Letters to the Editor
-
Gordon
GO crossed a line of tolerance with homophobia-laden harangues. I don't think GO saw them that way, but they were. Another individual persisted in harassive stalking behaviors. He too did not perceive his behaviors that way, but they were.
So it goes.
;-)
-- Gordon
If someone insists on talking in a movie theater while the movie is on they are asked to leave. That's not censorship. That's just expecting and demanding a reasonable amount of common courtesy out of 'everyone' who is in the theater. In the case of these comment threads common courtesy would be not to hijack threads, or not to harangue and harass an individual poster or repeatedly demand something from a poster.
Those are simple rules or directives that most people who aren't either grossly self absorbed or bordering on crazy understand and try to live by and with, at least most of the time.
-
Amen, Kitt!
That's not censorship. That's just expecting and demanding a reasonable amount of common courtesy out of 'everyone'...
Otherwise, as I've said before, these threads become a joyless enterprise... and why bother to post anything then?
-
Kitt, Gordon and Anonymust
Yes, I agree about the disruptions. Many pages back, I threw down a challenge to the trolls to defend Bush's actions in barring potential protesters from rallies. I was trying to make the point that showing up at a rally and holding a sign or wearing a t-shirt to promote a differing view was free speech that should be protected at all costs. At the same time, I said that I agreed with throwing out both the "iron my shirt" guy at HRC's rally and CodePink protesters at Congressional hearings, but only after they actually have become disruptive.
-
Jim W...
Many pages back, I threw down a challenge to the trolls to defend Bush's actions in barring potential protesters from rallies.
And were there any substantive responses? Because if there were, I missed them.
Personally, I would up the ante, and ask for a defense, not just of barring potential protesters, but of allowing only those who have signed a "Loyalty Oath" to attend taxpayer-funded events, at which the administration's agenda is to further its political agenda.
-
Anonymust
Nope. Not a single response that I saw.
-
Those distracting billboards...
Well, there's distracting and there's stuff designed to anger. Obviously the public has an interest in not having angry drivers on the streets steering two ton hunks of steel around.
We can't have them, er, titillated either, DYK.
Neighborhood residents protest station's suggestive billboard
Monday, April 30, 2007 3:36 AM
By Mark Ferenchik
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Julius Jefferson noticed the billboard high above N. 4th Street and E. 5th Avenue just last week.
"I was stopped at the stoplight at 4th and 5th. My passenger said, 'There's going to be a lot of accidents at the intersection because of that sign,' " said Jefferson, who lives in the area.
The billboard features the tank top-clad chest of a well-endowed woman. The message: "Listen to 99.7 The Blitz … and pray for rain."
I never did figure out what rain had to do with it....
-
women are dogshit
The older and more dried up they are the easier they are to pick up.
there. ya happy now?
-
To Soak Her t-shirt?
The billboard features the tank top-clad chest of a well-endowed woman. The message: "Listen to 99.7 The Blitz … and pray for rain."
I never did figure out what rain had to do with it....--Pedinska
Sophomorically,
Gordon -
Pedinska...
She was probably wearing a t-shirt, right? Or something sheer?
;~)
-
tyranny?
I think the entire argument has gotten a little sidetracked. In order for Canada's hate speech laws to apply, the "speech" must be shown to incite violence against a particular and identifiable group. Political speech is protected. In its application, a very high bar is set, and prosecutions are few and far between. The Levant case is not a prosecution under Canada's hate speech laws. Glenn even makes this point (even though it is easy to miss). In this case, both Levant and his accuser are looking for a platform to grandstand. And the idea that Levant is being persecuted by a tyrannical, oppressive Human Rights Commission akin to some kind of thought police is ludicrous. The Commission has the obligation to investigate complaints. The complaint is already several years old (If I remember correctly) and the Commission is only getting around to it now... a rather glacial form of tyranny no? If curious about the process, you can check out the following link which details the procedures.
http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/publications/Information_Sheets/Text/Info_Complaint_Process.asp
As you can see, the first attempt is at mediation between the parties and an investigation is only undertaken if mediation is unsuccessful. Also, the complaint can be (and often is) summarily dismissed after the investigation state. Glenn's argument that this is the first step down the road to tyranny is rather extreme. It seems to me that hate speech laws are not required for a society to go down this path. Examples abound in both Canada and the US where "free speech" has been attacked either through the implementation of "free speech zones" or the arresting of peaceful protesters or t-shirt wearers using "disorderly conduct" type laws.
-
Canadian law provides for criminal penalties for hate speech
Some respondents have doubted that the Canadian hate speech law carries a criminal penalty. Apparently it does.
Section 319 deals with hate speech:
If it can be shown that the speech was so abusive that it was likely to incite listeners or readers into violent action against an identifiable group, and if the the speech was made in a public place, then a person could be convicted.
If the speech promoted hatred against an identifiable group, but was not likely to incite a listener to violence, then a person could still be convicted. However there are many safeguards that could give that person immunity. A person could not be convicted if: The hate speech was expressed during a private conversation.
If the person can establish that the statements made are true.
If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would give clergypersons immunity from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.
If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy.
If he described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group "for the purpose of removal" of that hatred.
If the provincial Attorney General refused to give permission. The Attorney General's consent is required before charges can be laid.. 1
In this section of the Code, the term "statements" includes spoken words, written words, published text, gestures, signs and other visible representations.
The Code permits up to two years in prison for anyone convicted of a hate crime. It permits the government to confiscate any literature that was used in conjunction with the hate speech.