Free Speech vs Hate Speech

[cybercoma]

Please, please be tolerant of intolerance. Otherwise, you're just as intolerant as the intolerance that you're not tolerating.

[-1=e^ipi]

The left says it's tolerant.

Ann Coulter stopped from speaking.

That date guy stopped from speaking it they tried to.

Ron Ford shouted down numerous times.

A White Student Union not allowed in Canada. When they have unions for every other race creed and religion.

Yeah very tolerant. The left demands everyone else be tolerant except them. When was the last time a right wing speaker was allowed to speak on a campus in Canada?

Yep. Progressives don't support the liberal principle of freedom of speech.

Edited September 15, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[cybercoma]

Yep. Progressives don't support the liberal principle of freedom of speech.

Conservatives don't like the idea that freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to listen to your garbage nor does it have to be respected or free from criticism.

More importantly, in Canadian Law, there is no 1st Amendment rights. We have hate speech laws here. So you don't have the right to incite violence and hatred against people.

Edited September 16, 2015 by cybercoma

[-1=e^ipi]

Conservatives don't like the idea that freedom of speech

Good thing I'm not a conservative.

More importantly, in Canadian Law, there is no 1st Amendment rights. We have hate speech laws here.

Yes, Canada is behind when it comes to freedom of speech. Unfortunately, our lack of free speech is propped up by people who think that our country is too good for freedom of speech. This is why we have a trial next month that will determine if it's legal to disagree with feminists on twitter.

[Black Dog]

Yes, Canada is behind when it comes to freedom of speech. Unfortunately, our lack of free speech is propped up by people who think that our country is too good for freedom of speech. This is why we have a trial next month that will determine if it's legal to disagree with feminists on twitter.

There's a typo here: you wrote "disagree with" but it should read "obsessively stalk and harass." Just an FYI.

[-1=e^ipi]

There's a typo here: you wrote "disagree with" but it should read "obsessively stalk and harass." Just an FYI.

Ironically, it was the two feminists that were stalking, harassing, and launching a campaign of cyberbullying against an individual from Northern Ontario. But in progressiveland, disagreeing with cyberbulling counts as 'harassing' if you disagree with the wrong people.

[Black Dog]

Ironically, it was the two feminists that were stalking, harassing, and launching a campaign of cyberbullying against an individual from Northern Ontario. But in progressiveland, disagreeing with cyberbulling counts as 'harassing' if you disagree with the wrong people.

And ironically, that little weirdo was the one who was part of the group of your ilk who were stalking, harassing, and launching a campaign of cyberbullying against a woman for the crime of disagreeing with them about video games. But you've demonstrated you don't have an issue with that.

[-1=e^ipi]

The guy did the exact same thing with Jack Thompson. Where is the outrage over Jack Thompson?

But I guess old christian white male says video games cause violence = not taken seriously.

But young white female says video games cause violence = we must automatically agree with her and all those who disagree are misogynists that must be silenced.

I would argue that this double standard stems from male disposability and the empathy gap.

Not only that but the game creator explained the motivation for making the game in the game itself:

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting equality for women. The problem is, people like Anita are only selfishly looking out for their own benefits. They want all the perks that everyone else earns without any of the work or risk involved.

She has refused to address any form of criticism whatsoever, and hides behind the fact that she has a vagina, claiming that it's sexist to criticize her in any way.

She claims to want equality. Well here it is.

There's been a disgusting large imbalance of men who get beaten up in games. Let's add a lady to help balance things."

I don't agree with making punching games, but there is a very clear double standard here with respect to Anita Sarkeesian and Jack Thompson.

[Black Dog]

The guy did the exact same thing with Jack Thompson. Where is the outrage over Jack Thompson?

But I guess old christian white male says video games cause violence = not taken seriously.

But young white female says video games cause violence = we must automatically agree with her and all those who disagree are misogynists that must be silenced.

Not sure who you're talking about here.

I would argue that this double standard stems from male disposability and the empathy gap.

Cool story.

Not only that but the game creator explained the motivation for making the game in the game itself:

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting equality for women. The problem is, people like Anita are only selfishly looking out for their own benefits. They want all the perks that everyone else earns without any of the work or risk involved.

She has refused to address any form of criticism whatsoever, and hides behind the fact that she has a vagina, claiming that it's sexist to criticize her in any way.

She claims to want equality. Well here it is.

There's been a disgusting large imbalance of men who get beaten up in games. Let's add a lady to help balance things."

So you and your Gamer Gate bros want all depictions of violence taken out of video games, is that it?

I don't agree with making punching games, but there is a very clear double standard here with respect to Anita Sarkeesian and Jack Thompson.

I doubt many outside of the gamer nerd community know who Jack Thompson is.

[-1=e^ipi]

If you don't know who Jack Thompson is, you don't understand the context needed to understand the decision next month as to whether it will be illegal or not to disagree with feminists on twitter in Canada.

Edited September 16, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Black Dog]

If you don't know who Jack Thompson is, you don't understand the context needed to understand the trial next month as to whether it will be illegal or not to disagree with feminists on twitter in Canada.

And yet, I'm the only one who seems to be aware that the trial is over and we are awaiting the court's decision.

Anyway, Jack Thompson isn't relevant to the case (the issue of which you continue to misrepresent in a bit of Orwellian word association).

[-1=e^ipi]

Fair enough. You know legal jargon better than I do.

[Black Dog]

Fair enough. You know legal jargon better than I do.

Yes. For example, I know the "legal jargon" around "criminal harassment and violating a peace bond" speaks to a different issue than "disagree(ing) with feminists on twitter in Canada."

[-1=e^ipi]

Not when the 'criminal harassment' is simply disagreeing with feminists on twitter.

[Black Dog]

Not when the 'criminal harassment' is simply disagreeing with feminists on twitter.

It's for the court to decide if there was a line crossed from disagreeing/trolling into criminality. But I know you've already made up your mind about this and will distort a guilty verdict into further evidence that the tentacles of the great SJW conspiracy have reached into the legal system, evidence be damned. I do love it when people like you come along and pretend to be so above basic human flaws like confirmation bias when it's obvious to all that you're as much an ideologue as the people you whine about.

[-1=e^ipi]

It's for the court to decide if there was a line crossed from disagreeing/trolling into criminality.

North Korea has courts which decide if a line has been crossed. Does that mean that we should believe that those courts always make correct decisions?

evidence be damned.

A kangaroo court's ruling is not evidence. If you have evidence that Gregory Elliot harassed someone, then please provide it.

[cybercoma]

North Korea has courts which decide if a line has been crossed. Does that mean that we should believe that those courts always make correct decisions?

Perfect, so you hold a position that's unfalsifiable. And you wonder why people throw their hands up and call it a waste of time to discuss things with you. If he's guilty, the courts are SJW activists. If he's innocent, it's just another example of SJWs slandering someone and you were right all along.

[Black Dog]

North Korea has courts which decide if a line has been crossed. Does that mean that we should believe that those courts always make correct decisions?

A kangaroo court's ruling is not evidence. If you have evidence that Gregory Elliot harassed someone, then please provide it.

Thanks for proving my point perfectly. You're not a serious person.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Black Dog

[-1=e^ipi]

Perfect, so you hold a position that's unfalsifiable.

Provide evidence that Gregory Elliot was harassing people. Please provide me with a link to some comments he said or whatever.

My position is not unfalsifiable. All you have to do is show me what Gregory Elliot said or wrote that constitutes harassment.

Edited September 17, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[cybercoma]

Are th courts handling it? I'm going to assume they're hearing the evidence and rendering a decision. I haven't been following the case.

[Black Dog]

Are th courts handling it? I'm going to assume they're hearing the evidence and rendering a decision. I haven't been following the case.

But they are all North Korean SJW kangaroos so they obviously can't be trusted.

[Freddy]

But they are all North Korean SJW kangaroos so they obviously can't be trusted.

Cite required

[Black Dog]

Cite required

Link

[Rue]

You want a cite try this forum. I was advised by this forum that it is a bannable offence to use the female version of a well known male politician's first name. This is the specific example I would use to explain why I think notions of hate can be so subjective as to become meaningless.

I was told by the moderators such an exercise is abusive-its ok to joke about the politician's curly hair, but not to call him a female version of his name.. one is o.k. the other crosses the line and Is considered hateful enough by the moderators to constitute banning the person who engages in such an exercise.

That is fascinating because it reflects exactly how we moderate things-its arbitrary but its based on something and that something is someone who feels insulted by it.

Therein lies your source of how people decide what is and is not hateful-subjective opinion. Its not based on anything objective but instead a perveived level or threshold of what is permissible and is not permissible before its then defined as hateful by someone who then complains to an authority figure who then reacts.

In most cases the people who define what is hateful have not really defined it, they in fact capitulate to others who have already defined it and the authority figure simply enforces the predefined upset individual's feelings by limiting the other party's ability to state the words perceived hateful.

Its rare any official in any authority position initiates counter hate enforcement without some sort of trigger or catalyst from the public. The only exception I can think of is police actively involved now in the internet looking for sex criminals but the crap they look for is not just hateful, its violent and criminal.

I would argue the public consists of a silent majority and then thousands of not so silent minorities forming groups to lobby for their interests and beliefs.

So I would contend often what is considered hateful depends on the trend of the day, the subjective opinion of the day- it certainly is fluid and that trend of the day constantly is evolving and changing in context depending on the audience proclaiming the definition of what is or is not hateful.

You can for example say hateful things about Jews by putting the word Zionist in front of the word. Once the word Zionist is taken away it still can be done if its linked to Israel but imagine if you called out Anglicans for having the state of England or Catholics, the Vatican.

Imagine if you called out China, Ireland, Italy, Belgium, Germany, Ukraine, for having laws of return for people perceived as ethnic nationals who originated from their homelands. Its not done. It is though if its with Jews. So depending on how you couch your hatred it can be quite politically acceptable. If the object of your hate is widely hated, you will get away with it.

As well qhat is hateful to one, is funny satire to another. Certain persons complain effectively and so are able to censor opinions are comments that may not even be hateful but could most certainly be politically incorrect. We've seen that debate go on in the entertainment business since it started.

Take Donald Trump, a good example of today's celebrity t.v. actor turned politician-if he said certain comments that he does in public on this forum, it is most conceivable he would be reprimanded by the moderators and maybe even banned for abusive comment.

He's made some comments that are out and out insulting to women, Latinos, etc. The fact that he has done that, then begs the question- does he need to be banned or censored?

In the US the American people are much more loath to censor discussion preferring o call on their constitution to protect their right to free speech and sometimes that means being rude, unpopular and if you are a Nazi, marching in Skokie, Illionois knowing it was full of holocaust survivors. That would never happen in Canada.

Case in point. Just a day or so on t.v., our new international trade Minister was on a panel on a talk show in the US and her American participants began criticizing Muslim religious doctrines. She immediately defined their criticisms of certain religious doctrine as necessarily being hateful to all Muslims and refused to discuss the subject further.

We do that in Canada a lot quicker than in the US, i.e. shut down discussion accusing people of being racist, abusive, intolerant.

We are quick to shut down satire, humour, statements designed to make people not take politics as seriously as they do, in the name of political correctness.

We also shut down free speech trying to dictate what is and is not acceptable to say accusing things we don't agree with as hateful.

I can't believe I live in a country where people try censor me because I engage in satire but it happens.

I am amazed not just on this forum but with Canadian society at large how quick, we are in the name of tolerance to be intolerant.

Hate is a subjective word.

For me and others like me, government should not be involved in policing words nor should moderators or courts or editors unless and until such words encourage crime or incite crime. Until then I and many people like me resent the nanny state, the constant attempts to censor and impose what is and is not politically acceptable.

The fact is you can come on this or any forum and say something hateful and racist against whites but couch it with the word "privilege" and get away with it.

Put the word Zionist before Jew and suddenly you can spew out every hateful word in the dictionary.

Its what we do. We cloak our real hatred in politically correct terms.

This is why courts can't determine hate until a physical act is referred to or encouraged. They are not mind readers and they won't side with certain political views-they will remain neutral and limit their inquiry and intervention into asking, do the words or actions of the person or persons encourage or incite a crime.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Rue

[kimmy]

I was told by the moderators such an exercise is abusive-its ok to joke about the politician's curly hair, but not to call him a female version of his name.. one is o.k. the other crosses the line and Is considered hateful enough by the moderators to constitute banning the person who engages in such an exercise.

This is a long-standing policy on the forum, and it was enacted to try to keep the level of discourse from going down the toilet. We used to have members who insisted on using terms like "CONservative and LIEberal" and referring to politicians by insulting nicknames like "Jean Cretin" or "Harpitler" and any number of others. Referring to the prime minister by a feminine version of his name adds no value to the discussion and only serves to inflame others to provoke similarly insulting responses, and lower the level of discourse.

It's not a ban on Hate Speech, it's a ban on Stupid Speech.

-k