Libel and slander are not illegal, per se; they are actionable. As for why that is so, it’s because the freedom of speech has historically (and constitutionally) meant freedom from government interference rather than private interference.
thank you… I all ways appreciate you clarifying these topics for us
But libel and slander are government interference. The government has laws that say you can be legally liable for certain types of speech. The fact that enforcement is left to private action rather than the government does not change it. They are laws which limit speech.
True. But they are hardly unique in that regard. There are other torts that can arise purely based on speech, like tortious interference.
Maybe you can define “hate”. The word “hate” is the most misused word there is. It has become nothing more than a buzzword used to label someone who happens to disagree.
In order for the action to be successful, doesn’t the plaintiff have to show actual damages? Do hurt feelings count as damages?
Ok, it’s time to drive a stake in this particular undead creature’s heart.
The year was 1919. The case was Schenck vs. United States. And the author of the opinion, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said:
The Court went on to uphold the conviction of Charles Schenck, who shockingly enough had not actually yelled “Fire,” in any theater, crowded or otherwise. Schenck was a member of the socialist party in Philadelphia, and his crime was printing leaflets targeted at men eligible for the draft. The leaflets suggested that military conscription was involuntary servitude and urged men to assert their rights. “If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain,” said Schenck’s leaflets.
This commentary was alleged to be violative of Section 3 of the Espionage Act of 1917.
This may seem like a shocking result to people expecting today’s understanding of the First Amendment, and, indeed, this is because the Court essentially overruled Schenck’s logic in the 1960s with Brandenburg v. Ohio. That case held that, contrary to the shouting “Fire,” example, speech could be prosecuted only when it posed a danger of “imminent lawless action.” (I am eliding some technical details here, see Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project). But the basic point I am making is:
The “crowded theater” in Holmes’ mind was a justification for forbidding people from printing anti-draft, anti-war leaflets, now understood as core First Amendment protected activities, and the case in which the language appeared has been functionally (although admittedly not explicitly) overruled.
So, please: stop dragging out the fucking theater shouting.
Mark Steyn was never prosecuted for anything related to hate speech laws. You linked to the article yourself. Read it a bit more carefully.
Except it wasn’t. I can play “Money for Nothing” as loudly as it pleases me.
What happened - again, please just read the article you linked to - is that they decided “Faggot” is too obscene to be on publically regulated radio. So you have to bleep the word. The USA does the same thing. You can’t broadcast words like “fuck” in songs on your local FM station, they have to be bleeped out.
According to Wikipedia the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council no longer requires that an “edited” version be played.
“On 31 August, the CBSC reiterated that it found the slur to be inappropriate; however, because of considerations in regard to its use in context, the CBSC has left it up to the stations to decide whether to play the original or edited versions of the song. Most of the CBSC panelists thought the slur was inappropriate, but it was used only in a satirical, non-hateful manner.”
I don’t recall hearing a bowdlerized version of the song played on American radio, and I’m unaware of any FCC ruling requiring it (“faggot” is not one of the celebrated Seven Forbidden Words).
Listen to Glenn Beck for ten minutes.
Overkill. He usually only needs a minute or so.
Generally, yes, though as with all legal questions the answer depends on the circumstances. Under the doctrine of libel per se, some defamation is so inherently damaging to one’s reputation that damages need not be proven. Most jurisdictions recognize accusations of professional incompetence, dishonesty (in a business or professional context), bestiality, pedophilia, or criminal activity as “per se” cases.
Traditionally, the classic example of inherently damaging libel was disparaging remarks about the sexual morals of a woman, but for obvious reasons that one has generally been abolished or made gender-neutral. I think some jurisdictions still recognize accusations of homosexuality as inherently damaging.
You posted:
So, you’ve lumped “derogatory, cruel and mean” in with “hateful” - but you now wish to claim this somehow should not be taken as related to the subject of this thread, which is the criminalization of hate speech?
Yes, I am aware of the “per se” doctrine when it comes to libel. But to use an example from earlier in this thread, calling a fast food worker a “stupid fat loser” who needs to get a “real job” certainly wouldn’t qualify.
Neither of those complaints had anything to do with hate speech, and neither one prevailed.
Steyn wasn’t charged with violation of a hate speech law, he was brought before a human rights tribunal on a human rights complaint, the tribunal being a quasi-legal body with limited authority, and it dismissed the complaint. So Steyn wasn’t “drug” (sic) into court and in the end faced no consequences at all because it’s neither illegal nor a human rights violation to be an asshole.
Leaving aside the question of whether “Money for Nothing” is an “excellent song”, it wasn’t “banned”, either, and likewise had nothing to do with hate speech laws. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council decided that a word in the song violated its code of ethics, and that its members should broadcast the song with the word edited. The CBSC is a voluntary self-governing organization, not a government agency or a legal entity, and a number of radio stations just ignored it, a few playing the song repeatedly just to make a point. So the song was in no way “banned”, and even so, the CBSC reversed itself later anyway.
Please don’t spread misinformation. Hate speech laws in Canada are extremely specific, intentionally very narrow in scope, and rarely applicable.
Well, calling him stupid would arguably impugn his professional fry-cook reputation. 
ETA: it’s a bit of a stretch to say that the Steyn affair had nothing to do with hate speech laws. The tribunal could have penalized the magazine that published his piece.
Ah, yes - hate is “defined” as whatever the person I dislike is saying.
For a many who favor hate speech laws, this is indeed what their “definition” of hate amounts to.
Maclean’s magazine (in which Steyn’s articles appeared) stated that their cost for these quasi-legal proceedings was “hundreds of thousands of dollars” and a whole lot of time. Can that properly be called “no consequences”?
I interpret the term “hate speech laws in Canada” to refer to the very limited and specific sections of the federal criminal code that deal with this, and which carry criminal sanctions in the limited situations in which they apply. This had absolutely nothing to do with the case against Steyn.
If you want to interpret the broad and fuzzy touchy-feely scope of the provincial human rights quasi-legal tribunals as being a kind of hate speech monitoring authority, then point taken, but basically anyone can bring anything before these guys based on nothing more than a claim of hurt feelings. Partly for this reason, and indeed partly motivated by the Steyn case itself, a major part of the authority granted these silly tribunals was repealed a few years ago.
There were no consequences to Mark Steyn as the writer of the piece. As for the alleged hundreds of thousands of dollars, that was the magazine’s choice. They could have ignored it and indeed Steyn was hoping that they would, and that the BC tribunal would rule against them. His hope was that they could then “take it to a real court”, as he put it, and get a proper legal ruling under the Charter of Rights with its guarantee of free speech, in which case the magazine could have been awarded its legal costs.
I’ll also note that part of the reason for the costs the magazine incurred is a crazy system where they were pursued in HR tribunals in two different provinces and then with the federal HR commission, all on the same charge. It’s one of the reasons that in 2012 some of the authority of these tribunals was cut down to size.
All that is just apologia for punishing people for writing and saying what certain groups don’t want to have written or said.
Rambling on about quasi-governmental councils and the like doesn’t change that.