Restrictions on Hate Speech

numan

What! Me Worry?
Mar 23, 2013
2,125
241
130
'
Hate speech is equivalent to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Canada has Hate Speech Laws, which, up to the present have been applied carefully and sensibly. I am not sure that there are enough careful and sensible people in the United States to apply such laws appropriately.

Here are the relevant sections in the Canadian Criminal Code:

LINK

Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note: Willful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note: Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Marginal note: Forfeiture

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Marginal note: Exemption from seizure of communication facilities

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Marginal note: Consent

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Marginal note: Definitions

(7) In this section,

communicating includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; (communiquer)

identifiable group has the same meaning as in section 318; (groupe identifiable)

public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied; (endroit public)

statements includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. (déclarations)


Definition of identifiable group

318(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.
.
 
When you install so called liberal governments you actually put in power control freaks. This is what they are doing under Trudeau now.


GOLDSTEIN

Canada now investigates 'climate denial'

1297121955641_AUTHOR_PHOTO.jpg

By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun
First posted: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 05:27 PM EDT | Updated: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 05:36 PM EDT

1297990828361_ORIGINAL.jpg

The partial solar eclipse is observed at an event held by the Royal Astronomical Society at the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa on Aug. 21, 2017. (Wayne Cuddington/Postmedia Network)
Article

It’s like something out of George Orwell’s 1984.

Canada’s Competition Bureau, an arm’s length agency funded by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to the tune of almost $50 million annually, investigated three organizations accused of denying mainstream climate science for over a year, following a complaint from an environmental group.

The bureau discontinued its 14-month probe in June, citing “available evidence, the assessment of the facts in this case, and to ensure the effective allocation of limited resources”, according to Josephine A.L. Palumbo, Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Deceptive Marketing Practices Directorate.

More at link:

Canada now investigates 'climate denial'
 
I agree with hate speech laws. I don't want sickos inciting violence. I live in Europe so I am also for gun control :ack-1:
 
I agree with hate speech laws. I don't want sickos inciting violence. I live in Europe so I am also for gun control :ack-1:

And when the fascists come through your town, you're going to end up in a mass grave just like those thousands French twats who were lambs to the slaughter in WWI.
 
Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Despite the constant assurances by the conservatives who believe themselves to be self-taught constitutional scholars. there are limits to free speech. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct.

As we've seen in recent events, the U.S. Nazi movement's vile hate speech IS obscene and includes strong elements of incitement. And with the encouragement of the Big Orange Idiot, violent clashes between the conservative Nazis and the progressive patriots who refuse to let such a cancer take root here in America's principled culture, are inevitable.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

19029180_1476941435710041_663928449675853977_n.png


A reminder to conservatives and their hero, the Big Orange Idiot.


.
 
Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Despite the constant assurances by the conservatives who believe themselves to be self-taught constitutional scholars. there are limits to free speech. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct.

As we've seen in recent events, the U.S. Nazi movement's vile hate speech IS obscene and includes strong elements of incitement. And with the encouragement of the Big Orange Idiot, violent clashes between the conservative Nazis and the progressive patriots who refuse to let such a cancer take root here in America's principled culture, are inevitable.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

View attachment 149283

A reminder to conservatives and their hero, the Big Orange Idiot.


.

See how the far left claims they do not like hate speech, yet use it every chance they get against anyone not far left.
 
Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Despite the constant assurances by the conservatives who believe themselves to be self-taught constitutional scholars. there are limits to free speech. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct.

As we've seen in recent events, the U.S. Nazi movement's vile hate speech IS obscene and includes strong elements of incitement. And with the encouragement of the Big Orange Idiot, violent clashes between the conservative Nazis and the progressive patriots who refuse to let such a cancer take root here in America's principled culture, are inevitable.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

View attachment 149283

A reminder to conservatives and their hero, the Big Orange Idiot.


.

See how the far left claims they do not like hate speech, yet use it every chance they get against anyone not far left.
Untrue. It isn't rage, it's citing the many tragic aspects of conservatism and those who have been infected with it.
 
Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Despite the constant assurances by the conservatives who believe themselves to be self-taught constitutional scholars. there are limits to free speech. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct.

As we've seen in recent events, the U.S. Nazi movement's vile hate speech IS obscene and includes strong elements of incitement. And with the encouragement of the Big Orange Idiot, violent clashes between the conservative Nazis and the progressive patriots who refuse to let such a cancer take root here in America's principled culture, are inevitable.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

View attachment 149283

A reminder to conservatives and their hero, the Big Orange Idiot.


.

See how the far left claims they do not like hate speech, yet use it every chance they get against anyone not far left.
Untrue. It isn't rage, it's citing the many tragic aspects of conservatism and those who have been infected with it.

And another far left drone chimes in and proves my comments correct!
 
Sorry to inform you of this but "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment. It's not the same as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Ironically, that phrase is from Oliver Wendell Holmes from a case that had nothing to do with yelling "fire" in a theater. That case was about a group who were distributing fliers and advocating for young men to dodge the draft. SCOTUS ruled that free speech doesn't cover advocating lawless behavior and set forth a three-point criteria to determine "strict scrutiny" of speech. It must threaten lawless action, the threat must be real and it must be considered imminent. The speech must meet all three of these measures to be restricted.

To those who think offensive speech should be restricted, consider this... NON-offensive speech needs no protection. There is literally NO purpose in "Free Speech" if it doesn't protect speech that some find offensive. What many of you are calling "hate speech" is precisely what the First Amendment was intended to protect. Also, consider this; What would be the result of your proposed hate speech restrictions on someone like a Martin Luther King, Jr.? Abbie Hoffman? Harvey Milk? Are you going to be okay when the "other side" wields this law to shut down dissent they don't like?

I think some of you need to think long and hard before you give up one of your most precious and sacred rights.
 
Never doubted that there was an attempt at a law on the books but I wondered when it was passed and if it had been rescinded as so many of those "laws" have been. I still don't know but but have already spent far more time trying to find out than the question is worth. The fact that it is unconstitutional and a violation of a federal act is more than enough to invalidate it and always has been. The sad thing is that the governor was willing to risk a violent confrontation in an effort to oppress the people he is supposed to be serving at the very time he should be doing his utmost to protect them.

'oppress' what people?

The fact is that the governor spent his time working to protect the people of the Virgin Islands- unlike a single one of the posters here at USMB.

How many guns were seized? Zero.

How many lying headlines by gun nuts on the internet? dozens- maybe hundreds

You know like the lying title of the thread?

Look at a small selection of these titles- every single one a lie by gun nuts- or those seeking to infuriate the gun nuts

View attachment 148648

View attachment 148650

View attachment 148651
View attachment 148652

View attachment 148654

Do you claim that the following are lies?

U.S. Virgin Islands Gov. Kenneth Mapp signed an emergency order allowing the seizure of private guns, ammunition, explosives and property the National Guard may need to respond to Hurricane Irma.

The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered its national guard to seize guns, ammunition and other weapons from its citizens as the territory prepares for Hurricane Irma to make landfall.

The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered the territory's national guard to begin seizing guns and ammunition from citizens in preparation for Hurricane Irma's landfall.

Yeah- these two parts are flat out lies

1) The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered its national guard to seize guns, ammunition and other weapons from its citizens as the territory prepares for Hurricane Irma to make landfall.

The order authorized the National Guard to seize guns and ammo if necessary- never ordered the National Guard to seize anything- Pants on Fire lie- the NRA thanks you for your support.

2) The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered the territory's national guard to begin seizing guns and ammunition from citizens in preparation for Hurricane Irma's landfall

The order authorized the National Guard to seize guns and ammo if necessary- never ordered the National Guard to seize anything- Pants on Fire lie- the NRA thanks you for your support.

What happened to? "U.S. Virgin Islands Gov. Kenneth Mapp signed an emergency order allowing the seizure of private guns, ammunition, explosives and property the National Guard may need to respond to Hurricane Irma."
Are you now ready to concede that that quote was not a lie and apologize for your slander or do you not consider your lies less important than those of others?
In the other two instances you are content to split hairs "authorize" "direct" and "order" have very similar meanings.
Your charge of lying is just an obvious attempt to spin tyranny. No matter what the NG did or didn't do in no way changes the fact that the Governor issued an unconstitutional (illegal and treasonous) order. Your defense of his act is an excellent example of why Americans should support the NRA.

There was no 'tyranny'- there was an order that authorized the National Guard to seize weapons if necessary. There was no order to seize guns from citizens. You posted three lines- two of which were lies- and I will be glad to post them again:

Yeah- these two parts are flat out lies- the only question is whether they are your lies- i.e. you posted them not knowing them to be false- or whether they are someone else's lies- but they are lies.

1) The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered its national guard to seize guns, ammunition and other weapons from its citizens as the territory prepares for Hurricane Irma to make landfall.

The order authorized the National Guard to seize guns and ammo if necessary- never ordered the National Guard to seize anything- Pants on Fire lie- the NRA thanks you for your support.

2) The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands has ordered the territory's national guard to begin seizing guns and ammunition from citizens in preparation for Hurricane Irma's landfall

The order authorized the National Guard to seize guns and ammo if necessary- never ordered the National Guard to seize anything- Pants on Fire lie- the NRA thanks you for your support.

Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Despite the constant assurances by the conservatives who believe themselves to be self-taught constitutional scholars. there are limits to free speech. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct.

As we've seen in recent events, the U.S. Nazi movement's vile hate speech IS obscene and includes strong elements of incitement. And with the encouragement of the Big Orange Idiot, violent clashes between the conservative Nazis and the progressive patriots who refuse to let such a cancer take root here in America's principled culture, are inevitable.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

View attachment 149283

A reminder to conservatives and their hero, the Big Orange Idiot.


.

Calling people Nazis who are not is your own brand of hate speech, is it not?
 
Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Despite the constant assurances by the conservatives who believe themselves to be self-taught constitutional scholars. there are limits to free speech. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct.

As we've seen in recent events, the U.S. Nazi movement's vile hate speech IS obscene and includes strong elements of incitement. And with the encouragement of the Big Orange Idiot, violent clashes between the conservative Nazis and the progressive patriots who refuse to let such a cancer take root here in America's principled culture, are inevitable.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

View attachment 149283

A reminder to conservatives and their hero, the Big Orange Idiot.


.

No. It has to be actual incitement. And the obscene stuff mostly applies to it when broadcast, not in public and certainly not when it comes to political speech.

And Anti-fa "patriots"?

LOLOLOLOLOL
 
Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Despite the constant assurances by the conservatives who believe themselves to be self-taught constitutional scholars. there are limits to free speech. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct.

As we've seen in recent events, the U.S. Nazi movement's vile hate speech IS obscene and includes strong elements of incitement. And with the encouragement of the Big Orange Idiot, violent clashes between the conservative Nazis and the progressive patriots who refuse to let such a cancer take root here in America's principled culture, are inevitable.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

View attachment 149283

A reminder to conservatives and their hero, the Big Orange Idiot.


.

I didn't see you say anything about antifa or black lives matter, did you forget those in your little rant?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Some of you may find this clarification between the terms "hate speech" and "fighting words" interesting:


Sorry College Kids, There's No Such Thing as Hate Speech
by John Daniel Davidson


...By hate speech, they mean ideas and opinions that run afoul of progressive pieties. Do you believe abortion is the taking of human life? That’s hate speech. Think transgenderism is a form of mental illness? Hate speech. Concerned about illegal immigration? Believe in the right to bear arms? Support President Donald Trump? All hate speech.

But in fact, there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. The answer to the question, “Where does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” is this: nowhere. For the purposes of the First Amendment, there is no difference between free speech and hate speech. Ideas and opinions that progressive students and professors find offensive or “hateful” are just as protected by the Bill of Rights as anti-Trump slogans chanted at a campus protest.

‘Fighting Words’ Are Not Hate Speech
There are, of course, certain kinds of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. But those have nothing to do with hate speech, which has no legal definition. For example, there’s an exception for “fighting words,” which the courts have defined as a face-to-face insult directed at a specific person for the purpose of provoking a fight.

MORE:
Sorry, College Kids, There's No Such Thing As Hate Speech
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top