Free Speech Must Prevail

[Smallc]

What if the comments lead to someone commiting suicide?

WWWTT

It depends of the intent of the comment in that case, not the reaction of the recipient.

[ToadBrother]

If a homosexual man commits suicide over something like that would you care then?

Or would you still argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove such actions were in any way a contributing factor?

WWWTT

There is already long established rules on inflammatory speech, well accepted in most places. To simply distribute a flyer that causes anxiety or strong emotions is not sufficient by any reasonable standard. Liberties should not been infringed simply because offense can be given.

The scenario you invoke reminds me more of the lawsuit against Judas Priest, because some parents' mentally deranged kids committed suicide after listening to one of their albums.

If anyone commits suicide because of a flyer, then I'd have to say that individual likely had serious issues to begin with, and you can't just go around banning some offensive flyer because someone with mental issues kills himself, any more than you can ban the sale of heavy metal albums with songs about suicide because crazy kids overimbibing depressants kill themselves.

Surely you must know just how far you stretching here, right?

[WWWTT]

Because either we have free speech, or we do not. The value of allowing all debate in the commons is sufficiently great that it means we have to suffer speech, at times, that does not inherently add value.

Besides, apart from the fact that we can all agree there are toxic and wicked ideas out there, do you actually want the state to have the power to decide what is acceptable versus unacceptable speech? Has history not given sufficient examples of how such a power ultimately is misused?

I do not feel I have the right to silence you. Why do you feel that you should have the right to silence me?

I do not believe it is that simple.

Nor is it that difficult to understand.

I believe this argument should be debated with examples,or I should say I will rely on example to debate my point.

I'm going to risk getting kicked off this site doing this but here goes!

I believe an example everyone is familiar with is the Danish cartoon artists work about Mohammed whearing a turban/bomb.

The artist portrayed a religuos prophet as a mad man using a technology that did not even exist during his lifetime.And this portrayal of Mohammed is therefore false,thats a no brainer(among other reasons aswell).Is that freedom of speech,or is that making a false statement with the sole intent to harm or belittle the people who follow the Islamic faith.

I must remind everyone here I am only using this example to argue the limitations of freedom of speech and in no way am I expessing any approval for this such artists work!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

It depends of the intent of the comment in that case, not the reaction of the recipient.

Then why make the comment if it was not meant to hurt someone?

In Canada we wear seat belts and have air bags in the cars we drive,aswell there are speed limits posted because of safety.

We all understand that we have to have cars and transportation but there must be proper steps taken to help promote safety!Aswell there has to be some level of enforcement!As far as I'm concerned the same applies to speach!

WWWTT

[ToadBrother]

I do not believe it is that simple.

Nor is it that difficult to understand.

I believe this argument should be debated with examples,or I should say I will rely on example to debate my point.

I'm going to risk getting kicked off this site doing this but here goes!

I believe an example everyone is familiar with is the Danish cartoon artists work about Mohammed whearing a turban/bomb.

The artist portrayed a religuos prophet as a mad man using a technology that did not even exist during his lifetime.And this portrayal of Mohammed is therefore false,thats a no brainer(among other reasons aswell).Is that freedom of speech,or is that making a false statement with the sole intent to harm or belittle the people who follow the Islamic faith.

I must remind everyone here I am only using this example to argue the limitations of freedom of speech and in no way am I expessing any approval for this such artists work!

WWWTT

You can't be sued for slandering the dead. If you could, believe me, Yoko Ono would have sued Albert Goldman into poverty.

It is speech, therefore, it should be protected. Intent, I'm afraid, when it comes to offensive expression, is as much in the eye of the beholder as in the eye of the creator.

In my perfect world, there would be absolute no sacred cows. If someone wanted to paint a hundred pictures of "Piss Christ" or of Muhammed having sex with goats, or Moses going to gay bath houses, then so be it. The libel laws are sufficient to protect reputations, and the concept of speech that causes immediate harm well enough understood that we don't need to prosecute every nasty hateful little piece of garbage who hates homosexuals, or Catholics, or Indians. The best way to defeat them is to show the stupidity and banality of their beliefs.

Look at Germany. Do you think anti-Nazi laws have stopped neo-Nazis? All it does is give these groups and individuals a mystique, allows them to play the martyr card, and in essence raise their profile. An idea cannot be killed by censorship, unless one wishes to invoke forces far beyond what any modern democratic society would ever allow. Look at what it took to destroy heretical movements like the Cathars in Medieval Europe. It literally took killing them all.

[WWWTT]

There is already long established rules on inflammatory speech, well accepted in most places. To simply distribute a flyer that causes anxiety or strong emotions is not sufficient by any reasonable standard. Liberties should not been infringed simply because offense can be given.

The scenario you invoke reminds me more of the lawsuit against Judas Priest, because some parents' mentally deranged kids committed suicide after listening to one of their albums.

If anyone commits suicide because of a flyer, then I'd have to say that individual likely had serious issues to begin with, and you can't just go around banning some offensive flyer because someone with mental issues kills himself, any more than you can ban the sale of heavy metal albums with songs about suicide because crazy kids overimbibing depressants kill themselves.

Surely you must know just how far you stretching here, right?

Yes actually where music and art start getting involved it becomes more complicated.

Another example would be Marylin Manson,Ozzy,Black Sabbath and even rock'n roll for that matter going all the way back to the 50's.

Publication and distribution of material plays a role aswell in all of this too.

But going back to your flyer example.Why would you distibute a flyer in the first place?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

In my perfect world, there would be absolute no sacred cows. If someone wanted to paint a hundred pictures of "Piss Christ" or of Muhammed having sex with goats, or Moses going to gay bath houses, then so be it. The libel laws are sufficient to protect reputations, and the concept of speech that causes immediate harm well enough understood that we don't need to prosecute every nasty hateful little piece of garbage who hates homosexuals, or Catholics, or Indians. The best way to defeat them is to show the stupidity and banality of their beliefs.

Ya you know what man I'm getting uncomfortable with where this is going so I'm not going to continue engaging in this debate.

I look forward to debating on other issues!

Good Luck!

WWWTT

[Smallc]

Then why make the comment if it was not meant to hurt someone?

Offhand? In discussion? People do make inappropriate comments.

[olp1fan]

So you agree with Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn?

BD, you are like the Toronto Star. You both arrive late to the fight.

Easy to say now. Where were you a decade or two ago?

----

olp1fan, BD: you strike me as fair weather friends. When the going gets tough, on what side will you be?

I have the same friends I had 15 years a go so you're wrong

Where was I a decade ago? Grade 9

[olp1fan]

Why?

Why should it ever be allowed to let people/interest groups/organizations be vocal against people of a different lifestyle,color,race,religion,etec,etc, that are just minding their own business and not harming anyone?

WWWTT

it might not be nice and they'd be dicks to say it aloud but who are you to tell someone to not say something?

[Shwa]

If a homosexual man commits suicide over something like that would you care then?

Or would you still argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove such actions were in any way a contributing factor?WWWTT

There could be no "evidence" if a homosexual man commits suicide over such a pamphlet since we could not enquiry as to the nature of his choice to commit suicide and there would be no opportunity for the defence to cross-examine in the case of a suicide note.

[Argus]

I could give you an example. IF you have someone speaking and they make a comment against the Jews or Islam, now a days someone could get killed or hurt. By having a law against hate or speaking ill of someone or group, the government could avoid violence. Am I wrong in thinking this way?

Yes, and no. I think what is missing is making the distinction between someone who is merely insulting and 'belittling" or offensive in their statements, and someone who actually is campaigning, if you will, in a way which is likely to encourage violence against a particular group of people. Hate speech laws are generally reserved for the latter, and prosecution under them is rare. Human rights committees and commissions generally look to the former, and as has been stated, their prosecutions do not allow for a proper defense. In many cases, the prosecution IS the punishment, regardless of defense or merit. If we're going to have any laws which restrict freedom of speech and expression then prosecuting people under those laws needs to be undertaken with great care. Ham-handed, biased HRCs are not the place for this. A $17,000 penalty should never be issued to an individual except through due process where his defense is financially assisted by the state.

[Argus]

calling a identifiable group pedophiles is clearly inflammatory and meant to incite hatred, violence will inevitably be a byproduct... one flyer shown on cbc quite clearly stated "kill homosexuals"...what's next on freedom of speech "kill metis", "kill muslims", "kill jews"...

If he's calling on people to kill homosexuals then he ought to be tried before a real court, not before the kangaroo variety.

[g_bambino]

If we decide that certain types of speech must be prohibited (I disagree with that...)

I don't think there's ever been such a thing as absolutely free speech, anywhere. Death threats, for example, have, to some degree, always been illegal and punnishable. There will always be limitations to freedom in a civilized society.

But, I agree with your characterisation of Human Rights Tribunals. They are not the place to judge what is or is not a death threat, nor should they be empowered to punnish people for merely saying something that caused some offence.

[+]

Edited October 15, 2011 by g_bambino