As much as you may think it is completely straightforward the question of what is that direct threat and actual plan is where the line Constitutionally gets drawn, as has been discussed in this thread quite extensively.
The usual context of the “accusation in a mirror” is more commonly the other direction: Supremacists chanting “You will not replace us” is the prep. To them it is inherently obvious that “they” are being replaced as the dominant culture by some variety of others and thems, an existential threat, therefore pre-emptive strikes to push the them and the others out instead are justified. I specifically did not use the phrase “white supremacists” as it has been used in other contexts too … it was a technique used by the Hutus against the Tutsis for example.
I’m curious, what’s your benchmark law that justifies itself? Homicide laws are probably good at reducing murder, jaywalking laws are basically nothing. What’s your measure as a functioning bulwark that Canadian hate speech laws fail to meet?
We havent actually agreed on what is "hate speech’ what is “protected speech” and what sort of speech such as incitement to violence isnt protected even without a Hate speech law. You may think that your opinion has settled it, and thus we have to use your definitions, but that’s what this debate is about.
Right. This is a very complicated debate. What is a direct threat? What is heat speech? what laws can we pass under the 1st Ad? Do we want to dump the 1st Ad to have strong laws vs hate speech- whatever that might be.
It’s not simplistic, it’s extremely complex and layered. And of course to some "hate speech is whatever i say it is, against the groups I want to protect’ is simplistic, but morally incorrect.
“Hate speech= bad” looks good, but it dissolves under the microscope pf details. The devil is always in the details.
I have no simple answers, other than I want to defend the Bill of Rights.
Evidence that since passage it has effectively reduced hate crimes or even hate speech, or at least reduced their rise relative to the United States, would be a start. Something that shows it has actually accomplished some real good.
The analysis I am wanting is to me similar to another amendment level item, Prohibition - it was fairly ineffective at decreasing alcohol consumption let alone alcoholism, and had unintended impacts as well. Discussions about it that were only about whether its intent was good (or not), or if alcoholism was a bad thing, were the wrong, or at least insufficient, discussion.
You realize that it’s literally not possible for an antifa group to form up without fas to be anti- of, right ? Antifascism, by definition, is reactive, not proactive.
That’s nonsense. The nutty Antifa label anyone to the right of Stalin fascists. They are intimidating octogenarians in walkers now. They are clearly the modern version of the men who stormed the Normandy beaches.
That’s like arguing that Trump must be correct, because, well, he talks about how he’s going to Make America Great Again, right? Is it literally not possible for him to say that unless America used to be great and he’s now in fact making it great again? After all, he said “Again” just after saying “Great” and “America” — and, shucks, how could he say stuff like that without it simply being so?
Are you for real ? Did you really just equate “Jewish people existing” and “violent Nazi shitheads doing violent Nazi shithead things” ? I mean, OK, you do you I guess.
I do feel like suggesting that maybe you might have both-sidism’d straight up your own arse, however.
Incidentally, is it your view that I can just form a group called “anti-evil” and thereby establish that anyone my group opposes is evil, because, well, it’s literally not possible for my group to call itself that and not be correct?
To the best of my knowledge I am neither something you are hallucinating nor an AI.
Let’s make what several have said very explicit: attaching “anti-” in front of something is not proof of there being anything to be anti- about or that what is opposed has any basis in fact. Someone saying that someone else is “fa” does not mean much. They could in fact be “la la la” … Your comment that they must be reactive because they have “anti” in their name was inane at best.
Hold up. I asked you about MAGA, and you replied by — well, asking me a question, which I answered. And then I asked you the “anti-evil” question, and you’ve — now replied by asking me a question. Is there going to come a time when you actually get around to answering me, or are you planning to keep this one-sided?