Canada's Woke Supreme Court says some free speech is no longer important compared to protecting identity groups from being offended.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, suds said:

I'm all for free speech, and 

Are you? Because looking at what the dissenting judge said, she sees it different. As was posted above,

In dissent, Justice Suzanne Côté cited the late U.S. Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis, who said in 1927 that the answer to objectionable speech is “more speech, not enforced silence.”

“Counter‑speech aimed at completely removing the initial expression from the public sphere appears to be inconsistent with the search for truth,” Justice Côté wrote.

So this is the difference.

I'm sure the leftist mind boggles and roils over that one.

[suds]

21 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Are you? Because looking at what the dissenting judge said, she sees it different. As was posted above,

 

In dissent, Justice Suzanne Côté cited the late U.S. Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis, who said in 1927 that the answer to objectionable speech is “more speech, not enforced silence.”

“Counter‑speech aimed at completely removing the initial expression from the public sphere appears to be inconsistent with the search for truth,” Justice Côté wrote.

So this is the difference.

I'm sure the leftist mind boggles and roils over that one.

I must be missing something then because nobody's being 'silenced'.  Maybe Neufeld doesn't appreciate being called a bigot, but to that I'd say....  grow a spine buddy.

[OftenWrong]

10 minutes ago, suds said:

I must be missing something then because nobody's being 'silenced'.  Maybe Neufeld doesn't appreciate being called a bigot, but to that I'd say....  grow a spine buddy.

Since you and I weren't there to hear all the details of the case, we'll have to assume the dissenting judge's opinion is somehow relevant. Whether you agree with her or not.

So let's move on from discounting that as part of the problem.

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, herbie said:

Funny how some people's view of 'free speech' is solely their belief they have the right to be offensive.

Read the ruling. You can make all the hate speech you want, the Court's not going to defend you from consequences.

This was not hate speech. They even said it wasn't hate speech. The people whose hate speech IS protected are the ones who don't like what he said and insult and accuse him. They won't have to worry about proving what they say in a court because they're immune.

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

The court dismissed a defamation suit.  Why isn’t this a victory for free speech?

?

No. What the court said was that the person defamed did not have the right to launch a defamation suit because as a blasphemer he was now fair game for whatever anyone wanted to say about him.

[suds]

This might help if you can understand all the technical aspects of the case...

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2023/2023scc14/2023scc14.html

[TreeBeard]

36 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

No. What the court said was that the person defamed did not have the right to launch a defamation suit because as a blasphemer he was now fair game for whatever anyone wanted to say about him.

Nowhere is blasphemy cited in the judgement.  The court dismissed the defamation suit.  But, because it seems to be the wrong person expressing their views, so you want to see them tied up in a lawsuit for what they said.  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Are you? Because looking at what the dissenting judge said, she sees it different. As was posted above,

 

In dissent, Justice Suzanne Côté cited the late U.S. Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis, who said in 1927 that the answer to objectionable speech is “more speech, not enforced silence.”

“Counter‑speech aimed at completely removing the initial expression from the public sphere appears to be inconsistent with the search for truth,” Justice Côté wrote.

So this is the difference.

I'm sure the leftist mind boggles and roils over that one.

The problem is that the 'counter speech' only applies to the left in this case. The right would still  be guilty of defaming the person. And i'm sure the left loves that

Edited May 21, 2023 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

 

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Nowhere is blasphemy cited in the judgement.  The court dismissed the defamation suit.  But, because it seems to be the wrong person expressing their views, so you want to see them tied up in a lawsuit for what they said.  

 

Try not to be any more deliberately obtuse than absolutely necessary.

[myata]

6 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

So, this ruling is a step in the right direction?  

Not even close because 1) free speech doesn't mean free to lie and ruin someone's reputation at will and without any responsibility; and 2) limiting such a parody of a key democratic right to only officially approved list of topics has nothing to do with democracy and everything: with control. We will see those woke "struggle sessions" not if, when now officially encouraged by the top ostensibly democratic bodies. What, already?

Only proves once again that democracy in Canada is a decoration, a pretty adornment not a real and necessary part of social life. Few care to question and understand what it means, and even fewer to do something to keep it active and current. The road to the inevitable destination lies wide and open.

[myata]

5 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Counter‑speech aimed at completely removing the initial expression from the public sphere appears to be inconsistent with the search for truth,” Justice Côté wrote.

Exactly, and not only that, public use of insults without any consequences now enforced by this ruling surely will have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression. On the topics of importance (as defined by your good government) cheer for the approved opinion or face struggle sessions and destruction of reputation. A great interpretation of the freedom, direct from.. you know where.

It's not going to be better. The society got itself into this condition by the decades long habit of boredom and complacency. It will take nothing less than standing up to transgressions actively and vigorously to even attempt to stop the slide to you know where.

[myata]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Try not to be any more deliberately obtuse than absolutely necessary.

We can make it obvious to absolute impossibility to squeeze out:

"A is a thief and corrupt embezzler, for shame!", without evidence, a defamation and compensation.

"B is a homophobic anti-something scum of the world", the Sun is shining birds singing, please go on and more of it!

These are supposedly top experts in their profession, a democratic institution of critical importance to the society and democracy and they fail to see the obvious consequences of their decision.

By the way, does it remind handling of the recent pandemics? No, it won't get better.. why would it?

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, bcsapper said:

It's odd that those who would shut down speech don't get that.  The only way to defeat speech you don't agree with is to argue against it, ridicule it, show it up for what it is.

Their plan is to just keep on talking while no one else is allowed to say anything. It's not a bad gig if you can get it. 

[myata]

8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Their plan is to just keep on talking while no one else is allowed to say anything.

It was supposed to be the top body of independent justice in a top seven democracy of the world. Oh eh. Just too bad.

Edited May 21, 2023 by myata

[CdnFox]

12 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Their plan is to just keep on talking while no one else is allowed to say anything. It's not a bad gig if you can get it. 

it's a common (and somehwhat baffling) leftie belief. Athough authoritarians in general share it to some degree but the left really  buys in.  They are convinced that if only one side is allowed to talk and the other side is completely repressed then the ideas of the other side will go away and nobody will think them ever again.

History has proven this wrong about a billion times now but - they keep trying.

 

[herbie]

Never heard so many load of shit arguments.

The pot can't sue anyone, not even the kettle, for calling it black.

If you stand on a soapbox praising Hitler and condemning the Jews, you can't sue the person that calls you a Nazi.

If you are an a-hole, you can't waste the court's time because someone called you one.

It has F*** all to do with 'free speech'.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

Never heard so many load of shit arguments.

You should start reading your own posts.

(although i can understand why you wouldn't, they suck)

2 hours ago, herbie said:

The pot can't sue anyone, not even the kettle, for calling it black.

Of course they can.

2 hours ago, herbie said:

If you stand on a soapbox praising Hitler and condemning the Jews, you can't sue the person that calls you a Nazi.

Well first off you'll be in jail but second off yeah - you can.

2 hours ago, herbie said:

If you are an a-hole, you can't waste the court's time because someone called you one.

Yeah, you can.

2 hours ago, herbie said:

It has F*** all to do with 'free speech'.

Thanks for reminding us who the dumbest person on the board is - we appreciate you volunteering.

[suds]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

It has F*** all to do with 'free speech'.

Well actually it does and it doesn't. In order to dismiss this particular 'strategic' (or frivolous) defamation lawsuit the courts were forced to check off a number of boxes according to British Columbia's 'Protection of Public Participation Act'. (Ontario has one too). The purpose of the Act is to promote free speech without fear of a lawsuit of this kind. However this case does go a little further than that. Sections 2b and 15.1 of the Charter have to be taken into consideration. I'm sure we're all familiar with 2b. Section 15(1) of the 'Equality Rights' section states... 'Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit under the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability'.  If the courts feel that certain marginalized groups aren't being treated fairly then they might be inclined to be more protective of speech that defends those groups. Anybody here have a problem with that? I for one find that line of thinking perfectly acceptable in a liberal democracy.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, suds said:

If the courts feel that certain marginalized groups aren't being treated fairly then they might be inclined to be more protective of speech that defends those groups. Anybody here have a problem with that? I for one find that line of thinking perfectly acceptable in a liberal democracy.

You can't fight racism and discrimination with more racism and discrimination. It doesn't work and it just makes things worse.

The phrase 'fight fire with fire" is stupid. Professionals fight fire with water.

[suds]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You can't fight racism and discrimination with more racism and discrimination. It doesn't work and it just makes things worse.

The phrase 'fight fire with fire" is stupid. Professionals fight fire with water.

As with most things it depends on the situation. There is no one size fits all policy that I know of.  I'm sure you're just gonna love 15(2).

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, suds said:

As with most things it depends on the situation. There is no one size fits all policy that I know of.  I'm sure you're just gonna love 15(2).

Public politeness drones to scold arseholes who really have it coming to them would be appropriate.  Speaking of fighting fire arm the drones with big squirt guns that squirt purple dye.

Anyone remember when they used to tell kids the water would turn purple around them if they peed in a public swimming pool? So yeah, purple dye for sure.

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, suds said:

As with most things it depends on the situation. There is no one size fits all policy that I know of.  I'm sure you're just gonna love 15(2).

No, not really.  Discrimination is discrimination. The idea that there's "good" prejudice and racism and "bad" prejudice and racism is about the same as thinking there's good or bad types of slavery.

And history has been pretty clear that using racism to fight racism is not effective.

Are we a less racist society today since the start of the culture wars ?  The stats are that since we started to fight racism with racism that racist violence and incidents are on the rise. Significantly.

People either have equal rights or they don't. If they don't, we've seen historically what that leads to.

And if people don't have equal rights what was the problem with slavery in the first place again?

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, not really.  Discrimination is discrimination. The idea that there's "good" prejudice and racism and "bad" prejudice and racism is about the same as thinking there's good or bad types of slavery.

The human race can pretty much be divided into two camps, arseholes and nice people.

And that's it. That's all this case and so much of the smoke and fury polluting the public sphere is about and I'm glad the judiciary is showing signs it's only going to stand for so much.  Intolerance for intolerance is on the rise.

Where's my effing squirt gun?

[RedDog]

Free speech is vital. It allows me to state that five consecutive tv commercials featuring black actors in Alberta is racism pure and simple.

50 percent of tv actors represented by 3% of the population is fraud, misrepresentation and racist.

Obviously it has to be stopped.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

The human race can pretty much be divided into two camps, arseholes and nice people.

Rather than the smoking and non smoking as originally proposed  by freud.

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

And that's it. That's all this case and so much of the smoke and fury polluting the public sphere is about and I'm glad the judiciary is showing signs it's only going to stand for so much.  Intolerance for intolerance is on the rise.

THat just leads to intolerance.

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Where's my effing squirt gun?

I was going to ask for clarification ....  i have decided it's in the best interests of my mental health not to.