The limits of free speech, and the power to order me to apologize

EzraLevant.com ^ | January 13, 2008 | Ezra Levant

[abb]

Officer McGovern asked if I thought there should be any limits to free speech under our constitution. Of course there should be, and I listed a half-dozen examples. But I drew a distinction between criminal or tortious speech and political speech. I also pointed out that free political speech isn't just protected in a liberal democracy -- it protects a liberal democracy. That's because it acts as a "safety valve" for people who want to change society. They don't have to resort to arms.

We also discussed the absurd -- and illegal -- power of the commission to "order" me to apologize for publishing the cartoons, even if I didn't feel contrite. Officer McGovern confirmed that was the remedy sought by the complainants.

snip

[TOneocon]

Mohammed Elmasry, President of the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), filed complaints with the (Federal) Canadian Human Rights Commission as well as provincial human rights tribunals in Ontario and British Columbia. To be exact, Elmasry filed a complaint against both Steyn and Maclean’s magazine (which is roughly the Canadian equivalent of Time or Newsweek) for publishing an excerpt from America Alone in October 2006.

[backhoe]

The videos are here, and I urge everyone to follow this case intently:

http://youtube.com/profile?user=EzraILevant

Moreover, our sister site in Canada was threatened with CHRC sanction earlier, which was dropped after lots of intense web scrutiny, here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868213/posts
Free Dominion faces possible Human Rights attack
Posted on 07/19/2007

Only to next face civil suit in court, here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1929538/posts
A lawsuit has been served against our Canadian “sister” site, Free Dominion.
Free Dominion ^ | 11-23-07

[IronJack]

Under US case law, the right to free speech can be constrained when that speech represents a "clear and present danger" to society as a whole, or to a definable subset of society. The clear and present danger standard is a high one, and one that is not met by mere inflammatory rhetoric. Certainly not one met by the expression of an opinion.

And in the case of libel or tortious speech, truth is always an absolute defense.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Human Rights Commission in Fresno once tried to shutdown our rights to free speech. Our lawyer cleaned their clock. The city agreed to fire the commission’s chair lady and the commission was eventually disbanded. They were nothing more than a group of Marxist partisans using their unelected government power to advance their liberal agenda.

I thought I remembered that you won a monetary award from someone about some such thing . . . something about FR being characterized as a "hate site," as I remembered it.

And that was what bothered me about FR's response to O'Reily smearing FR as a hate site a while back. I thought that you should have pointed that result out to O'Reily as evidence that he was barking up the wrong tree (if not a veiled threat to sue him like you sued the commission).

[exg]

complaint and response here:

http://ezralevant.com/Soharwardy_complaint.pdf

http://ezralevant.com/Response_to_complaint.pdf

[exg]

They can’t take us ALL to the Human Rights Commission

[abb]

updates from yesterday.

http://ezralevant.com/

[backhoe]

Appreciate the link- thank you.