The judicial system is racist, and its the Jews' fault

[Velociryx]

They always are, Ting....they always are.

I'm not trying to change your mind. But you were the one harping on DC about questioning his own beliefs, and I find it ironic in the extreme that no one who has come out in support of this law can see the built-in hypocracy. (ohhh, look at me thumbing my nose at this man for his wretched opinions...I'm soooo much more open minded than that buffoon....except of course, when it comes to being open minded enough to let others have their say if I disagree...)

Uh huh.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

And for the record (Gepap), I never said ANYTHING about all speech being of "equal merit." Simply saying that it has the right to EXIST. If the right exists to think it (you yourself saw no need to ban thought), and does not cause any immediate harm by virtue of its existence, then where's the damage?

Of course, if you want to talk about potential damage, then we need to be MUCH more stringent. After all, the spoken word is but one form of communication. Hate body language COULD be equally injurious....that should likewise be banned (an evil cut of the eyes, refusing to make eye contact with members of a group you despise...oh lord...think of the damming psychological impacts!

And then of course, if we hold out the notion that an inflamatory hate-centered word or two COULD lead a weak-minded individual to take it as gospel and do something bad to a member of the target group after hearing it, we would need to go back and look at every conversation or bit of reading material that the person who committed the deed had ever been party to or been exposed to, on the assumption that something he read or heard once upon a time might have influenced his decision to do the deed (whatever it may have been)--in this way, we could hold the speakers/writers accountable for their inflamatory words, even years or decades after the fact.

It is a circus of the absurd, and again, a crude attempt at thought control.



-=Vel=-

"Though I disagree with everything you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it."

-Scholar studying Voltaire

"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him."
-John Morley

"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race."
-Charles Bradlaugh

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Huh? If people learn they are going to be "watched" if they upset the bureaucrats and politicians with their opinions, wouldn't that chill political expression?

I'm not saying that he'd know he was going to be watched- besides people already know they'll be watched if they're saying things that might be, say 'anti-american'... the government monitors phone conversations, etc. and will soon have the technology to easily monitor the internet- things posted on islamic 'american-hate' forums are definitely watched by the government...

But the government can't act on it- surveillance is a secondary measure of proof. It can be used to help prove a case... but it cannot be the primary source of evidence. For a case to be prosecuted- it must be proven that the person has:

A. The Motive
B. The Means
C. The Opportunity

to commit an actual crime.

There is little wrong with monitoring what people say, but there is certainly a lot wrong with acting against it... beyond doing the obvious... (IE: Johnny tells his friend that he has a bunch of C4 explosives in his basement... then the government checks his grocery lists [easier to do now than ever thanks to grocery 'cards', and finds that he purchased all the needed materials]... they can now acquire a warrant and stop him.)

Now also, they have a better case than one merely built upon bluff and bluster speech.

--
That's why surveillance doesn't chill free speech, and can actually be useful if people are never persecuted for words alone...

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by GePap


False.

Democracy was born in a time when men could be property. To state that "Democracy" is based on any liberal notions such a minority rights, or even freedom of expression is to ignore the history of democracy.

Perhaps the founders were acting hypocritical in their statements when they founded America? Who's to say that they were free from hypocrisy.

That being said, a lot of the issue was "No Taxation without Representation" and the right of states to 'self-govern' and act without outside interference.

A logical extension of that idea translates to protecting miniority rights- because if the minority isn't represented... then they're having laws/taxes/etc. imposed on them without representation... and are not being allowed to 'self-govern' and act without unwanted and oppressive interference by a governmetn that doesn't understand them.

However, democracies, while allowing that party to exist would never allow it to do the following:
1.) Actually deprive the group of rights.
2.) Seize power by combining the office of President+Prime Minister as hitler was able to.

since doing either option would be against the constitution.

If the policies the speech advocate are unthinkable, how then is the speech politically worhtwhile?

Who's to say whether something is unthinkable or not? I frankly don't want the government to be able to tell me what to think or not.

And its not a crime here. Its the public statements that were deemed a crime, not his private opinions.

So you're saying that people can't say what they think?

It's not like he was inspiring people to riot or anything?

It's not like he was threatening a specific person?

Both of those things would be crimes.

He was merely insulting a group of people- he was generalizing, which may not be politically correct, and definately shows a lack of thinking-power, but why not let him speak and allow himself to become discredited?

[DarkCloud]

People might also like to take into account that there are crimes against Jewish people and property based on racial hatred being committed in Canada on a current basis.

We're not talking about some hypothetical situation where someone might be harmed.

We are talking about an actual situation in which people are being harmed by loons who listen to pieces of **** like the one recently prosecuted.

They'll act whether or not someone says something... there are books where they can get their ideas...

Mein Kampf, anyone?

or heck- even the Bible...

-=--

Other than Imran, I haven't heard anyone's thoughts on flag burning. I really think it's a legitimate form of expression.

No problem with it.

Hundreds of flags end up on the garbage heap every month anyways.

The flag is only a symbol if you make it one...

And finally- burning the flag- as free speech to show hate of a nations' actions. Okay? I see nothing wrong with that- just like I see nothing wrong with cross burnings UNLESS... and this is a big UNLESS... They are done with the sheer idea of intimidation (for example, burning a flag on a Veteran's lawn, or a Cross on a Black family's lawn)- in which case the 'clear and present danger' clause that Vel mentioned is enacted.

*But burning a flag in your backyard- no, that's not bad.
*Burning a flag in front of a crowd to incite hatred of US policy- no... doesn't threaten anyone.


---
...Good quotations Vel- some of those are my favorites: Especially the Voltaire one.

Here's another one against increasing legislation designed to make 'people better human beings'

"We can legislate until doomsday but that will not make men righteous." -- George Albert Smith, 1949

[BeBMan]

Nice quotes, but I consider them rather irrelevant, unless someone is advocating free speech without any limits. Since all seem to agree here at least with a certain limit ("no incitement to violence") the question automatically arises: why this limit, and why no other? It is a man-made limit as any other, and so it is always debatable.

Therefore also the "slippery slope" argument is irrelevant IMO unless someone is advocating we quit making laws at all.

[Kuciwalker]

Ooh! I don't agree with any limitations!

That is, I don't agree with any limitations on freedom of expression. IMO yelling "Fire!" is not expression, so don't bring up that tired old example. I agree on limitations on venue, such as in immediate incitement to violence - like someone in a city trying to start a riot - but the speaker should be free to express his ideas in some other forum.

Therefore I can use the slippery slope argument. In fact, IMO as soon as any laws which prevent expression of a particular idea are passed, free speech no longer exists.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DarkCloud


Perhaps the founders were acting hypocritical in their statements when they founded America? Who's to say that they were free from hypocrisy.

That being said, a lot of the issue was "No Taxation without Representation" and the right of states to 'self-govern' and act without outside interference.

Wait, since when did "the fouders" create democracy? Last time I checked, Democracy came into existance about 2000 years before any non-Norse Europeans even landed in the Americas.

A logical extension of that idea translates to protecting miniority rights- because if the minority isn't represented... then they're having laws/taxes/etc. imposed on them without representation... and are not being allowed to 'self-govern' and act without unwanted and oppressive interference by a governmetn that doesn't understand them.

Protecting minority rights is the Liberal notion, which is separate and on top of democracy. Democracy itself is solely the rule of the mayority. If a minority gets crushed, so be it-heck, most people prefer that to the mayority crushed by a minority.

Who's to say whether something is unthinkable or not? I frankly don't want the government to be able to tell me what to think or not.


So you're saying that people can't say what they think?

Since when does the law criminalize thought??

It criminalizes hate speech. You can eb a racist, you can even say those people are inferior and deserve less rights- its only when you go around saying they all deserve to die that you commit a crime.

Is that distinction too difficult for you?

He was merely insulting a group of people- he was generalizing, which may not be politically correct, and definately shows a lack of thinking-power, but why not let him speak and allow himself to become discredited?

Insulting is saying the Jews are evil. Saying its a good thing to kill Jews gfoes beyond "insulting".

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Ooh! I don't agree with any limitations!

That is, I don't agree with any limitations on freedom of expression. IMO yelling "Fire!" is not expression, so don't bring up that tired old example. I agree on limitations on venue, such as in immediate incitement to violence - like someone in a city trying to start a riot - but the speaker should be free to express his ideas in some other forum.

Therefore I can use the slippery slope argument. In fact, IMO as soon as any laws which prevent expression of a particular idea are passed, free speech no longer exists.

So then admit you don;t have freedom of speech because of obcenity laws. And given we have already been slidding down the slope for decades, your too late to whine about it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Velociryx
To the folks who are advocating banning "hate speech," a few questions:

Since no one touched my earlier thought control question, let me ask this: Since Hateful Speech stems from Hateful Thought, if the technology were invented tomorrow that allowed monitoring of thought, would you be in support of making Hate Thought illegal too?

As it stands, private discussions are not illegal. They must be public expressions, so I doubt your thought experiment is valid.

Do you honestly believe that legislating against hateful speech will make it go away?

Of course it won't.

I think it's more a public and legal condemnation by the people of Canada that tells hatemongers that they will not get past go, and will definitely never get any traction.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

They'll act whether or not someone says something... there are books where they can get their ideas...

Mein Kampf, anyone?

or heck- even the Bible...

And instead of silent acceptance when some loon crawls out of the cracks and waves some rag like Mein Kampf around, they will be greeted by public prosecution that tells them and anyone else listening, in no uncertain terms, that what they are saying is not OK.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Ooh! I don't agree with any limitations!

That is, I don't agree with any limitations on freedom of expression. IMO yelling "Fire!" is not expression, so don't bring up that tired old example. I agree on limitations on venue, such as in immediate incitement to violence - like someone in a city trying to start a riot - but the speaker should be free to express his ideas in some other forum.

Therefore I can use the slippery slope argument. In fact, IMO as soon as any laws which prevent expression of a particular idea are passed, free speech no longer exists.

And we judge hate speech not to be expression either. It is an act if it falls within certain boundaries, and we will prosecute those who act that way.

[Agathon]

This debate is silly. It is plainly obvious that allowing people to say anything at any time would lead to catastrophic consequences. You can't libel, threaten or slander people.

On the other hand, broad censorship would be even more odious and deny people the fundamental good of being able to express their ideas to their fellows.

So, we have what we have, a series of context and content based limitations to prevent catastrophes and prevent speech being used to harm or harass. Different communities have come up with different standards, but most are more or less the same. In some cases there is good reason to have more stringent standards. For example, prohibiting Nazism in Germany is fine, but not so much elsewhere.

[Velociryx]

Hmmm....that's a good analysis Agathon, but let's take a look at what the guy said for a moment, and see if it qualifies as a catostrophe in the making:

From the original article:

when he told a reporter in Saskatoon on Dec. 13, 2002, that the Jews were a “disease” and Hitler was trying to “clean up the world” when he “fried six million of those guys” during the Second World War.

Now, as far as a catostrophie in the making, I don't see much here to get excited about. We've got some historical fact (lots of Jews DID die ("fried" or otherwise killed) during WWII--some six million or more, in fact), and we've got one man's opinion that this was a good thing, and that the Jewish people are "a disease." It's an opinion on a historical fact. Poorly considered opinion that nicely shows off the speaker's stupidity, but I do not believe that stupidity is, in and of itself, a crime...and a good thing, too! Imagine how few people there would be left if this were so! Are we gonna have to start analyzing everyone's opinions on all historical topics now, in order to make sure that nobody is holding "improper" ones?

I've heard lawyers called worse on any given day of the week.

Further, the Jewish people of the world have taken FAR worse, from FAR more powerful men than this buffoon.

Sounds to me rather like someone who's venting his frustration on any target he can find.

In other words, this is hardly a catostrophe in the making.

Nor is there anywhere in the bits of speech we have access to here, any general call to action against the group in question to carry out a "cleansing of the disease," nor any indication, in fact, other than these statements were this man's own opinions on the matter.

Was it a nice thing to say? Certainly not.

Do I agree with the content of what was said? Nope.

Does that mean I advocate banning his right to express that particular view? Why should I?

-=Vel=-

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Velociryx
They always are, Ting....they always are.

I'm not trying to change your mind. But you were the one harping on DC about questioning his own beliefs, and I find it ironic in the extreme that no one who has come out in support of this law can see the built-in hypocracy. (o

So your theory is that those who advocate freedom, yet believe that murderers should be denied their freedom, are guilty of hypocrisy?