If you can explain to me why public propaganda campaigns (and be clear, that's all I've advocated putting a stop to) aiming to strip charter rights from law abiding citizens, need protection, I'm all ears.
Despite Supreme Court hate speech ruling, anti-gay activist plans to continue pamphle
- Thread starter SLM
- Start date
If you can explain to me why public propaganda campaigns (and be clear, that's all I've advocated putting a stop to) aiming to strip charter rights from law abiding citizens, need protection, I'm all ears.
Because they are unpopular speech, and that is the only speech that NEEDS protection.
Because disagreeing with the law is the essence of free speech.
Because denying people the right to engage in "public propaganda campaigns......... aiming to strip charter rights from law abiding citizens" actually IS stripping Charter rights from law-abiding citizens.
Choosing self-esteem over freedom of speech | Full Comment | National Post
I never DREAMED the Court was stacked with such a group of ****ing morons.
I should have known better.
And the left wing also believes in free speech but only that which meets their approval...
Politital correctness is alive and well.....
You mean, "Unlike America, where speech can be limited because it makes people feel confused and uncomfortable."
Dr. Marty Klein » Another obscenity trial tarnishes America
For the type of expression I like making, I am much more likely to be censored in the USA than in Europe. Americans are just very comfortable with people expressing hatred for their fellows for nothing other than the color of their skin or their sexual preferences.
So it is perfectly ok for someone to say that homosexuals are child predators and need to be kept away from children, but if Whatcott turned around and said the exact same things about Rick Mercer it would be slander? Using weasel words doesn't make it any less an attack on people's reputations. If anything, hate speech attacks more individuals than slander making it more untenable. Furthermore, hate speech laws do not suffer from the defect of slander laws that only the powerful get to use the laws as protection.
Levant is consistently a hypocrite on this.
Are you talking to me? The lack of purpose or context in your reply is confusing me.
You really can't tell the difference???
One is a personal attack on an individual, which gives him the right to seek redress in civil court.
All rights are individually based.
And the civil court would be very concerned with the truth of the statement.
The other is a political/religious attack on a gov't policy relating to a specific group.
That falls well within the boundaries of free speech.
And the idiots on the Court have even declared that truth is not always a defense.
That is simply insane.
Yes, I can tell the difference, and I can assure you that hate speech laws are more tenable.
Libel and slander laws only serve to protect the politically powerful. If I start saying all sorts of nasty things about you, Colpy, you will not be able to afford to protect your reputation. Furthermore, the damage done is proportional to the reputation that the victim has to protect, making it favor the powerful even more. Slander and libel laws make a mockery of the principle of equality before the law.
You seem to think that weasel words are a defense. I can assure you that if a homosexual person moves into my neighbourhood, and I decide to spread these sorts of pamphlets around the neighbourhood, I am very certainly affecting a very specific person and damaging their reputation. If I randomly shoot into a crowd, is it a defense to say that I did not intend to hit that person in particular?
I am well aware that truth is not a defense, but riddle me this, how can you say anything true about the class of all homosexuals other than, "They prefer same sex partners." If truth were a defense, it would never be available for hate speech laws.
Rights are not individually based, that is just absurd. Why don't you have the right to open up a fat rendering plant on your land? Because it will affect the general populace around your residential classed property. Rights in Canada are those that are justified in a free and democratic society.
Even if you insist on this individual rights fallacy, any person from the class of homosexuals can claim damages from Whatcott under slander or libel laws. Any person who knows that person is a homosexual and has been exposed to Whatcott's propaganda has a potentially lowered opinion of that persons reputation. Suppose it is demonstrable, and a whole bunch of people are told that they will not be hired for daycare jobs because they are homosexual and Whatcott's propaganda says X and Y, should they be able to individually file libel suits against Whatcott? After the first, isn't the second a foregone conclusion?
I have to wonder just who this idiot, Whatcott or whatever his name is, is actually harming. At least to the point of compensation. I find it completely unfathomable to think that he's actually convincing anyone who didn't already hold the same backwards views as he. Rather like Phelps in that regard, he's not winning any new friends here, not really. Is he really damaging reputations for an entire group? Or is he viewed as a colossal joke by the majority, albeit perhaps an irritating one?
There are plenty of people who waver between mistrust of homosexuals and considering it to be irrelevant. Such propaganda provides them with assurance that their mistrust is well placed. Giving ammunition to the people holding the backwards view is problematic. There are plenty of places in the world where people are not hired because of their homosexuality, could this situation continue unless people were spreading misinformation and fear about homosexuals?
When Michael Mann was compared to the pedophile Jerry Sandusky, who was truly foolish enough to believe this? Mostly the people who already doubted climate change. So who is this sort of speech hurting?
If you ask me, no one. For both. But if you are going to argue that libel hurts people and then turn around and say that hate speech hurts no one, then I feel the need to point out the hypocrisy of the position. Hate speech hurts far more people, and when the case comes to court, what possible defense is there for libel that can be used for hate speech? None, other than these general no harm arguments and freedom of speech assertions.
I wasn't really weighing in on the comparison between libel/slander and hate speech. I take your point though. My personal beef is more with the HRTs than the legislation itself, what they hear, how they interpret and how they determine compensation.
I think there are always going to be instances where my rights conflict with yours, it's inevitable within a society. And that's why we have courts who, hopefully, take a balanced approach when determining when things have gone too far in those conflicts. It may not be perfect, but it's what we've got.
This guy, to be clear, I don't like what he says. But I think it's more dangerous to have people like him festering in a dark corner, always have thought that. So the scale I would measure harm by is whether the damage he may be doing to a group is greater than the danger that could occur should he be silenced, where might he go if that were the case?
Your principle is definitely the correct one: balance harm of writing with harm of censoring. Technically that is what is supposed to happen in libel, slander, hate speech, and a variety of other forms of censorship you will see me speak out against from time to time. The degree to which it happens is always arguable.
I would argue that the HRT does far less harm than the civil and criminal courts do in libel trials. I apologize for continuing to make this contrast, but I believe it to be apropos. In a libel trial, the plaintiff will almost always be a powerful individual because of the high costs of the trial and the defendant may just be an ordinary citizen who doesn't want a gravel quarry next to their home. The damages are potentially limitless, depending on the power of the plaintiff. Worse still are the cases of criminal libel where a person may be locked in a cage for nothing other than speaking words that hurt someone's reputation. To me, libel law makes a mockery of equality before the law and therefore makes a mockery of the law. The idea of the HRT was to make damages limited and to avoid the problems of criminal law.
The problems, on the other hand, are lack of transparency and confusing or nonexistent jurisprudence. Which are pretty big problems.
The Charter`s guarantee...
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The Charter and Canadian Society...
The Charter regulates interactions between the state (federal, provincial and territorial governments) and individuals.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The Charter and Canadian Society...
The Charter regulates interactions between the state (federal, provincial and territorial governments) and individuals.
That's an understatement.
I don't see a lot of consistency in how that balance is being maintained, at least not through the HRTs. Mind you I don't follow all the cases, nor do I follow case law from the court system, so I'm relying mainly on what hits the news. In my defense though, I do try to go beyond the headlines and figure out what the issue is really all about. I can't help though but get hung up on awards for what is essentially 'name calling'.
I would think that that disparity of power would play out in all aspects of the court system, at least to some degree. Someone charged with a crime who has access to funds would have access to better legal representation than the poor who have to take the court appointed representation, for example. That doesn't mean that specific instances where someone has slandered someone else has not done specific harm does it? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your position, I see the point you're making, but I wonder just how prevalent that is throughout our legal system. And again I'd say the system is not perfect, but it's what we have and if we could at least continue to try to improve it, then I would find that satisfactory.
Its an understatement to call them pretty big problems? lol
I think that libel is the more seriously problem. That is why it will always seem like I am defending hate speech. I see people dragged into court for publicly protesting actual situations that concern them, like a quarry: Yahoo! Groups
Too many people strut around acting like free speech champions while defending bigots and whitewash libel laws as necessary and without problem when they instead cause actual political problems. I find it peculiar that they choose to defend bigots and not grandmothers concerned with the preservation of the ecology of their province. I give them the benefit of the doubt and bring up this apparent dichotomy and all too often find them defending libel. So I turn their arguments against them.
Leaves a lot to interpretation. Defining reasonable limits has to be much like defining art.
Yes, lol, confusing or nonexistent jurisprudence combined with binding rulings and punitive damages, is beyond reprehensible.
Oh I get where you're coming from, and to a very real extent, agree with you.
I think libel and slander laws are a joke, which is why I laugh at those that forward them to silence detractors, especially online.
A tactic I adore.
Not really. Demonstrable really is a strong word.
Makes that much noise? Maybe he's a closet queen....
Suppose I'm violating any free speech by speculating?
Suppose I'm violating any free speech by speculating?
What does the Criminal Code say? I keep hearing Charter, Charter, Charter but nothing on the CC. Why 4?
Whatcott is GUILTY!
Where is your Charter protecting hate speech now folks?The Criminal Code of Canada said:
Whatcott is GUILTY!