FHRITP: That's apparently a thing.

[Wilber]

That is a little different where it is talking about an act of violence. FHRITP is what you are supposed to do when having sex with a woman. Unless you've never experienced sex, then that might explain a few things. Because you come across (phrasing) as being a little uptight about all of this.

I only have consensual sex. Yelling FHRITP at a woman they don't know and wouldn't associate with them if they put a gun to her head has nothing to do with consent. It's exactly the opposite.

[Guest]

You don't think the threat of losing a job doesn't curb free speech?

The two are not connected. A company may or may not have standards they expect employees to meet. If they don't, they can be let go.

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

How about the question I asked you? What if there was something you were okay with that offended somebody else?

[Wilber]

And yet the chance of someone committing acts of violence based on the statements made by these guys is about equally low, hence why it doesn't pass muster as incitement to violence / hate speech.

The fact this statement is being made at all represents an atitude that justifies violence toward women.

[Wilber]

The two are not connected. A company may or may not have standards they expect employees to meet. If they don't, they can be let go.

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

How about the question I asked you? What if there was something you were okay with that offended somebody else?

See post #283

[Guest]

See post #283

That doesn't answer the question regarding freedom of speech. You used an example that was actually child abuse.

[Wilber]

That doesn't answer the question regarding freedom of speech. You used an example that was actually child abuse.

How is it child abuse. He never touched a kid or said a word. He is just expressing himself. But forget the kids Would you be OK with him expressing himself to adult women in this way? Your wife or adult daughter for example.

[msj]

I think it is a false equivalence to claim that exposing one self to people is the same thing as saying something offensive.

Sure, if he said something like " I'm gonna force anallingus on you and then f you up the butt" I think we have grounds for a chat with the police and charges.

But that's not what happened so why go off into unrelated poorly constructed analogies?

[Guest]

How is it child abuse. He never touched a kid or said a word. He is just expressing himself. But forget the kids Would you be OK with him expressing himself to adult women in this way? Your wife or adult daughter for example.

Yeah, I think you're stretching a little to try and prove your point, if you are suggesting the laws against indecent exposure are actually a curb on free expression. I daresay there might be some who would argue that in court, but I doubt they would get away it.

There are many laws that curb free expression because said expression transgresses in other areas. Harrassment, incitement, disturbing the peace, etc. I wouldn't put exposing oneself to a child in there. To me thats just a crime.

I don't have the name at hand, but didn't the Calgary police just arrest someone shouting the phrase in the OP using a law that is to do with illegal behaviour in a vehicle?

But again I ask, and I assure you I'm not playing gotcha, just curious. How would you deal with a suggestion that freedom of speech be curbed regarding something you don't find offensive?

For instance, would you ban outright the drawing of Mohammad? Would you ban Pride Parades? Certain people of certain religions find such things offensive.

Edited May 18, 2015 by bcsapper

[Wilber]

Yeah, I think you're stretching a little to try and prove your point, if you are suggesting the laws against indecent exposure are actually a curb on free expression. I daresay there might be some who would argue that in court, but I doubt they would get away it.

There are many laws that curb free expression because said expression transgresses in other areas. Harrassment, incitement, disturbing the peace, etc. I wouldn't put exposing oneself to a child in there. To me thats just a crime.

I don't have the name at hand, but didn't the Calgary police just arrest someone shouting the phrase in the OP using a law that is to do with illegal behaviour in a vehicle?

But again I ask, and I assure you I'm not playing gotcha, just curious. How would you deal with a suggestion that freedom of speech be curbed regarding something you don't find offensive?

For instance, would you ban outright the drawing of Mohammad? Would you ban Pride Parades? Certain people of certain religions find such things offensive.

As you acknowledge, we do have types of public behaviour that are classified as misdemeanors. For me yelling profanity that advocates a violent act towards women or any other group should be one of them. If written properly, it should stand up. If not, it won't withstand a constitutional challenge.

Yes, the Calgary police charged this guy with stunting because he shouted it from a car but we both know why he was really being charged. But why call something what it is? Isn't that what this whole topic is about?

So I have answered your question. Still waiting for your answer.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Wilber

[msj]

I suspect Wilber wants Singapore laws in Canada: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/05/13/teen-atheist-in-singapore-convicted-on-charges-of-obscenity-and-wounding-religious-feelings/

My preference is for the state to stay out of it where possible. Especially when it concerns adults and/ or words.

[Wilber]

I think it is a false equivalence to claim that exposing one self to people is the same thing as saying something offensive.

Sure, if he said something like " I'm gonna force anallingus on you and then f you up the butt" I think we have grounds for a chat with the police and charges.

But that's not what happened so why go off into unrelated poorly constructed analogies?

How is it false. It is just a form of expression that threatens violence to no one?

[Wilber]

I suspect Wilber wants Singapore laws in Canada: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/05/13/teen-atheist-in-singapore-convicted-on-charges-of-obscenity-and-wounding-religious-feelings/

My preference is for the state to stay out of it where possible. Especially when it concerns adults and/ or words.

No I don't. Learn the difference between a crime and a misdemeanor. This guy posted on the internet, he didn't shout or display in public to a bunch of unsuspecting people.

[Wilber]

I suspect Wilber wants Singapore laws in Canada: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/05/13/teen-atheist-in-singapore-convicted-on-charges-of-obscenity-and-wounding-religious-feelings/

My preference is for the state to stay out of it where possible. Especially when it concerns adults and/ or words.

When you shout something in a public place, chances are it doesn't just concern adults.

[Hal 9000]

How is it child abuse. He never touched a kid or said a word. He is just expressing himself. But forget the kids Would you be OK with him expressing himself to adult women in this way? Your wife or adult daughter for example.

C'mon, you're talking about violence, rape and now making comparisons to sexual predators and child abuse. These guys shouted something rude towards a camera, please try to keep some perspective.

[Guest]

As you acknowledge, we do have types of public behaviour that are classified as misdemeanors. For me yelling profanity that advocates a violent act towards women or any other group should be one of them. If written properly, it should stand up. If not, it won't withstand a constitutional challenge.

Yes, the Calgary police charged this guy with stunting because he shouted it from a car but we both know why he was really being charged. But why call something what it is? Isn't that what this whole topic is about?

So I have answered your question. Still waiting for your answer.

Okay, I'm having trouble with your answer to my question. It was this:

How would you deal with a suggestion that freedom of speech be curbed regarding something you don't find offensive?

For instance, would you ban outright the drawing of Mohammad? Would you ban Pride Parades? Certain people of certain religions find such things offensive.

I don't see that you answered that.

As for your question, I'm pretty sure I did answer it. Please indulge me and point it out again.

With regards to the phrase in the OP. I fully agree with you that if it could be shown to be an incitement to commit that act on an unwilling individual, it would be a crime. The same way any incitement to violence would.

[msj]

How is it false. It is just a form of expression that threatens violence to no one?

I think section 173 of our criminal code deals with this form of expression just fine.

A man exposing himself to a child is not the same thing as a man saying something rude to another adult.

The funny thing here is that the law on this can be quite "pedantic" much to cybercoma's chagrin, I'm sure.

Things like intention, exposing genitals for a sexual purpose, etc... (that is, the dreaded context) is important.

Of course, such context is necessary to determine the difference between, say, a section 173 violation as compared to a section 152 violation (inviting to sexual touching).

Etc etc ad nauseum.

See other codes for other hypothetical situations one can make up.... but save it for a separate thread where such details and relevance may emerge.

In this thread, it does nothing to further your claim on the topic that we are actually discussing which is rude men being douche-bags and whether or not them getting banned for a year from some soccer games and one losing his job is enough sanctioning as compared to also getting the state involved.

My threshold here is simple - he was not inciting violence and he was not crossing the line into harassment (section 264).

He was being a rude jerk and was bravely confronted for it by the journalist who stuck up for herself very well while letting him humiliate himself before the entire world.

I'm grateful that we live in an age when jerks like this are called out for it while the state is not needed to do anything.

This is a good sign, imo.

[WestCoastRunner]

[quote name="msj" post="1055050" timestamp="

My threshold here is simple - he was not inciting violence and he was not crossing the line into harassment (section 264).

These statements absolutely cross the line into sexual harassment. And it does incite violence towards women. Do I need to repost the victim impact statements from the female journalists?

[Guest]

[quote name="msj" post="1055050" timestamp="

My threshold here is simple - he was not inciting violence and he was not crossing the line into harassment (section 264).

These statements absolutely cross the line into sexual harassment. And it does incite violence towards women. Do I need to repost the victim impact statements from the female journalists?

Actually, all that needs to happen then is due process. If that is the case, charges can be laid. If the courts find the perpetrator guilty, punitive measures can be taken.

[Hal 9000]

[quote name="msj" post="1055050" timestamp="

My threshold here is simple - he was not inciting violence and he was not crossing the line into harassment (section 264).

These statements absolutely cross the line into sexual harassment. And it does incite violence towards women. Do I need to repost the victim impact statements from the female journalists?

So, the only criteria for a sexual harassment charge is that a woman hears something that she doesn't like?

[msj]

These statements absolutely cross the line into sexual harassment. And it does incite violence towards women. Do I need to repost the victim impact statements from the female journalists?

By all means re-post it so I can take a look.

Keep in mind, however, that criminal harassment, section 264, may require more than what the victim says happened.

Sexual harassment, however, under civil codes may be sufficient.

But, I don't think the journalist had any less power than the jerk she was dealing with.

In fact, I think she had more power than him and his ignorant buddies and she wielded her power very effectively to shame them.

So, imo, this also does not qualify but I'm sure some human rights commission can spend thousands of dollars to determine otherwise.

Hope that money does not come from health care or education budgets but it probably will.

And for what?

They have already been publicly shamed. One has deservedly lost his job over this. They are banned for a year from attending soccer games.

Why do people always want more sanctions?

What happened to these guys (and one guy in particular) is pretty good and is a victory but when the smell of blood is in the air the people always cry for more.

[TimG]

Why do people always want more sanctions?

And isn't it ironic that the same people calling for criminal punishments for people being jerks are often the same people complaining about 'tough on crime' policies... Murder someone like Khadr and be treated like a hero. Say something rude to a reporter and you should be locked away... Edited May 18, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Actually, all that needs to happen then is due process. If that is the case, charges can be laid. If the courts find the perpetrator guilty, punitive measures can be taken.

The legal pragmatist route, eh? Harassment only truly happens upon conviction. Until then it's not harassment? Edited May 18, 2015 by cybercoma

[Guest]

The legal pragmatist route, eh? Harassment only truly happens upon conviction. Until then it's not harassment?

No. If it is harrassment, someone can be charged with it. Don't agree?

[cybercoma]

No. If it is harrassment, someone can be charged with it. Don't agree?

Could be. Doesn't mean they will be.

[Guest]

Could be. Doesn't mean they will be.

It often doesn't, regardless of the crime. Or someone can be charged with a crime, and even executed, when they didn't do it. The argument is not about the effectiveness of the system.