Yzermandius19

not thousands just the ones blocking access

that is already illegal can't block access to a hospital no need to ban the entire protest to facilitate that though

some people have to pay money if they serve a customer who isn't vaccinated that's force

I think hypothetical questions which answers don't effect the legality of these protests one way or the other, based on the discussion are dumb, yeah very dumb

your hypothetical is dumb no answer to it, that makes any sense, will result in the conclusion, that it's a good idea to ban these protests there is no reason for you to bring it up and no reason I should dignify such nonsense with a response

inciting violence isn't allowed and shouldn't be speaking ill of a group of people or a person because of their group affiliation isn't inciting violence though

constitutional rights supercede the whims of the masses and regardless of what you are comfortable with no one cares what you are comfortable with or the masses are comfortable with it isn't your call and it's not the masses call either y'all ain't the arbiters of free speech

no one's recovery is in jeopardy because of protests get a grip

lies are free speech unless they are libel or slander you want to ban some lies that aren't either that is anti-free speech it should not be the governments job to determine what is and isn't a lie, as justification to ban speech it sucks at that job, and is not to be trusted with that power if you do, then what government agrees with will become the "truth" and what it doesn't agree with will become a "lie" with little to no regard for objective truth supporting an Orwellian Ministry of Truth always backfires

useless and ugly is not grounds to restrict a right as important as freedom of speech free speech > public opinion and the law free speech > democracy if you think public opinion and the law are more important than constitutional rights you support the tyranny of the masses the whole point of rights is that they are above the law and public opinion otherwise they ain't rights and mere privileges they are supposed to be protected from silly laws and the whims of the mob 3. 4. they may have started it, but your crime is worse than theirs your retaliation is not proportional

that isn't relevant to the discussion what is relevant is what things are being declared hate speech as justification to ban them I consider hate speech to just be free speech that some people find particularly offensive and is intended to be particularly offensive to the point of being considered hateful

you are for banning it on a hunch I am not the one trying to restrict people's rights you are by wanting to ban their speech that gives them the moral high ground on you you just lowered yourself below the virulent racists good job that's quite feat considering how low the virulent racist are in moral stature

I don't think the protests solve anything and are a waste of time if not outright counterproductive but there is no good reason to restrict their free speech rights

blocking access is already illegal no new law required

silencing the hateful just fuels their grudge make stupid laws and that just encourages some people to become reactionary against them people like to thumb their nose at authority and bad authority in particular prohibiting alcohol backfired and that's why prohibiting speech is even dumber so be careful what you wish for because you'll empower the hateful you are trying to disempower by restricting their rights to free speech you give them an angle to claim some moral high ground that they had no claim to before you are using the law to infringe on their right because you don't like the way they exercise that right in doing so, you make their cause more attractive to others, not less they can now cloak their hate in fighting for freedom of speech and you make your cause less attractive to others by attaching the baggage of restricting rights good job dummies there is a reason the least hateful countries on the planet restrict free speech the least and the most hateful countries restrict it the most it ain't a coincidence banning free speech empowers the hateful, and not banning it reduces their influence

speech that isn't hateful leads to violence too, that isn't grounds to ban it the violence is on the perpetrators not the speech banning hate speech just creates more hate just as banning alcohol resulted in heavier drinking prohibition backfires, who knew? the road to hell is paved with good intentions

incitement to violence is already illegal hate speech should not be that is why you're being criticized

it would simply require those who violate the law, to be punished accordingly and those who don't do that, are of course free to protest absolutely no change is required, that is the status quo there is no need to fix something that isn't broken

that is an infinitely more rational position than banning free speech protip to those who support banning the protests

it's not slander or libel nor is it incitement of violence obvious free speech is obvious free speech exists to protect speech that people find offensive it being perceived as offensive is not proper grounds to ban it calling someone by a pronoun they don't like is not mental abuse nor should it be illegal any jurisdiction that makes it illegal does not allow freedom of speech and anyone who supports a law banning it does not support freedom of speech

there is no conflict between the two rights one right doesn't need to be curtailed to protect the other right another stupid question you can have both the right of life, liberty and personal security of hospital patients protected while allowing the right to protest outside of hospitals it is already illegal for protesters to prevent access of staff and patients to hospitals without having to ban the protests no new law is required to prevent that you simply want to ban protests outside of hospitals for no good reason while pretending as if there is one to front as if you have some moral high ground on those who don't want to ban it but you don't have the moral high ground your position on the issue is deeply immoral

it violated other rights, not a right to an abortion, which was never a right in Canada in America, apparently a right doesn't have to exist before the Supreme Court can claim someone violated that imaginary right while violating an actual right to create the legal justification to enforce that imaginary right that's why Roe v Wade is such a bad decision it sets a terrible precedent thankfully Canada had the good sense not to do that

the Court struck down the old law it could easily not strike down a new law the Court never said there was a right to an abortion they said the old law violated other rights they didn't make up a new right they pulled out of their ass, like Roe v Wade did you are the one confusing Canada with America not me

they are wrong about that the court struck down the old law there is no right to an abortion in Section 7 of the Charter

it is already illegal to prevent access to hospitals without having to ban protests outside of them have you considered that your reason for restricting free speech has nothing to do with protecting patients or staff, because they already protected by laws that don't restrict free speech?