Ann Coulter cries that Canada is bullying her

[GePap]

Though tea bagging Ann Coulter is probably a quick way to become a eunuch.

[MrFun]

Hate speech is not controversial. Let's get that straight. Free speech is controversial in Canada.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you arguing that people here find hate speech to be a good thing?

The question here is whether or not speech that is considered by most to be offensive ought to be permitted, not whether or not hate speech in itself is considered to be offensive.

Ergo, hate speech in itself is uncontroversial, but the freedom of people to express hate speech is the controversial part.

[Asher]

Are you arguing that people here find hate speech to be a good thing?

Holy ****ing ****, Ben, holy ****ing ****.

[Zevico]

Holy ****ing ****, Ben, holy ****ing ****.

It's clearly a rhetorical question. Calm down.

And BK is quite right. The right to free speech, albeit offensive free speech, is in issue here. In my view the best reason to condemn such speech is that it promotes undesirable social changes (prejudice towards homosexuals, religious groups etc).

While I certainly would not want crazed kooks like the good reverend quoted by Asher taking over any society, I do not think that much will be achieved (and legitimately achieved) by imposing restrictions on their right to free speech. Societies such as the United States, where such restrictions are more lax, became tolerant in time. It is better that people recognise the flaws of the racist argument than leave such matters to a court or tribunal (as the case may be).

But these restrictions limit the political power of groups or ideas that a tribunal or court designates as promoting hate speech. I hardly think that imposing such restrictions will restrict conversation on matters of state for tolerant individuals (and even most intolerant individuals). There is a certain appeal to the notion of a democratic government that protects itself from non-democratic ideologies--"defensive democracy" I think it is called. It is premised on the notion that the people, having heard both sides of an argument, will be swayed by the emotional appeals of a demagogue rather than human experience and common sense. That has been known to happen before.

History isn't giving us a bright-line test on what restrictions may be imposed by a government before it falls to the sway of 'hate speech' or whether it might recover from it. The Weimar Republic is the classic example on the one hand, along with e.g. France, Italy, Spain, all of which adopted fascist ideologies in WW2--but on the other are, e.g. the United States, Canada, and Australia, which cast out racist ideologies over time.

[Asher]

It's clearly a rhetorical question. Calm down.

You clearly don't know Ben. That's how he is interpreting the arguments. He has a 1st grade reading comprehension level.

And BK is quite right. The right to free speech, albeit offensive free speech, is in issue here.

This is just spin.

Canada bans hate speech. That's it. It has to be exceptionally bad hate speech at that.

Yes, this is a limit on free speech. Every single country has reasonable limits on free speech, including yours.