That is always certainly a possibility, and I'm willing to entertain that thought, but while I and others have provided you with the actual law, you have provided a case or two that actually bolster my position in that the "wrongfully accused" was not fined or imprisoned, but merely inconvenienced by the process. Nuisance lawsuits are an unfortunate part of the justice system, but they happen everywhere. If you want me to accept your take, you need to provide some actual concrete examples that show something more than an inconvenience.
What can I say, I'm an engineer, not a lawyer. I can't cite cases unless I happen to have seen something in the media. But reading anti-hate speech laws leads me to believe they are a severe form of censorship, and given the attitude toward them from the people who generally support them, and who those people are, leads me to view them as nothing more than government enforced political correctness. I see them as attempts by certain people to keep others from being able to speak their mind, whether I happen to agree with what they say or not. It's like how people want to stomp on the first amendment to shut the Westboro Baptist asshats up instead of simply exercising their own right to free speech. I can understand not liking the hateful things people say, but in the end, words are words, and frankly letting people say whatever they want tells you a lot about them, and helps you identify the people who should be socially ostracized. But trying to protect people from words? No, people just need to learn how to deal with it, because the world isn't always a nice place.
You honestly wouldn't find much of an argument from me about that, mostly because of how loosely they tend to be interpreted these days. It used to be that it not only had to be something untrue, but something that had a provable negative effect on a person's reputation or business. Now people are litigation happy. I suppose the bright side to that is that at least it's under civil law and not criminal law.
Y'know.. this was really a non starter. Thusly, "IMNSHO", is a defence... How's those amendments about privacy and subject to search working out Cap'n Obvious?
I like how you and others keep trying to throw stuff at me that I'm not defending or supporting while you defend and support something that's anti-free speech.
This is the equivalent of saying, but if you disagree with me, you're wrong, which is why it is incredibly frustrating to discuss anything with you.
Anti-hate speech laws are anti-free speech. Don't get frustrated with me just for pointing out the obvious.
Anti-hate speech laws are NOT anti-free-speech. Don't get frustrated with me for pointing out the obvious. This game is easy.
Limitations on speech, based on libel/slander and public safety - legitimate. Limitations based on the delusion that you should expect to go through life never having your feelings hurt by something you didn't want to hear - not fucking legitmate.
This much I think we can all agree upon. The problem is, we are debating whether or not Canada's "anti-hate propaganda" laws fit in either your first or second category.
Sorry, but simply stating your opinion as fact adds nothing to the discussion. The wording of the law refutes your assertion.
Explain how "hate speech" causes harm or infringement of rights. Those are the conditions, and they do not allow for anything based on emotional reaction.
I invite you to read the relevant portions of the Criminal Code of Canada, which I helpfully provided earlier in this thread. Then get back to me. The problem, as I see it, is that you have this notion in your head about what the law entails and you are basing your argument upon that false notion.
Well, then I guess you won't mind if I disregard your opinion on something that you are willfully ignorant of.
Oh, go get pedantic with your legal code on someone else. Nobody is going to become a scholar of Canadian law to argue free speech with you.
I was unaware that you needed to become a "scholar of Canadian law" to simply read what it actually says and then reevaluate your position. You wouldn't give me the time of day if I made some obviously ignorant comments about something you have knowledge of, let's say your Jeep, for example. And why would you? The law is pretty specific and seems, to me (admittedly not a lawyer), to be very comparable to slander and libel laws, which you had in your first category. And the fact that there hasn't been ANY examples of someone being fined or jailed for simply "hurting someone's feelings" or "someone being offended", I'm going to stick with my position that you guys are out to lunch.
So they can play "Money For Nothing," but can they play this? [yt=NSFW, so crank the speakers up]Uu7_MxNF4ps[/yt]
I'm not interested in legal trivia. Either it respects individual rights or it doesn't, and that will be the basis of any discussion you get with me. "Legal" doesn't always mean "righteous," and righteous is the only angle that interests me. The fact that the law is not a set of objectively-absolute set of unabiguous physical conditions drops that little comparison flat on its ass. You're accusing me of being ignorant of an arcane, highly subjective topic that doesn't interest me in the slightest. "Hate speech" is hurt feelings, no matter how hard you work at couching it in obscure legal terms.
As I said then, your opinion is then pretty much useless because it is based on nothing more than your imagination rather than what it actually says. You can't even make a tiny effort to read the bloody thing, so how can you say it's a "arcane, highly subjective topic"? It could explicitly exclude things like hurt feelings and being offended, but you'd never know. Libel and slander is hurt feelings, no matter how hard you work at couching it in obscure legal terms. See? Just because I can type it doesn't make it so.
Useless in the context of legal pedantry, maybe. Are you kidding? It's the law. If yours are anything like ours, it's specifically crafted to be indecipherable by anyone but lawyers. Kinda like designing a car to require special mechanical skills and tools. There's a working analogy for you. And my typing it wasn't my entire basis for "making it so," either. Making false claims about a person can directly cause tangible, measurable harm.
Exactly. And so can "hate propaganda" cause or incite people to act in a way that causes tangible, measurable harm. This is what the law we are discussing is all about and is crafted to deter.
No, no. I will never buy that bullshit rationale. The harm of releasing fraudulent information about a person is directly caused by the liar in question. It doesn't rely on people going out and rioting because of it. I also don't buy the "emotional distress" as harm angle.
