NationStates Jolt Archive

How far does it go?

In Canada we have a law prohibiting the publication of hate directed against an identifiable group. I think thats bullshit.

People should be able to say whatever they want.

F*ck you then.

People should be able to say whatever they want.
I’ll say.


*Post edited by NationStates Moderator*

I’ll say.


*Post edited by NationStates Moderator*

lol

lol

some rappers in Holland got arrested for writing (and producing) a song in which they threaten a politician. A comedian wrote a song about him killing all Dutch "famous" people (actually about it being bullshit that those rappers got arrested for it while he will probably not be) out of protest which is so exagerrated it's just funny.

Well, you can kinda see how free speech has a fine grey line that then falls into verbal abuse. Have you ever seen verbal abuse? It's not nice. As a matter of fact, it's freaking cruel.

Alright, Canada overstepped it's bounds, I think. People should have the right to be angry about one another. I think people should be restricted that in public literature, must cite their sources for any facts that are not commonly known (ie: the sun shines). Ok, if you are a bunch of Neo-Nazi's and you want to publish books that are hateful towards the Jews, please back up your facts. You can't say stuff like "Jews are the scum of the earth" without backing up what you say. I think the Jewish people are incredibly groovy and respectable myself, but say for example if they had statistics saying that Jewish people were more likely to have toejam than your average joe...you could kind of warp that into the former statment.

Slander and free speech are different things, as well as fiction, non-fiction and fiction that looks like truth, because that is how it is presented.

I'm just kinda going off on a rant. Hope I had interesting insights.

-R. S. of UC

How far does it go?

In Canada we have a law prohibiting the publication of hate directed against an identifiable group. I think thats bullshit.

People should be able to say whatever they want.


I think it's a good law, as it protects minorities from discrimination. Your freedom stops where it would threaten the freedom of others. No one should be allowed to publicate texts of hate directed against a any group like muslims, gays, jews, foreigners, ...
Second remark... any hateful publication about an entire group is wrong, people are different, even when belonging to the same group of society. Anyway, grouping is just an easy way to put labels on other people.

--
One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say.
Will Durant (1885 - 1981)

How far does it go?

In Canada we have a law prohibiting the publication of hate directed against an identifiable group. I think thats bullshit.

People should be able to say whatever they want.

shut up

How far does it go?

In Canada we have a law prohibiting the publication of hate directed against an identifiable group. I think thats bullshit.

People should be able to say whatever they want.

That's probably going slightly too far. If you wanna print a book that says you hate all of any group, that's fine. If you wanna pring a book that says "Go out and kill all of group X," that's not. How does the law define "publication of hate"?

I think insults and controversial comments are fine. I just think that there should be penalties against those who use free speech to lie. I know that we have laws against slander and libel, and laws against false advertizing, but they seem to be seldom enforced.

Second remark... any hateful publication about an entire group is wrong, people are different, even when belonging to the same group of society. Anyway, grouping is just an easy way to put labels on other people.



what about the bible or Qu'ran, they propose to hate groups that arent the same as you. isnt that the same thing?

and in this instance, people are labling themselves. You can't be offended by anti-semitism if you aren't a jew.

lol

some rappers in Holland got arrested for writing (and producing) a song in which they threaten a politician. A comedian wrote a song about him killing all Dutch "famous" people (actually about it being bullshit that those rappers got arrested for it while he will probably not be) out of protest which is so exagerrated it's just funny.


I think all rappers should be arrested and put in prison no matter what they rap about. Just to shut them up! Millions of people all over the world cheer at that statement!

That's probably going slightly too far. If you wanna print a book that says you hate all of any group, that's fine. If you wanna pring a book that says "Go out and kill all of group X," that's not. How does the law define "publication of hate"?

The Qu'Ran has lines (i dont know them) about destroying infidels

Anton Levay's Satanic Bible (this isnt 1700s satanism btw) has lines about doing violence to others

People need to be responsable for their actions. Saying that someone publishing a book that promotes violence against people is going to make them do it is like saying GTA causes people to shoot eachother. Maybe there are isolated psychological cases, but im sure any real, non-media driven anylisis would prove other factors.

As it is, Hate groups probably enjoy their "underground" and "unacceptable" status. Look at drug culture. a large majority of people wouldnt even start using drugs if they werent illegal.

I think all rappers should be arrested and put in prison no matter what they rap about. Just to shut them up! Millions of people all over the world cheer at that statement!

that my friend is promoting hate against an identifiable group...

BAD BAD BAD

lol

some rappers in Holland got arrested for writing (and producing) a song in which they threaten a politician.

That's interesting. Elvis Costello wrote an extremly anti-Margaret Thatcher song called "Tramp the Dirt Down" which basically says "I'm want to live long enough so I can dance on your grave". I wouldn't know because it came out before I was born, but my parents never mentioned any lawsuits associated with that.

You can't be offended by anti-semitism if you aren't a jew.

You are very, very wrong about that.

You are very, very wrong about that.

:rolleyes:

no, you are offended by prejudice as a human being.

You shouln't tell people what not to say. ever.

I think all rappers should be arrested and put in prison no matter what they rap about. Just to shut them up! Millions of people all over the world cheer at that statement!
i think all intolerant stupid people should be put in the stocks until they shut up, you just became a candidate

I may be to late to say this, but just let me quote and say something then I'll be on my merry way.
How far does it go?

In Canada we have a law prohibiting the publication of hate directed against an identifiable group. I think thats bullshit.

People should be able to say whatever they want.
Isn't hating someone a personal matter? Therefore they're pretty much on the right track... in my eyes, anyways.

Isn't hating someone a personal matter? Therefore they're pretty much on the right track... in my eyes, anyways.

im glad you compleatly missed the issue

I agree with the law. It's all a question of which right is more important: Freedom of Expression or Personnal Integrity. In Canada, we decided that personnal integrity is more important. That's why hate publication is banned, that's also why there's restriction on broadcasting and why libel lawsuit are won more often than not.

You may not like it but we made a choice as a society. Deal.

For any interested, the law in Canada is:


Hate Propaganda

Advocating genocide

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of "genocide"

(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of "identifiable group"

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1.

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Forfeiture

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Consent

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definitions

(7) In this section,

"communicating" «communiquer»

"communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

"identifiable group" «groupe identifiable»

"identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318;

"public place" «endroit public»

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

"statements" «déclarations»

"statements" includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 319; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203; 2004, c. 14, s. 2.

Warrant of seizure

320. (1) A judge who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is hate propaganda shall issue a warrant under his hand authorizing seizure of the copies.

Summons to occupier

(2) Within seven days of the issue of a warrant under subsection (1), the judge shall issue a summons to the occupier of the premises requiring him to appear before the court and show cause why the matter seized should not be forfeited to Her Majesty.

Owner and author may appear

(3) The owner and the author of the matter seized under subsection (1) and alleged to be hate propaganda may appear and be represented in the proceedings in order to oppose the making of an order for the forfeiture of the matter.

Order of forfeiture

(4) If the court is satisfied that the publication referred to in subsection (1) is hate propaganda, it shall make an order declaring the matter forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which the proceedings take place, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Disposal of matter

(5) If the court is not satisfied that the publication referred to in subsection (1) is hate propaganda, it shall order that the matter be restored to the person from whom it was seized forthwith after the time for final appeal has expired.

Appeal

(6) An appeal lies from an order made under subsection (4) or (5) by any person who appeared in the proceedings

(a) on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone,

(b) on any ground of appeal that involves a question of fact alone, or

(c) on any ground of appeal that involves a question of mixed law and fact,

as if it were an appeal against conviction or against a judgment or verdict of acquittal, as the case may be, on a question of law alone under Part XXI, and sections 673 to 696 apply with such modifications as the circumstances require.

Consent

(7) No proceeding under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definitions

(8) In this section,

"court" «tribunal»

"court" means

(a) in the Province of Quebec, the Court of Quebec,

(a.1) in the Province of Ontario, the Superior Court of Justice,

(b) in the Provinces of New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Court of Queen's Bench,

(c) in the Provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, the Supreme Court, Trial Division,

(c.1) [Repealed, 1992, c. 51, s. 36]

(d) in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and British Columbia, in Yukon and in the Northwest Territories, the Supreme Court, and

(e) in Nunavut, the Nunavut Court of Justice;

"genocide" «génocide»

"genocide" has the same meaning as in section 318;

"hate propaganda" «propagande haineuse»

"hate propaganda" means any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319;

"judge" «juge»

"judge" means a judge of a court.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 320; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (2nd Supp.), s. 10, c. 40 (4th Supp.), s. 2; 1990, c. 16, s. 4, c. 17, s. 11; 1992, c. 1, s. 58, c. 51, s. 36; 1998, c. 30, s. 14; 1999, c. 3, s. 29; 2002, c. 7, s. 142.

Warrant of seizure

320.1 (1) If a judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is material that is hate propaganda within the meaning of subsection 320(8) or data within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) that makes hate propaganda available, that is stored on and made available to the public through a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) that is within the jurisdiction of the court, the judge may order the custodian of the computer system to

(a) give an electronic copy of the material to the court;

(b) ensure that the material is no longer stored on and made available through the computer system; and

(c) provide the information necessary to identify and locate the person who posted the material.

Notice to person who posted the material

(2) Within a reasonable time after receiving the information referred to in paragraph (1)(c), the judge shall cause notice to be given to the person who posted the material, giving that person the opportunity to appear and be represented before the court and show cause why the material should not be deleted. If the person cannot be identified or located or does not reside in Canada, the judge may order the custodian of the computer system to post the text of the notice at the location where the material was previously stored and made available, until the time set for the appearance.

Person who posted the material may appear

(3) The person who posted the material may appear and be represented in the proceedings in order to oppose the making of an order under subsection (5).

Non-appearance

(4) If the person who posted the material does not appear for the proceedings, the court may proceed ex parte to hear and determine the proceedings in the absence of the person as fully and effectually as if the person had appeared.

Order

(5) If the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the material is available to the public and is hate propaganda within the meaning of subsection 320(8) or data within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) that makes hate propaganda available, it may order the custodian of the computer system to delete the material.

Destruction of copy

(6) When the court makes the order for the deletion of the material, it may order the destruction of the electronic copy in the court's possession.

Return of material

(7) If the court is not satisfied that the material is available to the public and is hate propaganda within the meaning of subsection 320(8) or data within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) that makes hate propaganda available, the court shall order that the electronic copy be returned to the custodian and terminate the order under paragraph (1)(b).

Other povisions to apply

(8) Subsections 320(6) to (8) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to this section.

When order takes effect

(9) No order made under subsections (5) to (7) takes effect until the time for final appeal has expired.

2001, c. 41, s. 10.

Source: The Canadian Criminal Code ( R.S. 1985, c. C-46 ), updated to Apr. 2004 Sections 318, 319 and 320

I dunno, I'm kinda for total freedom of speech but with libel and slander laws, because I think people should be able to express their views but people should be protected to untrue allegations. However, if there ARE going to be laws that protect people from verbal abuse, I think it should be only for incitement to hatred, and I think it should be only for groups who have no choice over how they are- i.e racial groups and sexuality groups. I don't think religion should be protected because religion is a choice, and you should be able to defend those beliefs in debate.

How far does it go?

In Canada we have a law prohibiting the publication of hate directed against an identifiable group. I think thats bullshit.

People should be able to say whatever they want.

For once in my life I am agreeing with a Canadian. I believe people should be able to say what they want, but not whenever they want. I believe that there are times and places where certain things should not be said. But all this crap about political correctness is a bunch of BS. I mean what kind of life are kids going to have if we arent allowed to say anything critical at all? They will grow up to be spoiled brats with no sense of right and wrong. Besides being corrected once and while is a good thing. If it doesnt kill you it makes you stronger.

Freedom of Speech is an absolute. You either have Freedom of Speech of you do not.

If you ban someone from saying something then you do not have Freedom of Speech. Slander and libel laws are for civil matters and have to do with making people responsible for their actions.

If someone slanders another, and it causes provable harm then the offender must be held accountable for causing harm to another. If however, someone says something bad about another, isnt slander, or does not cause provable, quantifiable harm then they should be protected by Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of Speech is an absolute. You either have Freedom of Speech of you do not.

If you ban someone from saying something then you do not have Freedom of Speech. Slander and libel laws are for civil matters and have to do with making people responsible for their actions.

If someone slanders another, and it causes provable harm then the offender must be held accountable for causing harm to another. If however, someone says something bad about another, isnt slander, or does not cause provable, quantifiable harm then they should be protected by Freedom of Speech.

So, what you just said is "Freedom of speech is absolute, except when it's not." Obviously, you have no problem with restricting that right when it harms another, right?

I think all rappers should be arrested and put in prison no matter what they rap about. Just to shut them up! Millions of people all over the world cheer at that statement!

At last some sense - and yes, I'd be cheering like all hell!....That stuff is the equivellent of drinking battery acid! IN other words poison. Also, a lot of there stuff is racist - Some of their stuff advocates killing non-blacks in general. Sexist - and when I say sexist, I really mean it! There's a crapload of it!, Homophobic - go figure! And god knows what else.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here in the US we do not have mandated free speech. As it clearly states in the bold portion above, what we have is a limitation on Congress towards restricting speech. There's not a thing in the world that prevents a website owner or a private school or a non-governmental employer from restricting speech when it suits them. There is no guarantee that you won't be told to STFU, there is only the guarantee that you won't be suppressed by the government or go to jail because you broke national law.

Obviously, there are limits. Laws have been added concerning fair practices in workplaces and schools. Libel and slander laws exist, even though they are hard to enforce in practice. Still, anyone who makes a claim that there is unlimited free speech in the US of A hasn't fully comprehended the Bill of Rights and its inherent limitations.

Freedom of Speech is an absolute. You either have Freedom of Speech of you do not.

If you ban someone from saying something then you do not have Freedom of Speech. Slander and libel laws are for civil matters and have to do with making people responsible for their actions.

If someone slanders another, and it causes provable harm then the offender must be held accountable for causing harm to another. If however, someone says something bad about another, isnt slander, or does not cause provable, quantifiable harm then they should be protected by Freedom of Speech.
The right to personnal integrity is an absolute. You either have it or you don't.

If you let some hate publication be distributed, it will cause prejudice and discrimination. Freedom of speach is good and needed for democracy but it cannot interfere on other personnal freedom.

You see, it's all a question of what you hold most high. In Canada, libel is more harmfull than the restriction of freedom of speech. If someone does not cause libel, slander or incite hate, it will be published. Restriction on personnal freedom is a necessary evil to have a civilised society.

At last some sense - and yes, I'd be cheering like all hell!....That stuff is the equivellent of drinking battery acid! IN other words poison. Also, a lot of there stuff is racist - Some of their stuff advocates killing non-blacks in general. Sexist - and when I say sexist, I really mean it! There's a crapload of it!, Homophobic - go figure! And god knows what else.
you get the stocks too

I've always thought that you should be able to say what you like, but you should also be prepared to deal with the consequences. If you yell "FIRE!" in a theater, be prepared to be prosecuted. If you lie, be prepared to deal with it. If you say hateful, untrue things, be fully prepared to have people tell you to shut up.

To me, all the law is doing is establishing consequences for speech. Say what you like, but we will make you pay if your speech is unfairly damaging to someone.

So, what you just said is "Freedom of speech is absolute, except when it's not." Obviously, you have no problem with restricting that right when it harms another, right?

You have misunderstood my point. Im saying you either have Freedom of Speech, or you do not.

And I am not for restricting speech at all.. however, I feel that people should be held responsible for their speech. There is a difference.

you get the stocks too

Oh do lighten up! Surely you are not in a state of denial that a good deal of this stuff is what I said it was? I simply do not like it, plain and simple. It's crass, low brow, boorish crap! And I'm fed up of it being forced on me by mindless idiots who blare it out at over 100 decibels on their car stereos and so forth.

So you'll excuse me if I'm honest about the whole thing...

Oh do lighten up! Surely you are not in a state of denial that a good deal of this stuff is what I said it was? I simply do not like it, plain and simple. It's crass, low brow, boorish crap! And I'm fed up of it being forced on me by mindless idiots who blare it out at over 100 decibels on their car stereos and so forth.

So you'll excuse me if I'm honest about the whole thing...
and im being honest to, if youa re so stupid and intolerant to believe that is only what rap is and pretend you cant do that with every other damn genre of music and rap sohuld be banned cuz you are an intolerant twit, you get the stocks

im tired of the people listenong to rock thinking they are the shit and bets thing since sliced bread and blaring their damn music loud as hell, which isnt even understandable at a normal level much less at a level that makes jet engines pale in comparison. at least when you rap you cant be tone deaf, if you scream it doesnt matter does it

I dunno, I'm kinda for total freedom of speech but with libel and slander laws, because I think people should be able to express their views but people should be protected to untrue allegations. However, if there ARE going to be laws that protect people from verbal abuse, I think it should be only for incitement to hatred, and I think it should be only for groups who have no choice over how they are- i.e racial groups and sexuality groups. I don't think religion should be protected because religion is a choice, and you should be able to defend those beliefs in debate.
You against protecting choices?
The forefathers would be proud :P
So Presidents, military, etc shouldn't be protected because they are a choice?
And the Sexuality question is still in debate so its not protected yet then. Unless you belive in exceptions and thus Religion should be too.

You have misunderstood my point. Im saying you either have Freedom of Speech, or you do not.

And I am not for restricting speech at all.. however, I feel that people should be held responsible for their speech. There is a difference.

Not really. If you are "held responsible" (ie: prosecuted) for speech that harms other people, then you have no absolute right to say it. Your right to freedom of speech ends where it harms another.

and im being honest to, if youa re so stupid and intolerant to believe that is only what rap is and pretend you cant do that with every other damn genre of music and rap sohuld be banned cuz you are an intolerant twit, you get the stocks

im tired of the people listenong to rock thinking they are the shit and bets thing since sliced bread and blaring their damn music loud as hell, which isnt even understandable at a normal level much less at a level that makes jet engines pale in comparison. at least when you rap you cant be tone deaf, if you scream it doesnt matter does it

Stupid, a twit, intolerent? Hardly...For starters, I rarely hear rock anywhere or anymore... But almost always here rap (or some musical sub-genre of it) and a lot of it is rasist, homophobic and sexist. When every second word is "pussy" "ho" (they can't even spell as well!) "fuck", "killa" (whatever the hell that means!)

What's worse, most of it is highly comercialized crap. It's everywhere. I rarely here rock anymore. And rock certainly is not all the things I said rap was - certainly not nearly as much it at any rate. You also stoop to insulting me personally, which of course always weakens an arguement and is generally considered poor debating style.

In short it is a bad and negative infuance on youth regardless of race. As a result of this, it should be disposed of as the "cultural excrement" that it is!

i totally support keeping ALL speech free. people have the right to say whatever they please, no matter how stupid or hateful, and i will support to the death their right to do so.

How far does it go?

In Canada we have a law prohibiting the publication of hate directed against an identifiable group. I think thats bullshit.

People should be able to say whatever they want.
"People demand freedom of speech as compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard.

Freedom of speech should be limited. Supporting or calling for terrorist activities, hate, racial discrimination etc. should all be punishable.

Freedom of speech should be limited. Supporting or calling for terrorist activities, hate, racial discrimination etc. should all be punishable.
For the moment yes, but when humans evolve into better beings they may eliminate terrorism, racism etc and then we can truly have freedom of speech

Stupid, a twit, intolerent? Hardly...For starters, I rarely hear rock anywhere or anymore... But almost always here rap (or some musical sub-genre of it) and a lot of it is rasist, homophobic and sexist. When every second word is "pussy" "ho" (they can't even spell as well!) "fuck", "killa" (whatever the hell that means!)

What's worse, most of it is highly comercialized crap. It's everywhere. I rarely here rock anymore. And rock certainly is not all the things I said rap was - certainly not nearly as much it at any rate. You also stoop to insulting me personally, which of course always weakens an arguement and is generally considered poor debating style.

In short it is a bad and negative infuance on youth regardless of race. As a result of this, it should be disposed of as the "cultural excrement" that it is!
oh please, dont go into debating ethics, especially since your whole posting in this freedom of speehc thread is to rip on a genre of music you know nothing about but the commercialised part of it. we can work on debating ethics when you learn what the hell it is your arguing against

i totally support keeping ALL speech free. people have the right to say whatever they please, no matter how stupid or hateful, and i will support to the death their right to do so.

And if someone's speech incites a mob to go and kill a bunch of X group, then that is ok? How about if someone's speech is in the form of listing out doctors at clinics that happen to perform abortions, listing their names, addresses, family's names, etc. and suggesting that all good people go out and murder these doctors and their families? Wouldn't these examples fall into the "your right to X ends where my rights begin" kind of category?

And if someone's speech incites a mob to go and kill a bunch of X group, then that is ok? How about if someone's speech is in the form of listing out doctors at clinics that happen to perform abortions, listing their names, addresses, family's names, etc. and suggesting that all good people go out and murder these doctors and their families? Wouldn't these examples fall into the "your right to X ends where my rights begin" kind of category?
yes.

even if i totally despise what somebody is saying, i will defend their right to say it.

yes.

even if i totally despise what somebody is saying, i will defend their right to say it.

I totally defend someone's right to freedom of religion too, but I won't say that someone practicing their religion by offering up a human sacrifice shouldn't be prosecuted for murder.

The question wasn't whether or not you defend someone's right to say something you hate, it was whether or not you defend someone's right to say something that can be shown to cause harm to another (and I'm talking bodily harm, not mental).

I totally defend someone's right to freedom of religion too, but I won't say that someone practicing their religion by offering up a human sacrifice shouldn't be prosecuted for murder.

The question wasn't whether or not you defend someone's right to say something you hate, it was whether or not you defend someone's right to say something that can be shown to cause harm to another (and I'm talking bodily harm, not mental).
what somebody says cannot cause bodily harm to another person. i can say "bang bang, you're dead!" and you will not keel over. only physical actions can cause physical harm to people or property.

if somebody goes around telling people to murder blacks, for example, their words don't kill or wound a single black person. only the actions of those who choose to listen and obey can hurt black people, and only those actions should be punished. if somebody instructs others on how to kill abortion doctors then those instructions will not kill or maim a single doctor; only the actions of those who choose to listen and obey will do that, and only the actions should be punished.

if somebody goes around telling people to murder blacks, for example, their words don't kill or wound a single black person. only the actions of those who choose to listen and obey can hurt black people, and only those actions should be punished. if somebody instructs others on how to kill abortion doctors then those instructions will not kill or maim a single doctor; only the actions of those who choose to listen and obey will do that, and only the actions should be punished.

not to mention if the person does kill someone on somebody elses instructions it constitutes as conspiracy to murder, if not a murder charge.

Freedom of Speech is an absolute. You either have Freedom of Speech of you do not.

If you ban someone from saying something then you do not have Freedom of Speech. Slander and libel laws are for civil matters and have to do with making people responsible for their actions.

If someone slanders another, and it causes provable harm then the offender must be held accountable for causing harm to another. If however, someone says something bad about another, isnt slander, or does not cause provable, quantifiable harm then they should be protected by Freedom of Speech.


Well, do remember that SCOTUS ruled years ago about clear and present danger: if you yell FIRE!!! in a crowded theater, that is not protected speech.

Probably, the Canadian parliament is looking at it the same way... "Kill all _____!" or "Beat all _______!" would definitely cause some not-so-bright people to follow through -- he who incited is as guilty as the folks who did it.

Probably, the Canadian parliament is looking at it the same way... "Kill all _____!" or "Beat all _______!" would definitely cause some not-so-bright people to follow through -- he who incited is as guilty as the folks who did it.

yes, but only if action is taken

the initial words should be allowed to be said

Here in the US we do not have mandated free speech. As it clearly states in the bold portion above, what we have is a limitation on Congress towards restricting speech. There's not a thing in the world that prevents a website owner or a private school or a non-governmental employer from restricting speech when it suits them. There is no guarantee that you won't be told to STFU, there is only the guarantee that you won't be suppressed by the government or go to jail because you broke national law.

Obviously, there are limits. Laws have been added concerning fair practices in workplaces and schools. Libel and slander laws exist, even though they are hard to enforce in practice. Still, anyone who makes a claim that there is unlimited free speech in the US of A hasn't fully comprehended the Bill of Rights and its inherent limitations.


:-D As we see daily here on Nationstates, and in the various IRC channels associated with it. :-D

not to mention if the person does kill someone on somebody elses instructions it constitutes as conspiracy to murder, if not a murder charge.
there is a difference between talking about murder and actively planning a murder. if one simply advocated murdering (for instance) black people in general then that (in my opinion) should be protected speech, but if one conspires to kill a specific black person or persons then that is a different matter because active participation in the crime is a whole other sphere.

keep in mind, while i defend free speech i do expect people to take responsibility for their speech, so if you go around giving instructions on how to murder specific people then you should be prepared to face conspiracy charges if those people turn up dead. however, i don't much buy into conspiracy charges unless the conspirator was present during commission of the crime; whoever pulled the trigger had the choice not to do it, and they are ultimately responsible for their choice to do so.

there is a difference between talking about murder and actively planning a murder. if one simply advocated murdering (for instance) black people in general then that (in my opinion) should be protected speech, but if one conspires to kill a specific black person or persons then that is a different matter because active participation in the crime is a whole other sphere.

obviously, if i just said jew should die and a jew dies, im not responsable at all even if the person did it because i said so.


keep in mind, while i defend free speech i do expect people to take responsibility for their speech, so if you go around giving instructions on how to murder specific people then you should be prepared to face conspiracy charges if those people turn up dead. however, i don't much buy into conspiracy charges unless the conspirator was present during commission of the crime; whoever pulled the trigger had the choice not to do it, and they are ultimately responsible for their choice to do so.

I disagree about the presence of the conspiritor. What about in a murder for hire ring? There is a person saying "go murder my husband" or what not. Freedom of speech? until he ends up dead. and then only if the intent of the statement was to have her husband killed.

obviously, if i just said jew should die and a jew dies, im not responsable at all even if the person did it because i said so.

I disagree about the presence of the conspiritor. What about in a murder for hire ring? There is a person saying "go murder my husband" or what not. Freedom of speech? until he ends up dead. and then only if the intent of the statement was to have her husband killed.

purchasing a contract on somebody's life is an illegal action, it is not free speech. i do not believe it should incur as severe a penalty as carrying out that contract, but it is still an illegal action on its own. simply telling another person you want your wife dead is free speech, but exchanging money or goods for the service of her execution is not.

purchasing a contract on somebody's life is an illegal action, it is not free speech. i do not believe it should incur as severe a penalty as carrying out that contract, but it is still an illegal action on its own. simply telling another person you want your wife dead is free speech, but exchanging money or goods for the service of her execution is not.

very well. we agree

very well. we agree
cool, it's fun when that happens...plus, so very rare around here :).

cool, it's fun when that happens...plus, so very rare around here :).

indeed

its a pretty simple issue though, imho...

should be open and shut

And if someone's speech incites a mob to go and kill a bunch of X group, then that is ok? How about if someone's speech is in the form of listing out doctors at clinics that happen to perform abortions, listing their names, addresses, family's names, etc. and suggesting that all good people go out and murder these doctors and their families? Wouldn't these examples fall into the "your right to X ends where my rights begin" kind of category?

Freedom of Speech isnt something that you can have, almost. "We live in a free society, kinda". As soon as you start limiting speech because of "hate" or other deplorable speech, you start saying that someone's freedoms are more important than someone else's. What about someone who screams "I hate the gov't because they dont do X. We should rise up!!"

Heck, these forums would have to be shut down, since half of these threads contain posts such as "those stupid ignorant bastards, I hate XYZ"

Freedom of Speech isnt something that you can have, almost. "We live in a free society, kinda". As soon as you start limiting speech because of "hate" or other deplorable speech, you start saying that someone's freedoms are more important than someone else's. What about someone who screams "I hate the gov't because they dont do X. We should rise up!!"

Heck, these forums would have to be shut down, since half of these threads contain posts such as "those stupid ignorant bastards, I hate XYZ"

I never said that someone saying "I hate XYZ, XYZ should die!" shouldn't be protected. I simply said that speech that incites a mob to actually go and harm someone like "Let's go burn down XYZ's houses" or "We should all go murder XYZ right now!" shouldn't be protected.

As much as I hate KKK/Nazi propaganda, I wouldn't say that they can't make speeches/publish things about how stupid/dirty/low the minority races are. I will say, however, that they cannot make a speech/publish something that says "Here are the addresses of all those dirty n*****s, everyone go out and burn down their houses and kill them in their sleep!"

You could argue that each individual member of the mob are responsible for their actions, and I wouldn't disagree with you, but I also know that mob mentality is different from any individual person, so the "ringleader," even if they don't participate, should not be protected just because they "had the right to say it."

Likewise, yelling "Shark!" on a beach or "Fire!" in a crowded place or even "I have a gun!" in a crowded place (whether you do or not) will cause people to run in fear - likely causing people to get hurt. Thus, speech like that should not be protected either.

Couple of points, and this is only my opinion:

If someone make a speach to kill all black and some black die because of it, I think it should be treated as accessory to murder.

These forums are not 100% free speach and we go along just fine. I'm sure that if someone write "We should kill all ____" it will raise a flag if not a temporary ban. Canada said the same thing: "You can express yourself but not incite crime". I say thank you to the government because I it had to be done.

One person dead because of speach that incite violent action is already one person too many. Usually, people that do those kind of speaches cannot be trusted to take responsibility for their words. They will always blame the killer, society or what have you... The Canadian government said 'enough'. I'm perfectly ok with this.

oh please, dont go into debating ethics, especially since your whole posting in this freedom of speehc thread is to rip on a genre of music you know nothing about but the commercialised part of it. we can work on debating ethics when you learn what the hell it is your arguing against

Oh know enough to know that I do not like it. What more do I need to know? Commercialized part? Yes!, it's a damned big part of it to be sure! And that's all you seem to here as well. Where is this non-commercialised stuff you are refer too? It's funny, but I never seem to hear it. The points I was making here is that, one; It's a bad infuance on youth, and two, it sounds terrible! What more do you want?

obviously, if i just said jew should die and a jew dies, im not responsable at all even if the person did it because i said so.

But if you are standing on a podium in front of a lot of people, point to a Jew and say "Look at that damn dirty Jew! That person deserves to die, so we should all kill him now! Go! Go kill the damn dirty Jew! That Jew ate your babies and stole all your money!!!! Kill Him NOW!!"

The fact that you may sit back and watch the mob do your dirty work does not excuse the fact that the person is dead because of your actions.

But if you are standing on a podium in front of a lot of people, point to a Jew and say "Look at that damn dirty Jew! That person deserves to die, so we should all kill him now! Go! Go kill the damn dirty Jew! That Jew ate your babies and stole all your money!!!! Kill Him NOW!!"

The fact that you may sit back and watch the mob do your dirty work does not excuse the fact that the person is dead because of your actions.

yes, thats called insighting a riot. I believe there is a crime against it.

yes, thats called insighting a riot. I believe there is a crime against it.

Earlier, Bottle and others stated that that was still protected free speech (or at least should be) and that the person saying it was not at fault, only the people who did it were. I was disagreeing.

But if you are standing on a podium in front of a lot of people, point to a Jew and say "Look at that damn dirty Jew! That person deserves to die, so we should all kill him now! Go! Go kill the damn dirty Jew! That Jew ate your babies and stole all your money!!!! Kill Him NOW!!"

The fact that you may sit back and watch the mob do your dirty work does not excuse the fact that the person is dead because of your actions.
i totally disagree. you are not forcing anybody in the mob to do anything, you are just talking (or shouting). it is they who CHOOSE to act, and they who are responsible for their actions. no adult human can blame any other human for their actions, unless they are physically forced or threatened into compliance. each person in that mob is in control of their body, and if they choose to use their body to attack somebody else then it is they who should be punished. saying "but the yelling man told me to!" is a childish and ridiculous cop-out.

if you stand up and yell for blood nobody will die from your action of yelling. try it, right now. point out your window and yell really really loud that the next person walking by should be killed. notice how they are still alive. you can say you want somebody to be dead or you think they should be killed, and they won't be injured at all. if some idiot hears you yelling and decides to kill the passerby then that's their fault, not yours...they didn't have to listen to you or obey you, they made a choice and they need to take responsibility.

of course, i want "inciting a riot" to still be a crime because item four on my List Of Things To Do Before I Die is "be formally charged with inciting a riot" :).

i totally disagree. you are not forcing anybody in the mob to do anything, you are just talking (or shouting). it is they who CHOOSE to act, and they who are responsible for their actions. no adult human can blame any other human for their actions, unless they are physically forced or threatened into compliance. each person in that mob is in control of their body, and if they choose to use their body to attack somebody else then it is they who should be punished. saying "but the yelling man told me to!" is a childish and ridiculous cop-out.

I think so too, but I believe there have been studies on mob mentality that show how human beings react very differently to a charismatic "authority figure" and going along with the crowd than they ever would solo. It's kind of like telling a bunch of children to go do something - you're the authority figure, so most of them will do it. Obviously, if I pointed out my window and yelled for someone to be killed, it most likely wouldn't happen. But if I was leading a rally full of people who already hated that person, mob mentality could take over and it might happen. Am I really absolved of all responsibility.

But either way, here's another example I thought of today. Suppose I am a reporter and I think the person who moved in next door is a little suspicious. Maybe they don't seem like they've always led a nice quiet neighboorhood life, so I start looking into it. I dig up some dirt and find out that the person is, in fact, a mob informant who is currently in the witness protection program. I then use my freedom of speech to report a story about the mob informant living in my town, thus directly putting that person's life in danger - is this protected free speech?

I think so too, but I believe there have been studies on mob mentality that show how human beings react very differently to a charismatic "authority figure" and going along with the crowd than they ever would solo. It's kind of like telling a bunch of children to go do something - you're the authority figure, so most of them will do it. Obviously, if I pointed out my window and yelled for someone to be killed, it most likely wouldn't happen. But if I was leading a rally full of people who already hated that person, mob mentality could take over and it might happen. Am I really absolved of all responsibility.

in my opinion, mob mentality is not an excuse for anything, ever. children are a different case, since a human child below about 15 years of age simply does not have a fully developed frontal cortex (most don't have completely developed frontal connections until about 18, but before 15 pretty much NONE have them) and therefore young children are physically incapable of making the same judgments as adults. this doesn't mean kids are stupid or immoral or irrational, simply that they don't have all the complex connections needed for adult judgment...i'm not much past that age, myself, so please don't think i'm some old fogey trying to tell kids what to do.


But either way, here's another example I thought of today. Suppose I am a reporter and I think the person who moved in next door is a little suspicious. Maybe they don't seem like they've always led a nice quiet neighboorhood life, so I start looking into it. I dig up some dirt and find out that the person is, in fact, a mob informant who is currently in the witness protection program. I then use my freedom of speech to report a story about the mob informant living in my town, thus directly putting that person's life in danger - is this protected free speech?
as far as i know, interfering with a police investigation or endangering a witness are both crimes in and of themselves. the rules for what you can and can't do around a witness or informant are much more strict than for "normal" citizens, because the integrity of the police process and justice system are tied directly to the safety of witnesses; since a person can be legally compelled to testify or act as informant, the state then incurs legal responsibility to keep that witness safe.

essentially, threatening a witness or exposing an informant is akin to leaking confidential information on national security; information like troop movements in war or the exact defenses protecting the president are protected FROM free speech by laws on national security. there are many other cases of reasonable legal restrictions of free speech, like gag orders for juries or government confidentiality clauses, but those involve the disemination of information (facts) rather than the disemination of opinions. a person has the right to express him or herself and to speak his or her mind, but that's not what you are talking about...you're talking about spreading classified or restricted information around, which is a whole different matter.

also, while i support a very tight range of confidentiality and security measures, i still do not change my position on personal responsibility. if i leak information on the mob informant i am still NOT GUILTY OF MURDER, only the person or persons who murders the informant is guilty of that. i could be convicted of other offenses, such as interfering with an investigation or endangerment of a witness, but i am NOT a murderer by any standard, nor should i be punished anywhere near as harshly as those who choose to commit murder.

in my opinion, mob mentality is not an excuse for anything, ever. children are a different case, since a human child below about 15 years of age simply does not have a fully developed frontal cortex (most don't have completely developed frontal connections until about 18, but before 15 pretty much NONE have them) and therefore young children are physically incapable of making the same judgments as adults. this doesn't mean kids are stupid or immoral or irrational, simply that they don't have all the complex connections needed for adult judgment...i'm not much past that age, myself, so please don't think i'm some old fogey trying to tell kids what to do.

I'm not all that old either. Here's an interesting study though: A researcher couldn't imagine that the Nazis were really "just following orders" and felt that they all must have been evil people. So he set up an experiment to prove that people wouldn't "just follow orders." The scientist had an actor sit in a chair with what looked like electrodes hooked up to him and sent out an ad for volunteers to help in a medical study. When the volunteers came, they were told that they were testing the effects of small amounts of electricity, but that the test subject would not be hurt. The dials had clearly marked "red regions" to represent turning the power up too high. The researcher calmly would tell the person to turn up the power and shock the "test subject" in the next room. After a set number of pretend shocks, the actor would begin to complain about pain, as the dial was turned higher and higher, he would begin to yell about a history of heart problems in his family.

Here's the kicker: Every single volunteer kept turning the dial up when the researcher told them too, even when it was well into the red and the "test subject" seemed to be screaming out in pain.

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that mob mentality or "I was following orders" are reasonable excuses but it does demonstrate that most people will follow someone they think is an authority - because they think that person must know what they're doing.

also, while i support a very tight range of confidentiality and security measures, i still do not change my position on personal responsibility. if i leak information on the mob informant i am still NOT GUILTY OF MURDER, only the person or persons who murders the informant is guilty of that. i could be convicted of other offenses, such as interfering with an investigation or endangerment of a witness, but i am NOT a murderer by any standard, nor should i be punished anywhere near as harshly as those who choose to commit murder.

Well, I didn't say you should be prosecute for 1st degree murder, I just think that some forms of speech are not absolutely protected. If your speech causes someone else harm, you should be held responsible for it in some way - and at least harshly enough that it will deter others from doing the same.

I'm not all that old either. Here's an interesting study though: A researcher couldn't imagine that the Nazis were really "just following orders" and felt that they all must have been evil people. So he set up an experiment to prove that people wouldn't "just follow orders." The scientist had an actor sit in a chair with what looked like electrodes hooked up to him and sent out an ad for volunteers to help in a medical study. When the volunteers came, they were told that they were testing the effects of small amounts of electricity, but that the test subject would not be hurt. The dials had clearly marked "red regions" to represent turning the power up too high. The researcher calmly would tell the person to turn up the power and shock the "test subject" in the next room. After a set number of pretend shocks, the actor would begin to complain about pain, as the dial was turned higher and higher, he would begin to yell about a history of heart problems in his family.

Here's the kicker: Every single volunteer kept turning the dial up when the researcher told them too, even when it was well into the red and the "test subject" seemed to be screaming out in pain.

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that mob mentality or "I was following orders" are reasonable excuses but it does demonstrate that most people will follow someone they think is an authority - because they think that person must know what they're doing.


yeah, i'm familiar with that study, and i agree that it shows how most people are dangerously submissive and willing to go along with authority unquestioningly. i don't think that is any excuse at all. everyone has the power to control their actions, and needs to be made aware of the full power and responsibility of that from day one; part of the problem is that we currently innundate people in a culture that teachs them to submit to higher powers and to ignore their own reason and judgment because others know best...if that crap weren't so popular i think people would be much more trustworthy and decent.


Well, I didn't say you should be prosecute for 1st degree murder, I just think that some forms of speech are not absolutely protected. If your speech causes someone else harm, you should be held responsible for it in some way - and at least harshly enough that it will deter others from doing the same.
i agree there are some cases where speech should be restricted purely for safety reasons, like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater or leaking classified military secrets. but free speech in terms of free expression or so-called hate speech should be totally open...nobody's opinions, no matter how awful, should EVER be censored. if they believe in killing all Jews, or all women, or all black people, then that's their free right, and as long as they don't act upon it they are in the clear in my eyes.

saying "kill the Jews" doesn't kill a single Jew. saying "ALL OUR TROOPS ARE GOING NORTH RIGHT NOW!!!" kills troops, so that's out. saying "I hate Bill Johnson!" doesn't do Bill a lick of harm, but saying "here, take my money and enter into a contract as a hitman to take out Bill Johnson" does. it's pretty basic with me.

How far does it go?

In Canada we have a law prohibiting the publication of hate directed against an identifiable group. I think thats bullshit.

People should be able to say whatever they want.
I agree with that law. Hate when it is misdirected results in the death of 6 Million Jews?

Did you want to publish hate literature, or do you just want to read it?

Did you want to publish hate literature, or do you just want to read it?
i don't want to publish the Bible, nor do i ever really want to read it again. i guess that means i should fight to stop anybody from ever reading or speaking about the Bible, right?

keep in mind: defending the free speech of people on your side isn't defending free speech at all, it's just called "agreement." if you support free speech you must be prepared to defend the rights of those who you totally disagree with.

i don't want to publish the Bible, nor do i ever really want to read it again. i guess that means i should fight to stop anybody from ever reading or speaking about the Bible, right?

keep in mind: defending the free speech of people on your side isn't defending free speech at all, it's just called "agreement." if you support free speech you must be prepared to defend the rights of those who you totally disagree with.
If you choose to believe that the Bible is hate literature, then I suppose that is your perogative?

I defend freedom of speech to a point. If someone is openly advocating hate through a publication, then it should be stopped.

In Canada we have a law prohibiting the publication of hate directed against an identifiable group. I think thats bullshit.
In the US, anyone can arrange to have anything printed if they so choose. There is no law that requires a printer to accept the order, nor for a publisher to distribute it, not for a consumer to read it. It's still Freedom of Speech and a Free Press in political terms, but certainly not in financial terms.

As to what qualifies as hate literature in Canada, who defines what fails the test? I hate bowlers. If I get appointed to the commission, can I stop all bowling-related magazines because they promote the sport?

I defend freedom of speech to a point. If someone is openly advocating hate through a publication, then it should be stopped.

I have to disagree with you here. Advocating hate and advocating harm to another are two very different things. I may think that the person advocating hate is a horrible, horrible person - but I will fight to the death for that person's right to say they hate group X all day long. I, personally, draw the line where it comes to advocating actually going out and harming someone - and/or giving the information needed to do it. Others draw the line further down. Thus is the fun part of debate. =)

In the US, anyone can arrange to have anything printed if they so choose. There is no law that requires a printer to accept the order, nor for a publisher to distribute it, not for a consumer to read it. It's still Freedom of Speech and a Free Press in political terms, but certainly not in financial terms.

As to what qualifies as hate literature in Canada, who defines what fails the test? I hate bowlers. If I get appointed to the commission, can I stop all bowling-related magazines because they promote the sport?
If you hate bowling, you don't have to watch it, you don't have to buy the magazines, you don't have to patronize stores that sell the magazine, but if you put out hate literature against the owner of the magazine that could result in that person being physically harmed well then it would be wrong to do so. Do you really hate bowlers?

I have to disagree with you here. Advocating hate and advocating harm to another are two very different things. I may think that the person advocating hate is a horrible, horrible person - but I will fight to the death for that person's right to say they hate group X all day long. I, personally, draw the line where it comes to advocating actually going out and harming someone - and/or giving the information needed to do it. Others draw the line further down. Thus is the fun part of debate. =)
Well the other fun part of the debate is that it is a closed case, at least in Canada. I don't see massive protests against the inability to spread hate propaganda here in Canada.

If you hate bowling, you don't have to watch it, you don't have to buy the magazines, you don't have to patronize stores that sell the magazine, but if you put out hate literature against the owner of the magazine that could result in that person being physically harmed well then it would be wrong to do so.
Sorry, I'm taking the other side of the issue.

I want to be on the hate-publications-commission or whatever they call it, because I want to prevent those hate-filled bowling magaizines from being published. Why would anyone want such lane-and-pin filth in their homes? It's the least I can do to try and stop that Careening Ball of Satanic Sport. So, who appoints the commission? How do I win a slot? I wanna be a Government Censor, just like my GranPappy in WWII.
Do you really hate bowlers?Just the first thing to strike my mind, actually. Spare me the snide comments.

Sorry, I'm taking the other side of the issue.

I want to be on the hate-publications-commission or whatever they call it, because I want to prevent those hate-filled bowling magaizines from being published. Why would anyone want such lane-and-pin filth in their homes? It's the least I can do to try and stop that Careening Ball of Satanic Sport. So, who appoints the commission? How do I win a slot? I wanna be a Government Censor, just like my GranPappy in WWII.
Just the first thing to strike my mind, actually. Spare me the snide comments.
Get your mind out of the gutter!! :eek:

I believe one should be free to say whatever they please, so long as they are willing to be responsible for any consequences of doing so. I don't see that as a restriction of free speech.

To put it another way - humans have free will. A person could decide to walk up to a complete stranger, and punch them in the face. They would likely be arrested for this. Do the laws then prevent free will?

The law doesn't prevent the action. Every human being is free to make decisions based on their personal beliefs. But every action has a reaction. Laws punish actions whose reactions cause tangible harm or damage.

In short, they don't restrict your free will. They just restrict tangible harm and damage. Likewise punishing someone who can be shown to cause tangible harm with their words isn't an impediment of free speech; stopping them from saying it at all is.

I believe one should be free to say whatever they please, so long as they are willing to be responsible for any consequences of doing so. I don't see that as a restriction of free speech.

To put it another way - humans have free will. A person could decide to walk up to a complete stranger, and punch them in the face. They would likely be arrested for this. Do the laws then prevent free will?

The law doesn't prevent the action. Every human being is free to make decisions based on their personal beliefs. But every action has a reaction. Laws punish actions whose reactions cause tangible harm or damage.

In short, they don't restrict your free will. They just restrict tangible harm and damage. Likewise punishing someone who can be shown to cause tangible harm with their words isn't an impediment of free speech; stopping them from saying it at all is.
I believe that if I tell you that I hate you, that is one thing and clearly acceptable form of free speech. However, if I hate you enough to go to the trouble of printing malicious materials that could lead to you being physically harmed, then I have committed a crime?

What I can't understand is the gist of this topic. Is the original poster intent on publishing hateful materials?

However, if I hate you enough to go to the trouble of printing malicious materials that could lead to you being physically harmed, then I have committed a crime?

I'm not sure if that is a rhetorical question, but from a literal standpoint, yes that's illegal in Canada. I don't believe it should be. The beauty of having the aforementioned free will is that we control our own choices. It's my opinion that if someone is stupid enough to commit a crime simply because someone else tells them to, well, tough luck. Enjoy your punishment.

I'm not sure if that is a rhetorical question, but from a literal standpoint, yes that's illegal in Canada. I don't believe it should be. The beauty of having the aforementioned free will is that we control our own choices. It's my opinion that if someone is stupid enough to commit a crime simply because someone else tells them to, well, tough luck. Enjoy your punishment.
Inciting a riot is a crime. Inciting a crime is a crime. If someone plots someone elses murder, and gets someone else to do it, then that is conspiracy and is a crime. Do you remember Richard Demeter (think that is his name)?

Inciting a riot is a crime. Inciting a crime is a crime. If someone plots someone elses murder, and gets someone else to do it, then that is conspiracy and is a crime. Do you remember Richard Demeter (think that is his name)?

I'm not questioning the legal standpoint. :confused: As I mentioned in my previous message, it is in fact quite illegal in Canada. However, I personally don't believe it should be. We all have free will, and we are all responsible for our own actions.

(In my opinion) it doesn't matter if we are encouraged to do something illegal, or offered money to do it, etc. In the end we make the choice to commit the crime. We are therefore the ones to blame for the crime in my opinion, as we are the one who chose of our own free will to commit it.

If you choose to believe that the Bible is hate literature, then I suppose that is your perogative?

I defend freedom of speech to a point. If someone is openly advocating hate through a publication, then it should be stopped.
so if it is my perogative to define the Bible as hate speech, and since "openly advocating hate through a publication...should be stopped" then the Bible should not be permitted to be published, owned, or read, right? or is it only the hate speech YOU designate that qualifies for the restriction?

I'm not questioning the legal standpoint. :confused: As I mentioned in my previous message, it is in fact quite illegal in Canada. However, I personally don't believe it should be. We all have free will, and we are all responsible for our own actions.

(In my opinion) it doesn't matter if we are encouraged to do something illegal, or offered money to do it, etc. In the end we make the choice to commit the crime. We are therefore the ones to blame for the crime in my opinion, as we are the one who chose of our own free will to commit it.
Well it is illegal in Canada and I like it that way. If you want to change it you can try and lobby for it, or run for office yourself. However, you wouldn't get my vote, and I don't believe that you would get very far with trying to have the legislation changed.

Do you have a particular situation that you want to pursue, or is it that you wanted this to be allowed, just in case there was a situation arose whereby you could use it?

so if it is my perogative to define the Bible as hate speech, and since "openly advocating hate through a publication...should be stopped" then the Bible should not be permitted to be published, owned, or read, right? or is it only the hate speech YOU designate that qualifies for the restriction?
Well I do believe that it is your perogative to believe what you will. If you can get a court of law to agree with you, then perhaps they would ban the Bible.

I personally don't see the Bible as a hate publication, if that is where you are going?

Well it is illegal in Canada and I like it that way. If you want to change it you can try and lobby for it, or run for office yourself. However, you wouldn't get my vote, and I don't believe that you would get very far with trying to have the legislation changed.

Do you have a particular situation that you want to pursue, or is it that you wanted this to be allowed, just in case there was a situation arose whereby you could use it?

You know, I've never eaten cabbage in my life. But if someone tried to outlaw cabbage, I'd fight it to the death. For freedom to exist, we have to protect the freedom of all people. Likewise, for freedom of speech and freedom of expression to exist, we must protect all its forms; regardless of how offensive we may personally find them.

You don't have to agree with me. That's perfectly fine. Just as I respect the opinons of those who choose hatred, even though I don't share their beliefs, I will respect your right to hold an opinion different than my own.

People should be able to say whatever they want unless it doesn't directly interfere with the lives of the sayie.

Well I do believe that it is your perogative to believe what you will. If you can get a court of law to agree with you, then perhaps they would ban the Bible.

I personally don't see the Bible as a hate publication, if that is where you are going?

ahh, so it's about getting the courts to go along with me...but that requires money and time that i don't have. so should i just put up with hate speech? and you, what about your strong belief in supressing hate speech? are you going to stand by while hate speech goes on unsupressed? or will you only speak out when one of your particular pet groups is maligned?

if the Bible were ruled to be hate speech by a court of law, would you support that ruling? would you feel it is a reasonable one? what if a court of law ruled that the subject of biology is hateful, and nobody can talk about biology any more? is a court ruling your standard, or is there more to your position?

ahh, so it's about getting the courts to go along with me...but that requires money and time that i don't have. so should i just put up with hate speech? and you, what about your strong belief in supressing hate speech? are you going to stand by while hate speech goes on unsupressed? or will you only speak out when one of your particular pet groups is maligned?

if the Bible were ruled to be hate speech by a court of law, would you support that ruling? would you feel it is a reasonable one? what if a court of law ruled that the subject of biology is hateful, and nobody can talk about biology any more? is a court ruling your standard, or is there more to your position?
I don't know if you have a particular burning issue or you are just offering up topics for debate? Although the distribution of hate literature is banned in Canada, the Internet is not censored and God only knows that there is enough hate strewn across this medium. Some of it is particularly sick in my humble opinion, but such is the way of cybercity. At least I have a choice once I click on a web site. However, if I am walking down the street and someone shoves a piece of hate literature in my hand, I figure I have 3 choices.

I could keep it and throw it away.

I could give it back.

I could report the distributor to the police.