Oh Canada

[valkyrie]

Article 11? My Consititution only goes to Artlicle VII.

Perhaps article 11 says it anyway...



So Freedom of Speech is a government granted privilege?

"Fire!", in a closed theatre can create an immediate personal hazard. Whant Ms Coulter says does not.

She does not yell "fire" in a crowded room. As I said, her limitations falls under the "hate speech" part of the restrictions to free speech, not "intention to do harm."

However, I do not believe she has ever been warned in the US (I tried to do a search and found nothing). Since she was in a foreign country she must abide by their laws. If her speech was deemed unlawful in that country then she should be arrested accordingly.

In the UK there are strict restrictions on firearms ownership, yet in Texas I am free to own a rifle or pistol as I choose. I can not travel to the UK and impose Texas laws on the UK because I am a US citizen. I must follow their laws. It's only natural. Marijuana is legal in The Netherlands but not here. A citizen from The Netherlands can not bring marijuana to the US and smoke it freely (though there are regulations in The Netherlands that state where it is lawful to use marijuana).

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Dope and fire arms. nice combo!

 

[valkyrie]

Dope and fire arms. nice combo!

They aren't combined.

 

[Gonz]

"hate speech"

Define HATE SPEECH.

 

[valkyrie]

Define HATE SPEECH.

Hate speech:

• Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group. (thefreedictionary.com)
• Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification. (http://www.yourdictionary.com)
• speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.(dictionary.reference.com)
• Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group. (dictionary.reference.com)
• See also references on Wikipedia.com to hate speech - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

I'm not sure how much more you need. The Wikipedia site lists variations by country and is worth a look.

I think the warning to Ann Coulter was in her best interest. She needs to be aware of the law and the nuances of that law when she goes to another country. I saw no harm in the information she received. Had she been smart, she would have thanked the person who gave her the information and given her speech to the 100 people that paid her. I wonder if they got their fee back or if she ripped them off?

 

[Gonz]

#2 is clearly foolish.
#3 does not apply here
1 & 4 - perhaps.
However, what is the defintion of hate speech under Canada's LAW (nothing else matters)

Now, are we not protected, under the United States Constitution, and the Constitution of every individual state, to say what we may? If our words are followed by our action, then, and only then, have we possibly committed a crime. If intent to do harm can be proven, then speech might be limited. (I disagree with FIRE! in a theatre to be illegal speech...of course, I think people ought to be aware & not panic)

Agreed, Ms Coulter was not in the US, nor under a diplomatic umbrella, in Canada. However, they invited her to speak, knowing full well what her message is & under no circumstance can it be defined as hate speech. She is not corercing citizens to violate any laws. She is making political points, using humor.

Perhaps you need to read some of her columns, since you admittedly know nothing about her.

 

[valkyrie]

#2 is clearly foolish.
#3 does not apply here
1 & 4 - perhaps.
However, what is the defintion of hate speech under Canada's LAW (nothing else matters)

I'll let Bish answer that question since he's our token Canadian on this board.

Now, are we not protected, under the United States Constitution, and the Constitution of every individual state, to say what we may? If our words are followed by our action, then, and only then, have we possibly committed a crime. If intent to do harm can be proven, then speech might be limited. (I disagree with FIRE! in a theatre to be illegal speech...of course, I think people ought to be aware & not panic)

Not necessarily so. One's speech can intend to do harm (liable laws touch on this as well) which can result in that harm. With respect to the "shouting fire in a crowded room" situation, I have found that many people are stupid. They will panic and they will harm others trying to flee. The person who causes the panic would be held accountable for the injuries and possibly deaths.

Agreed, Ms Coulter was not in the US, nor under a diplomatic umbrella, in Canada. However, they invited her to speak, knowing full well what her message is & under no circumstance can it be defined as hate speech. She is not corercing citizens to violate any laws. She is making political points, using humor.

Only 100 people invited her to speak. I agree that she should have given her speech for the people who paid her to come. She chose not to. She wasn't threatened, she wasn't prevented, she was simply informed of the law. It was her choice not to give the speech.

Perhaps you need to read some of her columns, since you admittedly know nothing about her.

I'm not actually interested in her message. I haven't said anything in this thread against her message (other than the type of people that her message might attract).

 

[Gonz]

Only 100 people invited her to speak. I agree that she should have given her speech for the people who paid her to come. She chose not to. She wasn't threatened, she wasn't prevented, she was simply informed of the law. It was her choice not to give the speech.

per the story from the original post

He said some demonstrators swarmed the event, making it "a situation the security and police advised was untenable for safety reasons."

 

[jimpeel]

Hate speech is defined by those who are in power, and those who are members of the protected class. There is always an agenda especially for those seeking to bolster the power of their group.

To illustrate:

If a Heterosexual male is beating another Heterosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?

If a Homosexual male is beating another Homosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?

If a Homosexual male is beating a Heterosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?

If a Heterosexual male is beating a Homosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?

We all know that the answer to all of these scenarios should be "No". In the case of the first three, the consensus of all would probably be just that -- "No".

But then we reach the fourth scenario; and that is where we go wrong. Here we have one of the protected class being beaten by one of the unprotected class and this is where the unprotected class would say "No" while the protected class would shout a resounding "Yes".

In America, you and I should be able to stand toe to toe with our noses almost touching screaming epithets, slurs, and hateful dialogue and there should be no crime in that; nor should the government intervene. It is at the point that our noses touch that the government has the authority to mandate that we be protected from others for the general welfare of society. As long as there is no actual harm done by one to another, the government has no say. There is no right enumerated in the Constitution, regardless of how much any group wants it to be so, that protects us from being offended.

Hate crimes legislation has nothing to do with hate. It has to do with power -- the kind of power that is gained by the oldest method there is -- divide and conquer -- the virtual Balkanization, the factionalization as it were, of America. What better place to start than by limiting free speech?

 

[2minkey]

(I disagree with FIRE! in a theatre to be illegal speech...of course, I think people ought to be aware & not panic)

yeah, most people do have perfect awareness of what's going on in other parts of the theater with a loud movie playing in their faces.

next time i go see a movie, i'm going to need to miss the film to make sure i know what is going on in row 12, over there... where there are teenagers smooching and...

you realize that your opinion on this matter very much points toward extremism on your part, right?

 

[2minkey]

If a Heterosexual male is beating a Homosexual male -- all the while screaming "I hate you! I hate you! I hate you!" -- is that a hate crime?

not if a group of reasonable people decide that it was a simple beating and not about the one guy being gay, no, it is not a hate crime.

does the beater present well to a jury? can he look them in the eye(s) and tell them that it wasn't about the beatee being gay? did he NOT refer to the man's gayness while beating him? how did the incident start? did he even know the guy was gay?

it's awesome how some hypothetical guy gets his ass kicked, but somehow, out of all of it, it's the random christian gay-hating white guy that ends up as the victim here. nice work.

 

[Gonz]

you realize that your opinion on this matter very much points toward extremism on your part, right?

No, why? It's too much to ask that people are aware of their surroundings? No wonder we're going to shit.

 

[2minkey]

yeah, it is a bit much to expect everyone to be perfectly aware of what is going on a hundred feet away from them while they are experiencing sensory overload directly in front of them. would you understand at every single moment what was going on 75 feet behind your head while watching plan 9 from outer space? oh, right, i forgot, you're a ninja.

it's when your clever ability to say whatever you want - cuz y'know this ain't russia - puts other people in direct physical danger. and yes, your response does reflect extremism. you're willing to let people get trampled in a false fire panic just to support your ideological figments.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Yeah, minx, so. What if there was a terrorist in the theater and he had an RPG, I would yell "FIRE" just at the right time so the terrorist would be trampled to death by a heard people wearing 3D glasses and die. So what then, would I go prison and find true love?

 

[2minkey]

 

[Gonz]

So, in the end, I am an extremist. That is defined as someone who believes his words, or those of others, do not make another act. However, as an extremist, I believe that you may say whatever you wish to say. That does not mean that you will go unpunished...whether legally or through street justice.

I'd like a clear & concise explanation on what is permissible, so I don't cross the extreme threshold.

Thank God we have Daddy.

 

[jimpeel]

not if a group of reasonable people decide that it was a simple beating and not about the one guy being gay, no, it is not a hate crime.

does the beater present well to a jury? can he look them in the eye(s) and tell them that it wasn't about the beatee being gay? did he NOT refer to the man's gayness while beating him? how did the incident start? did he even know the guy was gay?

it's awesome how some hypothetical guy gets his ass kicked, but somehow, out of all of it, it's the random christian gay-hating white guy that ends up as the victim here. nice work.

All you have to do is to completely discount, and ignore, the overzealous, clairvoyant prosecutor who will decide what he, or she, conjures was going on in the head of the unprotected class. That is all that counts. Perception always trumps reality in the mind of the prosecution.

 

[2minkey]

I'd like a clear & concise explanation on what is permissible, so I don't cross the extreme threshold.

figure it out yourself. go take a basic law class. they talk about shit like that in such classes. or use the internet. "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is typically a concept they teach at a high school level.

but let's make it even easier. if someone says stuff that physically endangers others, they're an asshole. having an opinion about politics does not physically endanger someone else.

if you call the cops and tell them there is a meth lab in my house to be klever, and they bust down the door and shoot me because they think i have a weapon, then you're a grade A jackass.

these are not difficult concepts.

your freedom extends to the bounds right before where it endangers others.

if you don't like this, perhaps you should lobby to get all murderers, rapists, and other criminals bounced from jail, because, you know, they were doing what they wanted to do! FREEDOM MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!

 

[2minkey]

All you have to do is to completely discount, and ignore, the overzealous, clairvoyant prosecutor who will decide what he, or she, conjures was going on in the head of the unprotected class. That is all that counts. Perception always trumps reality in the mind of the prosecution.

can you think of any more scenarios in which you (or your equivalent) will end up the victim of this horrible multicultural machine? hows many twists and turns you got in there?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

if you call the cops and tell them there is a meth lab in my house to be klever, and they bust down the door and shoot me because they think i have a weapon, then you're a grade A jackass.

It happened before. Oh I bet you'd pissed though. /off topic.