Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Hate-Speech Law Violates Charter of Rights
MrKevvy writes "The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has found that federal hate-speech legislation violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the equivalent of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. This decision exonerates Marc Lemire, webmaster of FreedomSite.org, but may have farther-reaching consequences and serve as precedent for future complaints of hate-speech."
Blame Canada!
You hear that sound? It's the sound of Richard Warman shitting himself. Maybe he and Jack Thompson can start some kind of international law firm so they can get international ridicule now.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
...this sets an example for people that insist anything NOT PC speech in the US should be suppressed.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I have always been suspicious of hate speech legislation. It seems ideal for creating slippery slopes.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is not a real court and the real courts (ie, Canadian Supreme Court) have previously ruled in favour of restrictions on publishing 'hateful' content being a justified restriction of speech in this country, probably on the very same legislation since "communicate telephonically or otherwise" referring to the internet doesn't sound like a recently changed passage.
Sorry, lefties. Your crazed desire to give the government as much power as humanly possible to regulate everybody's thought and living patterns to match your own is failing.
Behold crazy statements like this:
Regulate those hateful ideas off the internet! Let the government decide what is hateful and what should be allowed! Nothing could possibly go wrong!
Thank god this is done with at last.
Hate speech requires a hate listener. Let's work on that problem, because that one doesn't violate anyone's rights.
so, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but you can talk about a fire in a crowded theater. duh.
"This decision exonerates Marc Lemire, webmaster of FreedomSite.org but may have farther-reaching consequences and serve as precedent for future complaints of hate-speech."
If the author means complaints against claims of hate speech, I'd say "and may have" is more appropriate. If that's not what the author means, the logic baffles.
CHRT has no teeth on this. All they can say is "unlawful" and go on about their business about prosecuting people. If it was a real court we wouldn't be in this position now. What a pile of BS.
But...they can bury you in fines and ruin your life without ever having to be judged by the actual laws of the land. That type of stuff really pisses me off.
Om, nomnomnom...
Hate speech, especially published hate speech, serves no purpose other than to degrade, criminalize or deter a particular person, race, or gender.
The real issue is people worrying about giving censorship a foot and they'll take a mile.
It's gay that they got rid of this legislation. The canadian govt. is retarded for getting rid of a law like this...
It is a very slippery slope when defining what is hate-speech, and what is just parlance/slang. Even though my above statements could be construed as ignorant or hurtful, they can only be classified as hate-speech if they are delivered with the intent to hurt.
Canadians don't have rights! :P
(I am Canadian, feel my ironic powers!)
I hate you all...legally.
You can only take it.
And if you don't like it, move back where your grandfather came from!
We shall do just FINE here, in the company of Voltaire and Jefferson.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Take that, Thought Police!
Trolling is a art,
Is anyone really surprised that anti-hatespeech laws violate the basic 'free speech' right? I mean, either a person is free to say what they want or not.
I'm not condoning hate speech. I think it's still immoral and unethical... But it's still covered under 'free speech' no matter how much I hate it.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
I can finally say what I've been thinking all these years:
Quebecois, vous pouvez aller les porcs sucer!
I clicked the link to FreedomSite.Org, but they block it here at the office. (Yes, I know, that isn't censorship since it isn't the government - I'm lucky they let me browse Slashdot at all)
All the legislature has to do is exempt it; the Charter has an explicit out called the "notwithstanding" clause.
Fuhrer in this context means drivers. Britten is not a word.
Du verfailst es!
Deine Mutter ist eine Schlampe und du bist ein schwein.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
On Monday, a white South Africa was granted asylum - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8233004.stm
Freedom of speech requires we allow assholes to say offensive things. Even the idiots who hate free speech should have the right to speak their moronic opinions ;)
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
What happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"?
Cory Doctorow talking about cloud computing makes as much sense as George W Bush talking about electrical engineering.
...hate speech is so gay.
Now we can mount a campaign to "suggest" and "encourage" the death of that blogger based solely on his beliefs. If he dies, it isn't our fault!
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Dont get me wrong, im all for freedom of speech, but ... does that mean that you can say *anything* you like ? Like for example, ... Deny the Holocaust ? Say you want all 'insert-favorite-group-here' burned by fire for what race they are, or belief system they have, or sexual preference ? Allow people to promote or encourage killing, or discrimination people for what they are or stand for ? You have to draw the line somewhere. And I am not saying that I should decide what that line is, or exactly where it lies, but I do feel that we should always keep having the discussion on where to draw the line. Just because you *can* say anything you like, it doesn't mean that you should. With the great power of Free Speech comes a great responsibility for what consequences your words may have.
Because in the US that is what hate speech laws are being used for. Get off from a high profile case that "bothers" some politicians and you can be sure a hate speech charge will crop up. Been done in a few visible crimes around Atlanta, suddenly the Feds are brought in because there was enough to convict on the real accused crime.
The other point is that prosecuting under the guise of a hate crime can devalue the real crime. I don't care why they selected someone's house to rob/burn/etc, all reasons should be treated the same : equally bad. Yet we try to differentiate the crimes by assigning severity based on what they were thinking or what we think they were thinking?
Fortunately in both countries we can still each have our opinions, I just hope the Supremes start tossing the US version out as well... which reminds me, did the group who declared it wrong in Canada have the last voice on that?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The irony of cracking down on hate speech is that it only serves to bolster the profile and credibility of the hater as they yell "Censorship!". If the internet has taught us anything it's "Don't feed the trolls".
There's a drastic difference here that you are missing. You can now say things such as "I think X group of people are the biggest fucktards in the world". You can also go your route and suggest/encourage the death of someone ala "I think we should kill group X and I'll pay $10,000 to the person that does". When group X dies, you don't get busted for hate speech, you get busted for something along the lines of pre-meditated murder / conspiring to kill someone.
- A single judge presides and decides. There is no jury and no multiple opinion.
- There are no rules of evidence. Anything can be presented.
- There is no right for the accused to confront or question the accuser.
- The person charged must prove their innocence. There is no "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" principle in effect. If the person charged does not show, he loses.
- All legal costs of the accuser are paid by the commission whether he wins or loses. All legal costs of the accused are paid by himself, whether he wins or loses.
- If the accused loses, the potentially life-destroying fine is given directly to the accuser.
All in all, a sick and twisted example of Kafkaesque evil.
Sure he ain't a Schweinehund but just a Schwein?
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Advocates call the law a necessary control on hate speech in an age where the Internet makes the spread of messages easier and faster. Opponents say it's censorship and has no place in a free society.
Not only are we divided on whether it should be legal, we are divided on what it should be.
Is it hate speech to call other races subhumans, but legal to note in a scientific paper that there IQ differences between races, moral evolutionary differences, or even that statistically, crime is not distributed evenly between all groups?
Half of scientists say race doesn't exist, the others keep quiet.
The bigger issue here is what we're obscuring the pursuit of truth with all sorts of social pretense. Let's look at the facts and keep emotion (true hate speech) and censorship out of the debate.
Futurist Traditionalism
Deine Mutter ist eine Schlampe und du bist ein schwein.
Vergessen Sie nicht, das Wort zu profitieren "Schwein".
Government isn't involved there. Try to call me a nigger here on slashdot. You won't see the prosecutor chasing you down, do you? Call me a nigger on television, people will think "You are a jerk" but the prosecutor still won't do anything.
Now, say "All niggers should be shot. In fact, someone should at least burn your house down!". The prosecutor probably still won't do anything if you are an average joe. If you are a very powerful political figure, cult leader or the like, whose words can very easily be misinterpreted for inciting his herd, it might be a risk.
Then, if you were to say "Niggers are like filthy apes. We should organize ourselves in groups to hunt them down. Most of you listeners own guns... What are you waiting for?" In the radio... That is hate speech.
People should stop claiming "I should be able to call someone a nigger so hate speech laws are stupid.". They aren't there to forbide that and you know it.
I saw 'charter', 'hate', and 'rights' in the title and thought for sure this would be an article about Charter Communications...
>or to cause to be so communicated
>to hatred or contempt" based on characteristics such as race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on
The issues are very complex. My family goes well back into Canada's roots on both sides and, as a family we reside pretty much country wide.
Canada's heart lies in the idea of a cultural mosaic, maybe that came from our bilingual heritage and the more orderly development of our frontiers. Maybe it came from it being just to fucking cold to bother to with hate, and, hockey got rid of the aggressive edge. I think it was J. Cartier who said, "This must be the land God gave to Cain." What is certain is that Canada as a country bound to the idea of a cultural mosaic has always been deeply attentive to the rights of minorities and not without reason. Mackenzie King, one of Canada's longest reigning PMs, who held seances with the spirits of his dead mother and his dead dog fought against immigration into Canada by the mountainous Shik people of northern India because our climate would be too inhospitably cold for them (not as cold as the Prime Minister's shoulder).
I think what's new to the mix is a shift in demographics, a shift in political tactics and maybe the first hint of a Brave New World. The European stock that initially invaded North America has been recently outnumbered and, last year, Asian immigrants were the most prevalent. The shift in demographic to a truly multi racial, multi cultural mix probably has heightened the likelihood and exposure of racial hate. The law was to some extent enacted to combat racism doing more than rearing it's hydra heads. Political Correctness, OTOH, has become a witch hunt captained by any cavalier politician seeking power at any means. It's amusing that the Harper Government, presently in power, openly, passionately uses "attack ads" while posing as politically correct. It's all very relative.
The problem Conservatives in Canada and Republicans in America face is that both parties have taken a Sophist, relativist approach to gaining and holding power. In a Godless world both parties have embraced the religious right and pretty much any other splinter group in an attempt to cobble together enough votes to gain power. Rove in America, like Harper in Canada embody the philosophical, relativist road to power by any means. Hate speech legislation is just another iteration of the political rights perennial attempt to position themselves as the voice of what is right, proper and politically correct at the expense of freedom of speech.
In an ever shrinking, heavily populated world of limited resources Hate Speech legislation is a card that will probably be repeatedly played as countries come to terms with a Brave New World. As a species we're creatures of context and thus there's ample evidence to suggest something akin to Hate Speech legislation can be effective, even if people like myself view it as voodooism.
ideopath @ play
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! ... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
The one that you're just a pussy for complaining about it.
And the one that causes physical pain and is known by the speaker to do so.
Yes, it's proven nowadays, that emotional pain is no different or less real than "real" physical pain to the brain. Same chemical reaction. Same everything. So being left by your girlfriend really hurts. And perhaps some painkillers would actually work!
So if you know it, and deliberately hurt someone, it does not matter in what way you are doing it. What matters is, if it hurts or not.
And the only reason we're discussing this at all, is that it is so hard, to prove emotional damage.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
We get to tell nigger jokes again!
1. catharsis
allow the low iq xenophobic idiot to blow off some steam with words, and maybe he won't be repressed, bottle up, and then explode by shooting up an immigration center
2. cautionary tale
people won't know what kind of mentality traps to avoid unless they are given a proof positive example of how terribly someone can fail in their understanding of the world. put such people on a pedestal, let them shout their stupidity, and let everyone else be forewarned about the signs and symptoms of moronic hate
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it's harmful because it's divisive and not constructive. Also it tends to rely on ignorance as opposed to logic.
You've just described my last meeting with the Marketing Department.
Wir sprechen nicht Deutsches Sie unempfindlicher Klumpen.
If people are trying to have a civil conversation at a townhall or a speaking event, and someone attempts to drown out views they don't like through screaming, then the police should remove them. If the police won't remove them, then the police are morally responsible for any violence that the other people there visit on the censorious assholes who want to shut down others' comments.
The people who do this sort of thing (shouting down different points of view) are a significantly greater enemy to civilization and freedom than anyone who clocks them upside the head for being an asshole. People like that are just bourgeois brownshirts.
"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." --Noam Chomsky
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Evelyn Beatrice Hall (As a summary of Voltaire's beliefs.)
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
gunter glieben glachen globen!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Got a better recent example then, say, Barack Obama and General Motors???
Obama's even got the authoritarianism streak covered:: flag@whitehouse.gov
Joe Clark said he was going to govern as if he had a majority. Very arrogant, stupid thing to do, and the consequences were predictable. It wasn't like he wasn't warned, but he went to a political knife-fight with only his fists, and got cut up badly as a result.
Harper isn't repeating that mistake. Shows that people CAN learn.
CHRT has no teeth ... If [CHRT] was a real court ... [immune to] actual laws of the land ... pisses me off
Surprised you find the mechanism of the court so perfect in every way that no other judicial mechanism should even exist, even ones sanctioned by parliamentary legislation.
From About the CHRT
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) was created in 1977 by an Act of Parliament.
_...
Parliament finally enshrined the Tribunal's independence in law and the Canadian Human Rights Act was amended to formalize the CHRT's independence.
_...
As an administrative tribunal, the CHRT has more flexibility than regular courts.
One of the reasons given for this is that the defendant does not need to follow rules of evidence in his/her defence. Following the rules of evidence is an expensive process, maybe more so than the fines if convicted.
From Legal Definition of Administrative Tribunal
Between routine government policy decision-making bodies and the traditional court forums lies a hybrid, sometimes called a "tribunal" or "administrative tribunal" and not necessarily presided by judges.
These operate as a government policy-making body at times but also exercise a licensing, certifying, approval or other adjudication authority which is "quasi-judicial" because it directly affects the legal rights of a person.
This authority does not amount to hard biting surfaces?
From About the CHRT - The Vice-Chairperson
Mr. Hadjis received his Bachelor Degree in Civil Law together with his Bachelor Degree in Common Law from McGill University in Montreal, in 1986. He was called to the Quebec Bar in 1987.
That's as much training as most judges prior to their appointment. How many lawyers have equal training in both of Canada's legal traditions?
When I was eight years old I rode my bike on my way to school across the corner of someones lawn which in my small town was rather indistinct from the gravel boulevard which surrounded it. An elementary school classmate witnessed this and and yelled at me "get off my lawn or my dad will sue you".
That has ever since been my psychological template for people who regard human rights as a "shout off my lawn" free card.
I believe in absolute protection against unpopularity. In my eyes "abortion should be permitted until halfway through the third trimester" is protected speech. "Jews are verminous scum and should be gassed by the millions" is not.
Somehow we need to define a line between these speech acts. It's not going to be an easy task, we'll make many mistakes, and there will be much wailing and outrage.
Nevertheless, suck it up: it must be done. The only question is how to do it better rather than worse. The courts surely aren't perfect, and neither are tribunals. A tribunal leaves more scope for fine tuning than the formal court system.
If a person is cursing the scope for fine tuning the system (the flexibility of the tribunal) in my experience it's likely because the person doesn't wish to see the job done right in the first place. It's a bit of a straw man tactic. Once you lock this up with the inflexibility of the courts under the rubric of fairness, it becomes a simple matter to advance the case that the courts in their rigidness can't ever get this right. And that would likely be true in a generational time frame.
The fallacy of the slippery slope is the presumption that objects only ever slide down hill. If nothing ever went up the hill, we'd have no traditions worth respecting whatsoever.
If anything is important enough to push uphill, for as long as it takes, this would be it.
You don't, and never should, have the right to not be offended.
Gone!
This is the dumbest comment I've read by a non AC today, just one tick above comments with the word "nigger" in them.
A person who supports a democracy does not necessarily support socialism. A person who supports socialism almost certainly doesn't support communism. Unless you think China is just like France.
And as dumb as this statement is, that may be the case. Or he's just your average American, who can't have a reasonable conversation about politics if anyone left of John McCain has any input. The American political vocabulary might as well be written in crayon.
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Genug gesagt. ;)
Ezekiel 23:20
Hey, liberals! Hate speech laws means you're being punished for WHAT YOU THINK. How can you be so intellectually dishonest? Do you even NOTICE? Morons.
Def Lepard, nice...
To stay on the topic of both the article and the post I'm replying to, "Words are weapons, sharper than knives."
I wonder how that applies to hate speech that promotes and encourages other to hate or take action (maybe violently).
Is it OK to say: "I hate all ******" OK? But saying "Kill all ******" or "I wish **** would die" not?
I can understand right to say what you like as long it is does promote/encourage other to illegal actives.
It is a big difference to me when stand on your soap box and proclaim you hate some group or peoples compared to trying to convince people that you should kill/harm/etc those groups or peoples you hate.
They are just kids. It only seems problematic when you think of them as adults.
21 is adult in a legal sense only. Most people don't start achieving a truely adult level of maturity for another decade or so.
Though I DO wonder if this is just because most college kids have spent their entire lives under their parent's wings, and in school. I am willing to accept that it isn't age so much as experiencing the hardships of real life in the real world that make someone grow up.
The CHRT just proved it's worthless. If it actually pays any attention to the precident of this instance, it basically ruled that it can't harrass people accused of hate speech anymore. At best, the CHRT was used to bully people that had not broken any law but offended someone, and at worst it constantly redefines what hate crimes could be allowed. Disband it, and let the justice system determine if the law has been broken.
Heh. Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha. A ha ha ha haaaaaaaa haaaaa haaaaaa! AAAHHAAAHAAA-%:]\}I;u-8NO CARRIER
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Hopefully this will server to further the protection of free speech that are central to democracies everywhere. Free speech must be protect and that speech which is considered to be the most outrageous deserves the most protection.
First of all, the charter of rights has certain limits:
Current jurisprudence says that the law should , if feasible, be interpreted in such a way as to make it consistent with the charter.
Now, there are clearly cases of hate speech that are so egregious as to be inherently inconsistent with Canada retaining it's status as a free and democratic language. In this way, I'd say that the law could be interpreted as being consistent with the charter.
In this case, I would say that, if the speech being encouraged on this website was mild enough that it wouldn't justify the exception in section 1 of the charter, then it should be deemed to be below the threshold of application of the law. To declare unconstitutional a law that is meant to prevent the kind of hate speech that results, at it's worst, in things like lynch mobs is to ignore both the purpose of that law and the purpose of the charter of rights.
To put it another way, If you're going to declare this law unconstitutional, you might as well disband the entire human rights commission as unconstitional.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
All the Americans here seem to conflate all sorts of definitions for what hate speech is, failing to recognize that the legal term for hate speech in the Canadian federal legislation has a very very specific definition:
What it is (small wikipedia blurb - not legal advice):
In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[6] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine.
What it is not:
Hate speech is not painting a swastika (as despicable as that symbol may be to many, especially when spray-painted on Jewish schools & synagogues)
Hate speech is not calling someone a bad word (even a racially charged one)
Hate speech is not insulting race
Hate speech is not as far as I am aware applicable to anything said within a private setting (again - careful with the definition of private. I'm using it in the sense of someone talking with family, not holding secret meetings about how to secretly commit genocide. I'm unsure about the former, but I'd imagine the latter still runs afoul of the law).
Hate speech is specifically targeted at preventing discussion of committing violence against an identifiable group. Right or wrong (personally I think it's a good idea since violence-inciting speech against minorities in no way, IMHO, contributes to the value of speech). Before you start jumping down my throat about freedom, also notice that racial tensions in Canada seem to be much lower as compared to our neighbours to the south (although I speak as a Jewish white male). Whether or not the laws contribute, the culture is significantly different when it comes to racial relations, immigration, etc.
You forgot one point that is perhaps even more important than the rest:
- Truth is not a defense.
Yes, it doesn't matter whether what you say is true or not. So long as your speech "is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt", you're screwed. This means that, for example, any scientific research, even if perfectly flawless and objective, that would expose differences between groups separated by racial, ethnic, cultural or religious criteria in areas where it is controversial (e.g. intellect), could be ruled to be hate speech by the Tribunal.
To paraphrase...
But if you put up a [cross], you're threatening to [crucify] someone. Moreover, it is obviously [religiously] motivated. That behavior cannot be tolerated, and laws were put into place specifically BECAUSE IT WAS HAPPENING UNTIL THE LAWS WERE PUT INTO PLACE AND ENFORCED. People still get [crucified], though it is becoming rarer.
Yeah, the example is a bit absurd, but displaying an instrument used for execution really should not be a crime. Using it to harm/kill someone obviously should.
None of you ignorant free-speech-hugging white boys have ever been on the receiving end of real racism. Oh sure maybe someone called you a few names in elementary school and you felt sad, then you went home and ate your unsalted mashed potatoes, cried into your pillow, and went back to being the ignorant majority for whom life is pretty easy, all told - and believed you had a "racism" experience and that "gee it wasn't so bad so why can't everyone else just STFU and let it slide?". Or worse, you get wound up about someone making a joke that white people can't dance - and in that situation all of a sudden it's racist. The problem is most of you guys might be well intentioned but are hopelessly clueless about what it's like to actually be a victim of this behaviour and in what way it hurts. This lack of insight makes you guys prone to believing it doesn't exist or isn't a problem. It does exist and it is always a problem. The reality is that it is the least humane behaviour and there is no honor or intellectual upshot to defending hate just because on paper it qualifies as free speech.
In Canada, we don't like morons who shoot their mouths off spewing racial epithets, and that's why we have laws to shut these people up. Yes, censorship! A bad word! It's not an inherently bad concept. We like it because it serves a purpose, which is not subjugation and silencing of the general public as the alarmists would have you believe. These laws don't get used on just anybody and frankly the government is too busy wasting money on General Motors...it doesn't have time to go around silencing anybody it doesn't like, so take off that ugly tinfoil hat. This is why Canada is a cultural quantum leap ahead of other western societies. Don't believe me? Travel. Oh but this kind of censorship's not in the Charter? Fuck that. The charter was written by a bunch of WASPs who had no inkling of what the country would become - i.e. sustained by hard-working immigrants while the existing population became, old, lethargic, unmotivated and allowed its birth rate to fall below 2 children per couple. Oh, and the "Canadian founding fathers" were racists too, living in a time when it was commonplace and acceptable. Today it is not, and if that means some 150 year old laws need amending, so be it. The government does need to meddle in people's affairs in this matter because quite obviously average people are just too ignorant or lazy to conduct themselves properly 100% of the time. Stop crying about "regulation this" and "communist" that. Don't like it? There's a country just to the south of us where you can say all the dumb crap you like, and possibly you will even inspire a crowd of inbred rednecks to consider you some kind of great thinker while you're at it. Take Alberta with you. You can write books and become the next Ann Coulter, the poster child for what defending "free speech" is all about. Idealistic "people should just do blah blah blah theoretical solution and then we won't need regulation" blather doesn't work. This is the real world, and real people are real dumb, and really need to be spoon-fed to be kept in line.
As far as I'm concerned, as long as people aren't inciting people to do violence (which is covered under other laws if it is a plausible threat -- i.e. plain old criminal law), I think it should be protected speech. It may be hateful stuff, and I probably won't like it (I don't have much tolerance for intolerant people), but it's the price of being able to speak your mind that you also have to put up with idiots and bigots stating theirs. The best way to work against these people is to be able to freely criticize them.
This seems like a good time for an old quote. I'm pretty sure it was Lenny Bruce who said this:
Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "Fuck the government."
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
I noticed the Shah reference, but didn't think much of it because of this:
"I don't do protests anymore"..I simply read it as him not having been out protesting since '79. :)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The symbol of a noose isn't merely a random piece of art that someone interprets. It is an icon which was used to represent a threat.
Since racists can't just go out and say, "hey, let's kill some black people", they just show the image of a noose. It's a historical reference, and everyone gets the point.
Except you apparently. Frankly, I find your whole, "a noose is an inanimate object" argument ridiculous. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean that people don't use it that way:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/05/chernoff.noose/index.html
http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/racist_noose.asp
I still find your argument bewildering
I was right there with you until "bourgeois brownshirts", whats that mean?
Freedom of speech is the ability to speak your mind and not be criminally punished for it.
Freedom of speech allows us to be ignorant as much as we like. I will fight for this as my grandparents did.
PLENTY of WHITE people have been hung in the US, I'd dare say more whites that black have been hung in our nation's history
Well, the ladies often describe me as being hung (at least in my dreams)
But thank goodness I have not yet been hanged. (except perhaps IN my dreams)
I recall, with particular amusement, the anchor of a major U/S/ news network describing Saddam Hussein as being "hung" - this was after Saddam had been hanged.
Golly! How did this brave anchorman know? Did he go in there and pull down Saddam's pants while the poor beast was still swinging?
Nice to know, however, that you think that more "white" guys are hung than "black" guys! Kinda evens up the score a bit, huh?. But what about Asians?
.
- aqk
F U
You respond to Def Lepard with INXS?
And somewhere, a weltanschauung shatters into fine, sparkling dust that hangs in the air for a moment, then vanishes...
Nothing in the Constitution says "You have a right to not be offended"
I know this isn't wikipedia but if you have any references you can provide to back up these statements I'd greatly appreciated it. This is outrageous.
Thanks.
This is a prime example that hate speech laws are inherently unconstitutional, at least in the U.S., and are nothing less than an all out assault on free speech.
However, given a fanatical, fascist, orwellian regime , such as the Obama regime, laws such as this may pass given that judges legislate from the bench, further eroding liberty and the foundation of our entire country.
Rush Limbaugh? Is that you?
And are you off your Oxycontin again?