Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm only talking about state censorship, and I'm sure you aren't suggesting the law should enforce your interpretation of common sense.
In tort law, that's exactly what that means: common sense. However, this is criminal law. I think this is where they use "reasonable", instead.
Originally posted by Oliver North
more important in what way?
What? No. You tell me and answer the question whichever way you see fit. That question is not for me but for you.
Originally posted by Oliver North
does freedom of speech legally trump the fact people might be unable to deal with the content of that speech? yes, obviously
Not in Canada, it sure doesn't. In the US, it probably does.
Originally posted by Oliver North
like, in a legal context, the only "speech" with "backdraft" is stuff like fraud or slander, because the resultant harm is non-subjective and as a direct result of the words themselves (and most of the time, things like fraud and slander require that the accused [b]know they were lying and have the motivation to do harm with their words). If I start claiming a product you a producing causes cancer and deliberately go out to harm it in the marketplace, sure, there is "backdraft" in that your product will not be as successful.[/B]
That's not the "only" in either the US or Canada.
Originally posted by Oliver North
ok, but here is the thing, I believe in free speech as much as anyone does their religion. Telling people they can't speak their mind, is to me, blasphemy. I'm not trying to be cute, this is legitimately how I feel.
For me, I believe in keeping most of your thoughts to yourself and if you know something will piss people off and offend them, I find that highly disrespectful and blasphemy by my own religious perspective. So we both view the opposite as blasphemy. Of course, I'm just being cute.
Also, I find it blasphemous to blaspheme. EGADS! How dare I use it for what it actually means.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Do you now have to stop saying things I find offensive?
That does not follow your previous statement.
Originally posted by Oliver North
or is it only because religious people are so sensitive that they need big brother to be mommy too, and protect them from the oh-so-scary real world?
"Real wold" or the very small set of people purposefully being assholes just to incite anger?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Not in Canada, it sure doesn't. In the US, it probably does.
what Canadian case are you talking about specifically?
I can't think of a hate speech case that was about violence...
Our human rights council threw out a charge against someone publishing the Mohammed cartoons.
The big cases that I can think of were teaching holocaust denial to children and the widespread publication of anti-semetic stuff
Originally posted by dadudemon
Am I talking about a case or am I talking about the Canadian speech laws being more strict than the US' laws?
sure, and I'm suggesting that simply reading the words of our hate speech laws doesn't demonstrate how the law is applied.
tbh, I think swastikas are banned in public... but that wouldn't be enforced too strictly either (especially in Buddhist shops)
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's...worse than I thought, actually.
sure, I don't really like our hate speech laws either, but my point is, they are not generally used to protect the speaker from those they offend, which is what you are talking about.
I'm actually not even sure about the swastika thing, as I've seen lots of people with those tattoos...
Originally posted by Oliver North
sure, I don't really like our hate speech laws either, but my point is, they are not generally used to protect the speaker from those they offend, which is what you are talking about.I'm actually not even sure about the swastika thing, as I've seen lots of people with those tattoos...
I heard that drawings, not based on any person or resembling any person in reality, can get you time in prison in Canada. To me, that's absurd and is one of the most fascist types of 'speech' systems in the industrialized world.
That's not all, of course. Stuff you mentioned and the censoring of Ann Coulter (admittedly....she's left field and hateful (or is that right field? Derp!)). Those are things I had in mind.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I heard that drawings, not based on any person or resembling any person in reality, can get you time in prison in Canada. To me, that's absurd and is one of the most fascist types of 'speech' systems in the industrialized world.
citation?
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not all, of course. Stuff you mentioned and the censoring of Ann Coulter (admittedly....she's left field and hateful (or is that right field? Derp!)). Those are things I had in mind.
you mean when a university cancelled her talk? or the non-government representative who sent her a letter?
not really state censorship
Originally posted by Oliver North
citation?
Have you ever heard of R v. Sharpe?
Originally posted by Oliver North
you mean when a university cancelled her talk? or the non-government representative who sent her a letter?not really state censorship
So Anne Coulter's obvious hate-speech against Muslims, which would fall under the results of R v. Keegstra as criminal hate speech, had nothing to do with the reason the university decided against allowing her to speak?
Correct me if I'm wrong: I could be way off base with my interpretations. I have no problem admitting fault.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Have you ever heard of R v. Sharpe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Sharpe
It began in 1995 when Sharpe was returning from a trip to Amsterdam where he had traveled to meet Edward Brongersma, a Dutch jurist and open advocate of pederastic boylove. Upon return, Canada Customs found a collection of computer discs containing a text entitled "Boyabuse". A later search of his Vancouver apartment revealed a collection of photographs of nude teenage boys, some of them engaged in sexual acts with one another. Sharpe was arrested and charged with illegal possession under s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada, and for possession for the purposes of distribution or sale under s. 163.1(3) of the Code.
Acting in his own defence, Sharpe challenged the criminal provisions as violation of freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter. Sharpe argued before a court that laws regarding the possession of child pornography violated his freedom of thought and expression. He presented a fairly controversial argument that since he was interested in teenage boys, he should be entitled to pornographic material relating to his sexual interests. Nonetheless, the law he was charged under was eventually upheld with some exceptions regarding written pornography.
During his trial, the prosecutor argued for the harmfulness of child pornography possession and why it should remain illegal. Sharpe attempted to refute the prosecution's claims that child porn and child sexual abuse are a related paradigm by claiming that the legal attitudes towards pornographic representations of children 'creates a victim' instead of starting with one. The line between production, distribution, and possession was also espoused by Sharpe. He further argued that in many instances possession of child pornography could act as a catharsis in preventing child sexual abuse. In regard to provisions on written pornography, Sharpe argued that the law in question targeted the political advocacy of pederasty and served little purpose in protecting children from sexual abuse. The charges in respect to Sharpe's writings were eventually dismissed when he argued artistic merit with the assistance of an English professor who compared his written works to 'transgressive expression' parallel to Marquis de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom.
you are arguing that child porn isn't a valid limitation of speech?
Originally posted by dadudemon
So Anne Coulter's obvious hate-speech against Muslims, which would fall under the results of R v. Keegstra as criminal hate speech, had nothing to do with the reason the university decided against allowing her to speak?
I can't speak to the motivation of the university, but I believe she canceled the speaking engagement because of protesters.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ann-coulters-speech-in-ottawa-cancelled/article4352616/
either way, there is no case I am aware of that would punish Coulter under Keegstra, as his was the case where a school teacher, at a public school, was teaching holocaust denial. I might agree that we don't need a law to stop this, but the context is nowhere similar to Coulter being paid to speak at a university, to adults willing to listen to her. When David Icke came to Canada, he was allowed to speak, even though there were huge protests against him (to be fair, I don't think Icke himself is an anti-semite).
The closest I know of is R v Zundel, where he was charged with "spreading false news", but it was found that publishing deliberately false things was ok in Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Zundel
not to mention, we are entirely off the topic of whether speech in Canada is banned because it might make people violent with rage, and you have not shown that this is the case. The only comparable case I can think of was publishing the Mohammed cartoons, and that was allowed.
and no, lol, Canada does not have close to the worst speech laws in the Industrial world. There are many places in Europe where blasphemy and holocaust denial itself are illegal.
Originally posted by Oliver North
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Sharpeyou are arguing that child porn isn't a valid limitation of speech?
"I heard that drawings, not based on any person or resembling any person in reality, can get you time in prison in Canada. To me, that's absurd and is one of the most fascist types of 'speech' systems in the industrialized world."
Originally posted by Oliver North
I can't speak to the motivation of the university, but I believe she canceled the speaking engagement because of protesters.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ann-coulters-speech-in-ottawa-cancelled/article4352616/
either way, there is no case I am aware of that would punish Coulter under Keegstra, as his was the case where a school teacher, at a public school, was teaching holocaust denial. I might agree that we don't need a law to stop this, but the context is nowhere similar to Coulter being paid to speak at a university, to adults willing to listen to her. When David Icke came to Canada, he was allowed to speak, even though there were huge protests against him (to be fair, I don't think Icke himself is an anti-semite).
The closest I know of is R v Zundel, where he was charged with "spreading false news", but it was found that publishing deliberately false things was ok in Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Zundel
not to mention, we are entirely off the topic of whether speech in Canada is banned because it might make people violent with rage, and you have not shown that this is the case. The only comparable case I can think of was publishing the Mohammed cartoons, and that was allowed.
and no, lol, Canada does not have close to the worst speech laws in the Industrial world. There are many places in Europe where blasphemy and holocaust denial itself are illegal.
"...vice-president Francois Houle, who had written Coulter to warn her that Canadian laws make provisions for hate speech.
'Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges,' he warned her in the letter, which Coulter quickly leaked to the media."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/ann-coulter-speech-cancel_n_510939.html
Originally posted by dadudemon
"I heard that drawings, not based on any person or resembling any person in reality, can get you time in prison in Canada. To me, that's absurd and is one of the most fascist types of 'speech' systems in the industrialized world."
I asked for the case, and you cited one where a man had child porn of real people, not drawings.
I don't know what else you want from me
Originally posted by dadudemon
"...vice-president Francois Houle, who had written Coulter to warn her that Canadian laws make provisions for hate speech.'Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges,' he warned her in the letter, which Coulter quickly leaked to the media."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/ann-coulter-speech-cancel_n_510939.html
yes, they send the letter saying this
I trust the actual rulings of the supreme court over speculation from someone who isn't a judge
also all the legal precedence I just gave you...
also has nothing to do with censoring people who might offend others
like, aside from giving you context on the cases being cited and comparing it to similar cases, what possible evidence could I give you. Coulter was not banned from Canada, she was not charged with anything, she canceled the engagement herself... how much more do you need to say that Coulter was not censored by the Canadian government?
Originally posted by Oliver North
I asked for the case, and you cited one where a man had child porn of real people, not drawings.I don't know what else you want from me
http://scc.lexum.org/en/2001/2001scc2/2001scc2.html
"...real or imaginary..."
Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, they send the letter saying thisI trust the actual rulings of the supreme court over speculation from someone who isn't a judge
also all the legal precedence I just gave you...
also has nothing to do with censoring people who might offend others
like, aside from giving you context on the cases being cited and comparing it to similar cases, what possible evidence could I give you. Coulter was not banned from Canada, she was not charged with anything, she canceled the engagement herself... how much more do you need to say that Coulter was not censored by the Canadian government?
I reject your speculation. You have done nothing to refute the idea that Anne Coulter could have gotten away with her hate speech had she spoken.
Edit - After reading more, I can only conclude that Canada is even worse than I thought originally when I made my original statement that got your jimmies rustled. I cannot believe how stupid Canada's speech laws are. This is not 1930s Italy.
Double edit - Maybe Canada isn't so bad. There may be hope:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/06/12/canada-may-repeal-hate-speech-laws/
Originally posted by dadudemon
I reject your speculation. You have done nothing to refute the idea that Anne Coulter could have gotten away with her hate speech had she spoken.
Why do you keep changing what you're discussing?
A few posts ago this was about if the law was actually involved in the case, not if the law could potentially have become involved.