Are you asking for a cite?
Here’s a cite. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robust
If it pleases you, feel free to ignore that word in that question. Not like words have any meaning nowadays anyways.
Thanks to the concept of free speech we can have this conversation. In the world of hate speech laws one of us would be in prison because of this conversation.
S’funny, there *are *hate speech laws in my country, and in clairobscur and Kobal2’s country too. Yet here I am posting, and so are they. So you’re *absolutely *wrong.
But the effect is the same - Native Americans enjoy an accommodation non-Natives don’t.
And *current *ability to enjoy that accommodation is passed down along ethnic lines.
I am also posting from a hate speech law country. Nobody has arrested me yet but I’m not sure how robust the laws are here in Canada on the old octopus scale.
So, octo, when do you expect genocide in Britain? Any day now? Is that before or just after the spaceship following the Hale-Bopp comet returns?
And who, precisely, would be in jail in this thread?
That’s like saying Nevadans enjoy an accommodation that Californians do not because the former allows gambling and the latter does not. You picked a bad example to illustrate your point. I don’t see any reason to continue with this particular tangent though.
Any Californian can move to Nevada and open a casino if they meet the conditions. It’s a false equivalency. I stand by my example.
And if we don’t put a halt now to this ongoing campaign to reduce racism, we may end up living in a society where everyone is equal and we don’t have any racism at all.
Alright, perhaps the being in jail comment was a bit of an exaggeration. Still, the idea that totalitarian states are the most dangerous institutions in the history of peoplekind is something that is too easily dismissed.
I’m sure the genocide heralded by the forbidding of denying the Holocaust is coming any minute now, but so far today it’s just been a little grey and rainy.
Ya *think *?
Nah. It could also be garden variety thickness. Even your quoted colleague left that door open.
Yeah. But notice how you can’t actually discuss the issue without changing the issue to totalitarian countries none of us live in? That means you are losing on the merits.
No, it doesn’t. Life isn’t binary. You think totalitarian or non-totalitarian countries just popped into existence?
As MrDibble, CarnalK, and others have noted, many of us posting here are in countries that have hate speech laws, and none of us are in jail yet.
In fact I’d say that this comment perfectly encapsulates the ignorance of hate speech laws as actually implemented in those countries that is on display here by those arguing against such laws who clearly don’t understand them. The hate speech laws in Canada, for example, have almost never been used, and on the rare occasions when they have been used, no one except perhaps the most hateful and dedicated neo-Nazi would have objected to what they were used for.
One other comment, in the context of Canada, about a much-misunderstood aspect of hate speech laws. A number of cases have been in the media in recent years, perhaps the most famous of which is the complaint brought against Macleans magazine and the writer Mark Steyn by the Canadian Islamic Congress alleging that his series of articles on Islam were Islamophobic. Some of the commentators on these cases don’t seem to understand that they have absolutely nothing to do with federal criminal hate speech laws, which, again, have a very high bar and are rarely used. These were entirely civil proceedings under provincial human rights laws in some provinces that are not even adjudicated by courts, but by quasi-judicial bodies called human rights tribunals. I personally think a lot of those laws and the tribunals that administer them are bullshit, but that’s an entirely different discussion. Steyn and Macleans ultimately won that case when the BC tribunal dismissed the complaint, but Steyn had stated that he was hoping he’d lose so he could take the matter to a “real court” (his words) where he would undoubtedly have prevailed on the constitutional grounds of free speech – something that even the silly tribunal seemed to agree with when they sided with Steyn and Macleans. So much for the tyranny of hate speech laws!
You should have quit after the first ridiculous comment. First you suggest that those of us debating hate speech laws would be in jail in countries that have hate speech laws. Then you suggest that, OK, maybe not, but such countries are on the road to totalitarianism. I have news for you: Canada and the other countries in the top 10 of the Human Freedom Index all have hate speech laws. The US, which is one of the few advanced democracies which does not, and which is almost unique in its belief in free speech absolutism, is down at #17 on the freedom index. The correlation with totalitarianism does not seem to be what you think it is.
And you think hate speech laws are a step towards authoritarianism but they are not. The opposite really, as authoritarian governments like using scapegoat groups to rally against. They wouldn’t pass a hate speech law and only apply it to their enemies. They’d just arrest people for sedition or something.
Is Britain and Canada headed towards autocracy?
The way you all are beating poor ol’ octopus in this debate is making me wish for hate speech protections. Ouch! Protect the cephalopod!
No, definitely not, but according to yet another freedom index, the 2019 World Press Freedom Index, there’s one country that might be:
As a result of an increasingly hostile climate that goes beyond Donald Trump’s comments, the United States (48th) has fallen three places in this year’s Index and the media climate is now classified as “problematic” (orange). Never before have US journalists been subjected to so many death threats or turned so often to private security firms for protection. Hatred of the media is now such that a man walked into the Capital Gazette newsroom in Annapolis, Maryland, in June 2018 and opened fire, killing four journalists and one other member of the newspaper’s staff. The gunman had repeatedly expressed his hatred for the paper on social networks before ultimately acting on his words.
Maybe the place needs more free speech.
But again, hate speech laws don’t work that way. I know you think you’re making a joke but you are assuming the same ridiculous caricature of hate crime laws that you have throughout the thread.