebody thinks about you, is not any of your business. And what somebody says about you is also really not a lot of your business. And if there’s somebody saying something that you are so deeply offended by, that you want to prevent them from saying it, I say to you, get your arguments in line, read up on the issue, figure out how to articulate why that person is incorrect, why their viewpoint is incorrect. And engage in a civil debate to civil and robust debate, conversation about the merits of your points and your ideas. And see whose version survives it’s collision with with with reality. Finally, speech is not violence, violence is violence. And there’s plenty of violence going on in the world right now. And restricting our ability to talk about it. And pointed out that is the greatest threat. And we’re seeing that everywhere in the form of censorship and viewpoints and really censorship, where you’re searching for information on something and you can’t find it because some entity or organization or pure pure people or persons decided that they didn’t want you to know about it. That I think is a greater threat than the actual same of whatever the words are. I don’t need thought police or any kind of a nanny state telling me what I ought to be thinking about, or anything like that. I can make up my own mind. I’m not fragile, fragile. Now there are you. You’re strong enough, you’re tough enough, you can handle the truth. Do you want the truth as always, do your part doing your best

george grombacher 16:00
So if I want my iPhone, and my Tesla and my Bitcoin to work, we need to get the metal out of the ground.

Pierre Leveille 16:07
Absolutely. Without it, we cannot do it.

george grombacher 16:13
Why? Why is there a Why has production been going down.

Pierre Leveille 16:21
Because the large mines that are producing most of the copper in the world, the grades are going down slowly they’re going there, they’re arriving near the end of life. So and of life of mines in general means less production. And in the past, at least 15 years, the exploration expenditure for copper were pretty low, because the price of copper was low. And when the price is low, companies are tending to not invest more so much in exploration, which is what we see today. It’s it’s, it’s not the way to look at it. Because nobody 15 years ago was able to predict that there would be a so massive shortage, or it’s so massive demand coming. But in the past five years, or let’s say since the since 10 years, we have seen that more and more coming. And then the by the time you react start exploring and there’s more money than then ever that is putting in put it in expression at the moment for copper at least. And what we see is that the it takes time, it could take up to 2025 years between the time you find a deposit that it gets in production. So but but the year the time is counted. So it’s it’s very important to so you will see company reopening old mines, what it will push also, which is not bad, it will force to two, it will force to find a it will force to find ways of recalibrating customer, you know the metals, that will be more and more important.

george grombacher 18:07
So finding, okay, so for lack of a better term recycling metals that are just sitting around somewhere extremely important. Yeah. And then going and going back to historic minds that maybe for lack of technology, or just lack of will or reasons, but maybe now because there’s such a demand, there’s an appetite to go back to those.

Pierre Leveille 18:33
Yes, but there will be a lot of failures into that for many reasons. But the ones that will be in that will resume mining it’s just going to be a short term temporary solution. No it’s it’s not going to be you need to find deposit that will that will operate 50 years you know at least it’s 25 to 50 years at least and an old mind that you do in production in general it’s less than 10 years.

george grombacher 19:03
Got it. Oh there we go. Up here. People are ready for your difference making tip What do you have for them

Pierre Leveille 19:14
You mean an investment or

george grombacher 19:17
whatever you’re into, you’ve got so much life experience with raising a family and doing business all over the world and having your kids go to school in Africa so a tip on copper or whatever you’re into.

Pierre Leveille 19:34
But there’s two things I like to see and I was telling my children many times and I always said you know don’t focus on what will bring you specifically money don’t think of Getting Rich. Think of doing what you what you like, what you feel your your your your your, you know you have been born to do so use your most you skills, do what you like, do what you wet well, and good things will happen to you. And I can see them grow in their life. And I can tell you that this is what happens. And sometimes you have setback like I had recently. But if we do things properly, if we do things that we like, and we liked that project, we were very passionate about that project, not only me, all my team, and if we do things properly, if we do things correctly, good things will happen. And we will probably get the project back had to go forward or we will find another big project that will be the launch of a new era. So that’s my most important tip in life. Do what you like, do it with your best scale and do it well and good things will happen.

george grombacher 20:49
Pierre Leveille 21:03
Thank you. I was happy to be with you to today.

george grombacher 21:06
Damn, tell us the websites and where where people can connect and find you.

Pierre Leveille 21:13
The it’s Deep South resources.com. So pretty simple.

george grombacher 21:18
Perfect. Well, if you enjoyed this as much as I did show up here your appreciation and share today’s show with a friend who also appreciate good ideas, go to deep south resources, calm and learn all about what they’re working on and track their progress.

Pierre Leveille 21:32
Thanks. Thanks, have a nice day.

george grombacher 21:36
And until next time, keep fighting the good fight. We’re all in this together.