Thread: Free speech vs hate speech

So recently, Ann Coulter, an American ultra-conservative christian nut, was touring a couple of Canadian universities giving speeches. She's responsible for such intellectual gems as:

Originally Posted by Ann Coulter

Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

She was due to speak at the University of Ottawa this week, but organizers cancelled the event at the last minute citing safety concerns as a couple thousand students protested against her at the entrance. The protesters were peaceful, and while police was called, no incidents or arrests were reported.

To add fuel to the fire, a senior official at the university warned Coulter before her visit that her typical rhetoric could potentially violate Canadian hate speech laws, and that she should educate herself on what is "acceptable" in Canada. Advocating genocide or inciting hatred against an identifiable group is prohibited under the Criminal Code of Canada, and provinces have similar laws.

This is sparking some controversy over freedom of speech on both sides of the border. Personally I feel that freedom of speech should come with a measure of common sense. Too long have hatemongers hidden behind the absolute right to free speech to spread their racism and violence. I'm sure this was not the intent of our respective politicians while drafting our rights to free speech.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/stor...niversity.html

Questions? Comments? Ideas?

I think theres a fine line between hate speech and free speech. If your going to do hate speech, do it respectively.

Originally Posted by Lucidness

If your going to do hate speech, do it respectively.

That is the craziest of all of the Ann Coulter quotes, and I have talked about it before. I highly disagree with her ideas on targetting civilians during the war on terror, but her comments are not support for genocide. They are supportive of an age old war tactic which actually has brought down menacing governments in some cases. It should not be illegal to advocate genocide any way. It should be illegal to try to bring it about by engaging in a plan for it. There is a difference.

The government cannot be trusted with too much power. Free speech is nothing to screw with. Once you open the door you want to open, a horrible precedent is set, and it can lead all the way to a totalitarian state. You seem to have this major trust in government. Considering how full of shit and evil politicians are, why do you trust government so much? Politicians want to be as powerful as they can be. It is what they are all about. Only a freedom loving population can keep freedom preserved. Once the masses tell politicians it's okay to start taking away freedom, the politicians are fine with it and get very excited. Let's not let those snakes have too much control.

Also, those protesters were not peaceful. They were perhaps nonviolent, but not peaceful. They were screaming with severe hatred. They are closed-minded, intolerant, viciously hateful opposers of free speech. They are scum.

But if you support freedom of speech then you support their right to scream with severe hatred. :l

Originally Posted by Xei

But if you support freedom of speech then you support their right to scream with severe hatred. :l

That is correct. I do. I also support my right to say what I think about those pieces of shit who were so closed-minded and intolerant about Ann Coulter's scheduled speech.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Also, those protesters were not peaceful. They were perhaps nonviolent, but not peaceful. They were screaming with severe hatred. They are closed-minded, intolerant, viciously hateful opposers of free speech. They are scum.

I realize you aren't saying that these people should be restricted, but don't you see the contradiction in supporting Coulter's right to say that we should carpet bomb and kill civilians and then calling these protesters scum?

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is the craziest of all of the Ann Coulter quotes, and I have talked about it before. I highly disagree with her ideas on targetting civilians during the war on terror, but her comments are not support for genocide. They are supportive of an age old war tactic which actually has brought down menacing governments in some cases. It should not be illegal to advocate genocide any way. It should be illegal to try to bring it about by engaging in a plan for it. There is a difference.

The government cannot be trusted with too much power. Free speech is nothing to screw with. Once you open the door you want to open, a horrible precedent is set, and it can lead all the way to a totalitarian state. You seem to have this major trust in government. Considering how full of shit and evil politicians are, why do you trust government so much? Politicians want to be as powerful as they can be. It is what they are all about. Only a freedom loving population can keep freedom preserved. Once the masses tell politicians it's okay to start taking away freedom, the politicians are fine with it and get very excited. Let's not let those snakes have too much control.

Also, those protesters were not peaceful. They were perhaps nonviolent, but not peaceful. They were screaming with severe hatred. They are closed-minded, intolerant, viciously hateful opposers of free speech. They are scum.

She wasn't going to be automatically charged, it was just a rather harsh warning to show some respect. Racist comments in general are tolerated, she even made a couple in a previous speech in London, Ontario. You really have to be inciting violence and promoting hate for the laws to take effect, beyond sarcasm and ignorance. To me advocating for genocide is the first step in planning one. Honestly what positive outcome can come anyways from advocating genocide?

In my experience, Canadian politicians have been full of shit, childish, incompetent, but never evil. I could understand how this would be a very dangerous law in other countries, but Canada has been very responsible so far and is simply reenforcing the people's right against discrimination.

That is correct. I do. I also support my right to say what I think about those pieces of shit who were so closed-minded and intolerant about Ann Coulter's scheduled speech.

But you already said you disagree with her? If somebody had said 'we should kill foreign leaders and convert their countries to Christianity' I'd probably be screaming at the evil bitch too.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I realize you aren't saying that these people should be restricted, but don't you see the contradiction in supporting Coulter's right to say that we should carpet bomb and kill civilians and then calling these protesters scum?

No, I don't see the contradiction. What is it?

I have not advocated restricting the speech of the scum. I think Ann Coulter is a fucking psycho for wanting to target civilians in the Middle East, by the way.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

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

Yes.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Honestly what positive outcome can come anyways from advocating genocide?

Not really any other than interesting conversations about it, but that's beside the point. Whether a positive outcome can come from something should not be the basis for deciding whether it should be legal. I have heard lots of Republicans say drugs should be illegal because no good comes from them. I think they are way off with that reasoning.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

In my experience, Canadian politicians have been full of shit, childish, incompetent, but never evil. I could understand how this would be a very dangerous law in other countries, but Canada has been very responsible so far and is simply reenforcing the people's right against discrimination.

How do you know they are not evil? People who are full of shit with their political power are evil. Anybody in that kind of position has to be intellectually honest to not be evil.

Originally Posted by Xei

But you already said you disagree with her? If somebody had said 'we should kill foreign leaders and convert their countries to Christianity' I'd probably be screaming at the evil bitch too.

What exactly are you saying? I am very supportive of free speech, even from people I think are scum. I don't know what you are confused about.

I'm confused why you think they're scum when all they were doing was exercising their freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm confused why you think they're scum when all they were doing was exercising their freedom of speech.

They were acting like closed-minded assholes with it. The fact that a person acts within his legal rights does not mean he is not being a bad person. It is within free speech for a person to tell his good, very caring parents that they can fuck off and that he never wants to talk to them again. That doesn't mean it's not an extremely terrible thing to do. Such a person is not just exercising his freedom of speech. He is exercising his free speech while acting like a scum bag.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Not really any other than interesting conversations about it, but that's beside the point. Whether a positive outcome can come from something should not be the basis for deciding whether it should be legal. I have heard lots of Republicans say drugs should be illegal because no good comes from them. I think they are way off with that reasoning.

A person advocating genocide isn't really interested in having a nice chat about it, they're trying to garner supporters. It's not that nothing positive can come of it, it's that something very very negative can come of it. What are your views on sedition? I believe that is illegal in the US.

How do you know they are not evil? People who are full of shit with their political power are evil. Anybody in that kind of position has to be intellectually honest to not be evil.

Well if you find telling half-truths and using typical political misdirection to stay in power evil, then yeah there's a bit of that. But with respect to human rights, international peace, accountability to citizens, it's all been pretty good. Just look at the world's view of Canada, "peaceful", "quiet", "friendly"... It might have something to do with our political structure. With four major parties currently in the House, the opposition is much more likely to capitalize on unpopular acts of individual politicians, especially in a minority situation. I believe it's also much easier to remove a politician from power here than in the US. The downside is that the Queen of England is our de jure head of state .

As for Ann Coulter, I wish she had spoken in Ottawa, but it was her decision to cancel the event. I think that most people here are pretty liberal and having her speak would let people see how full of shit she is.

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.

The event was canceled by the organizers.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

A person advocating genocide isn't really interested in having a nice chat about it, they're trying to garner supporters. It's not that nothing positive can come of it, it's that something very very negative can come of it. What are your views on sedition? I believe that is illegal in the US.

There is a difference between expressing a belief and trying to incite an event to happen. Also, it was the government Ann was expressing a belief about. She was talking about the government doing something by choice. That is not illegal.

The sedition laws spook me out a good bit. I understand the illegality of saying, "Hey, let's go kill a bunch of old ladies! Come on!" That's organization of a criminal act. However, the laws cover a lot more than that. The idea of free speech being screwed with at all is unsettling, even when it may be necessary.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Just look at the world's view of Canada, "peaceful", "quiet", "friendly"... It might have something to do with our political structure.

It's because you don't get caught up in international affairs. The country that borders you to the south does it for you.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Questions? Comments? Ideas?

I know it sounds bad, but I like to hear politicians say things like this. It exposes what they really are. War(as in the one on terror) is a barbaric and ineffective way of dealing with or accomplishing anything. My hope is that enough young people will politicians talking like this and lose faith in the current government(I was horrified at how easily obama was able to gain support by using the extremely ambiguous word change).

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 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.

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?

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?

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.