Thread: Free speech vs hate speech

I think theres a fine line between hate speech and free speech. 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.

Yes I wasn't arguing that acting within the law implies acting in an honourable manner, I was just asking in what way they were being close minded.

Forgive me if I am ignorant but this person had made some of her views known and these protesters were communicating to her that they found her views repulsive.

They were pushing to keep her from speaking. That is something I don't agree with. If Hitler (before he killed anybody) wanted to speak at a university near me, I would not speak in favor of stopping the speech from happening. I would probably attend the speech and listen to it.

I saw some of those protestors on television. The ones I saw were so hateful it was creepy. They acted like that and cried out for the stifling of speech. I could see what kind of people they are. I am pretty sure that their hatred for Ann Coulter is not born of love for humanity.

Ann Coulter is a douche.

Just say free speech nicely. Simple.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They were pushing to keep her from speaking. That is something I don't agree with. If Hitler (before he killed anybody) wanted to speak at a university near me, I would not speak in favor of stopping the speech from happening. I would probably attend the speech and listen to it.

I saw some of those protestors on television. The ones I saw were so hateful it was creepy. They acted like that and cried out for the stifling of speech. I could see what kind of people they are. I am pretty sure that their hatred for Ann Coulter is not born of love for humanity.

I can agree. I went to go see this, and a lot of the other students acted rather primitively. I knew this girl was a shallow-minded racist bitch, but nevertheless I wanted to hear her talk.

A lot of people are soft and unimaginative, and get offended easily if they don't hear something they agree with or don't like. I should have been rather entertained by her speech.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They were pushing to keep her from speaking. That is something I don't agree with. If Hitler (before he killed anybody) wanted to speak at a university near me, I would not speak in favor of stopping the speech from happening. I would probably attend the speech and listen to it.

I saw some of those protestors on television. The ones I saw were so hateful it was creepy. They acted like that and cried out for the stifling of speech. I could see what kind of people they are. I am pretty sure that their hatred for Ann Coulter is not born of love for humanity.

I really do agree with you, but its a hard line to identify. I doubt any of those protesters could come by the oportunity to stand up in front of hundreds or thousands of people to talk calmly about how much of a douche Ann Coulter is. Sometimes people have to excercise their free speech in the loudest way possible in order for it to be heard at all.

They also were not arguing for Ann Coulter to be permanently silenced, which is what limiting her free speech would entail. Being able to exercise your free speech on a stage in front of a crowd of people is not part of the right to free speech.

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 Xaqaria

They also were not arguing for Ann Coulter to be permanently silenced, which is what limiting her free speech would entail. Being able to exercise your free speech on a stage in front of a crowd of people is not part of the right to free speech.

It's trut that they were arguing for her to not be able to speak at the university, but not to never be able to speak anywhere at all. The university had a right to tell her she couldn't speak.

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 SpecialInterests

The event was canceled by the organizers.

Yes, not the university.

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 Universal Mind

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.

I'm not saying anything she has already said would violate our hate speech law, she was simply reminded that we have one should she get way out of line.

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

Oh yeah, it's not like 140 of our soldiers have died helping our allies fight an enemy that has never attacked us. Get off your high horse ...