Freedom of Speech - Canadian Style

Samm · 2020-01-11T10:42:52.790Z

Pretty much the same in Great Britain.

Samm · 2020-01-11T10:46:39.750Z

mobulis:

Samm:

So you are not free to speak if someone thinks that what you say might inspire someone to act violently. Got it.

Nope, you are not free to speak if YOU ARE TRYING TO INCITE PEOPLE TO ACT VIOLENTLY.

Wrong. If nobody reacts, there are no consequences. You can only be held responsible if you cause harm. Being called a terrorist may piss you off, but it causes you no harm.

westaussie · 2020-01-11T11:10:20.058Z

That is just nonsense your assertion in your post.

Samm · 2020-01-11T11:11:30.946Z

westaussie:

That is just nonsense your assertion in your post.

I’m not sure what you are getting at, but in this country, you cannot be charged with inciting violence unless your words (or actions) actually incited violence. Free speech is a Constitutional Right here. You can say anything you want, so long as no harm results.

mobulis · 2020-01-11T11:30:07.680Z

Samm:

westaussie:

That is just nonsense your assertion in your post.

I’m not sure what you are getting at, but in this country, you cannot be charged with inciting violence unless your words (or actions) actually incited violence. Free speech is a Constitutional Right here. You can say anything you want, so long as no harm results.

So there’s no such thing as attempted murder, attempted theft, attempted ect.

westaussie · 2020-01-11T11:31:31.672Z

The law(s) being discussed in this thread are the ones that have been passed in Canada; not the USA.

Hexenbiest · 2020-01-11T15:49:45.614Z

Samm:

someone thinks that what you say mig

This is such a dangerous path to go down. Speech needs to be completely free in the west to work, and yes that means those idiots who deny the holocaust to or other crazies.

When did “Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” get replaced with “Safe Spaces” “Trigger Warnings” and what you said “Words have consequences”. That can be broaden so much it’s not a road any free western liberal society should go down.

westaussie · 2020-01-11T15:56:11.767Z

I disagree entirel;y that is why I support my country’s section 18C of the racial discrimination act.

Hexenbiest · 2020-01-11T16:11:09.712Z

Why? What will it help? Don’t you want to know who the racists are when they speak out or just have that fester inside till one day the bust out and do something crazy. It’s best to debate someone and see if you can change their mind instead of telling people to shut up.

I was reading the law… Just like I said on the dangers of something to broad.

Offensive behavior because of race, color or national or ethnic origin

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

“That could be anything in a debate people don’t want to hear and easy way to shut down debates that need to happen. We see that happen here on sensitive subjects like immigration I have been called a racist many times for wanting less immigration, should I go to jail because I was accused of questioning what I think are holes in our laws? Someone easily can say his words offended me, that’s exactly what debates are for to challenge others in sometimes uncomfortable topics, it is how we move forward. After that next up you will get blasphemy laws, because well that offends to right and well you really don’t like Islam because of brown am I right?”

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

“Who determines this?” These are the type of laws you see in the not so best of countries why emulate things and places that suck? I will quote the great Salman Rushdie “Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.”

westaussie · 2020-01-11T16:15:12.979Z

@Hexenbiest before I read the entirety of your post and respond to same, could you please clarify which legislation you are referring to in your post? Thanks.

Hexenbiest · 2020-01-11T16:16:52.360Z

Sorry I just saw I had a lot of bad grammar. I tried to correct it the best I could on this bloody phone
I was assuming you were referring to this

en.wikipedia.org

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, deals with offensive behaviour "because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin" in Australia. It is a section of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which was passed by the Australian Parliament during the term of the Whitlam government and makes racial discrimination unlawful in Australia. Section 18C was added by the Keating government in 1995. The Section has been controversial and subject to much debate. As of November 2016, Sectio...

westaussie · 2020-01-11T16:31:15.212Z

No that is fine. I was just clarifying whether you were referring to my country’s legislation or Canada’s legislation.

Generally speaking only the most egregious examples are considered under this act. I personally don’t think there should be no limits to what people can say whether it is to do with ones race, religion, sexuality etc. I don’t believe that limits one’s ability to debate an issue; but it does limit the ability for a person to vilify another person based on race etc. For example, Pauline Hanson has not been prevented from campaigning using such slogans as “Australia is being overrun by Asians” (1990s) or “Australia is being overrun by Muslims” (2000s).

We have never had unfettered free speech in Australia. Our libel and slander laws constrain what is allowed to be said or written. 18C is an extension that protects minorities from excessive hate speech.

As I am typing this I am watching a tennis match; so please feel to ask me to clarify any point.

JayJay · 2020-01-11T16:40:31.301Z

The arguments here essentially are between people who are rooted in a principle of pretty much absolute freedom from any prior restraint and those who think prior restraint should exist in certain situations.

Such an argument will never be resolved because it ends up being a matter of opinion and culture.

Precisely why groups like Menzies’ go out there and places like Red State publish content like this…it riles the tribes up!

Samm · 2020-01-11T22:54:01.884Z

mobulis:

Samm:

westaussie:

That is just nonsense your assertion in your post.

I’m not sure what you are getting at, but in this country, you cannot be charged with inciting violence unless your words (or actions) actually incited violence. Free speech is a Constitutional Right here. You can say anything you want, so long as no harm results.

So there’s no such thing as attempted murder, attempted theft, attempted ect.

What does that have to do with speech?

Samm · 2020-01-11T22:55:06.990Z

westaussie:

The law(s) being discussed in this thread are the ones that have been passed in Canada; not the USA.

I know that. That’s why I am pointing out that they really do not have freedom of speech in Canada.

Samm · 2020-01-11T23:06:03.522Z

westaussie:

No that is fine. I was just clarifying whether you were referring to my country’s legislation or Canada’s legislation.

Generally speaking only the most egregious examples are considered under this act. I personally don’t think there should be no limits to what people can say whether it is to do with ones race, religion, sexuality etc. I don’t believe that limits one’s ability to debate an issue; but it does limit the ability for a person to vilify another person based on race etc. For example, Pauline Hanson has not been prevented from campaigning using such slogans as “Australia is being overrun by Asians” (1990s) or “Australia is being overrun by Muslims” (2000s).

We have never had unfettered free speech in Australia. Our libel and slander laws constrain what is allowed to be said or written. 18C is an extension that protects minorities from excessive hate speech.

Which make the law arbitrary and subjective. The only thing worse than legislating away free speech is subjective enforcement of such a law. That inevitably will result in the law being used to persecute people who express unpopular positions.

westaussie · 2020-01-12T01:58:38.968Z

And as I pointed out there have been very few such prosecutions as you describe and which are invariably dismissed. Albeit some RWNJs want to change this law, as evidenced by the rejection of such amendments in the Senate show that we Australians believe that the law is appropriate.

Samm · 2020-01-12T05:38:20.942Z

That serves to make my point.

westaussie · 2020-01-12T05:53:31.648Z

No it doesn’t. What it does show is that it is a very worthy and useful law and Australia and Australian is the better for its presence.

Samm · 2020-01-12T06:00:06.163Z

westaussie:

No it doesn’t. What it does show is that it is a very worthy and useful law and Australia and Australian is the better for its presence.

Wrong. A law that applies to innumerable instances, but is rarely used is by definition being used for subjective prosecution. That means it can be easily abused by authorities to control the population by threatening their freedom of expression. Are you so far gone that you not recognize that?