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

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Of course- slander is lies.

hate speech is opinion.

Why shouldn't it be allowed to lie when hate speech is ok? Besides, sometimes it is a rather grey area since some racist comments can count easily as lies.....

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The problem comes down to one of where to draw the line, and as we all know, if you give the government (any government, no matter how well trusted or well intended) an inch, they'll take a whole lot more.

To say that a reasonable limit should not be imposed because it may lead to an unreasonable limit is not much of a theory.

Most countries have laws limiting freedom of speech, such as libel laws, laws against inciting people to riot, etc. And yet, people in democratic countries still have freedom of speech.

Using your logic, we shouldn't let the goverment set limits because if we let do the government will set all kinds of traffic laws. Oh wait, government have, so should we get rid of all traffic laws because the existence of these laws opens the door to a complete ban on driving? Of course not.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Of course- slander is lies.

hate speech is opinion.

So you only want to ban lies? Why is that important?

The danger of a slanderous lie is that it can cause damage to a person's reputation and that this harms the person.

In the U.S., the plaintiff must show that the lie actually caused damage.

The problem isn't a lie, the problem is the damage, if it occurred.

Originally posted by DarkCloud
and drawing the line at 'do you think that anyone would listen to joe idiot' is a terrible thing to do- becuase frankly, if my friend publishes a blog saying 'I really hate Jane" and I go out and kill her- I would have been influenced by HIM- not a big public figure...

This falls under the criteria of whether it is reasonable to assume that you intended to cause damage to Jane and whether it is reasonable to assume your statement may have cause someone else to inflict damage on Jane.

No reasonable person would conclude that the fact that you hate Jane is going to incite anyone to violence.

Just as there's a difference between shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre and saying quietly, "do you smell smoke?"

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
David Duke (KKK leader- former governor of Louisiana), and others are high profile hate-spewers... yet they'll never act on their statements since they'll be caught almost instantly since they are so high profile and watched- instead they'll convince others to do things... but why should anyone listen to a leader who's too afraid to act? These people honestly lose their credibility the longer they preach without acting. And then they recede into obscurity.

But people do listen to people who incite hate. People do act on these words.

If a person should be held responsible for their actions, then why not their words that cause others to commit crimes? Or do you deny that words influence people to action?

And I'll leave at that because it is 2:30am here.

[DarkCloud]

BeBro

Why shouldn't it be allowed to lie when hate speech is ok? Besides, sometimes it is a rather grey area since some racist comments can count easily as lies.....

Well... would you rather have the benefit of the doubt than to be prosecuted for something that was misunderstood?

It's easier to prove a case utilizing facts rather than assumptions.

And just so you know- slander, as a civil case, is proven "with a reasonable possibility that it is intended to harm." (but once again, it's based upon actual lies rather than opinions- such as "I think that Johnny D. is a nutcase" wouldn't be prosecutable if the stater backed up his assertion with proof that "Johnny D. goes to a psychologist for evaluations and has said x, x, and x which are stupid."

However, if the stater said "Johnny D. is a nutcase because he goes to the shrink"... and Johnny NEVER went to the shrink, that would be slander.

****

whereas hate speech as a criminal case would have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt"

In order to do that, one would need to prove that __X__ said "Kill Y" rather than merely implied it.
----
And once again, back to the opinions- would you like your statements here and elsewhere to be misinterpreted? Perhaps even your misread/missaid/misheard jokes? That's why we have free speech to express ourselves.

[Shi Huangdi]

What's to stop the government from one day prosecuting criticism of immigration policies, since many seem to believe that is racist?

[DarkCloud]

So you only want to ban lies? Why is that important?

The danger of a slanderous lie is that it can cause damage to a person's reputation and that this harms the person.

In the U.S., the plaintiff must show that the lie actually caused damage.

The problem isn't a lie, the problem is the damage, if it occurred.

Of course.

That's why we have free speech- to let people express themselves- and to protect people from harming others through lies.

No reasonable person would conclude that the fact that you hate Jane is going to incite anyone to violence.

But ah- by your own definition, it would be just as reasonable as prosecuting a cleric for saying "I hate america."

If a person should be held responsible for their actions, then why not their words that cause others to commit crimes? Or do you deny that words influence people to action?

Many things influence people to actions. Let's make them all illegal. Let's make it illegal for people to visit websites of islamic fundamentalist groups- only the government can visit those sites and see those sites because it might hurt people to see them.

Then the government is the only outlet for telling the media, the populace, what other people think.

Shades of 1984... shades of North Korea where they can tell their citizens that "south koreans will kill you if you emigrate- they hate you as persons." where the government can make up all the news.

Yes- let's make hate speech illegal since it incites people to do bad things... and let's make it illegal to visit hate websites or websites where hateful things are said by people who can't be prosecuted because they don't live in our nation and aren't as enlightened as us.

Let's quash all form of expressive discussion because as we all know- people will love each other and not universalize their hate of others.

I mean, then people can read things and come to their own conclusions.

It's not as if they are not going to read the bible and come to their own conclusions that say, Jews are evil because they 'killed Jesus.'

I mean- that's not happened before, has it?

---
Banning hate speech leads to banning books that propogate hate speech which leads to the banning of many books... perhaps even the Adventures of Tom Sawyer because Jim is referred to as a "n---" in the novel. I mean, it's not like these books contribute anything to our understanding of people in the past or culture or history or anything.

[Velociryx]

Ting, the problem with what you are saying is that your "reasonable limits" are not reasonable in and of themselves.

How would we possibly define what *exactly* constituted "hate speech"?

And further, what's next? Hate speech is a direct result of Hate thought, so perhaps we should ban that as well.

And what is the definition of hate thought?

If you get mad at your mom because she interferes in your life too much, and you think unpleasant thoughts at her, does this qualify?

If you, as Shi mentioned, discuss EITHER SIDE of the racially charged issue of immegration laws (for or against), is that not "hate speech" (after all, it seems that in order to really make a useful law out of this, then we'll need to go a route similar to sexual harassment, which means that if ANYONE could possibly construe a statement as being hateful, then they can build a case against you, in which case this would most certainly apply).

Our society is already too filled up with lawyers and lawsuits. What you are proposing would add orders of magnitude TO that already excessive amount, and for what?

For what gain?

I'm sorry guy, but I can't see any.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Further, allow me to reverse the question:

Why SHOULD we make hate speech illegal?

What would the advantages be? Would would be the litmus test(s) to see if the law had been violated? What benefits to society do you see coming from such a law? What dangers?

In my mind, and in the minds of a fair number of others here, the potential dangers of such a course of action FAR exceed any minor gains that such a law MIGHT bring about.

It's just not worth it.

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
hate-speech laws

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
That's why we have free speech- to let people express themselves- and to protect people from harming others through lies.

Which is why we have laws against hate speech in Canada.

If you slander a group, you can be prosecuted.

Originally posted by DarkCloud
But ah- by your own definition, it would be just as reasonable as prosecuting a cleric for saying "I hate america."

You seem to have completely misunderstoof what I said.

Saying "I hate Jane" is not hate speech, just as saying "I hate the US" is not hate speech because neither incite violence against the object in question.

As well, both statements are true.

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Many things influence people to actions. Let's make them all illegal. Let's make it illegal for people to visit websites of islamic fundamentalist groups- only the government can visit those sites and see those sites because it might hurt people to see them.

If the website contains slanderous lies against a group, then yes, it should be banned, just as a website that says Joe Smith is a pedophile, when he is not, should also be banned. In both cases, the lies do or will likely cause, damage.

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Then the government is the only outlet for telling the media, the populace, what other people think.

Shades of 1984... shades of North Korea where they can tell their citizens that "south koreans will kill you if you emigrate- they hate you as persons." where the government can make up all the news.

A complete red herring.

Your argument is like saying that if we have speed limits then the government will ban driving.

The issue is the law against hate speech, not some imaginary draconian propaganda.

Originally posted by DarkCloud
I mean, then people can read things and come to their own conclusions.

Using that argument, you would have to be opposed to libel laws.

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Banning hate speech leads to banning books that propogate hate speech which leads to the banning of many books... perhaps even the Adventures of Tom Sawyer because Jim is referred to as a "n---" in the novel.

Not at all. Canadian law specifically makes exceptions for works of artistic merit.

A similar exception exists for laws against child pornography, otherwise Romeo and Juliet would be illegal.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Velociryx
How would we possibly define what *exactly* constituted "hate speech"?

The same way we define slander or libel.

Is the statement likely to incite violence
Does the statement promote hatred against a group
Does the statement advocate violence against a group?

Originally posted by Velociryx
And further, what's next? Hate speech is a direct result of Hate thought, so perhaps we should ban that as well.

But, of course we do not, for the simple reason that it is impossible to ban any thought. All the rest of your comments are red herrings, or straw men.

Originally posted by Velociryx
If you, as Shi mentioned, discuss EITHER SIDE of the racially charged issue of immegration laws (for or against), is that not "hate speech"

Depends on what you say.

If you say that you don't want Chinese immigrants because they are lesslikely to speak English, then that is not hate speech because it does not incite people to violence.

If you say Chinese immigrants are all criminals and should be shot, then that is hate speech.

Originally posted by Velociryx
Our society is already too filled up with lawyers and lawsuits.

Another red herring.

Whether people will sue under a specific law has nothing to do with whether a law is just.

[Last Conformist]

Where did the the "intolerance is bad" meme come from anywhy?

The law is highly intolerant of murder. Is that a bad thing?

[Az]

you intolerant bastard, TLC.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Why SHOULD we make hate speech illegal?

What would the advantages be?

Because we live in a world where the promotion of hate propaganda against specific groups leads to violence.

Look at the Muslims who advocated violence against Western countries.

Or White supremists who drum up hate against non-whites.

In a fairyland world, we would be able to sit down and rationally discuss these issues without resorting to violence, but we live in a real world and history tell us that rational discourse is not enough.

The Holocaust did not spring into existence from nowhere. It required a foundation of hatred against the jews.

The Rwanda genocide occurred because of decades of hate speech between the Hutu and the Tutsi.

Homosexuals are violently attacked because of anti-gay statements.

By saying that we will not tolerate hate propaganda, we send a message and we prevent the cancer from spreading. More than that, it means that all Canadians can live in peace, without the fear and the violence that hate propaganda generates.

And what is lost? People can no longer legally tell lies with the intention of stirring up violence against an innocent group of people. That's not much a loss and Canadian society will be the better without it.