Why?
I agree it’s a hijack so I won’t continue it here. I’m not wrong, though 
More than any of the other limitations universally placed on free speech?
Time, place and manner restrictions, obscenity laws, fighting words, imminent lawless action…
Because I fear the person whose job it is to determine which opinions are valid to publicly express, and which aren’t. History strongly suggests anyone with such power will inevitably become corrupted.
There are reasonable laws restricting speech in order to protect public safety. I don’t think you’ll find many people who oppose hate speech laws that also oppose laws against inciting riots, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, against child pornography, against engaging in a criminal conspiracy, etc.
The difference is that one form of speech endangers people and property, whereas the other is just obnoxious.
Not that that gives him an excuse to act like a douchebag, if that’s what you were getting at.
My father met a well respected rabbi in Jerusalem (he shall remain nameless due to this being the pit and all). The rabbi basically told him Hitler was an instrument of God and non-religious jews brought the holocaust on themselves. So… yeah, a lot of people have weird (i.e. horribly disgusting and insane) views on this.
Cool - a Jewish Pat Robertson! Who knew? I guess nuts come in all manner of religions.
The prohibitaion of hate speech helps prevserve the freedom of speech of those who otherwise would face more hatred in their lives but for the protection of the law.
It also protects the disseminators of hate speech, who otherwise would face hatred and embarassment for their hateful views. Let’s not forget that.
It’s all for our own good. :dubious:
Random stops by armed men who refuse to identify themselves and perform searches without reason terrify the fuck out of me. Our hate speech laws make me feel warm and cuddly, 'specially since they’ve been used only a handful of times in appropriate situations. Should that change, I’ll certainly be among those taking action.
That’s utter nonsense. Please provide the statute and case citations to support your position.
What does one thing have to do with another? At what point in the past six posts did “I don’t like hate speech laws” become a nationalist pissing contest?
Isn’t it just common sense that when something becomes illegal, less people do it for fear of having charges made against them?
Because some people really don’t like to ‘lose’.
Larry Borgia: You are wrong because a belief is, by definition, held despite the evidence. Lack of belief means following the evidence to a logical conclusion. If you dispute that you are arguing with the definition of the word ‘belief’ as it is understood by everyone around you.
That does not mean that the prohibition against hate speech protects the disseminators of hate speech. If you think it does, then provide the statute and case law to support your position. The closest you can come will be the statutory exemption for genuine religious discussion.
I think either I misunderstood Jackmannii or you did. I thought his point was that when racist speech becomes illegal, racists then don’t speak out for fear of facing charges, and hence don’t face societal hatred and embarrassment for their hateful views. Not that the law directly protects them in their language.
As I said I’m not going to hijack the thread any more here. I’d be willing to argue the matter in a different thread, though it’s a pretty picayune point.
Actually I was ridiculing Muffin’s garbled and inane comments about protecting one variety of speech by suppressing another, by suggesting an equally inane proposition - that “hate speech” laws are good because they save potential offenders from censure and embarassment. Apparently I accomplished at least one whoosh* as a result.
Unless there’s a clear threat to public safety involved, I think these laws are bad policy and a threat to open expression of views, even if said views are stupid and repugnant (as in the case of the OP).
*kudos to Muffin.
When people are speaking hatefully in public,you know who they are. Let them speak. They can show every one how bigoted and stupid they are. They are more dangerous if they keep their hatred private.
I’m a Canadian. I think Ahenakew is an ignorant fool. But I also think the hate speech laws are wrong and he should not be charged with hate speech. Freedom of speech ought to trump all, IMHO.
But I have no dispute with the government taking away his Order of Canada. I guess that’s inconsistent of me.
But then, “a foolish inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” and I don’t want to be foolishly consistent and I don’t want anyone to think I have a little mind.
The infamous and unpleasant Ernst Zundel springs to mind, and his defense lawyer, the horrid and peculiar Douglas Christie. By giving Zundel a platform in court, we gave his nasty ideas a very wide circulation. Had he been ignored as he ought to have been - at least by the law - he would have remained totally what he is: a marginal creep. Likewise Christie.