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."
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.
It would make it rediculously easy to shut down a forum you have a problem with. Just flood the forum with trash constantly.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
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.
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!
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.
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
Nope. Slashdot is in the US, which doesn't have the draconian anti-speech laws that Canada does.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
And this makes them immune to criticism? Canadians are always sniping at us about things like our "lax" gun laws and non-governmental health care, so we get to do the same. Or would that be more "hate speech" as far as Canadians are concerned?
How is arguing a position the same as hate speech? If someone believes the Holcaust never happened, why can't they make that argument, show their facts, and show their logic.
What is better of the following 2 choices?
What is next? Will the people who wrote The Bell Curve go to jail for expressing ideas that most people disagree with? Will Rush Limbaugh be sentanced to prision for saying he thinks a black QB is given more chances to succeed than a white one?
There is a HUGE difference between expressing an idea and motivating other people to violence. There is a difference between writing "Black people unfairly steal admissions seats at the University of Michigan Law School" on the internet, and going to the University of Michigan and giving a speech in front of a mob to incite them to violence.
What will happen, if we let those with $$ decide what is true and false, is that anything they disagree with will become off-limits for debate.
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 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.
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.
And to paraphrase what's been so well said, so many times...the speech most in need of protection is precisely that speech which most members of society would find the most offensive.
When will we learn?
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
silencing minority viewpoints with which you do not agree: now there's an agenda many hate speakers will support.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
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.
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
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.
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.
IANAL, but I disagree with you.
There was a time when the Holmes test which allowed for very limited freedom of expression was the governing precident. It suggested that Congress had the right to regulate various "bad tendencies" and that speech which furthered these tendencies could be criminalized. Later a similar test was used to allow the Communist Party to be subject to criminal and civil prosecution based on the abstract teaching of the moral obligation to overthrow the current government at some indefinite point in the future. These have been largely overruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
So until fairly recently, we did not have the broad freedom of expression that we have today and the 1st Amendment was much more narrowly interpreted not that long ago.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
Yes, in fact it does.
;)
If you're interested, you can go to Reverend Phelps' screed on Canada Here
He's not too happy with Canada because he was told not to come here preaching hate and advocating violence against gay people and the people who allow them basic human rights.
The problem is that we hold in our charter that harming someone is not just confined to physical harm - you can harm me and my society by just your speech. The U.S.A does not agree with this concept, and there you can say pretty much what you want as long as you don't physically attack someone.
I happen to agree more with the thought here, that by advocating hate and violence - as Phelps and others do - you can cause more hurt than just with physical violence, and should be limited. So it's regulated to a certain extent, and if you step over the line, you can be held responsible and told to stop, fined, or sent to jail. Or, in the case of Ernst Jundel, deported.
Because some speech is allowed, and some is not, it's not as easy to define when you've stepped over it as in some jurisdictions who say, "verbal attacks are always allowed, and physical attacks are never allowed", but it is defined, and while it's pretty much up to a judge to decide when you have gone too far, we have a good system of reviews with courts of appeal that I haven't yet seen a specific case where it ended up that I didn't agree with the result.
Our courts are pretty good at deciding these things, which helps. You can say what you want about our non-elected judiciary system, but we don't have too many idealogues in the hot seats. Different strokes I suppose...
If it came down to a case where courts or parliament were overstepping their bounds, there would probably be some polite concern expressed by the people of Canada, and things would change... That's the way we do things here
- ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
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.
What's the difference? It's still non-invasive free speech being quashed.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
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.
The only thing that is really censored is hate speech (including Holcaust denial).
First off, one man's "hate speech" might be another man's social commentary. This is particularly true in the case of unflattering statistics about certain ethnic groups.
Second, the level of freedom of speech in a given society has to be measured by the ability to say the most unpopular things you can think of. Societies don't censor people's ability to say "I like flowers."
Third, it is important to let people with stupid ideas actually proclaim them in public so that they might be corrected in their errors. Let both sides have their say and let the free market of ideas decide.
Fourth, by banning "hate speech" you are putting in place the mechanism for yet another holocaust. Part of the reason Hilter was so successful in his campaign was his ability to suppress information. All one has to do is redefine "hate speech" to mean "anything dangerous to those currently in power. Now they can censor their opponents as hateful "anti-canadians".
Life is too short to proofread.
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 ----
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.
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.
After a short while I decided that it was pretty counter productive. The nazis wanted to be booted off Usenet so they could whine 'censorship'. Thats why Irving went to Austria, he wanted to be made a martyr, at least up to the point he went to prison when I think he got buyers remorse.
I did a piece on this on my blog if folk are interested in the origins of all this. The punchline being that censoring the net.nazis is like feeding trolls.
The modern holocaust denial movement only got started after the Canadians went after Zundel and Irving brought out 'hitler's war'. Most of the 'documents' that have circulated since were produced (i.e. fabricated) for that trial.
I don't think that any but the rawest, most naive recruits beleive a word of the holocaust denial crap, they love Hitler precisely because they know it is all true. The whole point in promoting it is to get censored.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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...
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."
Sigh...
Canada does have protections in the realm of freedom of speech -- it's called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it explicitly states:
(Ref: http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/).
Freedom of opinion and expression is one thing. You can hold the opinion that ${IDENTIFIABLE_GROUP} smells bad, looks ugly, and is the bane of all of society if you want to. You can even express this feeling.
what you can't do is incite others to genocide or hatred against an identifiable group (ref: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/181181.html#rid- 181219). And there are a number of specifically assigned defences right in the Criminal Code which exempt you from any form of punishment for said speech.
We're not talking about reasoned debate here. Reasoned debate is fine. Spreading hate speech in private is also fine. But you can't stand up in a public forum and advocate that the townsfolks take up pitchforks and kill every member of ${IDENTIFIABLE_GROUP} they can find.
You really think the US is that much different? Tell you what -- you start a website advocating your fellow Americans to go and kill George W. Bush. Set up an online forum where you start discussing exactly how you are going to go about it. Excercise your free speech to the limit. And then time how long it is before Homeland Security and the FBI are bashing down your door and taking your computer equipment away.
Perhaps the protection of minorities makes you think that Canada is lacking in freedom of speech. Whatever. Want to know what else Canada lacks? Race riots. Crosses being burned on people lawns. Lynchings. People being denied their democratic right to vote based on the colour of their skin.
In closing, you can say whatever damned stupid thing you want here in Canada -- but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences when you decide to start preaching hatered, and try to incite hatred between communities. Absolutely nothing good has ever come of allowing hatred to spread and flourish.
Yaz.
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!
Just because it contains the words "I hate" doesn't mean it conforms to the legal defininition of "hate speech".
Indeed, the entire section of the Criminal Code pertaining to these limits is called "Hate Propaganda". Let's take a look at what the act defines "hate propaganda" as:
As you're not attempting to incite genocide against an identifiable group, your statement doesn't rise to the status of "hate propaganda".
That's a nice straw man you've built up there. Mind if I borrow him for my garden?
There is no logic to your position at all, because you've based your argument on a fallacy: your statement doesn't rise to the legal requirements for hate propaganda as set out in the act (not for the least of which because you didn't direct it at an identifiable group, where (quote) "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.).
I've linked to the revelant section in the Criminal Code of Canada several times in this article. The section on Hate Propaganda isn't long -- take five or ten minutes to read it over before you go off half-cocked about "freedom" and "the government".
Yaz.
Umm no it doesn't.
What are you saying, that folks only have a right to speak as long as they don't own an ISP? Huh?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Where do those things happen? Please tell me that you don't think they are common in the US...
Throw the bums out!
Under the Canadian law it does.
What are you saying, that folks only have a right to speak as long as they don't own an ISP? Huh?
Again, it changes the message from "some random ISP is being held accountable for some random user's website" to "the people who operated the website are held accountible", under existing Canadian law.
If the law is "just" is a completely different discussion.
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.
Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
> '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.
So, would you feel comfortable with someone going around saying something like this
Nope.
So, would you want such a nutcase to enter your country? Would you want them living down the steet from you?
Nope, and nope.
Free speech isn't a license to promote hatred
Well, see, the thing is, you're just plain wrong here.
Free speech is the license to promote any damn thing you want to, no matter how repugnant someone else finds it.
Anyone who uses this right to promote hatred is a repulsive person who deserves to be ostracized from polite society, to be sure.
But to prevent someone from expressing a point of view -- no matter how disgusting -- is to bring thoughtcrime into the legal canon.
Because as soon as you start shutting people up because you don't like what they say is the moment someone else can shut you up because they don't like what you say. This is an issue regarding the free exchange of ideas, even if those ideas are things you don't want to hear (especially if those ideas are things you don't want to hear!)
Now, there are certainly examples where you can "incite" others to do harm in ways that are not protected by free speech (a lynch mob comes to mind). In that case, it is not just the speech, but also the circumstances that make the action illegal. On the Internet, we should be extremely wary of ever claiming that certain speech is illegal because usually the circumstances that would make it illegal (as with a lynch mob) simply do not exist. In particular:
But, as is it with yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, the lynch mob is the edge case. Unless you wish to repeat history where certain groups are oppressed because of their beliefs (and the oppression comes in the form of making it illegal for them to express those beliefs), we should fight tooth and nail to keep Free Speech pure.
Further, I think we agree that causing harm to people is not beneficial to society. In that case, let us make it illegal to cause the harm, rather than speak about causing the harm. I find that we like to muddle the issue by tracing back too far in what we would like to think the causality was. There are people that want to outlaw Doom because the kids who slaughtered other students at Columbine played the game. We would love to go out and find that the vehement racist who killed people of the race he despised did so because he read some website that "incited his hatred", when in fact we should probably just make the killing of the people illegal, and allow they guy who wrote the website to speak his mind.
I find it disconcerting that you went out of your way to address the substance of what GP was saying:
That is all totally irrelevant. If you truly had faith that his ideas were so absurd, then surly you wouldn't feel so threatened by them, would you? Let him speak as he sees fit - I am a better person for hearing his thoughts and knowing that there are people out there that feel the way he feels. If we feel somehow so threatened by someone's speech on the Internet that we feel he or she should not be able to express themselves, we should question our own motives before going after the person expressing ideas we don't agree with.Open exchange of ideas is what makes the United States (I realize this occurred in Canada) different than many other countries (China and North Korea come to mind). It is our most valuable asset, and it's logical extension lies in the democratic system itself, where everyone (is supposed to) have a voice if they so desire. We need to remember these ideals and constantly work towards them, recognizing that we may never get there.
I asked when speech hurt someone, and you brought up the President, whose speech fired bullets or something. I asked if your example of hurtful speech was prohibited under Canadian law, thus helping to justify your defense of hate speech laws. Then you accused me of trying to confuse the issues.
I'll repeat my question: Would you rather have ideas and beliefs where a law would prohibit you from speaking those ideas out loud, or hear something digusting and offensive once in a while?
I think it gets right to the heart of the issue, because it's exactly the trade-off that has to be made. In the United States, not a perfect country by any means, I can express any idea that I want to. The price I pay for that is that I have to hear about shitsacks like David Duke and his worthless ilk. In Canada, You rest assured that egregious hate speech will be prosecuted, but expressing ideas that can be construed as inciting hatred toward people from the US can attract the possibility of prosecution by a dispassionate reading of the law, and people who hold these views might be less inclined to express themselves in a public forum.