It's Time to Upgrade Free Speech to Fair Speech


mentalfloss
#1
Sorry Nazis.


Man with swastika tattoo organizing white supremacist rally in Peterborough, Ont.

A man with a swastika tattooed on his chest is organizing a white supremacist rally in Peterborough, Ontario on Saturday.

Kevin Goudreau, chairman of the group Canadian Nationalist Front, told Evan Solomon on the Bell Talk Radio Network that he is not a white supremacist--- preferring instead to be referred to as a white nationalist---- and that the rally is an anti-Trudeau, anti-illegal immigration rally.

Goudreau has a large swastika tattooed on the centre of his chest and there are photographs shared online of him giving the Heil Sieg, the Nazi salute.

When questionned about the tattoo and aligning himself with white supremacist and neo-nazi groups, Goudreau said his aim is to unite the right and stop immigration into Canada.

"I got [the tattoo] 20 years ago and it wasn't meant as anything to do with WWII Germany or anti-semitism. It was just a thing to -- I was idealistic. I wanted to take the symbol back," Goudreau told Solomon.

The Canadian Nationlist Front website links to groups and websites such as Stormfront, David Duke, and White Aryan Resistance, all known for their white supremacist beliefs. There is very little distinction between white supremacy and white nationalism.

When asked why he aligns himself with Neo-Nazis, Goudreau said "We may differ in methodology or ideology, but the basics is to unite the right wing to further our cause in the sense of preservation of the original demographics of this country."

Diane Therrien, a Peterborough city councillor, told The Evan Solomon Show that Goudreau is an angry, sad,and violent person.

"He's been in downtown Peterborough and he's been kicked out of bars here. he's assaulted people," Therrien told Solomon.

The City of Peterborough granted a permit for the rally to take place Saturday.

Many groups are calling for the city to revoke the permit to Canadian Nationalist Front for the rally, citing Canadian hate laws.

Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies issued a statement urging Peterborough's mayor and councillors to pull the permit for the rally on city property.

"There is nothing peaceful about white nationalists marching in public spewing messages of hate and intolerance," said FSWC president and CEO Avi Benlolo. "The mayor and city councillors must intervene to reverse this decision immediately."

Peterborough Mayor Daryl Bennett said in a letter that the city must stand together against racism and hate.

Man with swastika tattoo organizing white supremacist rally in Peterborough, Ont. | CTV Ottawa News
 
DaSleeper
+4
#2
 
Colpy
Conservative
+3
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Sorry Nazis.


Man with swastika tattoo organizing white supremacist rally in Peterborough, Ont.

A man with a swastika tattooed on his chest is organizing a white supremacist rally in Peterborough, Ontario on Saturday.

Kevin Goudreau, chairman of the group Canadian Nationalist Front, told Evan Solomon on the Bell Talk Radio Network that he is not a white supremacist--- preferring instead to be referred to as a white nationalist---- and that the rally is an anti-Trudeau, anti-illegal immigration rally.

Goudreau has a large swastika tattooed on the centre of his chest and there are photographs shared online of him giving the Heil Sieg, the Nazi salute.

When questionned about the tattoo and aligning himself with white supremacist and neo-nazi groups, Goudreau said his aim is to unite the right and stop immigration into Canada.

"I got [the tattoo] 20 years ago and it wasn't meant as anything to do with WWII Germany or anti-semitism. It was just a thing to -- I was idealistic. I wanted to take the symbol back," Goudreau told Solomon.

The Canadian Nationlist Front website links to groups and websites such as Stormfront, David Duke, and White Aryan Resistance, all known for their white supremacist beliefs. There is very little distinction between white supremacy and white nationalism.

When asked why he aligns himself with Neo-Nazis, Goudreau said "We may differ in methodology or ideology, but the basics is to unite the right wing to further our cause in the sense of preservation of the original demographics of this country."

Diane Therrien, a Peterborough city councillor, told The Evan Solomon Show that Goudreau is an angry, sad,and violent person.

"He's been in downtown Peterborough and he's been kicked out of bars here. he's assaulted people," Therrien told Solomon.

The City of Peterborough granted a permit for the rally to take place Saturday.

Many groups are calling for the city to revoke the permit to Canadian Nationalist Front for the rally, citing Canadian hate laws.

Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies issued a statement urging Peterborough's mayor and councillors to pull the permit for the rally on city property.

"There is nothing peaceful about white nationalists marching in public spewing messages of hate and intolerance," said FSWC president and CEO Avi Benlolo. "The mayor and city councillors must intervene to reverse this decision immediately."

Peterborough Mayor Daryl Bennett said in a letter that the city must stand together against racism and hate.

Man with swastika tattoo organizing white supremacist rally in Peterborough, Ont. | CTV Ottawa News

Yep.

And Mr. Goudreau has every right to speak his opinions, up to the point where he directly calls for violence or genocide against a specific group.

That is how it works in a free country; the state does not adjudicate what is, or is not a legal political opinion.

Fascists are eager adjudicate what is, or is not a legal political opinion.

So which are you?
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

It's Time to Upgrade Free Speech to Fair Speech

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty

~Abraham Lincoln
 
TenPenny
+7
#5  Top Rated Post
Once you limit it to 'fair speech', then someone has to decide what is fair.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+2
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Once you limit it to 'fair speech', then someone has to decide what is fair.

And in our own recent history, the concept that black people, Indians, and women are fully human and entitled to equality before the law and in society has been decried as fantastic, outrageous, disgusting, and destructive to society. It was also banned in various forms in various places. Apparently mentalfloss approves.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Once you limit it to 'fair speech', then someone has to decide what is fair.

That someone would of course be Mentalnazi and his "accepting" left-wing buddies. LOL!
 
mentalfloss
-3
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Once you limit it to 'fair speech', then someone has to decide what is fair.

Yes, it's called democracy.

We are being held back by Nazis who are pretending that free speech should allow them to hold discriminatory rallies and we have the power to tell them we won't accept that.

They are free to be racist in their own homes and anonymously on 4chan.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

And in our own recent history, the concept that black people, Indians, and women are fully human and entitled to equality before the law and in society has been decried as fantastic, outrageous, disgusting, and destructive to society. It was also banned in various forms in various places. Apparently mentalfloss approves.

False equivalence.

Context matters here and that context deals with the propagation of discrimination.


In your case, the prevention of those rallies is discriminatory and in this case, the admission of these rallies is discriminatory.


This isn't some draconian, 1984-based policy.

There is no slippery slope into the elimination of words.

The line is clear.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+4
#9
Quote:

It's Time to Upgrade Free Speech to Controlled Speech

There you go flosstard the fascist. Fixed the title for you to better represent your authoritarian point of view.
 
mentalfloss
-2
#10
You support Nazi Trump.

My suggestion is entirely democratic.
 
TenPenny
+3
#11
Under your proposed rules, you wouldn't be allowed to say that.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+3
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Yes, it's called democracy.

Its called oppression!
Quote:

We are being held back by Nazis who are pretending that free speech should allow them to hold discriminatory rallies and we have the power to tell them we won't accept that.

Don't go listen. Its that simple, or you and the other snowflakes to easily swayed in thought? Is that the real issue? You all have no ability to resist the thought control of the neo-Nazis? ROFLMAO!!
Quote:

They are free to be racist in their own homes and anonymously on 4chan.

They are free to be racist anywhere...that's kind of the definition of free. You want them limited to express their opinions only in private which would be the definition of censorship. You really aren't too bright

Quote:

In your case, the prevention of those rallies is discriminatory and in this case, the admission of these rallies is discriminatory.

Again this is by your personal, warped definition of free which is where you decide what others can think and say....how stalinesque
Quote:

This isn't some draconian, 1984-based policy.

Yes it is.
Quote:

There is no slippery slope into the elimination of words.

That has already started...Nigger, Retard etc
Quote:

The line is clear.

No it's blurry as hell because everyone has a different opinion and different level of acceptance. What is clear to you is where you would put that line. Fortunately you don't get to decide for the other 34 million of us
 
Walter
+3
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Once you limit it to 'fair speech', then someone has to decide what is fair.

Who watches the watchers?
 
Kreskin
+1
#14
Trump is the only one that has a right to protest. That's what US soldiers fought and died for.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

You support Nazi Trump.

And you're an idiot if you think Trump is a nazi.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

My suggestion is entirely democratic.

No, it's not. You want to control speech by having someone or some committee decide what is approved speech, or to put it in your own stupid words, fair speech. That's not democratic dumbass, that's authoritarianism.
Democracy means I have the right to express my thoughts and ideas as long as I'm not trying to encourage violence and/or discrimination against another group. Something your terrorist buddies in antifa have no trouble doing.
Just as you're free to express your opposition to my speech or ideas. Once you try and control what people can and cannot say, you begin the exit of the age of democracy and enter the age of authoritarianism.

Free speech already has limitations and they're good limitations. What you want is entirely undemocratic. Well, unless you live in the DPRK.
 
mentalfloss
-1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Under your proposed rules, you wouldn't be allowed to say that.

Of course I could.

Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

And you're an idiot if you think Trump is a nazi.

No, it's not. You want to control speech by having someone or some committee decide what is approved speech, or to put it in your own stupid words, fair speech. That's not democratic dumbass, that's authoritarianism.
Democracy means I have the right to express my thoughts and ideas as long as I'm not trying to encourage violence and/or discrimination against another group. Something your terrorist buddies in antifa have no trouble doing.
Just as you're free to express your opposition to my speech or ideas. Once you try and control what people can and cannot say, you begin the exit of the age of democracy and enter the age of authoritarianism.

Free speech already has limitations and they're good limitations. What you want is entirely undemocratic. Well, unless you live in the DPRK.

We already have hate speech laws and I'm not asking for anything different other than a law against Nazi rallies.

And yes, you're still a Trumptard.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+3
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Of course I could.

That would depend on what the person or people in charge of speech would allow. If they determined "nazi" was unacceptable you wouldn't be able to say it. That's the problem with your idea....other people get to determine what you can say and could just as easily outlaw words you like.

Quote:

We already have hate speech laws

Yes we do, so why do we need more restraint on freedoms?

Quote:

and I'm not asking for anything different other than preventing Nazi rallies.

Well that and the ability to prevent free and open discussion of ideas you don't like or agree with as evidenced by this statement....
"They are free to be racist in their own homes and anonymously on 4chan."
 
Colpy
Conservative
+4
#18
First of all, you're an idiot. That fact becomes increasingly obvious every time you post.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Yes, it's called democracy.

Ever hear of a French gentleman called Alexis de Tocqueville?

“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
Alexis de Tocqueville

Look him up. Read a little. His critique of American democracy in the mid nineteenth century is so dead on it makes you wonder if he had a crystal ball.

Here's a little help:

The greatest danger Tocqueville saw was that public opinion would become an all-powerful force, and that the majority could tyrannize unpopular minorities and marginal individuals. In Volume 2, Part 2, Chapter 7, “Of the Omnipotence of the Majority in the United States and Its Effects,” he lays out his argument with a variety of well-chosen constitutional, historical, and sociological examples.

https://edsitement.neh.gov/curriculu...ranny-majority

You must understand that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you aren't really a black shirt fascist arsehole, you simply have not grown past diapers in your political thought.

As for "reasonable limits":

There’s just one teensy-weensy problem with it: pre-Nazi Germany had such “reasonable limits.” Indeed, the Weimar Republic was a veritable proto-Trudeaupia. As Alan Borovoy, Canada’s leading civil libertarian, put it: “Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.” Inevitably, the Nazi party exploited the restrictions on “free speech” in order to boost its appeal. In 1925, the state of Bavaria issued an order banning Adolf Hitler from making any public speeches. The Nazis responded by distributing a drawing of their leader with his mouth gagged and the caption, “Of 2,000 million people in the world, one alone is forbidden to speak in Germany.” So a fat lot of good those laws did against the Nazis — but they proved immensely useful once the Nazis took power. Liberals always seem stunned when supposedly “liberal” laws are subsequently used for illiberal ends.

Read more at: | National Review


Oh. Alan Borovoy:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Borovoy


Read, contemplate, get back to me.
 
TenPenny
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Of course I could.



Not if 'they' decided it wasn't fair to call someone a Nazi.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+3
#20
Well put, Colpy. It's also worth noting that Germany today has very strong anti-Nazi laws. And they didn't stop AFD (Nazis in all but name) from 13% of the popular vote and 94 seats in the Bundestag, making it the third-largest party.

As you point out, in addition to the theoretical reasons for free speech, there is the fact that speech restrictions simply don't work. No reasonably free country has ever pursued a speech restriction as assiduously as Germany pursues the anti-Nazi laws. Didn't stop it in the Weimar Republic, didn't stop it in 2017.
 
TenPenny
+2
#21
If any of you happened to catch 'this is that' on cbc radio this morning, one part (last 5 or 10 minutes) was about a guy in Winnipeg who runs a service getting people who argue on the net to meet in real life so they can argue face to face.


It's funny as heck, and made me think of this place.


https://podcast-a.akamaihd.net/mp3/p...0928_82188.mp3
 
DaSleeper
#22
So did political correctness and and the cronyism in politicians create the right atmosphere for a Donald Trump win?
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+3
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Who watches the watchers?

It would be the Grand Poobah who has the best interests of the populace in mind that is the overseer in this case.

... Some examples of such are Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro and Kim Jong Un... All working for the betterment of the folks in their utopic societies
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

It would be the Grand Poobah who has the best interests of the populace in mind that is the overseer in this case.

... Some examples of such are Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro and Kim Jong Un... All working for the betterment of the folks in their utopic societies

And, of course, Hitler. And the Puritans. And the governors and state legislators who passed Jim Crow. And the anti-drug warriors.

And anybody who wants to illegalize any activity that does not proximately cause indusputable harm to others.
 
TenPenny
#25
Who watches the watchers? Well, in the US, it would be someone appointed by the POTUS. How would flossie handle that?
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

And, of course, Hitler. And the Puritans. And the governors and state legislators who passed Jim Crow. And the anti-drug warriors.

And anybody who wants to illegalize any activity that does not proximately cause indusputable harm to others.

Absolutely... We could easily add Senator McCarthy, the various Caesars throughout the Roman empire and many many more to be sure.

That said, one of the huge differences though relates to how many of the, shall we say, right of center ideologues butchered their own populace to retain control as opposed to the ideology on the left

... As was pointed out by another poster, it is the left of center ideologues that were of the practice of erecting walls to prevent the people from leaving.
 
mentalfloss
-1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNick View Post

That would depend on what the person or people in charge of speech would allow. If they determined "nazi" was unacceptable you wouldn't be able to say it. That's the problem with your idea....other people get to determine what you can say and could just as easily outlaw words you like.


Yes we do, so why do we need more restraint on freedoms?


Well that and the ability to prevent free and open discussion of ideas you don't like or agree with as evidenced by this statement....
"They are free to be racist in their own homes and anonymously on 4chan."


As usual, you Trumptards misunderstand free speech to begin with.


This isn't about saying a 'bad word'.

This is about having a platform to promote discrimination and that can be easily remedied without putting anyone in a bad situation.

We don't allow rallies to promote other forms of terrorism, so this is no different.

Although I'm sure Colpy would be perfectly fine with an Islamic Terrorism rally.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

As usual, you Trumptards misunderstand free speech to begin with.


This isn't about saying a 'bad word'.

This is about having a platform to promote discrimination and that can be easily remedied without putting anyone in a bad situation.

We don't allow rallies to promote other forms of terrorism, so this is no different.

Although I'm sure Colpy would be perfectly fine with an Islamic Terrorism rally.

Again that opinion is based upon YOUR personal definition of terrorism which apparently doesn't include those promoting a totalitarian regime where everyone must follow the leader and his/her beliefs and opinions.....like the Liberals are trying to impose which makes them terrorists by definition.
 
TenPenny
+2
#29
You are deliberately obtuse, which is perfectly acceptable in a free society.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+2
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

As usual, you Trumptards misunderstand free speech to begin with.


This isn't about saying a 'bad word'.

This is about having a platform to promote discrimination and that can be easily remedied without putting anyone in a bad situation.

We don't allow rallies to promote other forms of terrorism, so this is no different.

Although I'm sure Colpy would be perfectly fine with an Islamic Terrorism rally.

And just like Colpy, you want to punish people based on your interpretation of the ideology they espouse, rather than on their acts.

And no, I'm not even slightly fooled by your focus on Nazism. Before you even got your ban in place, you would expand it far beyond Nazism to many aspects of ordinary conservatism.
 

Similar Threads

4
Free Speech and the Right
by Cannuck | May 24th, 2014
28
2
Free Speech Under Attack?
by mrmom2 | May 14th, 2005
0
Police vs Free Speech
by AirIntake | Apr 16th, 2005