Slashdot Mirror
ISP Fined $5000 For Hate Content
eRondeau writes "In a precedent-setting ruling, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has fined a hosting company for carrying 'objectionable content'. The material in question was White Supremacist postings. From the article: 'The ruling sends a very strong message that Internet servers, if they are aware there is hate content and don't take timely action to remove it, can be held liable,' said the Ottawa lawyer who filed the complaint in February 2002. The individual posters were fined thousands as well."
Way to go, hosers.
As a Canadian, I'm pissed that this has happened. Why? Because let's take this to its logical conclusion, if a patron of a restruant, a university student, or even someone on a bus, says something out of line and the owner of a "public" place does not object, then they might be penalized for it.
What does this lead to? Censorship by citizens, censorship by the government is bad enough, but this could lead to a disaster.
Frankly, the ISP shouldn't have to do anything unless ordered to. And, if in doubt, they should have contacted the authorities (I don't know if they did or not).
Now I don't feel like hosting any form of forum in Canada, becuase I don't want to be held responsible for what some random fuckwad says.
FTA:
"The ruling shows Canadians have no tolerance for hate," Maillet said.
I have little tolerance for censhorship as well. I pray that they challenge this ruling with the Supreme Court (assuming it hasn't already happened, which I doubt). Because I doubt this "Human Rights Tribunal" is thinking about the consequences of this ruling in a greater context.
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
How robust is the freedom of expression in Canada? I know that such a right in Europe is more of a matter of legislative tradition than constitutional law.*
*For example, constitutional law in the UK is based on the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and the Parliamentary acts, none of which guarantee freedom of speech to the citizens
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Slashdot has a policy of not filtering its comments, they leave it up to the moderators to sort it out. But even though most off-color/hate comments are modded down, they still appear if you browse at -1. Any thoughts?
I may be wrong but you're downright ugly!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
a few years back colorado made not wearing your seatbelt a secondary offense, you couldnt get pulled over for it. they recently passed a law to allow officers to pull a person over for not wearing a seatbelt. i know slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but it happens...
always mosh clockwise
ISPs in the US should still be protected by common carrier status. What this does is simply drive business from Canadian ISPs to US ( and elsewhere ) ISPs.
Although I feel like it's only a matter of time before crap like that happens here.
Four years is timely? Maybe for a rock with a lichen problem....
Who's your user, program?
You don't have a right NOT to be offended. People need to get over themselves and the government needs to keep its hands out of where it doesn't belong.
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
Is this the so-called "Western freedom" we hear so much about? You're free to say or write whatever you want, as long as it doesn't fall under some completely subjective definition of "hate"? Doesn't sound like freedom to me in any way.
There is a common kindergarten playground saying we should keep in mind: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
Western nations need to remember that free expression does not cause harm. Things may be said that one does not agree with; but that is no reason to punish those who expressed such opinions! Why is no punishment needed? Because nobody was ever harmed or wronged by free expression.
In fact, we have seen time and time again that free expression for all ends up being the best protection a nation can have. It is one of the best weapons against tyranny. It can battle corruption. It's a far more effective protection than any weapon could ever be.
Around the world freedom of speech, though and expression is under attack. People must respect the opinions & expressions of others even when it's WRONG. I could care less what White Supremists think, but I'd rather know who the crazies are rather then having them bottle it up inside. Take Germany for example, still there is Nazi sympathizers even though it's illegal to deny the holocost, etc.
Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's a FACT, or it's RIGHT. More times than not, it means the opposite.
As a person of several colors, my reaction is - "Thanks for the sentiment, I'd prefer you defend my* freedom and let me take care of my dignity." But I don't live in Canada.
* That means everyone's!
So how long before /. is blocked for access because it hosts objectionable content?
At the rate they keep making laws, it will be illegal to breath and criminal to fart.
I know that a lot of Americans sometimes think of Canada as the 51st state, but they're a separate country with their own laws and everything. I know this is hard to believe, but the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has NO validity there. I guess it's time to invade 'em, huh? ;-)
David
Wow, I never knew Canada was so totalitarian when it came to freedom of speech. Guess if you don't tow the liberal line your wallet suffers the consequences, even though there is no reasonable expectation that your actions will cause physical harm to anyone (and if there was such a reasonable expectation, then the laws need to be a lot stronger then a mere fine).
I can understand discrimination, but is free speech discrimination? Does having a website calling for hate and attacks against Jews, Blacks, and Muslims, count as discrimination? I'm not sure it does. I'm all for Human Rights. But I'm not for censorship--especially when the government might find ME to be the one discriminating.
Funtime Candy Wow! - my plan for eventually conquering Japan.
Are canadians guaranteed that right like we are ( sort of ) down here in the USA? if not, while it sux bad, it would be well within the legal right to penalize the ISP.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Freedom of expression is intended to protect things that offend somebody, whether it be a government or other people. If it's uncontroversial, it's in no need of defense. Canadians should be asking themselves if they're OK with having their right to express themselves in offensive terms squashed whenever some pressure group or governmental entity doesn't like it.
I'm a little surprised by this. If I were a lawmaker, I would never make "hate speech" illegal. There will always be things people hate and that changes with time. Besides, everyone else is still free to "hate the haters" anyway. It's just an area that government shouldn't be involved in.
You could say that the ISP got shafted in this one and was fined for things beyond its control, but if you actually RTFA, you will find out that one of the persons charged personally for posting hate messages is also the owner of the ISP.
I don't think this case is a precendent-setting as the original post makes out.
Time to set up an eepsite on I2P.
Canada has shown itself to be against freedom of speech again and again.
Draw a picture of a nude child? In Canada, you are then producing child pornography.
Have the -remote- relationship of being a webhost on which hate content is posted? Get fined.
I find this apalling....
The problem with limiting right to speak is that any hate goes underground, where it can't be monitored.
Another problem is that who does the limiting and who sets the limits is always political, and always somewhat arbitrary.
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.
In other words, these rights are defined narrowly so as to allow arbitrary restrictions to the extent that they are justified in a free and democratic society.
Which leads to a number of intersting questions:
1) Can the legislature forbid, say, blasphemy or degrading another religion? What about the Danish Cartoons?
2) Is the limitation on hate speech really demonstrabl justified in a free and democratic society? If so where exactly is that line drawn?
3) Could the Parliament ban a political party on the grounds that they teach in the abstract a moral duty to the violent overthrow of the government even if no preparations are being made for said insurrection? And was the Communist Party ever so banned?
I doubt that most Americans really understand or value the extent to which we have freedom of expression in our society. The defining case and (IANAL) governing precident in this area in the US is the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio that held that saying things like "This is what we are going to do to the niggers... bury the niggers... we intend to do our part" (see footnote 1 in the majority opinion in the case) at a KKK rally could not be criminalized using criminal syndication and racketeering laws. In essence the line in the US between protected speech in this area and unprotected speech is crossed when there is an intent to cause immanent lawless action. Even threats of violence *in the abstract* are protected provided that there is not any attempt to prepare to carry them out.
I have not yet found any other country that has the same robust protection on freedom of expression as the US. And I am profoundly grateful for my citizenship in this great republic.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Hosted on archive.org...
/. ate the link)
(Used tinyurl cause
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
Well, this is terrible news. This is just one step closer to tiered, content-controlled internet service. ISPs cannot (rather, should not) be held liable for their content. By holding this on the ISPs, they're going to be forced to restrict more and more of our usage. Next thing you know the RIAA and MPAA are going to start suing ISPs for ungodly amounts because warez was transferred through their bandwidth. I weap for the internet's future like this.
"Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."
The ruling shows Canadians have no tolerance for hate
Tolerance is what makes my country great.
God bless America.
I can't wait for ISP's to be charged for posessing child porn on their usenet servers and network caches. Maybe then people would understand how stupid these laws are.
This is ridiculous. People have a fundamental right to hold and express their opinions, and no government has the authority, or even the capability say otherwise.
I realize that Canada isn't Europe... :-) After all I am not that far from the Canadian border....
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
But this argument of protecting against public morals is a slippery slope that has lead among other things to the riots following the Danish Cartoons being reprinted. After all, the initial rable rousers (before the riots broke out) were largely asking for the laws to protect Muslims to the same extent it protects other groups. Denmark has anti-blasphemy laws on the books, but these have not been enforced since 1938. The central argument is that these ought to be enforced in this case to protect the Muslims.
The proper response in this case, IMO, is the repeal of all hate speech laws so that nobody can claim that they are not equally protected by them. And by going down the road of criminalizing holocaust denial (as does both Canada and Austria), one does nothing but deny the public the right of rebuttal in a timely and transparent manner.
The solution to these problems is not less freedom of speech but more of it. Hate speech laws, IMO, innately cause a situation of unequal protection under the law. What about Serbian immigrants suggesting that Bosnians were never massacred? Will the Bosnians be as protected as the Jews in Canada? Of not, then what about section 15(1) in the Charter:
"Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."
Ought any law criminalizing the denial of the holocaust ultimately afford more protection to those ethnicities (Jews, Gypsies) persecuted therein than it might to other victims of genecide? And if it is a crime to deny all matters of genecide, then what of the Jews who say that Palestinians have not been intentionally exterminated during the 1948-49 war? Ought the Palestinian immigtants not to be equally protected?
In essence my main point is that only by outlawing all speech on contraversial issues, can one provide equal protection under the law regarding hate speech laws. One cannot easily balance hate speech law and a commitment to equal protection without eventually having to retreat from areas which are the norm in many Western countries.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
For what it's worth, if I am recalling correctly, the average time from filing a civil suit to trial in Los Angeles (one of the busiest U.S. districts) is nine years.
An attorney I know has, in one instance, been handing an employment discrimination case for a woman that she brought in 1984. Still not over with.
So yeah, it's short compared to that. The civil system isn't very fast. (Whereas the criminal system, here in the USA at least, is constitutionally guaranteed to be.)
I think that the ruling sends a very strong message that in Canada freedom of speech is not nearly as important as making sure that no one's feelings get hurt.
Why is protecting the rights of idiot white surpremacists important? Because they are the canary in the coal mine. When the rights of the unpopular are abridged, everyone's rights are in danger.
Univeral freedom of speech helps ensure the health of society. When unpleasant ideas and beliefs are expressed, it acts as a sort of innoculation against them. When these ideas are oppressed and only shared in secret, they tend to grow like a cancer beneath the surface of society, unknown and unchecked.
When universal freedom of speech is attacked and undermined, it sets the stage for further abuses. Just look at China. Is that what the people of Canada want for their children and grandchildren? Which is worse, living in a totalitarian regime, or living in a free society where you are sometimes subjected to ideas you do not agree with and find offensive?
The only effective means of thought control is information control, but don't take my word for it. Here's a quote from someone whose mastery of propaganda and its uses is unquestioned:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
Abridging the rights of the unpopular is the first dangerous step towards the kind of world Goebbels lived in. Not only that but it serves no useful purpose even in the short run. Making neo-nazi's be quiet doesn't make them go away. All it does is ensure that their activities and efforts at recruitment are that much more difficult to detect.
You would think that people would know better, but then 50% of the population is of below average intelligence.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Freedom of speech does not protect any statement. That fact is true no matter where you live. Promoting hate is all good and fine but once you say "Attack X for their crimes against humanity", it stops being hate and becomes a judicialy punished statement.
By the Charter of Rights and Freedoms sec. 3, last precedent that was set (I think it was for a guy who was handing out hate fliers), "Free speech does not constitute brainwashing techniques, it does not permit one to impose views that promote a) violence b) hate c) prejudice, or deny factual events. It is the duty of the courts to protect our society from misinformation that creates these problems."
This is the very thing it was created for..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
After the incident was publicized, the Ontario Ministry of Education was investigated and two teachers were suspended.
Canadian Islamic groups are now protesting the inequity of the Ministry's actions. They are demanding that the Ministry investigate hate speech at Jewish schools. And as an example of what they are concerned about, the Canadian Islamic Congress issued a press release on Friday calling for the investigation of a Kingston-area Hebrew school. The reason? A nine-year-old student at the school published a letter in the Kingston newspaper, the Whig-Standard, charging that Palestinians wished "to push the Israelis into the sea." According to the Islamic Congress, the views expressed in the child's letter are views "damaging to healthy relationships among many Canadians in our multicultural and pluralist society." Maybe you remember that famous jibe of Anatole France's about the law with majestic impartiality forbidding both the rich and poor to sleep under bridges? In the same way, the Canadian Islamic Congress seems to believe that healthy multiculturalism should treat exactly equally an Islamic school that encourages young Muslims to fantasize about murdering Jews - and a Jewish school that teaches its students to object to being murdered.
Therein lies the danger. As Jefferson so aptly wrote centuries ago, the best cure for such speech is more free speech and the clear light of day. To involve the government in such matters can only result in direct government involvement in private political debate. In Canada, if the government objects to what one says, one is simply declared illegal. One must shut up or face the full sanction of the law. No doubt this would please our liberal friends to no end, having thoroughly lost every public policy debate since around 1979. We understand that freedom of speech is painful to liberals. We know what you're going through, having had to live through the era when you controlled the public debate and no dissenting voices to liberal orthodoxy were allowed into the hallowed halls of CBS News or the New York Times.
linky:
http://newsisyphus.blogspot.com/2005/04/canada-and -hate-speech-codes.html
You can be sure that only white racists will be prosecuted. Islamic hate will be tolerated, and no fines will be assesed on Canadian web sites that advocate the killing of infidels.
I agree with the thinking behind hate crime laws: people who are nasty curs should be smacked down hard. The problem I have is these laws elevate certain people over others. A crime against a person of religion X is worse than a crime against a person of religion Y. A crime against an immigrant from Mexico is worse than a crime against your American neighbor.
This is just wrong. Like the money laundering laws. They were meant with good intent but are now fraught with loopholes and gotchas and they hurt more innocent people than they ever help.
The problem with all this is where do you draw the line? These laws become tools to advance a prosecutor's career, rather than deterring or punishing crimes. These are the laws they hit you with when they need to "make an example" out of you.
So, does "hate speech" include when some evangelical preacher decides to start bashing homosexuals and Muslims and calls for their destruction?
With so called Christians making claims like "Gays 'Responsible' For New Orleans Devastation Group Claims", and calling out for assassinations of leaders, why not label this as hate propaganda.
Supremecy is supremecy whether it is based off of race or religion. Better get to work Canada, you've got a lot of supression to do. Begrüßen Sie Kanada
I suggest you all read this. (hint: bookmarking the CCC makes having legal discussions a bit more sensible :-) )
Hate speech in Canada is only when it incites people to commit violence against the said group being hated.
It's legal in canada to say "I hate all $GROUP" as long as you don't say "kill $GROUP".
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I am a Canadian and personally think that white supremists or any other group that has a general hate for people because of relgion, skin color, etc. are scum of the earth. However, I do not think that the ISP should be held responsible for what these people did. This would be equivilent of somebody posting racist remarks on slashdot and having the owners of slashdot held liable for this.
In general though I think that Canadian laws go to far in outlawing hate speach. Could hate speach not be considred a freedom of expression? Where is the line drawn on what is considred hate speach and what is considred freedom of speech? Could the same laws that outlaw hate speech be somehowe turned against us and used against people's freedom of speech?
Racism is wrong, and it would be very bad for the government to support it in any way, but this is an inhibition of free speech. Now, stopping someone from expressing racist thoughts may not be all that bad in and of itself, but neither is unwarranted wiretaps of terrorists. If the government can prevent "hate" speech, it can prevent anything being said that is contrary to its values.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
This in my opinon sets a bad standard for any local prosecutor to start timing content on servers. What happens if soemone never gets teh email to take it down? Or they upload content say they sent an email and come after you for big fines? There needs to be s set time and set way to conteact innocent bloggers and ISP"s and other sites the allow poeple to post freely on there sites.
Britney Simpson
of hateful ideas.
The Nazis themselves were censored in 1925-1927, and yet during this time, their membership doubled. Clearly this censorship does nothing except remove "dangerous ideas" from the public forum and into private conversations where the public is denied a right of rebuttal.
As I understand it, holocaust denial is not a crime in the UK, nor is chanting outside the Danish Embassy "Denmark, USA, 7/7 on it's way" (though there is a movement in the UK to criminalize the latter if Blair gets his way). Yet it is in Canada? Why? What rational purpose can this serve? And how can one create a situation out of a law like that which can afford equal protection to all as required by the Constitutional Act?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Yep, Canada's partial freedom of speech and expression does not constitute real freedom of speech. It is defacto, censored speech. In order to have true freedom of speech, you must also not only allow that kind of speech that you might not like to be heard, but you must also defend the rights of those to say stuff that you don't like.
And like it or not, the reason why the USA still has it's 1st Amendment is because it also has a 2nd Amemndment. I'm sure that statement will rile up a lot of folks too, but it is the cold hard truth.
From the Soviet Constitution of 1936:
Article 12. Supreme power in the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic is exercised by the All-Russia Congress of Soviets, and in the intervals between Congresses by the All-Russia Central Executive Committee.
Article 13. In order to ensure genuine freedom of conscience for the working people, the church is separated from the State, and the school from the church: and freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.
Article 14. In order to ensure genuine freedom of expression for the working people, the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic abolishes the dependence of the press on capital, and places at the disposal of the working class and the poor peasantry all the technical and material requisites for the publication of newspapers, pamphlets, books and all other printed matter, and guarantees their unhindered circulation throughout the country.
Article 15. In order to ensure genuine freedom of assembly for the working people, the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, recognizing the right of citizens of the Soviet Republic freely to hold assemblies, meetings, processions, etc., places at the disposal of the working class and the poor peasantry all buildings suitable for the holding of public gatherings, complete with furnishing, lighting and heating.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Hmmmm. I'm American. I think of Canada every now and then. I know people around me who think of 'em every now and then. So what's your point? You're either being amazingly obscure or else you're suffering from the delusion that you're insulting a Canadian.
David
The article talks about advocating attacks
so it looks as though the bad guys could have been taken down for conspiring to commit criminal damage or incitement to arson, or some other offence grounded in planning or attempting a straightforward criminal, physical act.Then the article goes on to quote the Human Rights Act
So a moral panic about incitement has been leveraged to pass a law that gives the authorities wide powers to tell people to shut the fuck up or else, and all in the name of human rights.
I live in Canada and one of the MANY things I admire about the United States is it's rights and freedoms in your original Constitution: the main right being the Freedom of Speech. It was only as recent as 1982 that we Canadian's wrote our own Constitution that put into law many of the human rights and "freedom of speech" which our fellow Americans have had all along. I am glad that in the Canadian constitution that there is no "right to bear arms." And by the way, Quebec did not sign on to the Canadian constitution so I don't know if that still leaves them going along with the "British" North America Act.
;). I am glad that Slashdot has a Preview button.
In Canada, we also have laws against hate crimes. It has to be a pretty serious offence and as this case shows it took four years and the ISP did nothing. Slashdot would have modded that hate message down to nothing in no time. And as you know, many other message boards do moderate content. What about the outright lies that are spouted by many corporate broadcasters on "your" public airwaves? Yes, in the USA those airwaves belong to you the people, unfortunately according to the laws, corporations are people too.
I know that some (many? all?) of the internet lines (access points) run through police stations in Canada. Content is monitored as much as it can be for criminal activity: abuse, child pornography, weapons sales and perhaps worse. The police are "serving and protecting" people from harm. Harm can come in many forms. In Canada, there laws to protect people from speech that is deemed to be harmful. I think if someone wants to write something hateful to "let off steam" that that is very okay as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Posting this type of material in public is a different story and I am usually careful before I post (especially in Canada
I hope no one is offended by this message.
So, Canada dismisses a Canadian University to run a comic of Christ performing fellatio on a "capitalist pig," because the editor bowed-out, but white supremicist propaganda is not tolerated? Yay Canada!
So we can take down any forum we want just by repeatedly posting racist remarks?
;-)
Cool. So now we have an effective way to censor our Canadian enemies
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Canada is moving rightward politically. Really kind of sad.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
This article is a little misleading as is the headline. If you read carefully you will realise that it was just some guy running a server on leased line. He wasn't what would be typically called an isp. Certainly he was web-hosting but it was essentially his own web-site he was hosting. If an ISP such as Rogers or Sympatico the cable and phoneline base carriers were hosting such a site for one of their customers they would be allowed to just deny the customer service. There is no indication in the article that these guys were anything but an end point and there is no mention of where their bandwidth actually came from. So get a grip, this is not that significant.
The problem is that the group imposing the censorship (the power elite) is the group that gets to define "offensive".
For example, the current US regime has defines "anti-war" as "offensive", and that is exactly why we see (for example) peaceful journalists and peaceful protestors being dragged away and locked up.
When did I say that I agreed or disagreed with that label? That information cannot be determined from my earlier statement.
The only reason I brought it up is becuase I don't see it as a direct subset of hate speech (but some people do). Unless certain things are stated within (If one was to express some of the Nazis more vulgar sentiments, for example).
Way to troll against someone who agrees with you.
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
Article 13, section 1: "Freedom of expression and freedom of information may be restricted having regard to the security of the Realm, the national supply, public safety and order, the integrity of the individual, the sanctity of private life, or the prevention and prosecution of crime. Freedom of expression may also be restricted in economic activities. Freedom of expression and freedom of information may otherwise be restricted only where particularly important reasons so warrant."[emphasis mine]
In other words, there is some protection but it is not very robust. All one needs to do with regard to various hate speech laws might be to show that those who communicate certain ideas are generally involved in certain criminal syndications and therefore, the communication of the idea itself might be said to be a crime. IANAL though and I would love to see any case material that proves me wrong.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Wait... are you telling me that you can vow to "fucking kill" an entity without legal repercussions?
I suppose if you later try to "fucking kill" an entity, it might be evidence of forethought and premeditation...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
in germany, 'hate inducing' speech is also prohibited,as are swastikas in nazi-promoting context, etc. we also outlaw certain political, anti-constitutional parties. And even though i am a big fan of protecting 'wrong' speech, i agree with this practice, since a state is usually defined by its constitution, and as long as there are 'clean' ways to change it (referendums, etc.) i think it's good to outlaw 'bad' ways to change it. additionaly, and i know that this is a dangerous argument, people as a whole are emotionaly stupid (as we learned at a high price over 60 years ago), so i'm all in favour of promoting more rational discussions by outlawing pure hate-based demagogy. noone would prohibit a calm discussion about abolishing the state, or even showing supposed virtues of a nazi-dictatorship, but when you start using emotional tricks, or outright lies (holocaust-denying is illegal in germany too, in part because so many people simply refused to accept the magnitude of the holocaust in the post-war years), it tends to be illegal - just like shouting 'fire!' for no real reason in a full cinema is in the states. and despite of all this, we never heard of stuff like Free speech zones and other related nonsense, so i'd say it works.
obviously, it gets abit complicated enforcing this online, but i still think it's a good general policy.
I hate this kind of things.
Hate speech only applies if the so called recipient isn't a white male. Anyone else can use all the hate speech they want against them, and it's all legal.
Prevention of crime does not appear to be a valid reason for prosecuting speech unless that speech is intended to create *imminant* lawless action. In other words, suggesting that people should "bury the niggers" is protected while telling people to "bury the niggers" while giving them firearms probably is not. This distinciton is found in Brandenburg v. Ohio which I think is governing precident on the matter.
The idea that one can use censorship to prevent crime in the abstract is not a part of the US system at all. In short the US provides much greater protection to this basic liberty than any other country I have found.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
If I were to say, "Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002." Would that be hateSpeak?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
I think it is messed up that people have these hate sites. I don't think you should hate anyone. But the thing is, everyone should have a right to their opinon. I think it was Voltaire who said something to the effect of, "I disagree with what you say, but I will stake my life to defend your right to say it." I think I butchered that quote.
Free speech laws are unnecessary for those who agree with the government or who never offend. They will always have the right to say whatever they want. If a government claims to provide for a free society "except for" offensive speech, it is a fraud.
Today on CNN I heard Bush saying the following (more or less) to justify the Iraq invasion and continuing occupation:
... in other words no one gave a damn. When Saddam used those weapons to exterminate Kurds in '92, no measures were taken by the US and allies although they had established a huge military presence in the region.
/.er
a) "They were shooting at US airplanes." Note: military aircrafts that were flying over Iraqi airspace and bombing iraqi installations not in the then non-fly zone but over the regular iraqi airspace, e.g baghdat
b) "They had chemical weapons which they used against their enemies". Note: chemical weapons israel or the US gave them to use against Homeini's Iran during there long-term war. Back then Saddam was a friend, the leader of a secular state and Iran was (and still is) the islamic evil state. At least 100 000 civilians and soldiers died from those gases, Iran brought the issue to the UN. A brief investigation was held that concluded chems had been used but they couldn't assay but whom
c) "They had intentions to create WMD". No need to comment.
d) "They were supporting terrorism". Absolutely no tie was found between Saddam and terrorist organizations.
Well this bull... to me qualifies as hate speech because it accuses based on false facts a whole country for something the US itself is responsible for.
Sue CNN/Fox/NY Times and hundrends of other Western media for relaying Bush's hate speeches.
And no I am not an neither an arab, religious fanatic islamist or terrorist. Just an informed
Typical European-style censorship. Every time I read about something like this, or of David Irving being jailed in Austria, I find myself happy I live in the US where I can say rude things about people if I want to.
But the US doesn't have freedom of expression, either. It's illegal for people to wear KKK garb in Virginia, and I think that's wrong. There's also the problem of the prudish attitude towards sexuality in the US.
Not at all, I mean look at where this country is headed.
6 in a row
Humans rights are for everyone
.
.
.
oh except for you, and you, and you.
THE HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED, WHAT A PACK OF LIES!!
prepare for the Canadian law (lawl) to knock down the doors any minute!
I seem to recall the Canadian anti-hate speech laws being used to prohibit fundamentalist christians from saying that they felt the bible said homosexuality was sinful if it was in a public setting.
I think later on that ruling might have been reversed, but there's a fantastic example of a hate speech law supressing free speech and free religion.
"hate speech" is a legally defective concept.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
should be legal, I want to express MY hate against MY race!
People who have no sig are cool
Glad to see there's at least one other person in this thread that actually knows what hate speech is.
Many of you are quick to slam Canada in your haste to pen a self-righteous Libertarian screed. Perhaps you should get a clue about what you're attacking before you make yourselves look foolish.
It does advocate killing all infidels.
And, even more important, it actually incites Muslims to do just that.
It is a feel-good nonsense put in there by politicians who were afraid to look "politically incorrect" and/or suffer the wrath of various vocal Jewish organizations. The main purpose of the law is to give raison d'etre to various self-appointed "protectors" of various minorities and religious groups.
This is one of those things which sets up Liberal Democracies like Canada for criticism from various advocates of personal liberties, with whom, in this case, I must sadly agree.
The only thing I can say in the defense of this is that so far the law has not been abused in any obvious way. But that is not really an excuse.
I'm deliberately posting as AC for a few reasons, but I know a bit of the background here, items that did not come through in the news article:
/or read the web site in question? I did. Scary stuff, and IMO, an abuse of freedom of speach on a scale much larger than yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre.
- the white supremacists in this local area are seen by police and others as being a very real threat to the physical safety of others. Yes, they are capable of real violence. These are not just a group of "good ole boys" funning around, they are quite dangerous, and some of them have criminal records;
- the ISP in question, if memory serves me correctly, was contacted more than once, and warned that the website hosted was adovcating physical violence, and nothing was done by the ISP;
- the ISP could of, IMO, been nailed under the criminal code of Canada for allowing people to voice physical threats against others, but I think the crown used the hate law crimes to really drive the point home;
- although not directly related to this case, the problem with white supremacists in this area goes back over 130 years when the KKK was first formed in this area in the early 1870s. It is possible we have had the Klan here longer in our city than many US cities have. Another example - the last public cross buring by KKK / Neo-Nazies was in the mid 1980s on a private farm just outside city limts, but that gathered so much police attention, they went to ground.
Top sum up, these are very, very scary people. The law who prosecuted the case are NOT, IMO, some socialistic, left wing, do-gooders using hate laws to enfore a social agenda on the country through use of the courts, this is a crackdown on some very disturbed people.
One last thought - how many of you actually saw and
I hate censorship with a passion, but this was something else altogether.
about the Americans, but at least they have a law on the books just to prevent this kind of thing. Now...if we could only get the citizens to uphold it. Evidently they have some trouble understanding what "no law" actually means. The constitution doesn't seperate one kind of speech from the other. We shouldn't either. The amendment says "no law". That's what it means. If they think they need to restrict speech, then they need to amend their constitution and spell it out, not ignore or interpret as they see fit the ones they have.
What?
Do you really want to live in a world where you cant hate things by law?
Whoa -- can everyone slow down for a second and take a look at the facts?
From http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971 358637177&c=Article&cid=1142031016503:
In essence, the /. summary is not telling the whole story. This isn't a case of some corporate ISP where some customer happened to be running a hate site getting fined. In this case the ISP owner was providing the content, and not just hosting it.
Additionally, it wasn;t the ISP that was fined -- it was the people who created the illegal content, one of whom happens to own the web service provider in question.
You can't just start an ISP in order to avoid hate speech laws. The /. summary is highly misleading in this case, so please get off your high-horses and take a look at the facts before starting yet another rant, okay?
Yaz.
That fact should be part of the summary. The whole point of a summary is so you dont have to go read the entire story.
But, regardless of who owns what, one should have a right to speak out. ( yes, i know its not legal up there, but that doesnt make it any less wrong to restrict speech )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Look, I understand where your concerns are coming from, but in this case you're going off the deep end, because the fact of the matter is, the /. summary is wrong.
See http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971 358637177&c=Article&cid=1142031016503. In this case, the person who owns the web hosting service was generating the hate content. In addition, it wasn't the web hosting service which was fined -- it was the owner who was generating and posting the hate content onto his own service.
In other words, you're safe to run an online forum in Canada. If some ass-hat posts something in an attempt to incite hatred towards a group, you're not liable. If, however, you post that hate incitement, you are liable, regardless of the fact that you happen to own the web hosting service you're using.
Clearer? Good.
Yaz.
Speech should be free, but it is in and of itself an action. It needs to be done. Without the action of communication, it remains nothing more than thought within the author's mind. Once the action takes place, it should be up for judgement by society as with any other action. However, since the action is conveyance of intellectual abstraction which is vital to the advancement of human cultural evolution, we give it deference unlike any other action short of religious observance, press which is cousin to the spoken word, and things like this.
Government however is a reflection more than we want to admit of the people who are coming slowly to the quite wrong conclusion that was can somehow simply forbid any action which we think had a high probability of leading to a series of negative consequences. We cannot do this. Some actions are simply not of a sufficiently high risk level to justify infringment of the freedom to commit those actions, and must be allowed to happen and if they lead to negative things, then those actions should be judged and the actor held accountable for their part.
Speech and print above all else should be left to the people to respond to as they will. Simply giving people bad ideas cannot be the only reason for banning the conveyance of those ideas. Otherwise we sooner or later will descend to deciding what ideas are bad for fashion, culture, food, etc. Do we want to criminalize those who espouse the opinion that a good burger is a decent meal because of obesity and heart ailments? Are we to throw in prison those who defend smoking?
People have free will and unless we redefine people as mere animal machines who respond instinctively through pre-programming to anything given to them, we have to recognize their fault in obeying bad ideas. It is one thing to espouse hatred. It is another to choose to act on that through violence and other means. We have to take the chance that people will respond to bad ideas and prove them bad.
If we don't take that chance, we might as well fold up modern civilization and return to living and dying by rocks and sticks.
I'd much rather know which people hate me and my people so that constructive engagement between us to correct our mutual misconceptions of each other and redress our mutual grievances with each other real or imagined than they be silenced so I might not be insulted.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
America's constitution only says that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech". But yet, America clearly has laws against certain types of speech. For example, it's illegal to utter a death threat. Isn't that to "abridge the freedom of speech"? I could quote to you American supreme court decisions where they state that freedom of speech may in certain cases be restricted, but I'm sure you're familiar with those cases already.
Isn't it better to instead state clearly in the constitution (as Sweden does) that speech may indeed in certain cases be restricted? I think it's much more confusing to have wording in the constitution which says that no speech may be restricted, and then have laws which do (and thus clearly violate that part of the constitution), but which people accept because society would not function otherwise.
Also, America has clever ways around its constitution. For example, it's enough to declare that someone is an "enemy combatant", then that person is no longer protected by the constitution (or by any other law), and the American government can do whatever they want to him.
I think this shows pretty clearly that America is inferior in terms of its legal system. Sweden does not jail people indefinitely without trial or torture them. America does.
people hate these protected groups more. So tell me honestly, where you more or less likely to curse the jews or blacks after reading this?
Hate laws are named so well. They are laws that insite hate.
Things simply are different north of the border, and I am quite amazed by how many people on both sides of the border have large misconceptions about the differences.
While many things are quite similar it is a given that in Canada your right and freedoms come at a simple cost, a cost that as a white male Canadian I am happy to bear. The rights and freedoms here are designed so that your safety and that of your fellow man, woman, child come above your freedom to do whatever the hell you want. Canadians have the right to free speach, thought and movement but do not have a right to limit others freedoms to that in order to extend theirs.
Hate crime is not to say that 'I hate you', or 'I hate all of you', etc.. It is to single out a group by race, colour, creed, religion and proceede to expand your freedoms at their expense.
Your rights and freedoms do not alow you to elevate yourself at the expense of anyone else's rights and freedoms. Is this limiting freedom of speech and thought, absolutely. But in Canada these things are a compromise to benefit all, and not just the individual.
While Canadian's and American's are close, we are not the same. Most of us are not interested in becoming the same either, it is not a insult nor better or worse, simply freedom of thought, speech and opinion.
Really? Try posting pictures of your toddler going wee-wee. Try posting instructions on cracking encrypted satellite broadcasts. Post some pictures of your young looking 18 year old girlfriend, claim she's 15, and see how quickly the MIB show up at your door...
Life aboard the US vessel is every bit as draconian - there's just a slightly different social dogma steering the ship.
When I say Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, I at first mistakenly thought they were supportive of basic human rights.
To all the people who are commenting on how this is "just another example of liberal censorship" and how "conservatives and libertarians would never do something like this" and how "omg canada sux0rz teh big one lawl" - you do realize that we've been under a conservative minority government since the sixth of February?
Here's the Canadian Criminal code. Search on "Hate Propaganda". Here's the relevant parts.
Seems pretty clear and reasonable so far. We can't advocate the extermination of any identifiable segment of our population, and we can't incite hatred against a group if, in the authorities judgement, it is likely to cause a "breach of peace". In other words, it recognizes that speech that incites violence does not deserve the same protections as speech that doesn't. Further, the law explictly states a number of defenses against this law. Use any of these and you can incite all the hatred you want.
This, to you, warrants a warning to us poor Canadians to avoid a future where our grandchildren are as free as they would be in Red China?
It's particularly rich coming from an American. Right now you guys are far closer to totalitarianism than Canada will ever be in a hundred thousand lifetimes. You've got the Homeland Gestapo interrogating people due to their choice of T-shirts or library books. You've got a president and attourney general who equate questions and dissent with giving "aid and comfort" to terorrists. You have a labour system where, for voicing your true opinion to your boss, you can lose your children's health coverage.
I think you've got much greater problems to take care of at home before you concern yourself much with us poor Canadians. Don't worry about us, we're living a lot more freely than you.
...that Internet servers, if they are aware...
My server isn't sentient, so I believe I'm safe from this. However, this story implies there are some sentient servers out there, and that humans are bringing litigation against them. No wonder SkyNet went berserk.
>I think that the ruling sends a very strong message that in Canada freedom of speech is not nearly as important as making sure that no one's feelings get hurt.
This particular case wasn't about name-calling or proposals for bad social policy. The legal action was triggered by "several Internet postings, including one calling for attacks on Jewish and Muslim agencies, temples and residences." The article goes on " Some of the material suggested whites use any means possible to ensure the 'white race prevails.'".
If I understand US law, in the US this would be only one or two steps away from "incitement to violence", which the law can interfere with. Incitement is when you stand in front of a Green Drazi's house shouting at a mob of Purple Drazi that they should attack. Unlike the Canadian case, the danger would be immediate and direct.
The actual Canadian law is more restrictive than this case suggest. The "Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team" was advocating violence but could theoretically have been prosecuted just for material "likely to expose people to hatred or contempt based on religion or race". A perfect example would be publishing "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", an anti-Semitic forgery intended to raise and maintain hatred of Jewish people.
Unless you allow all speech, including threatening notes to bank tellers, you have to draw a line somewhere on this spectrum:
Offensive speech (hurt feelings)
--some private institutions draw the line here
Hate speech
--Canada reserves the right to intervene with government force here
Advocacy of violence
--Canada did intervene here
Direct threats
--Illegal in the US
Incitement to riot
--even John Stuart Mill supported the use of force to suppress this.
There is a common kindergarten playground saying we should keep in mind: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
Kindergarden denial is fine for kindergarden, but I remember clearly the first time I made a girl cry (in elementary school) with an innocent comment. I didn't mean to, but I hurt her feelings.
I can take an insult, and I can take a punch. That doesn't mean that words can't hurt, nor that punches can't.
You can't take the sky from me...
The law specifically exempts private speech from the statutes. You can read the actual law in a post of mine later in this thread if you want.
As far as I'm concerned, you can have both Detroit AND the White House back. Would you mind taking Congress while you're at it, too? We would be most obliged. :-)
David
Typical European-style censorship. [...] I think that's wrong. There's also the problem of the prudish attitude towards sexuality in the US.
Ah-AH! There's boobies on regular broadcast TV in canada!
Advantage: Canada.
You can't take the sky from me...
You gave an example of the Canadian government taking action against a Muslim school that advocated violence. This is the only action of the Canadian government that you cited. From this, you conclude that the Canadian government will only prosecute white people under hate laws and they will refuse to prosecute Muslims.
Two questions: Are you on crack? Did you share it with the people who modded you to +5?
For the first time in Canada, an Internet service provider has been found guilty and fined for hosting websites that spread hate messages against blacks, Jews and Muslims.
I'll believe these enforcers of intolerance might even have some claim to fairness after they go after the hate speech on some of the Muslim websites with equal vigor. Yes there's white hate speech, which most of us simply avoid because it's not our cup of tea, but by no means in this world is that the only hate speech easy to locate on the Internet.
I'm waiting...
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Germar Rudolf, Siegfried Verbeke, David Irving. Jewish groups have been and still are trying to get anti-free speech laws past in the US. Without the laws they still go after people to ruin them by any means. Truth hurts them.
This whole post deserves an Insightful+6 moderation.
I particularly love the quote above.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Censorship in itself is considered bad in many ways. This is nothing new to anyone. On the other hand, we build a society based on tolerance. We base a society on right living, accepting different cultures, and fairness to everybody. Discrimination should not be tolerated.
Start with http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/a
To quote: "Section 319(1) [44] of the Criminal Code prohibits the communication of statements made in any public place which incite hatred where such incitements are likely to lead to a breach of the peace."- This is the law- criminal law in fact. Now the person who wrote it is guilty. Lets move on to the hosting provider...
I'd agree with you. The ISP upon seeing objectionable content has a choice to make. That choice is "is this violating any laws within our province/country or the customer's province/country". Then the question is "does this violate our terms of service, acceptable use policy, and so on". If it's not against the law, and doesn't violate the terms (including the ISPs reserved choice to decide what content is on their network), then there is not a problem. If this violated a written law, then this is something that their lawyer should have told them.
This hosting provider runs a system located in Canada, and is distributing content from it, and is hence under Canadian law. Plain and simple, if they are distributing illegal material KNOWINGLY then they are wrong, and should give this attention and remove/disable the material.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
About 97% of the people who have commented on this didn't read the article and/or didn't read the comments and/or made really, really stupid assumptions. You anger me, because your ignorance directly leads to your decision to deride my country. In Canada, we believe that one's rights should not inpinge on another's rights. In Canada, we believe that the notion free speech should not be bastardized to be used as a justification for rallying support to kill groups of people.
Perhaps the ISP was asked to take the content down, but since the ISP owner was the guy who posted the comments, he probably didn't want to!
white supremacist n.
One who believes that white people are racially superior to others and should therefore dominate society. (dictionary.com)
In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality in the forms of freedom from discrimination and from hate. In practise, there is a lot of inequality. Symptomatic of this is the fact that upper/middle class English-speaking white men are far better represented in positions of power and wealth than they are in the general population. Any conflict theorist will tell you that the natural (i.e. unless something is done to prevent it) future of a group in a position of power is in a position of even greater dominance.
This is fuelled in part (to varying implicit or explicit degrees) by people who spread myths that one type of person is inherently superior to another type.
Having such opinions is usually stupid, but not a breach of freedoms. But once you start saying, "hey, let's all come on over to my place and we'll kill some blacks/jews/etc.!" you are posing a serious hazard to society.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
In other words, you're safe to run an online forum in Canada. If some ass-hat posts something in an attempt to incite hatred towards a group, you're not liable. If, however, you post that hate incitement, you are liable, regardless of the fact that you happen to own the web hosting service you're using.
Even so, this is trampling on Freedom of Speech, the fundamental right upon which all others are based.
How about this: "I hate Stephen Harper, and I hope his government goes down in flames like Bush's presidency." Hate speech, quite literally: "I hate...".
So now we have a reason to force Slashdot to remove this posting. And I can't publicly criticize my government. Welcome to this logical extension to government in Canada.
I'm a Howard Stern fan. He's been shut down by this, too. I fear his tenure on Sirius Canada will be limited as a result of this sort of action. Why? 'Cause Stern makes fun of people and makes racial slurs. Note that Stern's racial slurs are about everyone: white, black, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim - no one is safe, especially not Stern's own lineage. (Hook Nose Mike is a frequent caller so named because he begins every conversation with "Good morning Howard, you hook-nosed Jew bastard". A KKK guy used to do movie reviews on the show while Howard (Jewish) and Robin (black) would make fun of him.) Note that this isn't hate speech - it's all in fun and clearly taking jibes at bigotry - and yet it falls under the CBSC's criteria for taking him off the air.
Now, a white supremacist site is clearly hate speech. Fine. And you know what? I hate them at least as much as they hate everyone else, but I will defend to the death their right to say whatever they want - and the right of every intelligent person to dismiss them as the crackpots they are.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
You're either lacking in intelligence or integrity, so I'll go slowly. Read the 1st amendment again, it says Congress shall make no law, it never says say anything you want anywhere. The supreme court actually deciding the details of what speech is unacceptable is part of the systems of checks and balances, something that's sorta a necessary part of a democracy, which Sweden apparently isn't.
A handy reference to extremist speech
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
attention lately. No, you cannot post anything you like in America.
Go ahead and post pictures of naked adult people having sex and don't keep personal records on the people in the pictures. See how well that goes over.
People throwing hate speech newspapers into your yard without your permission violates laws on different levels. Harrassment, littering, etc. Just because you and/or the police haven't done anything about it doesn't mean it's legal.
Sure, they can print it. But they don't have the right to force it onto private property. Nor to litter.
Dan, please think about this kind of crap a little bit more. Tolerance of difference is a great thing, but tolerance of violence is a bad thing. You are doing a bad thing.
Why does censorship exist? Because some people who view the hate content will be affected by it. Eventually incidents where minorities are threated will occur and it will be difficult to stop because many people will share the same sentiment. It starts with jokes, then name-calling, then verbal threats, physical threats, until it spirals out of control. Jokes, name-calling, and verbal threats go unpunished. As a white male, it is difficult to see the effects, because minorities are affected.
Why not cry against legalizing child porn? Show hardcore sex during daytime television? Allow hate groups to start private schools?
There is a line - and I prefer it to be drawn before people have to put up with harassment and discrimination in their lives.
As I browse the responses it seems obvious that almost nobody actually read the article, nor has understanding of what is even going on. I guess it doesn't help that this is yet another /. summary that is poorly written (intentionally???). That and most /. posters are political experts on topics such as freedom of speech and expression.
I can't say this more as a Canadian. Controlling what people think and say is wrong. I may not agree with what a person says but I will defend their right to say it. When governments step in and start outlawing thought it is the slippery slope to a police state.
> Do you have the integrity to educate your self on why our laws are that way, instead of using the knee jerk
> term "draconian anti-speech laws"?
I don't know about the original poster, but I don't give a damn why Canada is a repressive regime, if they have banned classes of speech it is repressive, period full stop. Not that the USA is perfect on that score, we have McCain/Feingold after all.
Listen up folks; Freedom Zero, the one all of the others depend upon is the Right to Be Wrong. Because once one person or group of people manages to declare themselves "Right" and able to decide others are "Wrong" and punish them for thinking incorrectly, none of the other so called "Rights" mean a Goddamned thing except using the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to start shooting the tyrants who believe themselves your master.
Nazi's want to deny the Crimes of their beloved nutjob? Fine, let em rant and we will laugh cruelly at the morons and make sure the facts are out there. The Right to Speech doesn't include a Right to be taken seriously after all. So long as they aren't trying to take over and reestablish the Reich they have the right to be wrong, even the right to be idiots. Personally I think the Moveon/Kos crowd is insane and a far greater menace to our Republican form of government than anything the sad remnants of the Nazi Party is likely to ever be, but if anyone tried to censor either set of crackpots I'd be willing to man the barracades with em because anybody who can censor them will most likely get around to censoring me so it would be better to hang together than seperately.
Democrat delenda est
"Go ahead and post pictures of naked adult people having sex and don't keep personal records on the people in the pictures. See how well that goes over."
Well, of course not...there are laws requiring it.
"People throwing hate speech newspapers into your yard without your permission violates laws on different levels. Harrassment, littering, etc. Just because you and/or the police haven't done anything about it doesn't mean it's legal."
I wasn't saying that they have a protected right to throw trash in my yard. I was saying they have the right to "PRINT" them.
"Dan, please think about this kind of crap a little bit more. Tolerance of difference is a great thing, but tolerance of violence is a bad thing. You are doing a bad thing."
I don't personally tolerate it. However, hate speech and violent speech are different things. The newspaper that has been thrown on my yard a few times wasn't inciting violence as much as it was espousing the white supremisist rhetoric. Further...yes I do think about these things.
Someone with mod points please mod the parent up.
There are benifits to living in a police state. As long as you fit within the social norm most of the freedoms that you wish to exercise are available. However, police states tend to create a homogeneous culture or pro-state backers. Inevitably you end up supressing the radicals that will provide solutions to new emerging challenges; in essence, anything which challenges the status quo becomes taboo. The continual unhindered debate is critical to the evolution of our culture.
Wow ,you got two consecutive posts modded up .Then you really have something to say !
There is no Israel
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
stfu chicken-eating nigger
Let's not get the cart before the horse.
Freedom of speech is not a fundamental human right.
Indeed, freedom of association is the sole fundamental human right.
Freedom of speech can be constructed from freedom of association by the mutually consenting association between people who believe in freedom of speech and therefore practice it within the societies they form.
There is a war to be fought but it is not over freedom of speech--rather it is over the opposition to freedom of likeminded people to form societies with territorial allocation to them within which they are able to live their beliefs without interference or parasitism from others.
Seastead this.
I am a misanthrope and cynic. I hope the whole world goes completely fascist and we have 1000 years of a boot stomping a face. Fuck ALL OF YOU. YOU FUCKING DESERVE THIS AND MORE.
Hitler did not just say, "Gee, I wish all these jews would die." He issued orders. Orders are action. You keep making this spurious difference between speaking privately to people and making "an effort to convince others to hate a visible group you don't like." It's a difference of scale, not character. Freedom of the press is a neccessary part of freedom of speech. Incidentally, slander and libel are civil rather than criminal matters in the US.
When you compare Hitler's orders to exterminate jews to your average not-a-totalitarian-dictator joe, you're comparing apples to oranges. It's not a difference of scale or character, but a difference of control and authority. When Hitler spoke you listened because he was your commander. The circumstances are vastly different.
Free speech in all of its forms - including hate speech - should be equally protected. If someone says "lets all get together and kill group X" in any medium to any number of people, it should be protected as speech. The people who carry it out are the ones who take action. Just because some people aren't smart enough to think for themselves before they do something doesn't mean that all of society should forfeit their rights.
The idea that speech should be limited based on scale is a frightening one. Who gets to draw the lines and where? What about the internet where your potential audience is everyone? No, the idea that your freedom of speech should be scaled by the size of your audience is definitely not a Good Thing(TM).
we do? where?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
cooooorrrrrrk!!!
This is a good prove that canadian goverment are a bunch of pussies. how do you remove the root of a problem caused by hate ? ban hate speech. Yeah, that will surely work. one more reason not to move up there.
The government is supposed to do the will of the people, and as I'm sure you are aware, you can never please all the people all of the time. So you have to deal with the wishes of the majority.
If the majority of people find something offensive, whether it be speech or actions, then the government is bound to their wishes. I think race related crime and descrimination stinks, and I'm fully in support of the government when they try to do something about it.
There seem to be a lot of posters here who think that freedom of speech gives you carte blanche to say, or publish anything you damn well please with no fear of recrimination. Well you obviously have no idea of what society wants or needs. If you allow (for example) Neo -Nazis to organise, hold meetings, publish newspapers, host websites etc, where the sole purpose is to promote hate against other races, then you are sending a message to the public at large that such opinions and attitudes are ok and you can join such an organisation with the blessing of society. Where as I'm sure you agree, nothing could be further from the truth.
We, as a society have certain rules of conduct, that help us to get along with each other without tearing each other to bits. For example, I don't imagine anybody here would say that sex with an 8 year old is acceptable, nor would they tolerate a website devoted to describing someones wishes in that regard, especially if it had pictures.
Imagine if a major game company produced a FPS game where all the enemy were quite distinctly black or asian or $insert_ethnic_group . They would be forced to withdraw it. Would we be seeing an infringment of their "freedom of speech" , or maybe we'd be seeing society saying "No, we don't tolerate shit like that here". The game producers could say "well it's not real, no-one gets hurt in real life", but the impression it would give is that ethnic hate and violence is acceptable - which it isn't. What's going to happen when WoW allows a Nazi guild to exist and go around attacking the openly gay guilds ? Will they be within their rights to close them down ?
I guess I'm saying that I agree with the policy of preventing hate speech being published in an organised fashion. One thing about extremist groups is that they mostly are not grass-roots movements. They exist because the most extreme person decides to attract followers to their cause, and some people in this world need to be led, so they follow any damn idiot, just to feel part of something.
So, the logical thing to do in such cases, is to remove the mouthpiece (the leader) and prevent idiots from being swept along. Every time extremism rears its ugly head, you cut it off. By not doing so, you are saying to the greater population that such activities are ok, and the groups grow in popularity.
I don't care what people do or say in private, but to profess violent extremist views in public is tantamount to a recruitment drive.
Of course the dilemma which most posters are having trouble with here, is that of how far do you allow society (read "the government") to censure such expression ?
I would say that if the government is truly representative of the peoples wishes, then there wouldn't be a problem. If you feel that the government is not serving society as a whole, then use your vote ! Make the government representative, and then you can have no complaints - unless you think democracy is a waste of time, in which case, join your local branch of Nazis uber alles !
"Well, of course not...there are laws requiring it." Which says what, exactly? Is it illegal, or is it illegal to do so without meeting certain arbitrary restrictions unConstitutionally imposed for no good reason (i.e., NOT free speech)? I'm pretty sure you can understand the difference there. "I wasn't saying that they have a protected right to throw trash in my yard." Really? Then did somebody hijack your account earlier and post the following? "I guess these people just go through neighborhoods and litter crap like this...but its still protected as free speach." Nevermind, we'll pretend you didn't imply they have the right to harrass people with their publications. The point is, the current US administration is all about quashing free speech any time it works against their interests. If you haven't been paying attention to THAT, you are part of the problem. Blindly parroting the "it's a free country" redneck patriot line isn't going to score you any points in debate class. Think about what speech is actually free in the US. Don't rely on the Constitution to back you up, since the people who can put you in jail don't have to worry about it being enforced against them.
In a precedent-setting ruling, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has
How can the ruling of a kangaroo court be precedent-setting?
I would like to see just one example for content that's not objectionable in some way.
Does the government control what I say?, what I think? Who's next, the Christians, the Jew, the guys who feel their OS is better then another OS? Taken to its final conclusion anything could be labeled hate speech; even a Linux zealot who runs Linux servers and publishes anti-Microsoft hate material.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Any definition of freedom of speech that doesn't include the right to be offensive is automatically without meaning, because this changes "free speech" from an absolute to censorship by anybody with the political power to call speech "offensive". This year, it's white supremacists who are under the hammer. A decade from now, it might be anyone who opposes white supremacists.
Justifying the prohibition of hate speech on a basis of the "Fire in a crowded theater" or "clear and present danger" doctrines doesn't apply here, unless you believe that Canada is in so much danger of being converted to Nazism that if pro-Nazi statements are tolerated, that Canadians will be setting fire to non-whites by this time next week. You can believe this if you like, but I know a few Canadians, and I don't think you can sell them on this. People I associate with voluntarily tend to be a bit saner than you are.
If you guys want to follow America on the road to a police state, it's your country. Though it rather looks around here like the sheep are at long last waking up. The smart money is betting on the GOP going out of power in the next two elections. It would be ironic if things tightened up in Canada just as they finally start loosening up in America. But... "people always get the kind of local government they deserve". Usually, that's a grim comment on Americans. This time, it's your turn in the barrel. You don't seem to like it.
If you're going to defend the indefensible in public, you should study the Bush Administration PR people while you can, they've had a lot more practice at it than you have.
Your nation collectively stepped in shit on this one. Just because Bush isn't your President doesn't mean that Canada is perfect. Just admit it, suck it up, and deal, and if your country matters to you, try to fix it.
Tech Public Policy stuff
> 'The ruling sends a very strong message that Internet servers,
> if they are aware there is hate content and don't take timely
> action to remove it, can be held liable,
You brought it on yourselves. Live by the socialist, populist sword, die by the socialist, populist sword.
No, seriously. Look yourself hard in the mirror. This means you.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
... For example, hating Christians, or heterosexual men, or any conservative, is okay
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." -- Captain Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie (The Drumhead) Except this doesn't apply here...but whatever. Because the material on the website, hosted by a company, owned by one of the people on the website in question, actually did call for violence pretty much throwing any chance of a "free speech" defense out the window. ^^and that is pretty much all it boils down to. You can say whatever you want in a public forum(granted talking about mostly democratic countries here) aslong as it doesn't incite violence against others, does not include slander, and some otherthings I can't think of right now. Now the fact that this was posted on the internet complicates things slighty but everything still holds true for the most part.
Marc Lemire is another Canadian being attacked under these same strange laws that have the ability to censor and even fine any Canadian citizen who simply posts their opinion on the Internet.
- on-case.html
http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/dec13-05_writeup
Marc is forming a challenge to the constitutionality of these aspects especially Section 13 (1) which covers literally all forms of speech on the Internet or via "a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication,", which includes Intranets and personal networks, even when the communication is not public, nor was ever meant to be public.
The right of freedom of expression is part of Canadian Charter of Rights. However, as been shown in many cases time and time again in Canada, this only seems to include what the government or special interest groups want you to say.
Freedom of thought and the right to freedom of expression are indivisible rights. They apply to everybody without fear or favour, including the holders of unorthodox or unpopular views, or they apply to no-one.
You have been reported to CmdrTaco for abuse of the Slashdot moderation system.
Although they haven't been tested in court (and to my knowledge, no Canadian publication has carried them), I would be willing to bet that some of them would be considered hate material - Mohammed with the bomb in his turban, for example, might be inciting hatred...
The Western Standard carried the cartoons a few months back. The Prime Minister defended their right to publish the cartoons but said that he regretted the decision to do so IIRC.
... that there are idiots who think if you censor and supress enough, you'll have a great world!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Anyone know how Canaduh responds to the Quo'ran inciting "genocidal violence" on web sites? This hate this or love that limitation on speech is bullshit. If you pussies had any balls, you'd go after people that were about to murder your families. But you won't, because there is an actual threat.
All political bs aside, whether people hate you or not is moot. That is the purpose of free speech- to guarantee rights to "those" people. If we all got along, we wouldn't need a law explaining that right. We would all agree and have nothing to say to each other. There is a difference between inciting hate aka "rallying people to your cause" and plotting the death of a group of people. Remove the emotion from your laws. It serves no one. Either they are plotting to kill you or they are not. But saying that you should die cause I hate you is no grounds for interference.
It is a feel-good nonsense put in there by politicians who were afraid to look "politically incorrect" and/or suffer the wrath of various vocal Jewish organizations. The main purpose of the law is to give raison d'etre to various self-appointed "protectors" of various minorities and religious groups.
Doesn't this then by nature conflict with the right to equal protection under the law?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
And as I've already explained at length, the law applies only to specific cases of inciting violence. It has nothing to do with being "offensive". For example, I could freely say that you're a clueless fuckwit who can't read an article with the slightest degree of reading comprehension. But the moment I say you're so god damn stupid that, for the good of the community, we should burn down your house and kill your family, then I'm guilty of "hate speech".
According to you, the fact that I can't distribute literature exhorting your town to kill you and your family is such a greivous breech of liberty that Canadians have put themelves on the path to totalitarianism. I know lynching is a long and proud tradition in the USA, but we don't see it the same way up here. And you accuse me of defending the indefensible?
Justifying the prohibition of hate speech on a basis of the "Fire in a crowded theater" or "clear and present danger" doctrines doesn't apply here, unless you believe that Canada is in so much danger of being converted to Nazism that if pro-Nazi statements are tolerated, that Canadians will be setting fire to non-whites by this time next week. You can believe this if you like, but I know a few Canadians, and I don't think you can sell them on this. People I associate with voluntarily tend to be a bit saner than you are.
Gee, where to start with this statement. Such a rich vein of willful ignorance and unwarranted attacks. Let's start with the fact that nothing in this law has anything to do with making "pro-Nazi" statements. Maybe you're confusing Canada with Germany. You can make all the pro-Nazi statements you want here. March in your parade, wear your armband, seig heil. But as soon as you start saying that we need to finish what Hitler started with the Jews, you're guilty of hate speech. If you honestly can't see the distinction here you're even dumber than I thought.
Second, the threshold of action is far, far lower than the entire nation converting to Nazism. If you and your family are burned to death after I whipped up a mob to kill you all, then the consequences for you are far greater than they would have been if the nation did indeed convert to Nazism. And these consequences are what we're trying to avoid. I know, I know, it's that weird, foreign, giving-a-shit-about-your-own-citizens thing that so many Americans find difficult to understand.
Next time you want to slag another country's laws, maybe you should actually have some awareness of what those laws are. Especially when a citizen of that country has already explained those laws at length, with citations, in terms a ten year old could understand.
Because if you don't do these things, you'll look like just another xenophobic, ignorant, irrational American. You don't want that, do you?
Hi, I am posting again. The message I published yesterday is no longer visible (or was deleted from) this thread. It seems Slashdot is a censor. Perhaps someone hated what I had to say.
So, would you feel comfortable with someone going around saying something like this:
Maybe its a good thing he doesn't have the money right now to buy bullets ...
BTW - if you follow the linky http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/130969, where I've outlined what's going on, and links to other posts by this person, you'll see he believes "immoral sex" includes any sex when you're not trying to make a baby. So, anyone who's engaged in a "blow-job" or "carpet-munching" is fair game, as is anyone who's used any form of birth control. Talk about being "more Catholic than the Pope" ...
So, would you want such a nutcase to enter your country? Would you want them living down the steet from you? Or maybe someone should be able to say "hey, we have reasonable limits to what you can say and do, and this is way over the line", and make sure that those around him aren't in danger?
Free speech isn't a license to promote hatred or incite others by example.
It conflicts with common sense too, I am afraid. The main problem with "Hate Speech Laws" is that they are pretty much arbitrary, and could, in theory, be used to muzzle any criticism of certain groups, regardless of its validity. Such laws could, in theory, be perverted to allow such groups to conduct activities not allowed to the rest of us "mere mortals" coupled with punishment of anyone who complains. I am not aware of cases of this happening in Canada, but there is always a great possiblity of absue present in this, while at the same time the laws are offering a rather questionable and empirically unproven gain.
In with all of the kneejerk babble throughout this thread, there are some decent points, among which are that, for all our flaws, the U.S. still provides the best protection for freedom of speech in the world.
I think this episode provides a prime example of why main control of the root servers should remain with the U.S. Imagine what Canadian (or German or French) courts might consider doing if the Internet root servers were under their jurisdiction.
Speech is only free if you can say it *despite* whether or not it offends someone else. Canada has shown that she will pick and choose what type of speech is permitted by the government, the very antithesis of the concept of "free speech." Note that nothing in "free speech" obligates anyone else to listen to you.
There is a strong disconnect in America between what is stated and reality. America proclaims itself as the world leader in democracy and human rights. But as has been so clearly demonstrated in the last couple of years, its actions are on the level of many dictatorships, such as Egypt. I think your attitude is very unhealthy and it's certainly not helping your country.
Why is the United States one of the few countries that don't sentence people to jail for saying the Holocaust didn't exist? We've got Austria jailing someone for what he said in 1989. Anyway this person says it best.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
if Kill $group posts are illegal, what about hypothetical Kill $group posts?
...
ie
IF $Q THEN Kill $GROUP
If the americans invade, then kill all the invading americans.
is this post illegal?
What about posts that talk about posts that say "Kill $GROUP"? Wouldn't that make your post illegal? I mean they tend to include "Kill $GROUP" don't they?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
I for one don't think that the framers intended for free speech to include libel, slander, and the ability to order others to commit crimes. That certain forms of press activity are able to be regulated when copyright is at stake is further shown in Article 1, Section 8 in the copyright clause. So I don't think the Framers expected that these rights would be literally absolute.
However, hate speech laws violate the principle of the freedom of expression by necessarily removing certain ideas from the public forum. In the US, all *ideas* are granted a public forum. Furthermore hate speech laws, as I have articulated, necessarily violate the equal protection principles under which a free society must be based (unless one thinks that some groups ought to be more equal than others). Yet Equal Protection was not guaranteed under our Constitution until the late 19th Century.
What I have articulated is the legal standard as the Supreme Court has articulated it. However to go from there to say that we don't have some problems with this freedom is not a leap I am willing to make. Since 1997 (under Clinton, no less) there has been an attempt to criminalize pure speech and association in the name of fighting terror. The application of these laws in ways which conflict with Brandenburg and other cases have not yet reached appeals court level review as in general juries have sided with defendants in these cases. I am hopeful but not entirely without doubt that the Brandenburg standard will be upheld and that activities like voicing support for Hamas and providing hyperlinks to Hamas supporting web sites will be upheld as legal and protected (in the trial case on this theory, the jury refused to confict).
So, yes, we have problems. Presidents under both parties and the Congress over nearly a decade have been attacking our fundamental Constitutional freedoms as I have laid them out in my posts. The chilling effect that this is having in the Muslim community (of which I am not a member) is something I am very worried about. After all if the Muslims can be legally targetted, any of the rest of us can too.
But part of my response has to be to help demonstrate to people where the Court has drawn this line, that other Americans may be more aware of our freedoms that are under attack. Since 9/11 there has been a greater awareness of how our rights are being threatened by an overreaching government, and for that I am thankful.
There is a struggle in my great republic to preserve our civil rights. And these posts are honestly part of that struggle.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that distributing printed material denying the holocaust is protected, so there is at least *some* protection for freedom of expression. (The 1992 case involving Earnst Zundel.) Thus it may be the case that suggesting that the holocaust never happened or was invented by German dissodents as an abstract idea might not be illegal in Canada in the absence of other hate speech. But IANAL and IANAC.
Canada seems to be where the US was in the 1930's in this matter where words that have bad tendencies can be regulated by the legislature. This is what lead us to McCarthyism and I sincerely hope that we (the US) have learned this and maybe Canada will to though hopefully not through the harsh lessons we did.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Should'nt be a problem for the defense. Plenty in the big book that is clear as mud. I suggest the book of Hebrews (which is full of war and killing) for a suitable verse.
Don't your courts have anything important to do with their time?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
the law from the Bush Administration.
The Supreme Court has said that the detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere are entitled to all the rights of legal review that any prisoner of war is entitled to. The Bush administration has not been cooperative.
The Supreme Court has not yet reviewed the case of Padilla as properly brought before the court. This is expected soon, however. To my knowledge the court has not decided whether to grant certerori on this case. The 4th circuit however has taken a rare stance in preventing the Administration from initiating a trial against Padilla on the grounds that the case is important enough to demand Supreme Court review as it currently stands.
In short, it is by no means legal to detain people indefinitely or torture them. But finding enough evidence to convict the administration of such crimes is difficult given our system of innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, the Bush Administration is *very dangerous.* But that does not mean that we don't have broad legally recognized rights that have been upheld time and time again by the Supreme Court.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
If you can write it in a book you can write it on line. If not we can all turn off our computers now Free speech applies to those things you don't want, the most. Else what you do want will be banned tomorrow. Get a clue you dumb as a rock people. And yes I hate niggers spicks and jews japs cops judges lawyers fags. And I am greater than you.
The problem is, there are some universal truths. Hate based on race is universally accepted to be wrong.
You might say, what about fat people? Or political affiliation?
Well basically you can change your thinking, or your waist-belt. Your kids can be gay or your uncle and so forth.
But you can't change your race. Your parents can't change their race. And neither can your kids.
The hater will possibly have to deal with people they know being gay, fat, or a change of philosophy - but they will never have to deal with another race if they don't want to.
That's the difference.
The 'freedom to speak responsibly' you advocate simply means it's OK to say things your government won't object to. Even the Chinese and North Koreans have that kind of "freedom of speech".
In any case, what you consider to be your right to publically agree with your government is guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an Act of Parliament... and therefore subject to change with the weather. A 9/11 style incident in Canada, your nation's imitation of the disastrous experiment with multiculturalism that has failed the EU finally catching up with Canada... any number of things. Should this happen, I confidently predict you'll be among the first to call for a watered down replacement for the law that 'guarantees' your rights.
Anybody who believes that their government will remain benign forever is taking the wrong end of a sucker bet.
You Canadians have been asserting your moral superiority over Americans and quite a few other nations for quite some time. Now that we are judging you by the standards you say that you deserve to be judged by, you're trying whining and spin control.
While there are a fair number of Canadians I respect, you aren't one of them because you don't deserve respect. You're just a Limbot who happens to live on the wrong side of the border.
Tech Public Policy stuff
is that I have told you time and time again where this line is drawn. The laws are usually in the area of criminal syndication law (i.e. organized crime) and the idea is that what may appear to be pure speech cannot be used to direct lawless action.
In other words, if I tell you "Go kill my wife-- here is a gun," that is patently illegal. But if I say "Someone should kill all the Neocons/Jews/Arabs/etc." that is protected in the absence of any attempt by me to actually make this happen.
So in terms of criminal law, basically you have the issue of criminal syndication-- the idea that a mob boss who orders a murder criminally bears responsibility for the crime. Similarly inciting a riot may be a crime.
There is also the area of defamation law (slander and libel) where the deliberate spread of falsehood for the purpose of damage to another party is a matter of civil liability. Note that the party must be a legal entity. It is impossible to libel the Jews as a group-- though one might be able to libel the ADL. Again, this is a matter of deliberate harm to a specific entity.
However, I don't think that the Framers intended freedom of speech to protect libel, slander, copyright infringement (which is also provided for in the Constitution), and the direction of organized crime.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I don't think many consider it to be hateful. The problem is when you spin the argument into being something that is against common values it becomes difficult to argue against. Most things we label as "racist" don't advocate genocide, segregation, and are mostly not hatefilled. Sure, there are some radicals out there, but they make up the minority.
Racial profilling for instance is something which is debatable. If blacks statistically cause more crime, is it right for law enforcement officials to pay more a little more attention to blacks than whites? It's almost become taboo to even suggest that it may help reduce crime.
How about that Harvard professor that brought up the controversial debate of whether or not women are less adept than men at the Sciences. He was basically labeled as a misogynist and the debate was silenced virtually overnight.
Determing what is wrong and what is right is -- needless to say -- very subjective. We don't live in a world of absolute truth. Not everyone has the same moral compass.
The Pope is a genocidal war monger. He bans birth control. This leads to population pressure. Countries find that they need leibensraum or 'living room'. This leads to war and genocide. A man may be presumed to intend the reasonably forseeable consequences of his actions, hence the Pope promotes genocide.
OK i'm stretching things alot, but promotion is a very flexible weasel word, not one to use in a law that needs to be clear. 318 could be stretched to have an unreasonably wide scope.
A more subtle question is why is a section that forbids the advocation of genocide not simply titled Advocation of Genocide? Some-one is playing a little game with language. What are they up to?
Suppose that the criminal code contains a section titled Advocation of Genocide. Suppose that a politician wishes to widen the scope of the offense to a more general notion of Hate Propaganda. It is a little awkward politically. People will notice that there is a slippery slope and that Canada seems to be sliding down it.
Suppose instead that the section is already titled Hate Propaganda. Then the change can be spun as a technical change, amending the wording of the definition. The argument that outlawing the advocation of genocide is wise, but that further restrictions on speech go too far, is harder to get across when the law already uses the term Hate Propaganda even if the current definition is a narrow one.
So I am not at all impressed that the current definition of Hate Propaganda is narrowly drawn. Why use such a vague term at all unless one is planning to widen the definition later, once people have got used to the idea?
How about:
m pt/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/06/reporters.conte
What, you don't care about integrity of the press, but do care about some genocide advocate getting arrested? You're just an idiot that believes everything his government tells him.
I am happy to advocate "-1 Troll" for your posting, however.
See, you can't even recognize reasoned debate when it bites you in the ass.
Sorry, but Canadians by-and-large don't believe in capital punishment. It's not legal here.
That's exactly the point. The example is tantamount to "death to pedophiles" ("genocide" (ooops, weasel word) for an "identifiable group" ("sexual orientation" (even less rigorously defined than "race")).
Does that meet the standard for "hate speech"?
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Just because America is being dangerously stupid doesn't mean that Canada should immediately follow its example.
Tech Public Policy stuff
"Hurt feelings" are not a real injury. She suffered no physical damage. She suffered no financial harm.
The only reason she cried was because she allowed herself to do so. She could have stopped crying instantly, at her whim. She could have even prevented the issue in the first place by just not crying at all.
Somebody with a broken arm, for instance, cannot immediately fix it, nor can they always stop somebody else from breaking it in the first place. The same goes for financial loss, for instance. Those are incidents in which people are actually hurt. A girl crying because you said something mean is not a case of a real injury or of real harm.
As we see, the adage still stands: "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me."
Even if somebody cries or has "hurt feelings", they are not truly harmed or injured in any way.