Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.

International Herald Tribune ^ | June 11, 2008 | Adam Liptak

[NutCrackerBoy]

VANCOUVER, British Columbia: A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article's tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States did not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Even if sympathetic to idea of Canada's "hate speech" laws, any reasonable person must see that Mark Steyn's commentary serves a vital purpose and there must be something wrong if one cannot say what is necessary to be said.

Sorry, I forgot. Liberals are not reasonable.

[Cindy]

Related Link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2029780/posts";

“Media Ignore That Gagging Sound from Canada
townhall.com ^ | June 11, 2008 | By Robert Knight
Posted on June 11, 2008 6:06:41 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

[Tzimisce]

Still think we’ll rate in the middle of the liberal “most free speech allowed” nations?

I bet we will. :D

[NutCrackerBoy]

There are several related threads. Here's another: GAGGED IN CANADA (SPEECH POLICE RUN AMOK)

[Tzimisce]

Still think we’ll rate in the middle of the liberal “most free speech allowed” nations?

I bet we will. :D

[seanrobins]

>>>Even if sympathetic to idea of Canada’s “hate speech” laws . . .

Can someone tell me who in their right mind would support these insane “hate speech” laws.

Let me just say, for the record, “Canada” - “France” - other gutless, mindless, nations of your ilk . . .

I HATE YOU!!!

(Now, please prosecute me...)

[seanrobins]

>>>Still think we’ll rate in the middle of the liberal “most free speech allowed” nations?

I know that we do have some problems... (most of which stem from the silly political correctness that we acceed to... voluntarily, I might add...)

but where, in the godforesaken third world outside of our borders, is speech freer?

[Billthedrill]

It can happen here - meaning the USA. There were rumblings throughout the article of a frighteningly earnest willingness to discard the First Amendment in favor of an "enlightened" regard for the feelings of protected classes. This is something far more profound than words. It is the acknowledgment of the desire to discard the principle of one law for all in favor of Special Rules For Special People. I can think of nothing more corrosive to a free society.

It stems from a tired, failed, simplistic but still powerful political model of a society consisting of one privileged class and a number of oppressed ones. From the privileged class rights must be seized; to the oppressed ones extra rights must be granted, all in the name of a fictive social justice that is nothing more than an excuse to tear a society apart class by class. There is nothing subtle about this - the people undertaking this effort are the knowing enemies of liberty and they know perfectly well what they are doing.

[Minn]

The irony of using laws against so-called hate speech to submit to and appease the adherents of the most thoroughly hatful and violent ideology on the planet completely escapes these people.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Can someone tell me who in their right mind would support these insane “hate speech” laws?

I can see why people do. Look at it on the community level with other kinds of speech. Should a small town be able to forbid a XXX shop from setting up on Main Street? Drive jerks shouting obscenities to the town line? They think: In "our community", I want minorities to feel comfortable and do something about epithets hurled at them.

In their right mind? Arguably. But stupid not to understand that the Unintended Consequences are worse.

[TigersEye]

Liberals should be publically flogged daily and a cable channel devoted to broadcasting it. Stupid liberal ideas can be displayed in a scrolling banner at the bottom of the screen to explain why they're being flogged.

Can I say that in Canada?

[TigersEye]

Can someone tell me who in their right mind would support these insane “hate speech” laws.

It's a little ironic that Nazi memorabilia and holocaust denial are are hate crimes when it was the Nazis who did so much to perect the art of political correctness, book burning and similar propaganda techniques. Liberals are what they vehemently claim to hate. The little haters.

[Earthdweller]

"Liberals are not reasonable."

We really need to stop calling these types liberals. They are actually fascists and totalitarians bent on enslaving us. Liberal is much too kind a word.

[Peelod]

Canadia is such a considerate country. The gubmint does your thinking for you.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The irony of using laws against so-called hate speech to submit to and appease the adherents of the most thoroughly hateful and violent ideology on the planet completely escapes these people.

If Canada is not going to stringently protect free speech, at least they should have the guts to deport Islamic clerics inciting terrorism in mosques.

[muawiyah]

Hmmm ~ true enough, Canada has about as much free speech as any third-world country.

[Earthdweller]

Well said.

[garbanzo]

There were rumblings throughout the article of a frighteningly earnest willingness to discard the First Amendment in favor of an "enlightened" regard for the feelings of protected classes.

This is scary, especially given the Europhila of the left-wing here and the overarching desire to be liked by the European intelligensia.

[haroldeveryman]

Mark Steyn: “Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.”
“International Herald Tribune: “In Canada, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, nor should it be”

Democracy in the U.S. is about individual freedom. Our idea freedom of speech are taken to mean freedom of expression of ideas and opinions, and not conspiracy to take action to commit a criminal act, like for example, lynching or planting a bomb, or inciting a riot against someone whose you don’t like.

European social democracies are mostly about “fairness”. “Fairness” is a subjective term. When subjectivity governs you no longer have rule of law, and the government can do anything it wants to you. It’s no accident that European ideas of “liberty equality and fraternity” led to communism and fascism.

For example “enlightened” Germany, had free health care ever since Bismark put the place together. Nevertheless, it was perfectly clear to Hitler that since the Jews had money and power far out of proportion to their numbers, it was only “fair” to recognize that this presented a “problem”, and that this “Jewish Problem” required a “solution”.

Contrast this with the fact that in the U.S., Jews ( or South Asian Indians, or Greeks) have had every right to make more money than the rest of us. What about social harmony? As Milton Friedman noted, people that hate one another will cooperate to make money.

[SkyPilot]

"But in the United States," Schauer continued, "all such speech remains constitutionally protected." Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech.

When Obama is President, all that will change. It will be a crime to defend Biblical scripture.

This board will be banned within 5 years.

If you think I am joking, you are not paying attention.