Web expands hate speech law: expert

[Hyack]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=792277

OAKVILLE, ONT. -- Canada's top legal precedent on hate speech may now be unworkable because of the Internet's transformation of public discourse, according to Athanasios Hadjis, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member hearing the case against far-right propagandist Marc Lemire.
In an exchange Monday with a government lawyer, Mr. Hadjis said Section 13 of Canada's Human Rights Act, which was written to target the operators of racist telephone hotlines, and extended to the Internet after the 9/11 terror attacks, now captures "anyone who puts the written word down in digital form," including countless bloggers and the entirety of the mainstream press.

 

[Praxius]

"anyone who puts the written word down in digital form,"

What the hell does that mean? What word?

Section 13 applies to messages "likely to expose" an identifiable group to hatred or contempt.

The foremost legal precedent for deciding these cases is the 1990 Supreme Court of Canada decision about the neo-Nazi activist John Ross Taylor, in which Section 13 was held to be a justifiable violation of the Charter right to free expression.

It defined hate messages as those expressing "unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification."

^ WTF does that mean? "Unusually Strong and Deep-Felt Emotions...."

So now we have people determining for us what emotions we feel about something is negative or not?

So "Thought Police" then?

So all those comments on here in regards to the US in a negative manner could fall under this category?

Therefore, nobody is allowed to say anything negative about anybody?

I can understand this being applied to anybody trying to incite people to act out in violent ways, or commenting somone should be killed for such and such a reason (No matter how ignorant) but by what was quoted above sure doesn't stop at that it would seem.

Mr. Fothergill answered that if Section 13 puts a chill on public discourse, it is only to be around the fringes of hate speech, and that this is not "a terribly bad outcome."

"A little bit of chilling ... is tolerable," he said.

Suck my A-Hole through my B-Region you S-Head.

Mr. Hadjis questioned whether it is fair, in general, to hold Web site owners accountable for what others may write in their comment sections, possibly without their knowledge, consent or endorsement.

He used the example of the CBC, which operates several chat forums for readers to discuss news stories, and asked what would happen if a hateful message somehow got past automatic filters and live editors.

Without commenting on the CBC directly, Ms. Blight said there is no "free pass" for anyone.

Yeah, ok..... he's an idiot.... is that negative and should I be sued now? How about CC?

Exactly how the bloody hell does this moron expect to properly police this on the internet, through all the various web sites, forums, chat rooms, news pages, and all the millions of people who post on each throughout the world?

He can't, therefore, he's an idiot.... not an insult, just a standard observation. :twisted:

 

[Colpy]

Praxius, of couse hate legislation is thought control.

welcome to the lefty idea of liberty.

"you are free to think or say whatever you want......as long as you agree with me"

 

[DurkaDurka]

We need more laws like this to protect the innocents.

 

[mabudon]

Jeezus, I hope they never look at the "video comments" on youtube LMFAO

 

[Praxius]

Jeezus, I hope they never look at the "video comments" on youtube LMFAO

LEAVE BRITNEY ALOOONNNNEEEEE!!!!!!

 

[Unforgiven]

Praxius, of couse hate legislation is thought control.

welcome to the lefty idea of liberty.

"you are free to think or say whatever you want......as long as you agree with me"

So the distribution of kiddie porn, IED building and open recruitment of people who want to kill others should not be opposed in this neocon world of yours?

Thanks, but no thanks. While I am for freedom of speech, there are some things that need to have limits put on them so that people don't take advantage. I'm ok with you having a huge problem with that.

 

[Scott Free]

Praxius, of couse hate legislation is thought control.

welcome to the lefty idea of liberty.

"you are free to think or say whatever you want......as long as you agree with me"

I agree with you but it must be pointed out that either side is capable of being totalitarian if taken to an extreme.

 

[darkbeaver]

Wait a minute, IED building is legal in Canada I believe we have Canadians working in factories right now supporting thier familys and helping to build thier communitys one device at a time.

 

[karrie]

I agree with you but it must be pointed out that either side is capable of being totalitarian if taken to an extreme.

That seems to be the main problem I see with the law as it stands. As was pointed out in another forum, it seems to only ever be applied against white males, making it a prejudiced law. I think having such an inflammatory law on the books, they need to ensure that it is applied 100% properly, and that includes equally.

 

[Risus]

A lot of the laws need be looked at and upgraded because of the internet. A lot of the laws on the books are archaic.

 

[Praxius]

So the distribution of kiddie porn, IED building and open recruitment of people who want to kill others should not be opposed in this neocon world of yours?

Thanks, but no thanks. While I am for freedom of speech, there are some things that need to have limits put on them so that people don't take advantage. I'm ok with you having a huge problem with that.

Freedom of expressing one's opinion about something is one thing..... supplying a product or information which is illegal is something totally different.