"Disappearing Palestine" bus ads anger Jewish groups

[dre]

They most certainly are. I'm not forcing anybody out. Read what I posted. Israel, unlike your buddies re: Jews, allows Muslims to live inside Israel as FULL...non-dhimmi...citizens.

Lots of Arab countries accept Jews as citizens as well. And if you think Israel is going to assimilate millions of more arabs you just arent paying attention.

[dre]

"Where [you] live" doesn't set the standard for the rest of the world, and in many places, political ads aren't allowed on public property.

"Where I live", is where the buses you are whining about are actually located.

[Guest American Woman]

"Where I live", is where the buses you are whining about are actually located.

Just out of curiosity, are you ever capable of having a discussion without referring to another person expressing their opinion as "whining" or "outrage" or whatever other juvenile dramatics you attribute to their opinions? ie: Without coming across as a drama queen? Or are you totally incapable of recognizing that others may have a different viewpoint from yours?

I don't care where the buses we are discussing "are actually located." My opinion regarding such matters isn't confined to the buses in question. Capice?

Edited September 7, 2013 by American Woman

[jbg]

Lots of Arab countries accept Jews as citizens as well. And if you think Israel is going to assimilate millions of more arabs you just arent paying attention.

You ignore the "full, not dhimmi" part.

[GostHacked]

Just out of curiosity, are you ever capable of having a discussion without referring to another person expressing their opinion as "whining" or "outrage" or whatever other juvenile dramatics you attribute to their opinions? ie: Without coming across as a drama queen? Or are you totally incapable of recognizing that others may have a different viewpoint from yours?

Priceless and very very humorous. I think I figured it out, you are satire of yourself?

I don't care where the buses we are discussing "are actually located." My opinion regarding such matters isn't confined to the buses in question. Capice?

Considering the demographic in Vancouver, instead of Capice, try 理解する or 了解 or 이해 hiểu or memahami.

[DogOnPorch]

Lots of Arab countries accept Jews as citizens as well.

Oh really? Which Arab country accepts Jews as equal citizens?

And if you think Israel is going to assimilate millions of more arabs you just arent paying attention.

I'm sure Jordan can handle that. These are their people ultimately.

[DogOnPorch]

You ignore the "full, not dhimmi" part.

Of course he did. He forgets that the Arabs also booted most of their Jews in 1948. More than all the "Palestinians" combined.

[BC_chick]

I don't care where the buses we are discussing "are actually located." My opinion regarding such matters isn't confined to the buses in question. Capice?

Um, let's rewind that discussion:

You said "I disagree with such political views being allowed on any "public" tax-payer subsidized property."

Dre responded that where he lives, "political candidates are allowed to litter the public roads with plastic signs, they are allowed to express their views on public broadcasters, place huge billboards on the road allowance next to the highways."

You responded: "Where [you] live" doesn't set the standard for the rest of the world, and in many places, political ads aren't allowed on public property.

He let you know that where lives is where the ads are actually taking place so yeah, no, dre wasn't claiming to set the standard for world, just that where he (and I) live, we're allowed to litter *political views* on *public tax-payer subsidized property*.

"Capice"?

Edited September 8, 2013 by BC_chick

[Guest American Woman]

Um, let's rewind that discussion:

You said "I disagree with such political views being allowed on any "public" tax-payer subsidized property."

Dre responded that where he lives, "political candidates are allowed to litter the public roads with plastic signs, they are allowed to express their views on public broadcasters, place huge billboards on the road allowance next to the highways."

You responded: "Where [you] live" doesn't set the standard for the rest of the world, and in many places, political ads aren't allowed on public property.

He let you know that where lives is where the ads are actually taking place so yeah, no, dre wasn't claiming to set the standard for world, just that where he (and I) live, we're allowed to litter *political views* on *public tax-payer subsidized property*.

"Capice"?

Yeah, I do "capice." I get that it's allowed there. My view is that it shouldn't be. That it's allowed where dre lives has nothing to do with that. That is what I've been saying. I don't care it it's allowed where you live, where dre lives, where Harper lives, or where any other Tom, Dick, or Harry lives. My opinion is that it shouldn't be allowed.

From your post, quoting me: "I disagree with such political views being allowed on any "public" tax-payer subsidized property."

Furthermore, as I pointed out, there are places that it's not allowed. So if dre thinks that pointing out that it's allowed where he lives in any way validates his opinion, I was simply pointing out that there are places where it's not allowed, which should, in turn, add the same validity to my opinion. Because where he lives doesn't set the standard.

Capice??

Edited September 8, 2013 by American Woman

[BC_chick]

Yeah, I do "capice." I get that it's allowed there. My view is that it shouldn't be. That it's allowed where dre lives has nothing to do with that. That is what I've been saying. I don't care it it's allowed where you live, where dre lives, where Harper lives, or where any other Tom, Dick, or Harry lives. My opinion is that it shouldn't be allowed.

From your post, quoting me: "I disagree with such political views being allowed on any "public" tax-payer subsidized property."

Furthermore, as I pointed out, there are places that it's not allowed. So if dre thinks that pointing out that it's allowed where he lives in any way validates his opinion, I was simply pointing out that there are places where it's not allowed, which should, in turn, add the same validity to my opinion. Because where he lives doesn't set the standard.

Capice??

The issue wasn't the first bold (your opinion of what should be allowed on public property). It was the second bolded part (about where dre lives not setting the standard for the rest of the world).

In case you didn't notice, the topic of *this thread* is a billboard in *Vancouver* where political opinions *are* allowed on public-transit.

IOW, you're the one injecting your personal views as some kind of 'standard'.

You really don't see the irony in that eh?

Edited September 8, 2013 by BC_chick

[Guest American Woman]

Ummmmm....... I'm not "injecting [my] personal viewpoint" as anything other than my personal viewpoint. I've clearly been saying what I think. What I believe. And furthermore, I've been doing it without telling anyone else that there's something wrong with their thinking. But yes, this thread is about an ad on a public bus where it's allowed. I get that. It wouldn't be ON the bus if it weren't allowed, would it? So people are giving their thoughts about it being allowed - which is what I was doing.

If you still don't get it, there's not much more I can say to help you.

Edited September 8, 2013 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

It's not about what individual bureaucrat's prefer. It's not about bureaucrat's at all. It's about the tax payers and the tax money that subsidizes the city buses. A comparison to "bureaucrat's preferences" and "the taxpayers" is hardly a relevant comparison, to put it mildly.

Really? So the highest court in the land has made a ruling about this? Could you please provide me with a link to a source confirming that?

Link.

British Columbia transit officials were on the wrong side of the Charter when they refused to carry messages on the sides of their buses aimed at provincial voters, the country's top court said today.

The Supreme Court of Canada struck down transit policies banning all political ads, saying they violate rights to free speech.

"Like a city street, a city bus is a public place where individuals can openly interact with each other and their surroundings," wrote Justice Marie Deschamps in the 8-0 ruling.

[Rue]

The Supreme Court of Canada American Woman follows an interpretative approach that believes always interpret the Charter of Rights when its brought upas in this case with one of its rights, freedom of political expression, as widely as possible in application and thus the notion of limiting political expression would be seen as narrowing political expression and therefore the decision states political expression on buses at this time is an acceptable place for such discussions.

However the legal notion that this means freedom of political expression on buses will remain open ended and never subject to limitation is false.

The Supreme Court renders open ended decisions such as this one to start the debate. It does not mean it will not revisit the issue in subsequent years if the discussion goes too far.

Eventually someone will challenge a political ad on a bus incing hatred contrary to criminal laws, human rights codes, or hate crimes, or other peoples' rights under the same Charter and back it will go to the Supreme Court of Canada who will then have to continue and develop the law to clarify how far political expression will go on buses.

Charter of Rights interpretations are to be left open ended to continue to develop.

This is why the Supreme Court of Canada did not but could have easily put a comment in their decision stating freedom of expression in regards to political views is acceptable provided those comments or opinions expressed do not incite or encourage intolerance or hatred.

They could have said that. They did not and this is because they would prefer to revisit that issue if and when it rises on a fact specific situation.

This is just the opening of a long debate because the moment you open up public property to displays of political opinion-it then begs for future decisions clarifying the limitations of this expression.

Sometimes the best way to avoid b.s. debates about what is politically appropriate or acceptable is to avoid putting yourself in the position of having to even consider the issue which is why I would argue it would have been easier to argue that since buses are public property owned by all, they should be neutral to all and not used as a free for all to express political discussion. The courts could have said there were more appropriate arenas for such discussions however as I stated earlier Canadian law feels it must interpret the Charter as wide as possible and avoid setting restrictions until it is forced to by competing charter of rights conflicting with one another.

I believe this legel decision will opes the window for extremist organizations to place extremist views on buses. Its just a matter of time.

Right now Black Dog is happy because he agrees with the message.

However the moment that message offends him, he will be the first to demand the Supreme Court limit the freedom of expression not to contain the ad he does not agree with because its hateful.

That is obvious if I may use his favourite word.

Lol- the very people that demand their opinions be expressed on public property are the first to protest anyone else doing the same.

Ask Black Dog how he would feel about anti gay messages on bus ads stating homosexuals are taking over heterosexual lands and trying to impose their collective on the majority heterosexuals. Ask him.

The very standards he protests against gays he engages in against Jews. He demands people see gays as a collective with collective rights but if Jews do the same he changes his tune very quickly.

If I put an ad on a bus decrying aboriginals as receiving too much government funding Dre would be the first to want to draw graffiti on that bus or throw a molotov cocktail on it. Who is he kidding.

There is a time and place for free speech.

The Supreme Court of Canada will have to come back in a future decision and clarify when freedom of political expression goes too far-an impossible position it should have never placed itself in.

Freedom as a legal right concept can not be limitless. If it was there could be no laws.

Its easy to say let's allow political discussion on public property. It is much harder to define when it may have to be restricted.

Can't wait for the National Socialist Party and KKK ads.

Here is an ad I am working on for Vancouver buses.

Can't wait for the drivel to show up on Toronto buses.

Welcome to Canada American Women. We never say no to anyone.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Rue

[Black Dog]

The Supreme Court of Canada American Woman follows an interpretative approach that believes always interpret the Charter of Rights when it becomes brought up as an issue as widely as possible in application and thus any notion of limiting political expression would be seen as narrowing political expression and therefore was rejected.

I disagree with this approach in this instance for the reasons you and others like me have argued that it creates a slippery slope. The slope being that now with the notion of political expression being allowed on buses, which will apply across Canada, its only the beginning of the legal issues to come.

This is the first stage of a debate to evolve. Eventually someone will challenge a political ad as inflammatory, defamatory, inciting hatred contrary to criminal laws, human rights codes, or hate crimes, back it will go to the Supreme Court of Canada who will then have to continue and develop the law to clarify how far political expression will go.

The Supreme Court of Canada could have put a comment in their decision to state-freedom of expression in regards to political views is acceptable and then went on to say, provided the comments or opinions expressed do not incite or encourage intolerance or hatred.

They could have said that. They did not and now this will force a revisit of this issue. This is just the opening of a long debate because the moment you open up public property to displays of political opinion-it begs for limitations-someone is going to go too far and then what?

Sometimes the best way to avoid b.s. debates about what is politically appropriate or acceptable is to avoid putting yourself in the position of having

to even consider the issue.

That you consider such debates "b.s." and believe they have no place in a free society says a lot about you and your values.

You are now going to get graphic anti-abortion ads complete with fetuses-all kinds of religious messages extolling the virtues of one religion or another, and the decision Black Dog has provided opens the window for extremist organizations to place extremist views on buses.

That's interesting, as the decision came down in 2009. We've had five years to start down this slippery slope, so I'm sure you must have tons of examples of these "extremist" ads. Can't wait to see them!

Right now Black Dog is happy because he agrees with the message. The moment that message offends him, and one will soon, he will be the first to demand the Supreme Court limit the freedom of expression not to contain the ad he does not agree with because its hateful.

I do love it when you tell me how I think and will react to some future issue. Again, says a lot more about you than me.

That is obvious words. The very people that demand their opinions be expressed on public property are the first to protest anyone else doing the same.

Prove it.

Ask Black Dog how he would feel about anti gay messages on bus ads stating homosexuals are taking over heterosexual lands and trying to impose their collective on the majority heterosexuals. Ask him.

Better yet ask me yourself! But you never do engage me one on one. You hide behind your little strawmen and insults and then cry whenever someone turns the tables on you.

The very standards he protests against gays he engages in against Jews. He demands people see gays as a collective with collective rights but if Jews do the same he changes his tune very quickly.

Cite?

If I put an ad on a bus decrying aboriginals as receiving too much government funding Dre would be the first to want to draw graffiti on that bus or throw a molotov cocktail on it. Who is he kidding.

Cite?

There is a time and place for free speech. The Supreme Court of Canada will have to come back in a future decision and clarify when that time and where that place will be and in this instance it will have to do that by setting some sort of limitation. Freedom is not limitless. Its easy to say let's allow it. is much harder to define when it must be restricted and if you think we can have unresttricted freedom of speech that's a quaint notion.

As a lawyer, you should be aware of the existence of Canada's hate speech provisions. Knowing that, you would therefore know that there are already limits placed on free expression to prohibit speech that promotes violence or hatred against an identifiable group and that any ad containing such speech could and would be challenged under those laws (laws, I should add, that I do not support).

IMV there's two kinds of people: those who believe that the best counter to hate speech is more speech and those who believe that speech and expression should be curtailed by the state. given the types of people and governments who have historically been in the latter camp, I choose the former.

Can't wait for the National Socialist Party and KKK ads.

LOL. "We can't have Nazis advertising! We need to limit speech just like the Nazis did!"

[Guest American Woman]

The Supreme Court of Canada American Woman follows an interpretative approach that believes always interpret the Charter of Rights when its brought upas in this case with one of its rights, freedom of political expression, as widely as possible in application and thus the notion of limiting political expression would be seen as narrowing political expression and therefore the decision states political expression on buses at this time is an acceptable place for such discussions.

However the legal notion that this means freedom of political expression on buses will remain open ended and never subject to limitation is false.

The Supreme Court renders open ended decisions such as this one to start the debate. It does not mean it will not revisit the issue in subsequent years if the discussion goes too far.

[...]

I believe this legel decision will opes the window for extremist organizations to place extremist views on buses. Its just a matter of time. [...]

I agree that it is likely just a matter of time before extremist organizations start putting their views on buses. I had already read the article that Black Dog had quoted from regarding the legality, and as I had said previously, I realize that it's legal - or it wouldn't be on the bus. It doesn't change my opinion. I still don't feel that such messages should be on publicly subsidized property. But anyway, if the extremist messages start showing up, there will likely be another court case and perhaps another ruling. The Charter dosn't stop Hate Laws, so I don't see why it would stop a different ruling in this regard.

Edited September 9, 2013 by American Woman

[Rue]

Oh Black dog seems to be misquoting moi again....

You stated Black Dog:

"That you consider such debates "b.s." and believe they have no place in a free society says a lot about you and your values."

I argue that they do not belong on buses. I did not argue they do not belong in a free society. Stop misrepresenting.

You stated:

"That's interesting, as the decision came down in 2009. We've had five years to start down this slippery slope, so I'm sure you must have tons of examples of these "extremist" ads. Can't wait to see them!"

Bus companies are refusing to run the ads and that is why there are no examples.

You assume the decision forced bus companies to run political ads, it never did. It never took the right away from bus companies to set the standard that it only will allow certain kinds of advertising.

You stated:

"I do love it when you tell me how I think and will react to some future issue. ."

Yep you are that obvious.

You stated:

"As a lawyer, you should be aware of the existence of Canada's hate speech provisions. Knowing that, you would therefore know that there are already limits placed on free expression to prohibit speech that promotes violence or hatred against an identifiable group and that any ad containing such speech could and would be challenged under those laws (laws, I should add, that I do not support)."

I have no idea what tyour above point was .. Of course we all know me included there are hate laws in this country. How they MIGHT be applied would depend on the specific ad and so without the specific ad, it is not possible to even begin to predict what arguments might be made to suggest the ad crossed the line to become hateful. In your world the law is obvious to you. In my world its not-it remains open ended and subject to continuing development and new or different interpretations depending on each subsequent fact situation.

As a lawyer I do know the law is not stagnant and that the limitsit may or may not apply are fluid and depend on each statement-they are not fixed. This is precisely why it is very difficult to know when an ad would or could cross over the line to be considered criminally hateful or inciteful.

You stated:

"IMV there's two kinds of people: those who believe that the best counter to hate speech is more speech and those who believe that speech and expression should be curtailed by the state. given the types of people and governments who have historically been in the latter camp, I choose the former."

Nice labels however they don't work for me nor do they have anything to do with the arguments I made.

I would argue bthat countering hate speech with more speech could be illogical.

It might be equivalent to adding fuel to the fire.

It may actually be a better tactic to ignore the comments entirely and not give them oxygent o feed off of, i.e., a platform of any kind.

It depends on what is said.

Sometimes factual response pointing out the inaccuracies of the other side's opinion can be helpful, sometimes it is counter-productive.

Again your black and white assumptions it will only be helpful to respond to hate by engaging in response shows the inability of your cognitive processes to flex and realize it might not be all or nothing.

In regards to your second statement I do not believe the state should curtail all things or freedom of speech. That is your continuing misrepresentation of my views.

All I argue is don't engage in political partisan diatribes ON PUBLIC PROPEY WE ALL OWN and I am held captive to and can not walk away from.

You want to go to a park and stand on a box knock yourself out.

Do it on a bus where I have to sit on that bus and can not leave- no. Its a public place where I want the opportunity to be treated in a neutral manner with no signs of preferential treatment to one opinion or another that has to do with decisive political issues.

No I do not want you coming in a public washroom and placing your friggin ads up above the urinals. Thank you.

My view is the one currently prevalent with must city transit companies. Good luck to you if you think you can force the TTC to run anti Zionist ads or questionable religious ads. They won't precisely for the reasons I have argued.

Save your pseuto-freedom of speech position for someone else-you are the one who champions using gay pride events. That's the to spread messages of hatred about Israel. We know what you are about and that is to seize any platform where you have an audience to propoogate your views. But if I go to that same gay pride parade and chant hey ho hey ho gays have got to go or Arabs have to go, you would be the first screaming it must be censored. Give it a rest.

You stated:

"LOL. "We can't have Nazis advertising! We need to limit speech just like the Nazis did!""

That last one zipped over your head. Joseph Goebels was the inventor of exploiting public media to advertise poltiically partisan messages.

Nazis did not limit their speech only the speech of others. How about you? How are you any different in that respect? As long as the political message is to your liking you will support it.. You would limit speech if you did not agree with it. You would be the first to argue any speech you disagree with is hateful and that is the point. don't pose as someone who respects the views of others and would give them equal opportunity. You have argued the exact opposite.

The Nazis controlled speech. They used public speech to propogate which is exactly what you want to do.

How will you assure free speech is done fairly on bus ads? You have any idea how you will do that? You think you can create thought police that will determine what is acceptable and what isn't?

How do you think the courts now define hate law? You think its not done arbitrarily?

Have you read the decisions as to how hate legislation or speech has been defined? Well?

If you were truly concerned with free speech you would realize that the biggest danger to free speech are those who would expoloit free speech to drown out the free speech of others which is exactly what Hitler did, and which is exactly what people like you do.

You go to rallies and scream out hateful messages when you find them to your liking and you don't give a damn about who you inconvenience or hurt. Tough luck. Jews who are gay to hell with them. Right Balck dog?

You could care less if a gay pride parade is supposed to be inclusive, to you its a platform to single out Jews, supporters of Israel and Israelis for hateful comments. That is acceptable to you. However if I chose that same gay pride parade to march and scream out hey ho gays have got to go you would be screaming out how horrible that is.

How is that different to how you want to use bus ads?

Oh sure you want free speech - provided that free speech has your approval. If it doesn't you will find another pretense to limit the opinions other than your own. Uh yah you have demonstrated that on this forum through your words. All anyone has to do is read them back.

My argument?

Unlike yours I don't want one treatment for your opinions and another for the opinions of others. I choose to treat people as equals by saying all of you take your political debate to a more appropriate arena where no one can take unfair advantage over others to limit it and where it wil not hold people captive and where yes it can be regulated so that youand anyone else can not manipulate it to limit free speech.

Therein lies the irony Black Dog which you can not grasp. If you don't limit free speech, Nazis as Hitler did will use that lack of regulation of free speech to crush the opposition and limit it.

What Black Dog what is next-ads from Al Quaeda., Syria, Iran? Hmmmm? Yah I want my tax paid property as arenas for these views. Right.

Hard as it is for you to believe Black Dog I consider you and the selective intolerant biews you represent a far greater risk to freedom of speech than those who argue pl free speech needs to be carefullu guarded and nurtured in the appropriate arena to prevent exploitation.

I aregue people like you are intolerant, rigid and not willing to respect the views of others. I think you use public arenas as a platform to yell but not listen.

Me? I have no problem with people saying to me, engage in your debate in a more appropriate place. Take it off the bus.

t Black Dog when someone like you tells me they believe in freedom of speech and do not believe in government regulating it when so many of your posts have advocated government intervention to impose your views, is laughable.

See you remind me of Mr. Morsi. Oh he was all in favour of free speech then once elected poof did away with it. Another Hitler, Only he had few Jews so he scapegoated Coptic Christians. Oh yah that horrible army deposed him. Horrible. How dare they.

Tell me when faced with a Nazi or a Communist lecturing me on free speech does it make a good gawd damn difference what either says? Uh I do not think so.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Rue

[dre]

All I argue is don't engage in political partisan diatribes ON PUBLIC PROPEY WE ALL OWN and I am held captive to and can not walk away from.

Fine but that didnt happen here.

[Bonam]

and why would they leave their own land... land they were born on?

Not that I think they (or anyone else) should have to leave land unwillingly... but I often see this stated as some kind of axiom. But in fact, millions of people leave the land they were born on and move elsewhere, voluntarily, every year. This isn't the middle ages, we are not serfs tied to our villages. People have the ability to move almost anywhere in the world and live out their lives as they please. I've been an immigrant 3 times now and probably will be again. If I were born somewhere as crappy as Palestine (or Israel for that matter) I would have long since left. What's the big deal?

Reality is, no matter what Israel does, living in Palestine will continue to suck for the foreseeable future. Israel could cease all occupation, cease all blockades, remove checkpoints, leave the West Bank and Gaza to do whatever the heck they wanted today, and those places would still suck to live in. Why would anyone with half a brain stay?

[BC_chick]

So there, we finally have the real root cause of the Palestinian predicament. It's not Israel taking their land... it's that they're not more like Bonam when it comes to their willingness to jet set around the world.

And of course, the fact that Bonam is an educated man with what I'm guessing would be at least a couple of passports from industrialized nations should have no bearing on this comparison.

The situations are near identical.

[Black Dog]

Oh Black dog seems to be misquoting moi again....

You stated Black Dog:

"That you consider such debates "b.s." and believe they have no place in a free society says a lot about you and your values."

I argue that they do not belong on buses. I did not argue they do not belong in a free society. Stop misrepresenting.

First, given your track record, you've got some nerve whining about being misrepresented.

Second: here's what you said:

the best way to avoid b.s. debates about what is politically appropriate or acceptable is to avoid putting yourself in the position of having

to even consider the issue.

Bit broader than bus ads, non? The rest of your post certainly bears that out.

You stated:

"That's interesting, as the decision came down in 2009. We've had five years to start down this slippery slope, so I'm sure you must have tons of examples of these "extremist" ads. Can't wait to see them!"

Bus companies are refusing to run the ads and that is why there are no examples.

Cite?

You assume the decision forced bus companies to run political ads, it never did. It never took the right away from bus companies to set the standard that it only will allow certain kinds of advertising.

Nope, I didn't make that claim. But yeah, since they are allowed to set standards, why are you whinging about the slippery slope?

You stated:

"I do love it when you tell me how I think and will react to some future issue. ."

Yep you are that obvious.

And you're incapable of honest debate.

You stated:

"As a lawyer, you should be aware of the existence of Canada's hate speech provisions. Knowing that, you would therefore know that there are already limits placed on free expression to prohibit speech that promotes violence or hatred against an identifiable group and that any ad containing such speech could and would be challenged under those laws (laws, I should add, that I do not support)."

I have no idea what tyour above point was .. Of course we all know me included there are hate laws in this country. How they MIGHT be applied would depend on the specific ad and so without the specific ad, it is not possible to even begin to predict what arguments might be made to suggest the ad crossed the line to become hateful. In your world the law is obvious to you. In my world its not-it remains open ended and subject to continuing development and new or different interpretations depending on each subsequent fact situation.

My point was simple: hate speech laws would out and out forbid the kind of advertising you say the 2009 SC ruling makes inevitable.Furthermore, you already admit that such ads are being disallowed now, which renders moot your earlier diatribe about the slippery slope.

As a lawyer I do know the law is not stagnant and that the limitsit may or may not apply are fluid and depend on each statement-they are not fixed. This is precisely why it is very difficult to know when an ad would or could cross over the line to be considered criminally hateful or inciteful.

So rather than have a discussion through the courts of law and public opinion, you'd rather just arbitrarily constrain speech to forbid "political ads." (Notwithstanding the fact that the definition of what is "political" is even more difficult to pin down than what is hateful.

You stated:

"IMV there's two kinds of people: those who believe that the best counter to hate speech is more speech and those who believe that speech and expression should be curtailed by the state. given the types of people and governments who have historically been in the latter camp, I choose the former."

Nice labels however they don't work for me nor do they have anything to do with the arguments I made.

Oh yeah? Tell me: how does it feel?

I would argue bthat countering hate speech with more speech could be illogical.

It might be equivalent to adding fuel to the fire.

It may actually be a better tactic to ignore the comments entirely and not give them oxygent o feed off of, i.e., a platform of any kind.

It depends on what is said.

I would agree that some extreme views probably don't deserve a platform. However, prohibiting all political speech because of the fear that that freedom might be abused is simple fearmongering.

Sometimes factual response pointing out the inaccuracies of the other side's opinion can be helpful, sometimes it is counter-productive.

Again your black and white assumptions it will only be helpful to respond to hate by engaging in response shows the inability of your cognitive processes to flex and realize it might not be all or nothing.

Sometimes, maybe, possibly. Again, the caveats you continue to apply here show why blanket prohibitions are terrible. You're so afraid opf extreme views, you'd curtail open political debate of a non extreme variety. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

In regards to your second statement I do not believe the state should curtail all things or freedom of speech. That is your continuing misrepresentation of my views.

Except I never claimed you said that. But you admit to wanting freedom of expression curtailed on buses. There's no disputing that.

All I argue is don't engage in political partisan diatribes ON PUBLIC PROPEY WE ALL OWN and I am held captive to and can not walk away from.

You want to go to a park and stand on a box knock yourself out.

Except both are examples of public property. The same arguments for prohibiting political speech on buses could apply there. First they came for the bus ads, and I said nothing....

Do it on a bus where I have to sit on that bus and can not leave- no. Its a public place where I want the opportunity to be treated in a neutral manner with no signs of preferential treatment to one opinion or another that has to do with decisive political issues.

No I do not want you coming in a public washroom and placing your friggin ads up above the urinals. Thank you.

Why is commercial advertising OK? I find ads for Coke more offensive than political messaging.

My view is the one currently prevalent with must city transit companies. Good luck to you if you think you can force the TTC to run anti Zionist ads or questionable religious ads. They won't precisely for the reasons I have argued.

Sow what are you whining about?

Save your pseuto-freedom of speech position for someone else-you are the one who champions using gay pride events. That's the to spread messages of hatred about Israel. We know what you are about and that is to seize any platform where you have an audience to propoogate your views. But if I go to that same gay pride parade and chant hey ho hey ho gays have got to go or Arabs have to go, you would be the first screaming it must be censored. Give it a rest.

Nope. Keep whaling on that strawman though!

Edited September 10, 2013 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

2/2

You stated:

"LOL. "We can't have Nazis advertising! We need to limit speech just like the Nazis did!""

That last one zipped over your head. Joseph Goebels was the inventor of exploiting public media to advertise poltiically partisan messages.

Nazis did not limit their speech only the speech of others. How about you? How are you any different in that respect? As long as the political message is to your liking you will support it.. You would limit speech if you did not agree with it. You would be the first to argue any speech you disagree with is hateful and that is the point. don't pose as someone who respects the views of others and would give them equal opportunity. You have argued the exact opposite.

Prove it. Quote me or STFU.

The Nazis controlled speech. They used public speech to propogate which is exactly what you want to do.

Remind me again here who wants controls placed on speech? (HINT: it's not me.)

How will you assure free speech is done fairly on bus ads? You have any idea how you will do that? You think you can create thought police that will determine what is acceptable and what isn't?

Holy shit. You've already admitted that there is a thought police keeping hateful ads off buses. So I ask again: what are you whining about?

How do you think the courts now define hate law? You think its not done arbitrarily?

Have you read the decisions as to how hate legislation or speech has been defined? Well?

I ain't passed the bar but I know a lil' bit.

If you were truly concerned with free speech you would realize that the biggest danger to free speech are those who would expoloit free speech to drown out the free speech of others which is exactly what Hitler did, and which is exactly what people like you do.

Hitler didn't drown out his opponents with speech: he used violence and state coercion to shut down newspapers, arrest dissidents and otherwise limit what views could be expressed. You're far closer to that side of the spectrum than I.

You go to rallies and scream out hateful messages when you find them to your liking and you don't give a damn about who you inconvenience or hurt. Tough luck. Jews who are gay to hell with them. Right Balck dog?

There's a right to free speech. There's no right to not have one's feelings hurt.

You could care less if a gay pride parade is supposed to be inclusive, to you its a platform to single out Jews, supporters of Israel and Israelis for hateful comments. That is acceptable to you. However if I chose that same gay pride parade to march and scream out hey ho gays have got to go you would be screaming out how horrible that is.

Again: nope. You wanna be that guy, go right ahead.

How is that different to how you want to use bus ads?

Oh sure you want free speech - provided that free speech has your approval. If it doesn't you will find another pretense to limit the opinions other than your own. Uh yah you have demonstrated that on this forum through your words. All anyone has to do is read them back.

Yawn. Put up or shut up. I'll be waiting.

My argument?

Unlike yours I don't want one treatment for your opinions and another for the opinions of others. I choose to treat people as equals by saying all of you take your political debate to a more appropriate arena where no one can take unfair advantage over others to limit it and where it wil not hold people captive and where yes it can be regulated so that youand anyone else can not manipulate it to limit free speech.

Therein lies the irony Black Dog which you can not grasp. If you don't limit free speech, Nazis as Hitler did will use that lack of regulation of free speech to crush the opposition and limit it.

So it's as I said: we can't have Nazis advertising! We need to limit speech just like the Nazis did!

What Black Dog what is next-ads from Al Quaeda., Syria, Iran? Hmmmm? Yah I want my tax paid property as arenas for these views. Right.

Depends: what do the ads say? If they are hateful, the thought police you say are already working to keep hateful extremist ads off buses should be on the case.

Hard as it is for you to believe Black Dog I consider you and the selective intolerant biews you represent a far greater risk to freedom of speech than those who argue pl free speech needs to be carefullu guarded and nurtured in the appropriate arena to prevent exploitation.

Do tell me how my promotion of free speech is a threat to free speech.

I aregue people like you are intolerant, rigid and not willing to respect the views of others. I think you use public arenas as a platform to yell but not listen.

And it's your right to say so! Hey you could even take out a bus ad saying as much!

Me? I have no problem with people saying to me, engage in your debate in a more appropriate place. Take it off the bus.

In other words you have no problem with free expression, provided it's limited and therefore not actually free.

t Black Dog when someone like you tells me they believe in freedom of speech and do not believe in government regulating it when so many of your posts have advocated government intervention to impose your views, is laughable.

Looking forward to seeing the examples. Failing that, an apology and retraction will suffice.

See you remind me of Mr. Morsi. Oh he was all in favour of free speech then once elected poof did away with it. Another Hitler, Only he had few Jews so he scapegoated Coptic Christians. Oh yah that horrible army deposed him. Horrible. How dare they.

Uh....ok.

Tell me when faced with a Nazi or a Communist lecturing me on free speech does it make a good gawd damn difference what either says? Uh I do not think so.

Nazis and Communists have the same rights to speech as you. You don't have to agree or even listen. That's your right.

[GostHacked]

Wasting your time Black Dog. Wasting your time.

[DogOnPorch]

So there, we finally have the real root cause of the Palestinian predicament. It's not Israel taking their land... it's that they're not more like Bonam when it comes to their willingness to jet set around the world.

And of course, the fact that Bonam is an educated man with what I'm guessing would be at least a couple of passports from industrialized nations should have no bearing on this comparison.

The situations are near identical.

We can't expect these folks to be civilized. That's unpossible!

[Rue]

Wasting your time Black Dog. Wasting your time.

Wasting your time Black Dog. Wasting your time.

He sure is and you and Dre as well. Your selectivity as to what you find acceptable

is laughable.

What is also laughable is seeing someone write that if you place limits on freedom of speech its nolonger free.Again this shows how Black dog can only function with all or nothing, black and white axioms.

His brain can not conceive the concept that regulating free speech does not necessarily prevent it make it unfree it might in fact prevent others from extinguishing free speech.

Um u h um uh.

Its nice to see Black Dog is suddenly extolling the virtues of no government regulation this coming from the same Black Dog who believes government should regulate the free markets but not free speech. Hah.

Here let me make it simple for you.

If you want to share your view of the world with lack Dog and Dre knock yourself out. Do it on property that I pay tax money for and can not voluntarily ay walk away from- I will not stand by idly. I will do everything to assure you go someplace my tax did not pay for. My taxes are already being wasted.

Now as for any possible revenue your ads may generate to offset taxes, all I will say is a depends ad will do the same thing and unlike your ad will at least advertise a way to contain the stuff you want to spread.

Better still, I think you and Black Dog should move to Syria and teach them what democracy is.

You are wasting your talents on me and my ilk who believe we should use public displays to sell sanitary products.

One other thing. Do you notice Black Dog again tries to misstate what I said and take it out of its context? Hah. He's funny. Problem is its a real stale tactic ad when its thrown back in his face he repeats the technique again. Hah.

Its fun. Its almost as fun as Assad saying he will allow his chemical weapons to be controlled-this the same man who just days ago denied having any. Ahahah.

More! You guys are funny! Put an add on the bus saying its a time limited offer!

Edited September 10, 2013 by Rue

[GostHacked]

Do the ads incite violence? - No.

Do the ads incite hate? - No.

Do the ads state a geographic and demographic reality? Yes.

If you support free speech then this is no big deal. If the ads were paid for by a private entity, then no big deal. But maybe the ads are doing their job. Trolling for those Israel supporters and have them post long winded diatribes on internet forums on how irresponsible these ads are.

You and Black Dog and even me are all the same when it comes to this. Of course if we support that item then we will have no problem with the ads on the bus. Personally I would love it if ALL advertising was eliminated on buses, but then your taxes would skyrocket in order to subsidize the bus system.

I agree that our taxes are being wasted, and that waste is happening on the municipal, provincial and federal level. There are many other things of way more importance to be pissed off at. Overall this is a non-issue in my view.

Another thing : Assad never denied Syria had chemical weapons. He had denied that the Syrian army under his command had used them during this two year conflict. Huge difference.