Ann Coulter cries that Canada is bullying her

[Asher]

Actually the claim is that individual rights are the basis of a well-functionling society. However, notice that I used the word claim, not belief. Who knows what people really believe. It seems evident that some belief that individual rights are more important than how society functions.

They are not absolutes. Every society balances these differently. That's one reason the arguments simply that "freedom of speech" is a fundamental right fall short -- the US already compromises on freedom of speech in several significant ways. The question is now how far should those rights be restricted, and that's a debate no one else here seems able to fathom.

[MrFun]

Ugh. Socialism.



It seems rather unenlightened to ignore that a very small segment of ideas in this world are terrible ones. That 99% of people will agree on. Ideas that provide no benefit to society and whose only purpose is to, in fact, tear it apart.

You see, I have a very serious problem with the idea of banning speech that involves any ideas that provide no benefit to society. I think anyone should be free to say anything, regardless of other people's opinion on whether or not it is contributing anything positive.

American freedom of speech law does not violate any rights of other people, so I am having difficulty understanding how you can possibly think restricting speech can be a good thing. Inciting others to violence? We already have laws in place to deal with this. Ku Klux Klan rallies? Let them parade in their white sheets and puke out racist dogma - the vast majority of Americans have ostracized the KKK.

And I did take offense with your branwashed remark. You don't build honest conversation about this issue on ad-hominem attacks.

[Wezil]

You recognize no limits to that Mr. Fun?

[Asher]

You see, I have a very serious problem with the idea of banning speech that involves any ideas that provide no benefit to society. I think anyone should be free to say anything, regardless of other people's opinion on whether or not it is contributing anything positive.

So you think it's fine for someone to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre? You think it's fine for people to slander others with impunity?

American freedom of speech law does not violate any rights of other people, so I am having difficulty understanding how you can possibly think restricting speech can be a good thing. Inciting others to violence? We already have laws in place to deal with this.

How can you have laws in place to protect freedom of speech if you have laws against inciting others to violence? That's essentially all Canada's "hate speech" law does, yet you're so opposed to it.

And I did take offense with your branwashed remark. You don't build honest conversation about this issue on ad-hominem attacks.

I've yet to have an honest conversation on the matter. The reason why can be traced back to the "brainwashed" remark. Perhaps the word is a bit harsh, while still being accurate.

Americans are born and instantly pummeled with thoughts that stick with them the rest of their life, as part of the definition of being "American". One of those things is "freedom of speech". The mere presence of that phrase pretty much scuttles any opportunity for honest, intellectual debate on the matter because Americans treat it as a given, something that is not even discussed...brainwashing is a term that is accurate here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ugh. Socialism.



It seems rather unenlightened to ignore that a very small segment of ideas in this world are terrible ones. That 99% of people will agree on. Ideas that provide no benefit to society and whose only purpose is to, in fact, tear it apart.

I gots no problems with certain forms of socialism (I am a HCR supporter, after all) .

Certain ideas may be terrible, but the gist is that they should be allowed to be aired as well because the society at large through the marketplace of ideas should decide if the idea is terrible, not some government apparatus. After all, back in 1800, an anti-slavery rant would likely be deemed as a 'terrible idea'.

I can see the argument for the other side, but its not my cup of tea.

[Sparrowhawk]

After all, back in 1800, an anti-slavery rant would likely be deemed as a 'terrible idea'.

And in 1850? 1900? 1950? 2010? As ideas change over time so do the laws, and what is acceptable to society. Today our society (both in Canada and the US) views genocide, slavery, incest and cannabalism as taboos but perhaps in the days to come these come to change and become acceptable. Today I don't support people engaging in them or encouraging others to engage in them. Talking about them? Go for it not a problem (though I and others will look at you funny)! Inciting or encouraging others to practice them? No, we want to control that while you in the states want to give them freedom to continue not only talking about, but inciting others to actively participate.

I can see the argument for the other side, but its not my cup of tea.

Which I think is the point. Those of you in the States and believing that "Freedom of Speech" is the end all be all don't want to see the argument for the other side. Canada has a law which restricts it to a very small degree. Canada also has a Prime Minister where you have a President, we have provinces where you have states and so on. At the end of the day I think it is a pretty minor difference as Asher has shown it is a law that is seldom needed but these minor differences are part of what makes our cup of tea different then those in the US. You had a revolutionary war, I am still proud to be part of the commonwealth, big deal.

[action=Sparrowhawk][/action]

[Sparrowhawk]

I can almost guarantee you, that while this horrible stuff is legal in our country, the school will most certainly fire him. Or, if they were smart enough to find this out in the hiring process, they would refuse to hire him.

So to take your example to the extreme, if he were to be fired from one school after another, and just moved on to the next school each time, while he would have broken no laws he would be allowed to continue to "teach" his hatred? If he then went to work for a school that agreed with him, could he (and the school) go on promoting hatred without having broken any laws?

I suspect your answer is that society wouldn't allow it, but isn't that what laws are there to protect? The rights of society? You are asking the school board to enforce a policy that disagrees with your laws of freedom of speech. Would it not make more sense to have government make the law that makes it a criminal act for this teacher to teach this, rather then leaving him at the mercy of the education system and free to corrupt the minds of how ever many children (one is too many I think).

[action=Sparrowhawk][/action]

[MrFun]

So you think it's fine for someone to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre? You think it's fine for people to slander others with impunity?

Strawman. Yelling fire in a theater would result in injuries and/or death.

[Ecofarm]

But someone did yell fire in a crowded theatre and Ann was libeled by that "warning letter" from the University. Having been libeled by the university, the students reacted in protests that were not peaceful, thus endangerig Ann. The school is most assuredly guilty of hate speech against women and conservatives (both identifiable groups), from a Top Office (libel) to the Lowly Freshman (yelling fire).

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

You see, I have a very serious problem with the idea of banning speech that involves any ideas that provide no benefit to society. I think anyone should be free to say anything, regardless of other people's opinion on whether or not it is contributing anything positive.

If you ever find yourself in a criminal court, trying repeatedly calling the Judge a **** and see just how free your speech is.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And in 1850? 1900? 1950? 2010? As ideas change over time so do the laws, and what is acceptable to society.

Exactly. Hence, keep the ability to be able to state even distasteful opinions (at that time) and therefore you don't have to frantically change the law every X amount of years to determine what can be said.

Inciting or encouraging others to practice them? No, we want to control that while you in the states want to give them freedom to continue not only talking about, but inciting others to actively participate.

Well inciting violence is banned (if there is a real threat of it being carried out... simply saying all X should be shot won't necessarily do it). And any time you are talking about a distasteful view, you are encouraging it (no one believes something that they don't want others to believe).

Which I think is the point. Those of you in the States and believing that "Freedom of Speech" is the end all be all don't want to see the argument for the other side.

Most of what I've seen on this thread has been Canadians falling for trolls. Which is, you know, fine. For the most part, Americans believe you can do what you want and we'll do what we want.

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you realise Drake that "sexual orientation" isn't even in the 1982 Charter?

Do you think I really care what's in the Charter? I'm older than it is, for god's sake.

[-Jrabbit]

But someone did yell fire in a crowded theatre and Ann was libeled by that "warning letter" from the University. Having been libeled by the university, the students reacted in protests that were not peaceful, thus endangerig Ann. The school is most assuredly guilty of hate speech against women and conservatives (both identifiable groups), from a Top Office (libel) to the Lowly Freshman (yelling fire).

This is only true if the University made their warning public. If it was personal communication, it can't be libel or hate speech.

I don't know the circumstances of this "warning letter" becoming public. But if it was released by Coulter's camp to show how she was being repressed (a definite posibility), the Uni is in the clear.

[Drake Tungsten]

Ann Coulter can't be libeled in America. She's clearly a public figure.

[Flubber]

Why do people have a problem with the idea that there MUST be limits to individual rights.

My right to swing my fist freely ends at the body of any other individual.

My right to private property is limited in that I am not legally permitted to own or possess a nuclear bomb, anthrax or cocaine. You can debate the merits of each if you wish but in each instance societal interests have reduced individual rights.

On to free speech-- Almost no one defends a person's right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. How about their right to intentionally call in an false emergency to police or fire departments ( a crime in most places within America I suspect). How about giving a false statement to a police officer to pin a crime on an ethnicity you dislike ?( obstructing justice or potentially perjury)

How about standing up in fromt of 100 people and inciting them by lies to do harm to another nearby ethnic group?

If you read the Canadian law closely it is designed to be of very limited application. It attempts to strike a balance between an individual's right to be a misinformed bigot and to express bigoted and hateful thoughts as against society's interest to attempt to reduce incitement of groups to hate motivated actions.

One can debate how well the law strikes that balance but to shrug it off and say "free speech" is the answer is NOT honest debate of the premise