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

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
and this will really quash the 'nazis will disappear if we don't let them speak' argument:

You completely miss the point. Laws against homocide, and the death sentence in some jurisdictions, do not prevent murder.

What Canadians have done is decided that expression which is likely to lead to damage (fire in the theatre, or public expression that is likely to encourage an environment of racist violence) will be unlawful. I don't think anyone pretended that our laws by themselves will stamp out racial hate (or other bigotted views).

What we are doing is saying that it is not acceptable to us, that it is a crime, and that there will be some (minor) punishment.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
HERE is a prime example of why limiting free speech is harmful: (any statement made on the web could be construed to be a public statement- and how do you enforce these laws?)

And a total red herring as it involves European attempts to enforce local laws over a global phenomena.

The GoC has not done that with our hate laws.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by 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...

It's not a catastrophe in the making.

It is speech which is likely to contribute to an environment in which people and property will be harmed. We decided that is not OK. The guy got a $1000 fine for his contribution to your 'catastrophe'.

[Kuciwalker]

No one talks to me

[notyoueither]

All we'd be doing is saying 'it's white'... 'no, it's black', Kuci.

We differ in our opinions on where to draw the line, that's all.

[notyoueither]

But if you like...

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

That's stupid. Hate speech is expression (by which I mean political or philosophical expression) by definition, pretty much.

I take it that you place 'fire' in a theatre or 'I'll kill you!' in a bar to be something more than expression. It can lead to harm, so it should be judged differently, yes?

Now, if you believe that someone saying 'Jews are a disease, so and so was right to kill 6 million of them', or 'black men should not sleep with white women, when one does, he should be lynched', to be liable to contribute to as much harm, or more, than an alarmist in a theatre, or a belligerent drunk, then can't you see taking such people to task for it?

[Velociryx]

Nope...don't really see any similarities in the two examples you posted, NYE.

"Fire!" in any crowded forum is likely to spark an immediate, instinctual response in people to get away from the danger.

This response, when it occurs en masse, can lead to injury as the exits are not wide enough to allow everyone to leave at the same time.

As to the "I'll kill you!" example in a bar...I've heard and had much worse said to me while visiting such places. My usual response is to take another drink and laugh.

I think that is the norm, also, else we would see a great many more fatalities and brawls in such places, because those kinds of comments are hardly rare.

We don't, signifying that the "potential danger" they cause is vastly overblown.

Nor does saying that the jews are a disease lead people to the same sort of instinctual drive that yelling out "fire!" in a crowded place does.

That phrase has been mentioned repeatedly here in this very thread, and yet, I've seen nothing on the news to indicate that poly's posters have suddenly become bloodthirsty anti-semites and gone on killing sprees.

Have you?

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I take it that you place 'fire' in a theatre or 'I'll kill you!' in a bar to be something more than expression. It can lead to harm, so it should be judged differently, yes?

No. It's less than expression - it doesn't express any political or philosophical ideas. It just communicates (falsely) the fact that there's a fire or the fact that I'm going to kill you.

[Tingkai]

"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility... the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down."
-- Hitler

"People will always believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.'' - OSS report on Hitler's proganda techniques

[Wezil]

That's why it is not a good idea to put the government in charge of protecting the truth.

[Tingkai]

Just as the law applies to ordinary people, it applies to politicians if not more. It makes it far more difficult for politicians to tell the big lie against particular groups of people.

[Kuciwalker]

If you're afraid that they'll actually convince a majority or at least a significant minority with their ideas... you've definately crossed the line from protecting the peace to oppression.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


No. It's less than expression - it doesn't express any political or philosophical ideas. It just communicates (falsely) the fact that there's a fire or the fact that I'm going to kill you.

BUZZZZ

Completely wrong.

Not the reason that "fire in a crowded theatre" is not protected.

[Kuciwalker]

BUZZZZ

Irrelevent.

I'm explaining why I don't think it should be protected.

[KrazyHorse]

So only speech that doesn't present philosophical or political ideas should not be protected?

What about: this man in this picture performs abortions. Abortion is murder. To protect the rights of the innocent unborn it would therefore be right to kill this man.