Something got snipped?No, I was just making a point about CC censorship.
Hate laws vital in the digital age, Supreme Court hears in landmark case
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Bear, put down the joint. :smile:
We are talking about censorship on the Internet. You two are calling for free speech. Here when someone gets their feelings hurt posts get removed. (Offending post removed)
Jeeezuz H man you just sucked all the fun out of what should have been a funny post.
Gack!
Dude, I just spent the better part of the day fipping steel and welding in the drizzle. I'm not stoned, but I sure feel like it, lol.
There was an offending post? Did I post it?
Sorry dude.
If you really believe in absolute freedom of speech, then why have any restrictions whatsoever? If screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre is considered a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech, then why would other restrictions not be equally valid? As Hitler and other malicious liars have clearly shown, unrestricted spewing of hatred can cause considerably more damage than panic in a single theatre. The lack of restrictions on hate literature and so in the USA on have not made that country any more free. In fact it could be easily argued that the misuse of freedom of speech in the US has caused considerable harm. Far from being harmful to society restrictions on freedom of speech as practiced in Canada and in many European nations have actually contributed to over-all freedoms, in particular the security of person of certain minority groups.
Problem with hate speech is that by HRC standards it is largely in the opinion of the receiver. Especially if the person on the receiving end is a lefty. Somehow it is OK for lefty welfare bums to call those of us that work and pay taxes as ignorant rednecks though.
Well, you kind of just proved your ignorance. I'm a lefty who works and pays taxes.
Lefty taxes don't count
Jonathan Kay on the Whatcott case: Why Christian ‘homophobia’ isn’t hate speech | Full Comment | National Post
More than theoretically, in fact: In 1997, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that a newspaper ad that merely cited relevant anti-gay passages from Romans, Leviticus and 1 Corinthians, alongside a struck-through image of two male stick figures holding hands, was prohibited speech. Canadian Christian activists are not far off the mark when they say that human rights laws is verging on criminalizing Christianity. At the very least, there is a massive legal conflict between the promise of religious freedom contained in our Charter of Rights, and the effective ban on promulgating a central religious dogma — opposition to homosexuality — that has become part of our human-rights culture.
The victims of this conflict include a Saskatchewan-based self-described “Christian Truth Activist” named William Whatcott, whose case was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada this week. In 2001 and 2002, he toured Saskatoon and Regina, putting flyers in home mailboxes that urged politicians to “keep homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s public schools!” The language in the flyers was somewhat shrill, declaring (not without justification) for instance, that young children “are more interested in playing Barbie & Ken rather than learning how wonderful it is for two men to sodomize each other.”
Oh come on!
BTW, the Weimar Republic HAD hate speech laws.....just goes to show how much good they do........
http://www.georgejonas.ca/recent_writing.cfm?id=640
And yes, the USA is considerably freer than Canada........in speech, in the right to keep and bear arms, in the justice system and the power of juries, etc.
HOW has free speech caused "considerable harm"????
Criminal restrictions on freedom of speech MUST be restricted to those things that cause immediate physical harm, such as incitement to violence or the standard of negligence inherent in crying "fire" in a crowded theatre.
If not, we simply DO NOT HAVE freedom of speech.
That seems so simple, so obvious.......
Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine were filed in December 2007 by Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Maclean's magazine was accused of publishing eighteen Islamophobic articles between January 2005 and July 2007. The articles in question included a column by Mark Steyn titled "The Future Belongs to Islam".[1][2]
IT cost Levant over 100 K to defend himself.
Then the complainants against MacLeans - one Imam stated he was sorry. Really.
Ezra Levant debates CHRC's Ian Fine on Human Rights - YouTube
Ezra Levant on Human Rights Commissions - Part 3 - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaQiGnR2Xw0&feature=related
Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine were filed in December 2007 by Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Maclean's magazine was accused of publishing eighteen Islamophobic articles between January 2005 and July 2007. The articles in question included a column by Mark Steyn titled "The Future Belongs to Islam".[1][2]
IT cost Levant over 100 K to defend himself.
Then the complainants against MacLeans - one Imam stated he was sorry. Really.
Ezra Levant debates CHRC's Ian Fine on Human Rights - YouTube
Ezra Levant on Human Rights Commissions - Part 3 - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaQiGnR2Xw0&feature=related
Thanks for proving my point. The failure of the Weimar Republic to protect Jews and other minority groups against Hitler's malicious slander clearly shows that unrestricted freedom of speech can be quite harmful. Of course, we do not have complete freedom of speech. Reasonable restrictions on this right are necessary in order to insure that hate groups are not allowed to spread their poison throughout society. If prank phone calls and other disruptive practices can be outlawed then so can attempts by one group to incite hatred against another As I pointed out the United States, with its much more liberal interpretation of freedom of speech, has not been made any more free. In fact the acts of violence against minority groups that are so much a part of US history tend to take away freedoms that the rest of society enjoys. If you cannot see harm in the attacks on Blacks, Orientals, Mulsims, homsexuals and so on, then it is your perception of harm that is the problem and I am afraid I can not help you with that.
Explain to me please how the complete failure of strictly enforced hate laws in the Weimar Republic proves the need for same????
To apply a medical analogy, It seems obvious that if you heavily medicate a patient, and he immediately drops dead...........................the medication doesn't work.
Or it killed him.
Either way, the application of more hardly seems appropriate.
Explain this concept to me, and I will be happy.......
As well, in a society of ever-more regulated personal freedom, should we not err in favour of liberty instead of statist control???
Err, in favour of liberty.
I wonder how you feel about less freedom of movement?
Less freedom of privacy?
I mean I can formulate reasoned platforms to put greater restrictions on those freedoms.
It's funny you should say that.
I wonder how you feel about less freedom of movement?
Less freedom of privacy?
I mean I can formulate reasoned platforms to put greater restrictions on those freedoms.
It's not the speech that causes harm. Children grasp this, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". That does seem fairly simple to me.
Given the choice between some jackass standing on a street corner ranting and spewing racist rhetoric or that same jackass in some dark corner whispering insidiously to others, I'll pick the street corner every single time. It is not going to go away just because we say it cannot be spoken out loud. It will just be left to grow, unobserved in the dark corners of society.
Further, while it is every persons right to speak their mind unfettered, opposing and rebutting the speech that we consider unpalatable is necessary and it's about time we stepped up and did a little more of that, imho. This is not just a right we are talking about, it's also a responsibility.
The PC Police are democracies worst enemy - Trying to turn us into freaking sheep.
I watched this interview- He corrected himself afterwords.
He also asked legitimate questions but the writer he was interviewing was also pompous as hell.
So hundreds complained - yet tens of thousands did not. He used the phrase " Left wing nutbar.
O’Leary’s ‘nutbar’ remark breach of policy, CBC ombudsman says - The Globe and Mail
CBC’s ombudsman says Kevin O’Leary’s heated remarks during an interview with author Chris Hedges violated the public broadcaster’s journalistic standards.
The watchdog says hundreds of complaints were filed after Mr. O’Leary called the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist “a nutbar” during CBC News Network’s The Lang & O’Leary Exchange on Oct. 6. The remark came during a seven-minute segment about the Occupy Wall Street protests unfolding in the United States.
That's ok, we can be black sheep and run amok!
O'Leary is on tv because of his charm and grace. Not unlike Don Cherry, lol.
Saw this interview with O'Leary one time, he told this story of being at an airport with his wife and he went to use the men's room. His wife waited outside the door with the luggage. Guy was leaving just as he entered and this guy looked at him, recognized him, but didn't say anything. The guy walks out and says to the women outside the men's room "You know that asshole Kevin O'Leary is in the men's room."
To which the wife replied: "Yes, I know".
There never has been freedom of speech in that sense, and I don't think anyone is asking for it. There are all kinds of acceptable limits on speech, slander and libel being the most obvious examples. When we refer to freedom of speech, in most contexts we really mean freedom to express an opinion. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not an opinion, it's a malicious act. However, even yelling fire in a crowded theatre is perfectly acceptable, if the theatre is burning. That's the crux of the problem with the hate speech laws today - truth is no defense. You can't be convicted of slander if what you said is true, but you can be convicted of hate speech if what you said is true. Think about that. You can be prosecuted for speaking the truth. That just isn't right.