Yzermandius19

that isn't inciting violence that's free speech free speech doesn't only include inoffensive and tasteful speech it includes all kinds of impolite things one can say banning speech based on that is utterly moronic

inciting violence should be restricted inciting hatred should not it is not easy to prove that promoting hatred leads to incitement of violence which is one of the many reasons why the argument against banning hate speech sucks no need to ban hate speech to ban incitement to violence, that's already covered without restricting free speech any further

your whole argument against hate speech is 1) the argument ad populum fallacy by invoking that it is popular with the rubes or 2) appeal to authority fallacy by invoking that it is the legal status quo and you alternate between these fallacies to justify restricting hate speech that is not a moral argument and isn't a logical argument popularity and legality often have nothing to do with morality and are often used to justify immoral positions as you are doing now slavery used to be legal and slavery used to be popular that doesn't make arguments in favor of slavery when that was the case the moral position to take your argument sucks so step up or step off freedom hater

1. supporting what is popular with the mob is not a moral argument supporting individual rights against majoritarian mob tyranny is individual rights > democracy two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner is not a moral position 3) never claimed free speech was an absolute I claimed that the level of evidence needed to restrict it is a very high bar indeed 4) if you want adequate justification for the status quo you support then you do need proof if you don't need that and want to infringe on people's rights anyway then that is very far from a solid moral argument you don't restrict something as important as free speech with literally not a single good reason to do so and plenty of good reasons not to that is a supremely immoral position to take

I never said they were absolute I said you need a good reason to restrict it there is damn good reasons to restrict child porn on the other hand the justifications for banning hate speech suck so if you want to restrict free speech, step your game up the burden of proof is on those who want to restrict rights, not those who want to preserve them as it should be

it's better than any evidence you have on your side meanwhile you want to restrict freedom of speech based on nothing but your whim and a hunch as if that is enough to warrant restricting people's rights you have a high bar to clear given the importance of free speech and you are nowhere near clearing it and you still want to ban it despite that the burden of proof is on you, since you are the one who wants to restrict rights, not on the people who don't want to restrict rights you just default to wanting to strip rights away without a mountain of proof that it's a bad idea I default to not wanting to strip away rights without a mountain of proof that it's a good idea stripping rights is not something that should be done based on mere opinion and feelings

2) Canada has less of a problem than many countries with more hate speech restrictions than it does, as does America Canada and America are examples of less hate speech restrictions resulting in less hate if Canada had less hate speech restrictions it would be even less of a problem if America had more hate speech restrictions it would be more of a problem free speech reduces hate the countries with the most free speech are the least hateful countries on earth that is not a coincidence the idea that too much free speech cannot be allowed because more people will do and say hateful things, if that is the case is proven totally inaccurate both today and historically there is no evidence to suggest that is the case, and tons of evidence that suggests the opposite

when no one is claiming the former is what's happening obviously semantical strawman you are playing semantics with the use of the word force and even when it comes to semantics you are wrong the definition of force is not limited to just extreme forms of force if you only want to use the word in that context and demand others do the same that's your problem, not theirs

there is no substantive differences between the two Conservatives are simply the Blue Liberals Liberals are the Red Liberals superficial things like gang colors are the biggest difference

their right to free speech doesn't override everyone else's rights they are free to protest outside of hospitals whether you or I like their choice of location or not it is already illegal to block access to those hospitals whether they are protesting or not you are not protecting anyone's rights by supporting banning protests outside of hospitals the exact opposite is true

you not being able to think of a reason why they should protest at hospitals is not grounds to restrict other people's free speech rights they should be allowed to protest outside of hospitals whether they have a good reason to or not there already are exclusion zones, that cover blocking access to hospitals no change is required, simply enforce what is already on the books

I have condemned those blocking access to hospitals I don't like public protests whether I agree with protestors or not but that doesn't mean there should be a law against it whether I like something or agree with it, is not grounds to restrict others free speech rights https://images.app.goo.gl/A6wy9keYK7c6u7Ax5

it is both coercive af distinction without a difference is there a point to your semantics?

I have condemned those blocking access the others deserve no condemnation and they certainly don't deserve to have their rights taken away

no one has the right to restrict access to hospitals that is already illegal I certainly have never suggested it should be legal you are the one who doesn't give a crap what happens to others as long as you get what you want I'm not one supporting taking away the rights of others based on my whims that's you

the result is not the same and it should be allowed whether you care or not isn't relevant your whims don't trump people's rights

those who are responsible for it are responsible for it and not a single person more than that all protesters are not to be lumped in with the obvious outliers

banning the protests isn't necessary it isn't on all protesters to police their own everyone is responsible for their own actions not the actions of everyone else no one cares if you don't care you are not the arbiter of what is legal or should be legal your whims are not more important than the rights of others

update your definition of force to the actual definition and stop chastising others for using the actual definition instead of your arbitrary definition of force that only includes a particular kind of a force

some protesters doesn't equal all protesters the ones you are talking about are obvious outliers

wrong

force is not only a term used to describe particularly forceful force it describes lesser forms of force as well

I don't care if that is how most people would use it that is called force nonetheless

no one said it was it is a right to protest outside a hospital if you don't do that though that is what most of the protestors did and that shouldn't be .are illegal because that would be stupid

do you think it’s feasible for the police to arrest even more than that to prevent the protests from taking place?