He was explaining why, when peaceful law abiding Muslim refugees are violently attacked by right wing terrorists, unprovoked, it's the Muslims' fault.

That's paraphrasing his other speeches, I don't think he finished this one, making it hard to quote him....and I hope he never finishes another.

From his official Twitter post-: “As always, left-wing politicians and the media will rush to claim that the causes of today’s shootings lie with gun laws or those who hold nationalist views but this is all cliched nonsense.
The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration programme which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.
Let's be clear, while Muslims were the victims today, usually they are the perpetrators."

I'm actually pleased at how difficult it has proven to find his hate speech quoted. It's nice that news outlets have finally understood that, by repeating it ad nauseam, they are spreading it.

If this guy was in Britain he would be in jail already. Thank you founders for the first amendment.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/youtube-comedian-count-dankula-guilty-hate-speech-nazi-dog-video-145920581.html

Yep, exactly the same crimes.....

Victims testimony....after describing the impacts of the brutal racially motivated gang rape by 4 men that Batey pled guilty to, which they filmed and posted online to haunt her for life....
“Mr. Batey continued to abuse and degrade me, urinating on my face while uttering horrific racial hate speech that suggested I deserved what he was doing to me because of the color of my skin. He didn’t even know who I was.”
Batey was then sentenced to the MINIMUM sentence possible for just one of his many convictions.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2016/07/14/cory-batey-faces-least-15-years-friday-sentencing/86953944/?from=new-cookie

Turner was convicted of fingering a drunk maybe unconscious girl, felony sexual assault not gang rape as a hate crime, disgusting to be sure but hardly a brutal, violent, racially motivated degrading gang rape and violent attack filmed so as to continue the attack for life, and Turner was sentenced based on the probation departments recommendations which were actually longer than the minimum, and also include registration for life as a sex offender.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner

Stop being a race baiter crying wolf, I'll call you on it every time.
Downvote

Most places have a no vulgarity, no hate speech, no sex rule applied across the board, which is fine....

I look at it differently. In a business, especially any creative business, the decision to pursue or participate in a particular transaction/venture should heavily prioritise individual freedom of choice. On the whole, I'm on board for requiring that business not decline service to people based upon attributes they are born to. Even there however, gender segregated spas are something that I still think should be allowed. That's not an arbitrary choice, up here in Canada a spa is under fire for declining access to a spa based on someone having a penis.

More succinctly, I think everyone should have as much right to think, do or act however they like. Equally though, people should have the right to not participate in other people's lifestyles as well.

Maybe...depends on their business. If they make other personalised inflammatory cakes, probably. If they make "hey man, nice shot" cakes celebrating cops being shot, definitely.

If they make personalised hate cakes, I would expect them to either pay a large fine for refusing or use the 'special' chocolate icing, and record the person ordering it for public exposure.

Most places have a no vulgarity, no hate speech, no sex rule applied across the board, which is fine....but you must use common definitions for those terms applied equally for everyone.
If "congratulations Pat and Chris" is ok for you if that's Patricia and Christian, you cannot decide it's not ok for Patrick and Christian, or Patricia and Christine, no matter how icky you find it, or how afraid you are that you'll lose control and kiss them.

Simple rule, if the reason for refusal is who the customer is, not what they want you to make, that's unacceptable.

Do you mean no, you believe by force of law if your business is making cakes, you must print any and all messages(barring illegal hate speech) requested by customers?

A Muslim baker should be required by law to produce a cake depicting the prophet?

Pro-Choice bakers should be required by law to produce cakes with graphic imagery of aborted fetuses?

Jewish bakers shouldn't be allowed to refuse to make a birthday cake for Hitler's birthday?

I get that right to refuse to do certain kinds of business can be touchy, but IMO it's even more dangerous to start demanding business owners lose the freedom to decline business that although legal goes against their own values.

We don't stand for that kind of crap up here in Canada...

Jokes aside, we make exceptions to free speech and hate speech is something you CAN be prosecuted for. A teacher that was trying to teach holocaust denial was convicted for it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada

My 2 cents, punching a nazi is more wrong because of the vigilante aspect of it than in an absolute moral sense. IMO the state should have laws about support for or membership with known criminal, terrorist or hate groups. Nazi's and KKK for starters, Westboro baptists and Saudi Wahabiism too depending on where society wants to draw the line. Morally though, I have no problems with declaring that debating merits of fascism and even mistreatment of Nazi germany historically is free speech and protected, but at the same time wearing a swastika on your arm or a pillow case on your head while marching in the streets to support your 'cause' should see you convicted and sentenced.

Racism isn't seated in your bones...it's in your mind.
There is a racist mind in his body.
It's clear to everyone which side of this white power struggle he's on, there's no question at all. He is firmly in the camp of the people that believe reverse racism is a bigger problem than racism. He's in the camp of people who stand for preserving statues of traitors to the United States because they also stood for racism. He's in the camp of people who stand arm in arm with violent Nazis holding torches and shouting hate speech, but he calls them peaceful quiet protestors calmly preserving their heritage.
He doesn't seem to understand that racism comes in shades of gray, not black and white. You don't have to wish all black people were dead to be racist, believing they all have less self control, intelligence, and/or morals does the trick just fine.

Oh, you weren't talking to me? Sorry cupcake, you put it out there on the internet, and despite Sift being leftward leaning, I don't recall seeing signs that this was a safe space where only your opinion was allowed to be ventured and no one was allowed to respond.

Typical SJW. If I'm not with you, "Shut up. SHUT UP!!! KEEP YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF MAH FORUMS!!!!" /eyeroll

I would have given you a more thorough and reasoned reply, but let's face it, it wouldn't make a dent on the white noise of your position. You've made your assumptions about me clear as day and nothing I say will change that, so why bother?

In which case, all I have to say is: Have a cup of concrete and harden the fuck up princess.

For some hate speech is not enough and inciting violence has historically been the next step.

@C-note

i am trying to unpack your comment to formulate a response,and then i realized that the reason i was struggling is because your comment makes no sense.

it just a generic,and lazy mish-mash of of inflammatory jargon slapped together to appear well-thought out and salient.

but in reality,it is gibberish,in my opinion.

your comment is a stream declarative statements based on nothing presented in this video.

1.o'neill is racist....to which there is no evidence.

2.o'neill is a misogynist....to which there is no evidence.

3.o'neill is a troll....while this may be a true statement,i see no evidence that what he is postulating is for the single and simple goal to get a rise out of the audience.

4.o'neill is using false equivalencies to justify rhetoric......i suspect you do not understand what "false equivalency" and "rhetoric" actually mean.especially in the context of this particular video.

5.o'neill is debating the right of hate speech in a civil setting.

no he is not debating someone "right" to hate speech,and here is the point where i suspect that you simply did not watch the video.you did not listen to mr o'neill's argument.you did not consider his points and the inherent problems when we begin to restrict language (because you didn't watch the video).

now you are certainly within your rights to disagree with mr o'neill,but you need to at least listen to his argument in order to formulate a cohesive and viable response.

i suspect you read the title,had an emotional,knee jerk reaction and responded in a very generic and lazy fashion.in fact,your comment actually makes mr o'neills argument.

instead of listening to his argument,you responded in the very manner that mr o'neill addresses,and criticizes.

you accused him of:racism,misogynism,troll and using false equivalencies to justify a point he never made!

and when you react by name-calling an insults you diminish the conversation,and shut down all interactions.

now i do not know you,so please take my comment in the humanity it is written.
if you disagree with mr o'neills argument,than can you please express your points and clarify why you feel his argument is flawed or outright wrong?

i am sincerely interested.

This is only a racist misogynistic troll using false equivalence to justify the rhetoric that historically has led to lynchings, war and genocide. Debating the right of hate speech in a civil setting is disgusting at best because it only serves to give the immoral an audience.

That's the point. Free speech can potentially be an act which causes harm to others.

I don't have the answer for this. When I was younger, I tended to be a free speech absolutist. My opinion was freedom of expression was absolute and that we just had to accept the consequences as a price to pay.

I no longer believe that.

As a general rule, I am opposed to censorship. People should be free to say what they want and others should be free to respond appropriately.

But it's naive to think that free speech is absolute. Nothing is. So we all have to be mature and accept the fact that (as distasteful as it is) some speech is not protected. At a bare minimum, we have things like libel and slander (which are important, but also open to abuse as well).

Back on the topic of hate speech.... it's a tricky one. For me, it comes down to how you define "hate speech", and there isn't really a widely accepted definition.

It ranges from nonsense like anti-blasphemy laws (victimless crime, IMO) to controversial things like holocaust denial (patently bullshit, but not actively harmful IMO) to reasonable provisions against incitement to violence (neo-nazis etc).

There's also the concept of "negative liberty". X has the right to free speech, but Y also has the right not to be threatened or intimidated in their daily life (note: they don't have the right not to be offended).

Again, I don't have all the answers. My point is simply that the world isn't black and white.

Ironically, I'm somewhat echoing the sentiments in the video, in that facing an uncomfortable truth requires you to think and that's not a bad thing. But my uncomfortable truth is that not all speech can be free.

So really it's more "You either allow ALMOST every type of speech (with some very narrow exceptions) or you give up ALMOST every type of speech (with some very narrow exceptions)".

Excellent, we have agreed that freedom of speech (like everything in the grown-up world) is not absolute.

Now we're just arguing over WHAT the exceptions should be.

Personally, I have no problem with adding things like inciting violence against minorities (aka hate speech) to that list.

It's very important to distinguish between criticism of ideologies and attacking members of said ideology.

Saying "I think the westboro baptist church is a disgusting organisation" is not the same as saying "you should punch WBC members in the face".