Something got snipped?No, I was just making a point about CC censorship.
Something got snipped?No, I was just making a point about CC censorship.
Something got snipped?
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.Bear, put down the joint. :smile:
There was an offending post? Did I post it?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)
Sorry dude.Jeeezuz H man you just sucked all the fun out of what should have been a funny post.
Gack!
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.
If that person (God forbid) sits on the Supreme Court of Canada, they are a disgrace to that position.
.
Amen.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.
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
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.
Oh come on!
BTW, the Weimar Republic HAD hate speech laws.....just goes to show how much good they do........
George Jonas | Regulating speech that is not against any law
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.......
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.
It's funny you should say that.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.
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.
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.
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?