Thread: Free speech vs hate speech

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then what were you saying about her comments and genocide?

I said that our laws prohibit the advocation of genocide, not that she has already done that (I barely know who this girl is). She was warned about this and critics say it violates free speech, but she hasn't actually violated anything.

I appreciate the 140, but... 140.

Yes, and nobody crashed into our buildings. If you don't think we're active on the international scene, tell it to the families of these guys.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I said that our laws prohibit the advocation of genocide, not that she has already done that (I barely know who this girl is). She was warned about this and critics say it violates free speech, but she hasn't actually violated anything.

I took issue with the idea that she did because you said this...

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Advocating genocide or inciting hatred against an identifiable group is prohibited under the Criminal Code of Canada, and provinces have similar laws.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Yes, and nobody crashed into our buildings. If you don't think we're active on the international scene, tell it to the families of these guys.

I didn't mean Canada is 100% isolationist. I just meant that your participation in foreign affairs in miniscule compared to ours. You don't stir up enemies like we do. I am not saying that is good or bad here. I am just saying Canada is not much of an enemy making country.

As we have seen, Islamofascism is a threat to the entire world. I appreciate Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, but it is done in the interest of Canada.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I took issue with the idea that she did because you said this...

I was just citing the law and what the university official warned her about. Things she has said in the past (and things that could probably slip out of her in the future) could potentially be deemed "inciting hatred against an identifiable group", but none of that happened in Canada.

I didn't mean Canada is 100% isolationist. I just meant that your participation in foreign affairs in miniscule compared to ours. You don't stir up enemies like we do. I am not saying that is good or bad here. I am just saying Canada is not much of an enemy making country.

As we have seen, Islamofascism is a threat to the entire world. I appreciate Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, but it is done in the interest of Canada.

Canada's foreign policy does not include "making enemies". We're a country of some 34 million people, that's less than the population of California. We're rich and could easily isolate ourselves here on top of the world and say "fuck everyone else". Yet we have fought for freedom in both World Wars, Korea, the Cold War, Gulf War 1, Bosnia and Afghanistan. Before Afghanistan, we were renowned as a nation of peacekeepers, with soldiers stationed literally all over the world (even the commander of UN forces in Rwanda during the genocide was a Canadian general). We're founding members of NATO and soldiers from all over Europe and the US come to train here. We're also members of the G8, which we are hosting this year. Neither the US nor anybody else "takes care of our international affairs for us".

We are in Afghanistan primarily because America called upon its NATO allies to fulfill their pact after having been attacked on its soil.

Originally Posted by Alric

Free speech, is free speech. I believe everyone has the right to say anything they want, at any time they want, any where they want.

Yes. And then they should be prepared to deal with the consequences. I could walk into a biker bar and tell the biggest meanest Hell's Angel he's a piece of shit... but then I'd run like hell...

Originally Posted by Alric

Free speech, is free speech. I believe everyone has the right to say anything they want, at any time they want, any where they want.

Basically, that's what I think. Free speech is a corollary to the most fundamental right of controlling oneself: if one cannot freely express their opinion about something that affects them, then the primary means of changing one's situation has been eliminated, and thus the fundamental right has been violated.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I didn't mean Canada is 100% isolationist. I just meant that your participation in foreign affairs in miniscule compared to ours.

You could easily become isolationist because the United States borders you to the south. No military would dare to fuck with you.

Originally Posted by Alric

Free speech, is free speech. I believe everyone has the right to say anything they want, at any time they want, any where they want.

You seem to be an absolutist on a great many things. The world is not so black and white, and there are indeed exceptions to even the soundest of principles. Should you yell "bomb!" on a plane, or "fire!" in a school? What about walking down a street in a KKK outfit chanting "All fucking n***ers must die!!".

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You could easily become isolationist because the United States borders you to the south. No military would dare to fuck with you.

Yes, but that's not to case. And to say otherwise is disrespectful to those in service of our country around the globe. You could argue the same about any country in NATO, but NATO is so strong because everybody pitches in.

You can say that hate speech is illegal, or that garnering supporters for a violent cause is evil.

But then you can go bat-guano insane and say that communist rallies are attempts to undermine the country from within and arrest thousands of people as Bolshevik underminers. General Palmer and McCarther both used 'sedition' to justify their actions.

I realize in theory they are completely different things. But not in practice.

To Spart, I'd argue that yelling 'fire' or 'bomb' is illegal not because of the actual words but because of the immediate outcome. It's almost certainly going to initiate a chaotic scenario. Just as intentionally inciting a mob to riot is illegal, since it is an action not just an idea. The same goes for slander laws.

And I would never take away someone's right to racially slur someone in public, but when they threaten them with death or burn a star of david in my front lawn it becomes different. I awould allowed to use racial hate speech, (without the intention of initiating violence,) in Canada if I move there, wouldn't I?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

You seem to be an absolutist on a great many things. The world is not so black and white, and there are indeed exceptions to even the soundest of principles. Should you yell "bomb!" on a plane, or "fire!" in a school? What about walking down a street in a KKK outfit chanting "All fucking n***ers must die!!".

I am an absolutist when it comes to freedom, since you can't have partial freedom. You are either free or you are not. There really is no exception however.

You should indeed be able to yell bomb on the plane, however you are responsible for what you do. If you cause damage or anyone gets harmed during it, they should all be able to sue you. If however, nothing happened while you probably should be banned from ever flying that airline again, which is well within their right, you should not be arrested. Because we do not need laws to enforce this, when other methods work just as well.

As for the KKK example, while it is a horrible thing to say. If they are on a public street and they havn't actually caused anyone harm, they should be free to say whatever they want.

So you shouldn't be stopped if you're causing a panic? You should only face the consequences after property has been damaged or people have been injured or died?

What if you called the media and placed a fake bomb threat? I'm trying to use extreme examples here to point out that the anti-hate speech law isn't there to keep people politically correct or even to prevent you from freely expressing your racism, it's there to stop you from advocating genocide and inciting hatred against any identifiable group. There's a difference between saying "I hate muslims, they should all take their camel to work" and "I hate muslims. We should bomb their cities and convert them to Christianity. Come on who's with me??! Kill all muslims!" In the latter case, you're not expressing an opinion, you're trying to spread discrimination and find supporters to "kill all muslims". Should we wait until you or your followers beat up a muslim or bomb a mosque to actually do something?

When did I say you shouldn't be stopped? I said you shouldn't be arrested and thrown in jail. Big difference there. It didn't take a law to stop Ann Coulter, it was the people protesting. Which just shows, that you can effectively use free speech to stop hate speech, without threating to arrest and jail anyone.

A person has every right to stand at the corner and scream out that we should bomb all muslims. It is my hope, that a more rational person who stand besides him, and scream out how stupid the idea is.

People aren't that rational, they fight hatred with hatred. If that KKK guy walks down the street saying that stuff, some black guy is going to walk up to him and knock him out. Then he is the one facing assault charges, where is the justice in that. This is how riots and feuds start, unrest and reprisals. The law is preferable to vigilante justice.

It doesn't matter how much they may have provoked the guy, attacking people isn't an acceptable thing to do. So yes, thats how it works. If one guy says bad things about someone else, and the other guy uses violence to deal with it. Its not the first guys fault, its the guy who punched him who is wrong.

This all comes together to form a very violent society, where problems are solved (or escalate) after harm has already come.

Why is it that if you call upon the death of a single person, it's conspiracy to murder, but if it's a whole race, it's suddenly OK?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Why is it that if you call upon the death of a single person, it's conspiracy to murder, but if it's a whole race, it's suddenly OK?

Calling upon killing and expressing belief in killing are not the same.

If you beat someone up or you killed someone, that is an action. If you talk, and express an idea, that isn't an action, and it doesn't directly harm anyone.

It doesn't create a violent society, since the violent people(the ones attacking people) are arrested. The ones left, are the ones peacefully expressing their ideas.

If you disagree with someone you talk to them and get them to change their mind. You don't attack them.

I am for free speech, it's an essential freedom we must protect, and so one would have to be very careful with arresting people for hate speech, as it is most difficult to draw the line.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Should someone who is advocating restrictions on free speech be free to do so?

If you support free speech then you have to say yes to that question. But it's incredibly annoying.

Free speech vs hate speech?

Hmm...umm...ahhh...

My thoughts on this is that actions speak louder than words. Hate speech is only possible through free speech. The only way to suppress hate speech is through the suppression of free speech.

People that don't mind getting rid of free speech are either mimes or highly selfish.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

This all comes together to form a very violent society, where problems are solved (or escalate) after harm has already come.

Why is it that if you call upon the death of a single person, it's conspiracy to murder, but if it's a whole race, it's suddenly OK?

One is a direct threat, while the other is an indirect threat.

It's pretty simple really. You should be allowed to say anything you want. People should be allowed to say anything they want about what you say. Or vice versa. No one should be put in jail for anything they say.

It's up to the people to silence other people by using evidence and logic. Or, less fortunately, hate and emotions.

But hey, we don't even have free speech in Australia. They're still "deciding over it".

While Ann Coulter makes me shiver.. free speech is free speech.

Hypothetical cases aren't really substantive. I really don't think that people
would start yelling 'bomb' on the plane, just because it would be illegal to do
so, while the (financial) consequences would still prevail. Also, I think that
these cases of 'free speech' fall into a different judicial domain.

To conclude that people don't do it, just because there is a law, is a little premature.

The next step is that limitation of free speech is used in non-hypothetical
scenarios that are suddenly not 'obviously inappropriate' anymore.

Soooo.. to adress the more important issue:
Man, how dumb is that Ann Coulter..?

Originally Posted by dajo

Man, how dumb is that Ann Coulter..?

She is light years from dumb. Idiots don't graduate from Ivy League law schools. Her debate skills are amazing, and I think she is one of the most intelligent people in all of politics. Her problem is that she is bonkers as Hell cuckoo, or at least says stuff that would put her on that level if she were serious. Realistically, I think she is a genius who knows how to press society's buttons, create worldwide shit storms, and make gazillions of dollars off her political books. She is good friends with Bill Maher. Go figure.

Originally Posted by dajo

Hypothetical cases aren't really substantive. I really don't think that people
would start yelling 'bomb' on the plane, just because it would be illegal to do
so, while the (financial) consequences would still prevail. Also, I think that
these cases of 'free speech' fall into a different judicial domain.

The bomb example was just to point out that the hate speech laws here are directed towards people that are actively disrupting public order and inciting violence, rather than expressing a belief.


UM, while your newfound anti-fascist alarmism is hilarious, don't go all tinfoil-hat on us man.