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!
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
" i feel race X is immoral and they should answer for their crimes, but im not advocating any action" hows that?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
hate crime laws = thought crime laws = Against the constuitions 1st amendment but pushed by the left to silance disent the idea you punish people for hating someobody implies you can try somebody for thinking what they want to think
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."
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.
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.
> 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.
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
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?!
In a precedent-setting ruling, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has
How can the ruling of a kangaroo court be precedent-setting?
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.
"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.
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?
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.
We try to take a reasonable approach up here. You're free to think whatever you want. You can also say pretty much whatever you want in private. What you can't do is publish it all over the place (and the internet is a public, not private, medium) in an attempt to either cause harm, intimidate, or offend vulnerable groups, or incite others to do the same.
Its a logical extension of the law. If your public speech can be shown to be harmful to a certain group, and it is motivated by hatred, then you are attempting to harm someone, and should be stopped. Same as libel and slander. Same as any other tort.
That the harm is done by word instead of any other deed is immaterial. The act was done with the intent is to harm someone else, rather than for a constructive or neutral purpose.
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.
Can you tell me a specific incident when speech hurt someone?
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.
Gee, just look at all the speeches used to sell a quick and clean war in Iraq to the US public - "6 months duration, tops" " WMDs ", "nuk-you-leer (sic) war", "axis of evil".
Hurt? Well, thousands dead, a huge and ever-growing deficit that has forced the govt to raid everyone's pension plans and short-change education, including the "No Child Left Behind" program, ...
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.
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.
Our laws recognize that not all situations are black and white. That's why our Constitution is different form yours. A good example - the statement that "All men are created equal". A second's thought shows this isn't true, and that any laws based on this fundamentally flawed assumption are also potentially flawed.
We, on the other hand, state that everyone is equal in and before the law. Everyone has the same rights, but not everyone brings the same abilities, characteristics, strengths and weaknesses to the table.
Its a compromise position, and we try to keep the compromises reasonable.
However, you do not have free speech in the United States. Try going up to someone and saying that you're going to kill them. Try sending an email to the white house with a death threat. Try putting a notice in the local paper saying you are looking for people to help you plant bombs and overthrow the government. Try posting kiddie pr0n on the net under the guise of "free speech".
None of these are "protected speech" in either country. We're all in this together, no matter which side of the border we're on.
As for addressing the substance - concrete examples are much better than a bunch of hand-waving over the ususal hypothetical "what-if" that usually passes as "informed discussion" on the net.
As a practical example of just how free our speech and actions are - in Canada, you CAN legally plot to break up the country, as long as its by peaceful means, such as elections. We have several political parties that advocate this, and one of them was the official opposition for a time. Their elected members get their salaries, offices, and research resources paid by the federal government, same as all other elected officials. Now THAT's "putting your money where yur mouth is" in regards to free speech.
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.
So then would speaking about Iraq's weapons capabilities be prohibited under the Canadian laws?
Q: What does what you asked:
A: Nothing. Nice try to confuse the issues, though.
I'll be clear. I disagree with laws prohibiting hate speech, such as those in Canada, on principle. Speech has never injured anyone. There isn't a fine line between thought and speech, and there isn't a fine line between private and publc speech. There is no line at all. I recognize that words have tremendous power, but they do not themselves have the capacity to inflict harm. The President, in selling the Iraq War to the American public, used speech, in conjuction with the power of his office, to mislead much of the country. The American press did not give a platform to a significant number of people who disagreed with the war and could articulate it well. Within certain limits, the President has immunity from prosecution related to the execution of his office. When I asked for an example of speech hurting someone, I was looking for an example that would justify having in place a law declaring certain ideas to be unacceptable.
Seems that a lot of people who are defending "fee speech" aren't looking at the cost - it isn't free, not when other people have to pay the price because some a**hole is going around promoting people to discriminate against them, or attack them physically.
Thanks for playing, but I doubt you're capable of beating anybody ...
Besides, Canada is a country where everyone is a member of at least 1 minority group. That's right, everyone. We see things differently because of that.
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
Maybe, but in that case I'm a HAPPY douche-bag.
And Canada is doing a LOT better than the US in terms of freedom:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15333
First of all, don't accuse me of changing the subject on you, when you keep bringing up other issues. I'm talking about hate speech. I'm not talking about pornography, gun ownership, or anything else.
What is the difference between public and private speech? If I stand on a street corner yelling about the Jews and how they're evil, is it public, even if only two people hear it? If I have a large dinner party with 50 guests and say the same thing, is it private? What if I hold a large event in a venue I own and give a speech about the Jews being evil? If all the people there were invited by me, they are my private guests on my private property listening to my private speech, even if there are 1,000 of them.
I think it's clear at least that there are situations where the distinction between public and private is not cut and dried. You may disagree.
The law also treats the internet as a soapbox rather than a library. My writing on a webpage is viewed as if I had spoken those words into a megaphone in the town square, rather than making a newsletter or something similar available if someone chooses to seek it out. The internet is a public forum, but no one has to look at every website.
To draw a legal line between thought and speech is to say that you have the right think anything you want, you just can't say it out loud, even if there's no one there.
Simply on a personal level, would you rather have an idea and not be allowed to express it, or hear something offensive every once in a while? Because I never want to face prosecution for expressing something I believe.
The government's relationship to the people is the relationship between a horse and rider. This can and must be a mutual relationship. So there is an important reason for the government to properly care for the people and vice versa.
However, where the court simply does the will of the majority, then you have the ability to run roughshod over the rights of minorities, then you have a problem. For example, in Boston in 1658, you see the following law written which banishes Quakers on pain of death from the city on the mere basis of religious belief *or defense of the beliefs of the Quakers (surely such a law though it might be democratic is inconsistant with the notion of a free society):*
Whereas there is a pernicious sect, (commonly called Quakers.) lately risen, who by word and writing have published and maintained many dangerous and horrid tenets, and do take upon them to change and alter the received laudable customs of our nation, in giving civil respect to equals, or reverence to superiors, whose actions tend to undermine the civil government, and also to destroy the order of the churches, by denying all established forms of worship, and by withdrawing from orderly church-fellowship, allowed and approved by all orthodox professors of the Truth, and instead thereof, and in opposition thereunto, frequently meeting themselves, insinuating themselves into the minds of the simple, or such as are least affected to the order and government of church and commonwealth, hereby divers of our inhabitants have been infected, notwithstanding all former laws, made upon tile experience of their arrogant and bold obtrusions, to disseminate their principles among us, prohibiting their coming in this jurisdiction, they have not been deterred from their impetuous attempts to undermine our peace, and hazard our ruin.
For prevention thereof, this court doth order and enact, that every person, or persons, of the cursed sect of the Quakers, who is not all inhabitant of, but is found within this jurisdiction, shall be apprehended without warrant, where no magistrate is at hand, by any constable, commissioner, or select man, and conveyed from constable to constable, to the next magistrate, who shall commit the said person to close prison, there to remain, without bail, unto the next court of assistants, where ~bey shall have a legal trial: and being convicted to be of the sect of the Quakers, shall be sentenced to be banished upon pain of death: and that every inhabitant of this jurisdiction, being convicted to be of the aforesaid sect, either by taking up, publishing, or defending the horrid opinions of the Quakers, or the stirring up mutiny, sedition, or rebellion against the government, or by taking up their absurd and destructive practices, viz. Denying civil respect to equals and superiors, and withdrawing from our church assemblies, and instead thereof frequent meetings of their own, in opposition to our church order; or by adhering to, or approving of any known Quaker, and the tenets and practices of the Quakers, that are opposite to the orthodox received opinions of the godly, and endeavouring to disaffect others to civil government, and church orders, or condemning the practice and proceedings of this court against the Quakers, manifesting thereby their complying with those, whose design is to overthrow the order established in church and state, every such person, upon conviction before the said court of assistants, in manner as aforesaid, shall be committed to close prison for one month, and then, unless they choose voluntarily to depart this jurisdiction, shall give bond for their good behaviour, and appear at the next court, where continuing obstinate, and refusing to retract and reform the aforesaid opinions, they shall be sentenced to banishment upon pain of death; and any one magistrate, upon information given him of any such person, shall cause him to be apprehended, and shall commit any such person to prison, according to his discretion, until he come to trial, as aforesaid.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
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.
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
You accused me of changing the topic, after I provided you with a concrete example of speech that caused harm (which is EXACTLY what you requested). That it was a bunch of lies by YOUR president is not "changing the topic" - it was a concrete example of speech, in this case intentinal lies by your president, designed to play on people's fears and paranoia, that caused harm, loss of life, etc.
If you don't like the fact that the example hits too close to home, don't complain to me - do the right thing by supporting the impeachment of your president, while you still can.
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
My original intent was to see if you think Canadian hate speech laws prevent injury to persons or groups. Do you have an example of speech that, would have harmed people, had it not been prevented by the law? Or speech that would have fallen under the hate speech laws had it taken place in Canada that proved to be harmful?
And, I repeat my question: Is it tolerable to have the expression of one of your beliefs prohibited, in order not to hear or read something you find offensive?
To clarify things, lets make a clear example:
"The Americans are clearly responsible of millions of deaths in Iraq first through sanctions and later through military action. They are also indirectly responsible for many many deaths and crimes against humanity perpetuated by those they arm in the West Bank and Gaza. They ought to pay a very heavy price for their crimes against humanity! We will bury the Americans!"
Ought this statement to be illegal? Note that there is some ambiguity in the statement and it could be seen as calling for revenge against the Americans. One might even interpret it as calling for genocide. Or it might just be a statement of surviving even after the US has faded from the history books. But who decides?
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.
Certainly, even with no corroborating evidence, there'd be some folk who'd believe there must be something to the allegations - and some of them would probably still believe there was something dodgy going on, even if you successfully sued for libel. (Michael Jackson, anyone?)
Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
Your first question is a non sequiteur
If it has been prevented by law, then it hasn't harmed anyone, same as a potential killing that was prevented by law hasn't harmed anyone.
As for hate speech that took place in other countries that caused harm, that would have been prevented by hate law here, just look at the history of your local KKK.
And for your third question, it again misses the point. The law does not say a person can't express any belief they want in private. It regulates PUBLIC speech. Read the law. Stop mixing apples and fish.
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?
However, you do not have free speech in the United States. Try going up to someone and saying that you're going to kill them. Try sending an email to the white house with a death threat. Try putting a notice in the local paper saying you are looking for people to help you plant bombs and overthrow the government. Try posting kiddie pr0n on the net under the guise of "free speech".
/dev/null.
I've done all of this at one time or another. Let's take them in turn.
Try going up to someone and saying that you're going to kill them.
Irrelevant unless you actually do kill them- then after the fact it can be brought up at your trial (also, due to the problem with human evidence, it can be relevant if they died a violent death within a few hours or days of you saying it even if you didn't do it- but I've yet to have that happen).
Try putting a notice in the local paper saying you are looking for people to help you plant bombs and overthrow the government.
Done that- again it doesn't matter unless a government building blows up soon afterwards.
Try sending an email to the white house with a death threat.
And all you'll get back is the standard White House AutoResponder message promising to look into your issue- as your actual e-mail is directed to
Try posting kiddie pr0n on the net under the guise of "free speech".
This is harder- but the authorities actually have to prove that the kiddie porn involved real kids, as opposed to clever simulations thereof.
None of these are "protected speech" in either country. We're all in this together, no matter which side of the border we're on.
The difference being in the United States, all of this garners a "so what" from authorities until somebody is actually killed- where I've yet to recieve a notice of a fine in Canada against my American e-mail server, you seem to think I'm in danger of recieving one.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Note: West Earl Township is in Pennsylvania, USA.
chat room deat threat leads to student's arrest
I hear confession is good for the soul. Why not go to your local church and ask for some help. You need it.
Charged != Convicted ; AND "criminal attempt to possess instruments of crime." was also required as a separate charge to even get the police to pay attention.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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"!
My first question, emphasis added: "Do you have an example of speech that, would have harmed people, had it not been prevented by the law?"
My second question, which is what I was trying to ask in my very first post: Did the speech of the KKK hurt people, or did the ropes/torches/guns/etc.? Would prohibiting the public speech of this secret society, which had many members in the law enforcement employ, have prevented this harm? It seems that all the speech of the KKK that was actually planning violence against other people would have taken place in private.
And, my (second to) last question ever: Do you have a philisophical justification for restricting speech on this basis, even if such a restriction could chill speech that you would view as valuable?
You don't seem to believe that I'm actually interested in the defense of your position and I'm trying to engage your ideas. It seems that the speech restriction follows from a citizen's right to safety, and hate speech potentially infringes on that right to safety. This is what I gather from my reading on the subject. Is this accurate?
Sorry, but I'e been preoccupied with a nut case ...
He's admitted to sending death threats to the White House, smuggling people across the border, all sorts of craziness, and it all started a day or so before this whole thread ...
http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/130969
Never a dull moment :-)
I'd say that hate speech is a form of intimidation, and as such, is both potentially unsafe for the group targeted, and also an infringement on their rights to live free of intimidation. For example, you wouldn't want anyone going around making death threats to you or someone close to you, and then claiming "freedom of speech". Even if they never carry out the threat, it still takes a toll.
Hate speech is the same, except that it has the potential to involve others, so the target of the hate never knows when they're safe, because anyone might be incited by the hate speech. For example, say someone started posting notices all over town with your face on it and "pedophile" in big letters. Now you're afraid to walk the streets, even if the charge is untrue, because of the potential for some kook to "take matters into their own hands."
Everyone has a right to feel safe. Hate speech strips that away, without exposing the perpetrator to the same risks. To counterbalance this, we passed laws making such activities illegal. There's a presumption, when you're inciting people to hate a particular group, that you don't exactly mean them well.
Anyway, maybe we'll be able to discuss this further soon - right now, as I said, between all the other stuff, trying to get some work done, and the net-kook, I've kind of got my hands full.
About the kkk speeches - rhetoric is used to incite people to do things they wouldn't normally do. A mob is easier to get going than individuals, if you have a few well-placed instigators to "help on the cause". Same with political rallies, church revivals, etc. Different purposes, of course, but the same methods, because they work.
Like I said, never a dull moment (probably why so many people read my journal on occasion).
That's called libel. We don't need another law to enforce that.
Just because America is being dangerously stupid doesn't mean that Canada should immediately follow its example.
Tech Public Policy stuff