Freedom of Speech - Carlton U. and Anti Abortion Extremists

[Bonam]

However equating Israel to Nazi Germany or apartheid S. Africa is just fine. Not allowing Ms. Coulter to speak at Uni is just fine as well.

No, those aren't "fine" either. But, like I've said several times now, to me, the freedom of speech consideration is paramount. That being said, I have every right to point out just how disgusting and idiotic the posters presented by this anti-abortion group are. That you can't see how vile they are says a lot about you. Even most "pro-life" people still recognize how wrong these posters are.

[ToadBrother]

Careful, you are introducing variables that affect your point.

Not really. Even if freedom of expression were absolute (which it is not), that does not mean that all possible modes of expression must be accepted. That you must accept my right to stand in the commons and express my opinion does not mean that my ability to use the commons for that purpose is absolute. The constitution still allows for reasonable limitations on that right; community standards (providing they are not all-encompassing, and thus used as a way to effectively limit expression of opinion or idea), breaches of peace (ie. threats), and libel and slander.

It's clear that these very graphic posters violate even the most liberal application of community standards. No one is saying the group can't make its opinions on abortion known, nor that they cannot try to convince others of their views. The limit is on the way in which they do it, just as there are reasonable limits on my use of the commons (in this case a public sidewalk).

[guyser]

Not really.

Hang on...you said...

Just like my freedom of expression doesn't mean I'm allowed to stand out on the street outside your house at 3am with a bullhorn,

What I meant was you would not be denied freedom of expression, you would be charged with disturbing the peace.

[Evening Star]

Not allowing Ms. Coulter to speak at Uni is just fine as well.

Coulter's speech at University of Ottawa (not Carleton) was cancelled. She has spoken at many other Canadian universities though. I can't see how a university cancelling a person's scheduled talk is an infringement on free speech. The right to free speech does not mean that that every institution is required to give you a platform to speak on.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... The right to free speech does not mean that that every institution is required to give you a platform to speak on.

True...but the U of O provost (Francois A-Houle) cocked things up badly...recalling his laughable punchline:

....There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this university, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.

Sincerely,

Francois Houle,

Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa

[Evening Star]

Yeah, I'm certainly not denying that Houle handled the situation pretty dumbly.

[Jack Weber]

Yeah, I'm certainly not denying that Houle handled the situation pretty dumbly.

At the behest of one Alan Rock....

[Argus]

Ohhhhh...dispensing with facts now are we?

Please show us where the Univ did "not allow Ms. Coulter to speak". ?

I would say the University and of Ottawa and its students association did everything they could to actively discourage her from speaking, and to encourage leftist protesters to come out and try to block that speech. Btw, I can't recall the last time a group of "rightist" protesters in Canada came out en masse and threatened to use violence to stop someone from speaking. Anyone have a cite?

[Argus]

At the behest of one Alan Rock....

In fact, it was mostly the cowardly Alan Rock, former Chretien cabinet minister, responsible for it all. He kept his head low and ducked responsibility, leaving his lackey to take the heat - again, typical for a politician with no integrity.

[CANADIEN]

Freedom of expression does not equate absolute freedom in the mode of expression. Carleton University hasrule about how groups can express themselves, and that group decided to ignore them. Their freedom of expression has not been infringed upon, or violated, no matter how much they scream otherwise.

[scribblet]

I think there are other issues here that could be addressed and brought to light, although we don't have a GAP representative here to speak. ( do we ? ) I know that many of these anti abortion zealots also believe that the pill is an 'abortifactant' and should be banned, that's how far out these people are. What I'm not sure about is if they would actually like to bring forward legislation banning the pill, obviously if they did that, they would be outed as the wingnuts they really are.

[Mr.Canada]

No, those aren't "fine" either. But, like I've said several times now, to me, the freedom of speech consideration is paramount. That being said, I have every right to point out just how disgusting and idiotic the posters presented by this anti-abortion group are. That you can't see how vile they are says a lot about you. Even most "pro-life" people still recognize how wrong these posters are.

Is anything depicted in the posters false?

If it is true then I don't see what the problem is.

Are you in favor of misleading Canadians and not letting them know the whole story and not just your version of it?

[ToadBrother]

Is anything depicted in the posters false?

If it is true then I don't see what the problem is.

Porn magazines are filled with reasonably truthful images. I guess we should be able to parade nude lewd pictures too.

Are you in favor of misleading Canadians and not letting them know the whole story and not just your version of it?

The pictures are graphic and not appropriate. But your hypocrisy is becoming more fascinating. Don't want the queers dancing around, but if your fellow anti-abortionites want to show graphic images, hey, that's perfectly okay.

[Mr.Canada]

The pictures are graphic and not appropriate. But your hypocrisy is becoming more fascinating. Don't want the queers dancing around, but if your fellow anti-abortionites want to show graphic images, hey, that's perfectly okay.

So suddenly the left care morality and ethics? I don't buy it sorry.

The images are truthful. I believe that they have a right to show them to better educate the public. These images must be really having an effect on the pro abortion numbers if they're going crazy over these images. If the images weren't effecting the pro death camp then they wouldn't be crying about it.

Let's try to keep it on topic ok Toad. I know it's hard because you people would love nothing more then to discuss me at every opportunity. There's still a thread in my sig for that purpose so please direct your negative comments about me personally to that thread dedicated to that end.

Thank you.

[ToadBrother]

So suddenly the left care morality and ethics? I don't buy it sorry.

When was I ever on the Left?

The images are truthful. I believe that they have a right to show them to better educate the public. These images must be really having an effect on the pro abortion numbers if they're going crazy over these images. If the images weren't effecting the pro death camp then they wouldn't be crying about it.

So are gay men waving the johnsons around.

Let's try to keep it on topic ok Toad. I know it's hard because you people would love nothing more then to discuss me at every opportunity. There's still a thread in my sig for that purpose so please direct your negative comments about me personally to that thread dedicated to that end.

Thank you.

Your hypocritical view on these matters goes to the heart of it. I suspect these religious nuts, like you, would find all sorts of public displays awful, and like you, demand they be stopped, but when it's something you feel strongly about, suddenly it's okay.

The University is not obliged by any law of the land to let any and all displays be viewed on campus grounds. In fact, it's the University's responsibility as a public institution to protect staff and students from certain modes of expression.

No one is saying your freaky religious flake friends can't show their dead baby posters, they just can't do it on campus grounds. They can certainly spread other types of literature, and by all accounts Carlton has tried to negotiate reasonable accomodations with them. But they, like you, suffer diseased minds, are fanatics and there is no reasoning with fanatics.

[Mr.Canada]

Your hypocritical view on these matters goes to the heart of it. I suspect these religious nuts, like you, would find all sorts of public displays awful, and like you, demand they be stopped, but when it's something you feel strongly about, suddenly it's okay.

Toad, I am in favor of free speech on public property, it's obvious that you are not.

The University is not obliged by any law of the land to let any and all displays be viewed on campus grounds. In fact, it's the University's responsibility as a public institution to protect staff and students from certain modes of expression.

Section 2( of the Charter states that "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication."

Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. Freedom of expression promotes certain societal values, as noted by Professor Emerson in 1963: "Maintenance of a system of free expression is necessary (1) as assuring individual self-fulfillment, (2) as a means of attaining the truth, (3) as a method of securing participation by the members of the society in social, including political, decision-making, and (4) as maintaining the balance between stability and change in society."

Our constitutional commitment to free speech is predicated on the belief that a free society cannot function with coercive legal censorship in the hands of persons supporting one ideology who are motivated to use the power of the censor to suppress opposing viewpoints.Source

They are obliged by the Constitution. The socialists love to throw it in the faces of the right all the time. Well it's our turn now.

[ToadBrother]

Toad, I am in favor of free speech on public property, it's obvious that you are not.

The only thing obvious here is that your a hypocrite, and probably illiterate too.

If you had read the first post I made to this thread, you would know that I do not object to this group getting out their message on campus. I said the notion of community standards, while a long accepted means in the English-speaking world of testing whether certain types of expression could legitimately be done in public, could not be used expansively as a means to block expression. They are allowed to communicate their message, just not in a way that violates normal standards. Again, their right to expression has not been limited, the modes by which they can express themselves have been, just as some modes of expression are not allowed in any community.

I realize that you are incapable of nuanced thinking, but surely that's reasonable enough. That is, after all, what stops shopkeepers from selling Penthouse Letters next to Archie Comics. To be sure, a limitation on the mode of expression, but not a ban on Penthouse Letters. Even in the United States, which has far more free speech protections than we do, there are degrees that SCOTUS has ruled the government can legitimately ban (a few years ago the courts allowed to stand the conviction of a couple who made, how shall we put, very scatalogical porn films).

They are obliged by the Constitution. The socialists love to throw it in the faces of the right all the time. Well it's our turn now.

The Constitution obliges their right to free speech be protected. It does not protect every possible mode of free speech. This is a rather well-understood notion of free speech, found throughout the Free World. Tone down their campaign, and they would be allowed to do so, but they don't want to, so the University is within its right to ban their signs.

Of course, they know this, which is why they do this sort of thing. They know gullible halfwits like yourself, who would on any other day of the week ban homosexual displays, forbid the wearing of niqabs and so on, will be the first to cry foul because some disgusting poster wasn't allowed in full view of the student body. The whole point is to get people riled up, but freedom of speech was never intended to mean what you or those fanatics meant it to be, nor was it meant to be universal to every place. Try a stunt like that in open court, and you'll find out one of the more stringent limitations on your freedom of expression.

[Saipan]

Try a stunt like that in open court, and you'll find out one of the more stringent limitations on your freedom of expression.

Judges don't like naked gay men dancing?

[Bonam]

The images are truthful.

Clueless.

[ToadBrother]

Clueless.

That's the "C" in Mr. C.

[ToadBrother]

Judges don't like naked gay men dancing?

According to a recent lawsuit, that depends on the judge...

[Saipan]

According to a recent lawsuit, that depends on the judge...

I thought it depends on the law.

[ToadBrother]

I thought it depends on the law.

It was a joke. Grow some humor.

[Saipan]

Put all your post into JOKE thread then

[CANADIEN]

So suddenly the left care morality and ethics? I don't buy it sorry.

Don't assume your own lack of ethics is shared by others.

The images are truthful. I believe that they have a right to show them to better educate the public.

And it has been pointed out again and again, their right to protest and display their images has not been denied. What is stake here, despite your repeating the contrary, is the how and the exact location of their display.