Letters to the Editor
-
@haberdudas
Dude, I'm with you. I don't think you understand the nature of hate speech until you've had that "kicked in the stomach" feeling. It's generally white heterosexuals who are great proponents of free speech because they have never really experienced that "Oh my God, someone's put a noose over that tree" feeling. It's hard to explain the feelings that go with that kind of thing.
For some reason I often find Americans mistake Canadians' love of their country and system with "smugness". GG himself had a couple of unkind things to say about people like me, who love our system of government and .... yes... believe it's currently working better then the American system.
I *LIKE* that there's a balance here. You're free to say whatever you like, I'm free to complain about it, and the system can (hopefully) work to figure out where the balance is. That isn't tyranny. It's freedom FROM tyranny. A guy like O'Reilly has inherently more power then someone like me. Somehow in America, he can say what he likes and little guys like me have no power to complain.
At least here in Canada he can be hauled up in public and made to stand behind his words. That provides at least SOME balance.
-
You're free to say what you want and I'm free to have the government drag you through a kangaroo court!
Scullboy,
You are missing the point. If one of the “limits” of free speech is that you can be brought up in court for expressing ideas then it’s not really free speech at all, is it? If you don’t understand that, you should be sterilized so you can’t pollute the gene pool any further. Canada’s system of government is scary as shit to me and just so you know, it’s NOT working better than ours!
Love,
Ramesees
-
San Fernando Curt
I obviously did not express myself too clearly. The point I was trying to make was that under Canadian "hate speech" laws, intent must be proven as well as an incitation to violence. This is a high bar and indeed, very few cases are brought, and fewer still are successfully prosecuted. No one is talking about thought crimes, and there is nothing in the law that can even be remotely construed as such.
Oh, sure… we can trust government to put strict limits on what we can say and... think. After all, government is always beneficent and cuddly. A big, warm sweetie-pie with our best interests at heart.
Nobody is saying that either. You are putting words in my mouth. I strongly believe that vigilance is required in order to make sure that governments don't go too far. I also happen to believe this is true of any other law. As recent history shows, "hate speech" laws are hardly required to try to limit free speech.
-
Ramesees
You are missing the point. If one of the “limits” of free speech is that you can be brought up in court for expressing ideas then it’s not really free speech at all, is it?
First, your characterization of the courts as "kangaroo courts" is somewhat off base. Second, no one is being brought to court for expressing ideas. In fact, political and private speech are expressly protected. People are being brought to court for inciting violence against an identifiable group. There is a difference.
If I carry your argument to it's extreme, I should then be free to libel, slander, and threaten you. I should be free to yell "fire!" in a crowded movie house because it's the trampling that caused the injuries, not the words...
-
Chilling...
I thought the similar cases in Europe were absurd. Maybe stiff civil penalties could be a deterrent when aimed at a specific group(ala Southern Poverty Law Center), but speech is speech.
-
@ C_COOK
"Kitt", are you that freakin' bored? Has the writers' strike limited your interaction with Michael Knight to the point that you're trolling Salon? And (do I really need to ask this?) do you have any reading comprehension skills at all? Can you grasp a nuanced point?
-- C_COOK
Who's Michael Knight?
Are your reading comprehension skills so poor that you can't grasp any point at all, nuanced or obvious? The whole point of the discussion was that Aych was saying that simple - personal use - possession of marijuana is resulting in hundreds of thousands of people being sentenced to prison time. I disagreed. Bucky didn't. I am correct in that disagreement. End of story. I went on to make a point of my personal experience of having suffered HOME DETENTION for what was long time to me but, let's face it, a short four month sentence for growing what was considered more than a personal use amount. I told that story in order to even more so dismiss Aych's 'prison for possession' claim and point. I wasn't changing the subject with it. Bucky made a big deal out of that, and then used it to change the subject and go f'ing nuts crazy. But, C_Cook, you see, that didn't change the subject, and it didn't change my point. So, as they say in the seventh grade,...fuck off.
-
@ramsees
I think the problem here may be cultural. I hope I don't sound like a jerk but Americans are culturally conditioned to think "free speech" means they are absolutely free to say absolutely anything they like with absolutely no fear of recriminations whatsoever.
Even in America, this is not the case. People aren't free to slander or libel, for instance. There have *always*, in *evry* culture, been limitations on what a citizen may say. And other citizens have always been free to seek redress from a speaker's words.
Again, in Canada you can say whatever the heck you like. Political speech in particular is protected in the Charter. However, if your speech is directed against certain minority groups, and your speech is intended to incite others to violence, those minorities are free to complain. The Human Rights Commission then investigates the complaint to see if *their* right to security of the person has been infringed by *your* speech.
Again, the guy in question didn't get hauled into a court. Someone complained about his speech and there was a hearing to determine if his speech broke the law. He didn't even have to attend the hearing; attendance is voluntary.
If were a pro-choice activist and I followed you everywhere you went in public screaming "BABY KILLER! BABY KILLER! THIS MAN IS A BABY KILLER!" you would be free to seek redress. The same thing happened here (the analogy isn't perfect but you get the idea).
The fact is, none of us are absolutely free to say whatever we want, whenever we want. We never have been. We never will be. I know this contradicts everything you've been taught but it's true nonetheless.
The question is really how to balance the rights of different parties, and what mechanisms may be used to seek redress.
Mike