Hate laws vital in the digital age, Supreme Court hears in landmark case

[Goober]

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.

Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CriticismAlan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has also criticized Section 13.1. He cited an example of the book Hitler's Willing Executioners, which alleges the complicity of German civilians in the Holocaust, and said that the thesis is arguably "likely to expose" German people to contempt, and therefore be a violation of Section 13.1.[1]

Borovoy also noted that under Section 13.1, "Intent is not a requirement, and truth and reasonable belief in the truth is no defence."[1] He has said that when he and other human rights activists advocated the creation of human rights commissions they "never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech" [3] and that censorship was not the role he had envisioned for the commissions.[4]
Borovoy further added that:

 

[Bar Sinister]

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???

I would suggest that you read the history of the Weimar Republic. Hate laws if there were certainly not enforced to any standard I am aware of. Hitler and others like him were allowed to spew their racist hatred unimpeded. The Nazis even ran their own newspaper and radio station without even moderate restrictions. Simply passing anti-hate laws is useless unless they are actually enforced.

Your medical analogy comment escapes me. I have not the least idea what you are talking about.

What you seem to fail to understand is that real freedom means not abusing the rights that we have. No right should be used to take away the rights of another or to intimidate or harm another member of society. Unrestricted free speech can cause severe harm to society when directed at minority groups who do not have the resources or numbers to fight back. There are so many examples of this that if I attempted to list hem all I would run out of room, but here are a few to illustrate my point.

Racist commentary delivered by organizations such as the KKK which resulted in the murders and intimidation of thousands of African-Americans.

Racist broadcasts in Rwanda that incited Hutus to murder their Tutsi neighbours.

Attacks on homosexuals in the USA initiated by anti-gay groups that operate openly in the US.

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.

I suspect you are wrong about that. Societies that have and enforce hate laws have far fewer incidents of violence directed toward minority groups. As I pointed out to Colpy, unrestricted freedom of speech is quite capable of creating an atmosphere of violence that can do severe harm to society and unless you can prove otherwise I stand by what I said.

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.

Actually as the case against James Keegstra in Alberta showed; if someone truly believes in the racist rubblish he spouts then it is not against the law. What got Keegstra convicted was evidence that he knew that some of what he was saying about Jews was wrong, but he said it anyway; that and the fact that Keegstra made his racist pronouncements in a public forum - namely a school classroom. I refer you to the article below which explains my point in more detail.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/timePortals/milestones/128mile.asp

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Calling people nutbars on major networks is limited because it hurts ratings. Yet the people on Wall Street who helped bring down the USA economy were certainly psychopathic nutbars of the worst sort. They wanted no restrictions on their activity, and look what happened-they got bonuses from TARP. The people in the USA govt were certainly nutbars who allowed these bonuses to occur.

The nutbars on minor websites in Canada should be allowed as much freedom as possible to spew their hateful and ignorant nonsense. People here certainly think so. Let them reveal themselves to be fools. People really need a reason to be agitated enough to put hate language into operation, and when they do with physical assaults, that's what we have the police for.

The city of Vancouver police has a hate crimes unit, yet they stood by as the June Canuck riot trashed downtown. I say erase hate laws and HRCs because they confuse the police and elected officials. Fewer laws often means better law.

 

[CDNBear]

The nutbars on minor websites in Canada should be allowed as much freedom as possible to spew their hateful and ignorant nonsense.

They are, hence your presence here.

People here certainly think so.

Yep.

Let them reveal themselves to be fools.

Not how it works. We believe in free speech, so you, the real fool, can reveal themselves, to us, and have your hatred countered with reality.

People really need a reason to be agitated enough to put hate language into operation, and when they do with physical assaults, that's what we have the police for.

Given the lack of reason, intellect, fact and education exhibited in your posts, I would say you're only a few MSM news stories away from just that.

I say erase hate laws and HRCs

Me too. People like you need to vent, and be countered openly.

 

[Corduroy]

Anyone that thinks any speech short of incitement to violence (or screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre) should be subject to criminal code regulation understands absolutely nothing about liberty or our basic right to freedom of speech.

Whenever someone brings up the "fire in a crowded theatre" as a free speech nut I am obligated to post this.

It sounds like a great way to sum up the minimum kind of speech most people believe needs to be restricted, but it was originally coined to suppress speech the same people are likely to agree should be permitted today. All restrictions on speech are dangerous and even the most reasonable sounding argument is open to abuse. It's the kind of oppression justified with the allure of the logical conclusion.

The expression comes from a US court case in which the defendant was prosecuted for handing out literature opposing the draft during the First World War. The defendant wasn't shouting fire inside of a crowded theatre. He was shouting fire outside of a burning theatre.

When our society proposes censorship, the question should be asked: who will be the censor? Censorship is justified with the argument that exposure to certain language will corrupt, lead to violence or immorality. If this is the case, then won't the censor be corrupted? Or are only some people capable of this corruption? Should we infantalize these people and subordinate them? Punish all of society for this potential underclass? And when the censor decides there's something you're not allowed to hear, how do you know he's censoring something truly worth censorship? You're not allowed to see it.

The questions ultimately break down to who do you think is better than you and worthy of telling you what you can and cannot read or hear?

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Whenever someone brings up the "fire in a crowded theatre" as a free speech nut I am obligated to post this.

It sounds like a great way to sum up the minimum kind of speech most people believe needs to be restricted, but it was originally coined to suppress speech the same people are likely to agree should be permitted today. All restrictions on speech are dangerous and even the most reasonable sounding argument is open to abuse. It's the kind of oppression justified with the allure of the logical conclusion.

The expression comes from a US court case in which the defendant was prosecuted for handing out literature opposing the draft during the First World War. The defendant wasn't shouting fire inside of a crowded theatre. He was shouting fire outside of a burning theatre.

When our society proposes censorship, the question should be asked: who will be the censor? Censorship is justified with the argument that exposure to certain language will corrupt, lead to violence or immorality. If this is the case, then won't the censor be corrupted? Or are only some people capable of this corruption? Should we infantalize these people and subordinate them? Punish all of society for this potential underclass? And when the censor decides there's something you're not allowed to hear, how do you know he's censoring something truly worth censorship? You're not allowed to see it.

The questions ultimately break down to who do you think is better than you and worthy of telling you what you can and cannot read or hear?

That's the big question, who should be the censor? Our govts these days wish to take power from the people to ostracise those who speak garbage. So we get HRCs that abuse their power because the people cannot be trusted. Politicians are happy because they dislike controversial topics and HRCs put the topic out of sight and out of mind. When issues are before any court, politicians prefer to say nothing, even though there is no law forbidding them to comment on issues. That's not really why we pay them, to say nothing and be pawns of the PM or premier.

 

[CDNBear]

Our govts these days wish to take power from the people to ostracise those who speak garbage.

No body, including the gov't wants to ostracize you.