Dead Marine's father ordered to pay protesters' legal costs

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I know fear mongering got a war started, but it didn't prevent HC reform and I don't buy the link between PC and laws limiting free speech.

(Its probably a lot more related to the growth in multi-ethnic populations than a significant shift in thought.)

Call it by what ever name you want. Still stinks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

My farts stink to, but it has nothing to do with our discussion. Thanks for stopping by though.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

My farts stink to, but it has nothing to do with our discussion. Thanks for stopping by though.

Glad you like to smell your own farts

But that hsnothing to do with the falisy of your point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

But that hsnothing to do with the falisy of your point

Just so I make sure we are talking about the same thing, can you tell me what you think my point is?

[shropshire 0]

Quote

While I think these are disgusting horrible people, I do strongly support their right to speak. As long as they don't take action, they should be allowed to say whatever they want.

I most certainly don't ... I couldn't give two shits what they say but I most definitly would never support their 'right' priveledge to speak.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

But that hsnothing to do with the falisy of your point

Just so I make sure we are talking about the same thing, can you tell me what you think my point is?

That you do not think PC in this country goes against free speech

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

By the way, I just watched the Ezra Levant video, where he tells the Canadian fascistette to blow it out her ass because he has the lawful right to be as offensive as he godddamn well chooses, for any reason that he chooses, no matter how ignoble. And that, my friend, is what true freedom of speech is all about. I urge you to watch it, too.

I have. I agree with much of what he says. Nothing in Canadian law has prevented him from doing exactly what he did.

Does the Levant case set any kind of precedent in Canada?

When asked about his intentions he told the woman that for the purposes of his case she should just assume his intentions were whatever she found most offensive. If he was let of the hook with that argument then how the hell is the government ever going to silence anyone's "hate speech" without exposing the whole process as capricious?

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

in canada there certainly isn't a list of words that are not allowed to be spoken. Inciting hatred is where the differing issue is.

This is getting hopelessly repetitive. One man's "mere insult" is another man's "inciting hatred". That's the point. The maximum amount of freedom of speech exists when there is a single standard that is applicable across the board, and is NOT subject to the objective definitions of people, with their own agendas, who happen to have power or influence.

[DanG 1]

Quote

As an example, just think about the "words" that are considered offensive and should not be spoken. Being politically correct is a curtailment of free speech

There is a huge difference between "should not be spoken" and "may not legally be spoken". A world of difference.

You "should" not walk up to someone and tell them to fuck off, but in America, no matter how much it hurts their feelings, there should never be a law against it.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

As an example, just think about the "words" that are considered offensive and should not be spoken. Being politically correct is a curtailment of free speech

There is a huge difference between "should not be spoken" and "may not legally be spoken". A world of difference.

You "should" not walk up to someone and tell them to fuck off, but in America, no matter how much it hurts their feelings, there should never be a law against it.

Agreed
But when you consider hate speech laws and hate crimes laws the line is crossed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

That you do not think PC in this country goes against free speech

it is a societal limit on free speech, not a government limit. So completely different from what we are discussing.

[DanG 1]

Quote

priveledge to speak.

When speaking becomes a privledge we'll need to gut the whole system and start over.

That is some scary shit.

- Dan G

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Does the Levant case set any kind of precedent in Canada?

There was never a case. (Strong hint, video cameras are not allowed in Canadian court rooms)

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But that hsnothing to do with the falisy of your point

Just so I make sure we are talking about the same thing, can you tell me what you think my point is?

That you do not think PC in this country goes against free speech

No, politically correctness is not against free speech. Being called a racist, or intolerant, or whatever else may be part of the cost of engaging in the public arena of free speech. If your arguments are gooed enough than such attempts will be seen as hollow. If your arguments really are racist or intolerant than they deserve to be called such.

Until the government is arresting, silencing, or fining you for that speech then you are still free to utter it.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[DanG 1]

I hate to say this, but I actually agree with you. "Hate" crime legislation, in my view, is unconstituitional.

If something is a crime, it is a crime. The motivation to commit that crime should not be a crime of itself.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

That you do not think PC in this country goes against free speech

it is a societal limit on free speech, not a government limit. So completely different from what we are discussing.

While I see you point regarding law, how is the result any differnent in the end? If that becomes aceptable will a law soon follow?

More than likely IMO

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I hate to say this, but I actually agree with you. "Hate" crime legislation, in my view, is unconstituitional.

If something is a crime, it is a crime. The motivation to commit that crime should not be a crime of itself.

Yes, and this leads to the slippery slope debate

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[shropshire 0]

Well if the system is broke then yeap - maybe you should

When peolple think that they have a right to talk shit at someones funeral then it seems broken to me.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But that hsnothing to do with the falisy of your point

Just so I make sure we are talking about the same thing, can you tell me what you think my point is?

That you do not think PC in this country goes against free speech

No, politically correctness is not against free speech. Being called a racist, or intolerant, or whatever else may be part of the cost of engaging in the public arena of free speech. If your arguments are gooed enough than such attempts will be seen as hollow. If your arguments really are racist or intolerant than they deserve to be called such.

Until the government is arresting, silencing, or fining you for that speech then you are still free to utter it.

Again, within the law you are correct and I agree with you. But, "words" and names are used everyday to silence (or try and silence) people, using the power of coercion gained within the PC movement

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Does the Levant case set any kind of precedent in Canada?

There was never a case. (Strong hint, video cameras are not allowed in Canadian court rooms)

Sorry, does the Levant inquisition set any kind of precedent in Canada?

[pbwing 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Does the Levant case set any kind of precedent in Canada?

There was never a case. (Strong hint, video cameras are not allowed in Canadian court rooms)

Sorry, does the Levant inquisition set any kind of precedent in Canada?

Nope. And it was hardly an inquisition. He was invited to attend the meeting with the Human Rights Commission. There was a complaint that was filed, he responded to the complaint and the matter was dropped. It's just that he is such a fucking douche bag, he had the make the biggest deal out of the situation that he could.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

This is getting hopelessly repetitive. One man's "mere insult" is another man's "inciting hatred". That's the point. The maximum amount of freedom of speech exists when there is a single standard that is applicable across the board, and is NOT subject to the objective definitions of people, with their own agendas, who happen to have power or influence.

Agreed.

The point I was trying to discuss was the actual benefit of the almost unlimited free speech in the US over slightly limited free speech in Canada.

The only point raised so far is the slippery slope theory. When pressed for an example, none has been brought forward.

I prefer the canadian system and have no issue with the limitation on hate speech. I like that the marine's father would have bene protected in Canada. No system is perfect, however I prefer how our system works over the American system.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Sorry, does the Levant inquisition set any kind of precedent in Canada?

Nope. And it was hardly an inquisition. He was invited to attend the meeting with the Human Rights Commission. There was a complaint that was filed, he responded to the complaint and the matter was dropped. It's just that he is such a fucking douche bag, he had the make the biggest deal out of the situation that he could.

Okay, so back to my original question...

If he was let of the hook with that argument then how the hell is the government ever going to silence anyone's "hate speech" without exposing the whole process as capricious?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Sorry, does the Levant inquisition set any kind of precedent in Canada?

No

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Okay, so back to my original question...

If he was let of the hook with that argument then how the hell is the government ever going to silence anyone's "hate speech" without exposing the whole process as capricious?

because they are two different things. Hate speech falls under the criminal code (federal). The human rights tribunal in the Levant "case" is a provincial body, which has absolutely nothing to do with the federal criminal code and any case law associated with it.

read the following link:

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/report_moon_rapport/page2-en.asp

(Also important to note that private conversations are specifically excluded from the Criminal Code provision against hate speech.)