Persecuted Christians In America!

[guyser]

Yes, but shouting somebody down violates their free speech

No it isn't. Never was .

[Shady]

No it isn't. Never was .

Yes it is, always has.

[guyser]

Yes it is, always has.

Ok. If by always you mean never.

Show us the cite for that then.

We'll wait.

Edited December 20, 2011 by guyser

[sharkman]

No it isn't. Never was .

Haven't there been occasions when someone is trying to give a speech and protesters that have strategically placed themselves in the crowd suddenly start sounding off, and their only goal is to disrupt the proceedings so much that the even is effectively canceled? That would be violating free speech. The protesters get arrested and dragged off so the speech can continue. It also can be a form of bullying if a person is on a street corner speaking and several people surround him/her and start shouting him down, though the bullying part is not illegal.

[guyser]

Haven't there been occasions when someone is trying to give a speech and protesters that have strategically placed themselves in the crowd suddenly start sounding off, and their only goal is to disrupt the proceedings so much that the even is effectively canceled? That would be violating free speech. The protesters get arrested and dragged off so the speech can continue. It also can be a form of bullying if a person is on a street corner speaking and several people surround him/her and start shouting him down, though the bullying part is not illegal.

Those instances are disruptions, disturbing the peace and or on private property, hence they can be arrested.

That is not a violation .

Put it in these terms, you and I get into a debate but you are waaaaay louder , that is not a violation, but if you gag me with a cloth or tape my mouth shut that would be.

[Shady]

Those instances are disruptions, disturbing the peace and or on private property, hence they can be arrested.

That is not a violation .

Put it in these terms, you and I get into a debate but you are waaaaay louder , that is not a violation, but if you gag me with a cloth or tape my mouth shut that would be.

Complete nonsense. Shouting somebody down in an action designed to not allow them to speak absolutely does infringe on their freedom of speech. Come'on man, stop being ridiculous.

[cybercoma]

Complete nonsense. Shouting somebody down in an action designed to not allow them to speak absolutely does infringe on their freedom of speech. Come'on man, stop being ridiculous.

When will the MPs be charged for violating free speech with all of their heckling? Just curious.

[guyser]

Come'on man, stop being ridiculous.

Ridiculous is arguing without looking at the statute.

Sad that you are arguing from a position where you have no idea what you are talking about.

Like I said, show us the cite that backs your position. When you look, you will realize your shortfall.

[guyser]

When will the MPs be charged for violating free speech with all of their heckling? Just curious.

Come'on man...stop making sense!

Trust me, it will be lost.

[Shady]

Ridiculous is arguing without looking at the statute.

Sad that you are arguing from a position where you have no idea what you are talking about.

Like I said, show us the cite that backs your position. When you look, you will realize your shortfall.

When you don't allow somebody to speak, it violates their freedom of speech. It should be pretty easy for you guys to follow, no?

[cybercoma]

When you don't allow somebody to speak, it violates their freedom of speech. It should be pretty easy for you guys to follow, no?

When the State doesn't allow someone to speak, you're absolutely right. The Charter doesn't actually apply to the actions of private individuals or corporations.

[Shady]

The Charter doesn't actually apply to the actions of private individuals or corporations.

Nope. The Charter can apply to private issues as well. It's funny though that you guys feel the need to fight so hard on the restriction of individual speech.

[cybercoma]

Nope. The Charter can apply to private issues as well. It's funny though that you guys feel the need to fight so hard on the restriction of individual speech.

We cannot have a discussion about issues if you don't understand even the most basic legal concepts. The Charter applies to interactions between the State and individuals. It does not pertain to interactions between individuals. Various human rights acts and legislation, particularly at the provincial level, regulate discrimination in employment for example. It is these pieces of legislation, which can be changed by an act of legislation, that pertains to interactions between private individuals. The Charter itself does not.

[guyser]

Nope. The Charter can apply to private issues as well. It's funny though that you guys feel the need to fight so hard on the restriction of individual speech.

If you took one minute and looked at the statute, you would come back and apologize for being thickheaded and wrong , 100% wrong at that.

Oh, and here, this is for you---------->

Edited December 20, 2011 by guyser

[guyser]

The constitutional provision that guarantees Freedom of expression in Canada is section 2( of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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

Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)

Show us where shouting down is mentioned, implied , deemed double secret decoder ring status, is printed in invisible ink.....anything man that may back you up !

[Shady]

It does not pertain to interactions between individuals.

Sure it does.

Various human rights acts and legislation, particularly at the provincial level

Yes, and they all have to be in compliance with the Charter. Just like individual provincial health legislation has to be in compliance with the Canada Health Act.

This is fun though. Keep telling me how not allowing somebody to speak is the same as a boycott, and not a violation of their free speech.

[Shady]

The constitutional provision that guarantees Freedom of expression in Canada is section 2( of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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

Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)

Show us where shouting down is mentioned, implied , deemed double secret decoder ring status, is printed in invisible ink.....anything man that may back you up !

Show me where physically shouting down somebody as to make it impossible for them to speak is a situation the charter allows for as a limitation and as justified.

[cybercoma]

It's really sad that I have to do this...

The Charter regulates interactions between the state (federal, provincial and territorial governments) and individuals. ... Canadian courts have rendered hundreds of decisions in which they invoke the Charter to bring Canadian laws into accordance with the principles and values of Canadian society. ... In penal matters, the Charter has clarified to a considerable extent the state's powers with respect to offender rights

http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/pdp-hrp/canada/frdm-eng.cfm

This means that when an individual who believes that Parliament or a legislature has violated guaranteed rights asks the courts for help, the courts may declare the law invalid as far as it conflicts with the Charter.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/just/06.html

The Charter applies only to government and to laws and policies and decisions made by government. It does not apply to the acts or decisions of private citizens or non-governmental agencies. ... no organization in the private sector is required to comply with the Charter.

http://www.bccla.org/privacy/privacy1-4.html

Care to admit you're wrong yet?

[Shady]

It's really sad that I have to do this...

Care to admit you're wrong yet?

Nope. Because I'm not. You might wanna read up on Canadian Department of Justice website, instead of some BC civil liberties association. You might actually get some facts.

[cybercoma]

You mean like the second quote I provided from the Justice Department's website? You're wrong, Shady.

You know how you can prove me wrong? Show me any instance where an individual has been charged under the Charter. Any.

[guyser]

Show me where physically shouting down somebody as to make it impossible for them to speak is a situation the charter allows for as a limitation and as justified.

Oh lord hint, next time read and educate your self

Edited December 20, 2011 by guyser

[cybercoma]

Still waiting for that example.

[guyser]

Still waiting for that example.

Sadly his MO is never to admit defeat. Happened a lot with him, he will just not show up in this thread again, or unless we add about 5 pages to it.

Oh well.

[Michael Hardner]

When you don't allow somebody to speak, it violates their freedom of speech. It should be pretty easy for you guys to follow, no?

So if you yell louder than somebody you will be arrested ? What ?

[kimmy]

If we're talking about a street or a public space, then of course everybody has the right to express themselves. And if your message doesn't get heard because somebody else was shouting at the same time, it seems to me that's your own tough luck. You have the right to free speech, but there's no guarantee that people will hear you.

Now, if we're talking about a presenter in a private venue being shouted down, that's a different story. The people doing the shouting might have the right to express themselves, but they don't have an unrestricted right to be in that venue, and if they're shouting down a speaker who has been granted the use of the venue, then the people doing the shouting can certainly be removed for trespassing.

There's all kinds of other restrictions that are not strictly a matter of "rights". You have the right to express yourself, but you don't have an absolute right to work for me, and if you insult the customers on company time I'm entirely within my rights to fire you. Francois Houle was well within his rights to send Ann Coulter the letter he sent her, but most informed people feel that what he said was inappropriate for the academic head of a university. A teacher has the right to express their religious views, but not in a classroom. And so on.

In regard to the Florida Family Association, there's no question that they have the legal right to do what they're doing. My claim is not that it's against the law, simply that it's a douchebag thing to do. It's a group of 35,000 people (according to them, at least) who have decided that *nobody* should be able to watch a program that they don't approve of, and they are attempting to make sure that nobody can watch this program by targeting the sponsors.

Lowe's Home Improvement pulled ads from the show after FFA announced their boycott. Lowe's is now facing a backlash. Personally, I think that's good. I think that if advertisers are considering the effects of a boycott from scumbags like FFA, they should likewise consider that other potential customers might be offended by a decision to obey the scumbags.

-k