Hate laws a reasonable limit on free speech

Toronto Star ^ | Jun 22, 2008 | Haroon Siddiqui

[yldstrk]

That is the part Canada doesn’t get about free speech. It’s got to be free. As long as it doesn’t incite a riot, it’s ok.

[Savage Beast]

"Free debate, not censorship, is the key to combating hate speech... The world didn't suffer because too many people read Mein Kampf. Sending Hitler on a speaking tour of the US would have been quite a good idea."
-Harvey Silverglate-

The only people who would oppose freedom of speech are the one's who are afraid of the truth--including the possibility that what they love saying is not the truth.

[Unam Sanctam]

It is a waste of government resources to ban something as subjective and elastic as “incitement to hatred”. Only direct incitement to violence should be banned.

[Fishrrman]

“This armed citizen doesn’t want to be a subject.”

Fearless prediction:
National restrictions on “hate speech” will be a priority of the Obama administration and ‘rat Congress.

After that: hate “thought”....

- John

[Fishrrman]

“Want to talk racial hatred...you will be exposed and the community will reveal you for what you are...a pig who deserves to be an outcast. However, using the force of the state to stop it violates their constitutional command to protect it.”

What about the millions upon millions of older Americans who spate “hate speech” against “the Japs” and “the Krauts” in World War II? Should THEY be considered “outcasts” for feeling and speaking as they did?

I contend that “hate” and “hate speech” is actually NECESSARY if we - of the West - are serious about confronting and defeating the dark enemy that seeks to destroy us. They certainly have no qualms about “hating” us and our way of life.

If you can’t use “hateful” and sometimes “inflammatory” speech in order to mobilize the emotions of a nation to defeat a sworn enemy, what ARE you going to use? Kumbaya?

- John (who realizes that this post may be considered “inflammatory” and thus removed by the moderators)

[MrB]

Any opposition to or criticism of Islam is going to be subject to “hate speech” laws.

They’re using our goodwill against us to eventually enslave us.

[The Toll]

If I hate you then I hate you. If you prevent me from hating you with my words I will hate you with my actions.

[Nonstatist]

Making an enemies list and having the national government peanalize those on it. . No chance for a abouse there, I’m sure.

[Ratblaster]

And if my thought-dreams could be seen
They’d probably put my head in a guillotine
But it’s alright, Ma, it’s life, and life only.

Bob Dylan
Copyright © 1965; renewed 1993

[rintense]

Bullocks.

Coming soon to America.

[andy58-in-nh]

The purpose of all "Hate Speech" laws is to criminalize intentions. To hold any person legally responsible for the feelings and/or interpretations of another is irrational and unenforceable, but that is precisely the point of such laws. Their purpose is to discourage or "chill" in advance the open expression of ideas to which the state or its favored interests object.

Do you suppose anyone has recorded a recent speech in, say, a Toronto mosque - to see if the feelings of anyone on the outside might have been potentially hurt?

Me neither.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Canada has followed a different path on free speech than the United States, where there are no anti-hate laws because the U.S. Bill of Rights says "Congress shall make no laws ... abridging freedom of speech or of the press."

Muslims don't know about homosexual hate crime laws?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

This article is hate speech.

[muawiyah]

Moslems undoubtedly reject the notion that homosexuality should be protected by law.

They don't talk about that though. They are sensitive to their listeners' feelings eh!

[ICE-FLYER]

I think you may not get my post clearly and thats most likely my fault. However, you can not assume that I speak broadly across time with what I am saying. The Japanese of today are not like they were during WWII when their superiority complex and devotion past that of cult followers made them do what they did and the Americans of the days calling their enemy a slang term is reaction to their enemies action. Is it racial hatred? Actually...yes, but not of bigotry because they are simply a race...though we in-turned thousands of them unlawfully in my opinion.

Don't invent what I did not say because of differing times and places and events and such.

[ICE-FLYER]

I think you may not get my post clearly and thats most likely my fault. However, you can not assume that I speak broadly across time with what I am saying. The Japanese of today are not like they were during WWII when their superiority complex and devotion past that of cult followers made them do what they did and the Americans of the days calling their enemy a slang term is reaction to their enemies action. Is it racial hatred? Actually...yes, but not of bigotry because they are simply a race...though we in-turned thousands of them unlawfully in my opinion.

Don't invent what I did not say because of differing times and places and events and such.

[festus]

“a reasonable limit on free speach”

Err. If its limited it aint free.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!

You’re funny. But probably correct.