Section 319, Criminal Code of Canada (Hate Speech)
46 replies, posted
[QUOTE=areolop;29458413]Where I live, in Minnesota; It would fall under Statute: 609.74 - Public Nuisance[/QUOTE]
You damn cakeeater. (Grew up in EP).
I think our freedom of speech is fine, we have things to protect against the whole "yelling fire in a movie theater" which is intent to start a riot or something close, but their ability to be complete assholes is what comes with the territory of the laws we have. I'm in the military, I hate Westboro with a passion but some people need to understand they're free to say what they want based off of the constitution we vow to protect.
Doesn't mean I don't want to punch them in the face, but where do the lines stop? What if it advances to groups that aren't necessarily bad? Everyones out to get someone else.. and that's what I don't want to see.
people will say shitty things as long as shitty people are willing to listen
not much we can do, this legislation would run amuck
i can see half of the WBC being IRL trolls
[QUOTE=Chernzobog;29459315]We already have laws they're breaking. Defamation, and enticing riots. I've said that before, but apparently people would rather make duplicate rules than use the ones we have.[/QUOTE]
They would flip a shit and whine until they are allowed to bother people more. Dumb cults.
[QUOTE=slippp22;29472301]i can see half of the WBC being IRL trolls[/QUOTE]
Nah. Being associated with that group would probably bar you from getting jobs, stuff like that. And everyone would learn about it and hate your ass.
Not worth the risk for anyone who doesn't believe in it.
[QUOTE=slippp22;29472301]i can see half of the WBC being IRL trolls[/QUOTE]
They actually do it for money. They troll people to make them mad, then the angry people assault them/etc. Then WBC sues them, and ka-ching
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;29459417]any limit to free speech is unreasonable[/QUOTE]
Selfish bastards like you have much greater rights than other people in the world.
Most people couldn't even disagree with the government until the 1800s when free speech began to come around, and you think that by reducing it slightly is a huge problem when most other people in the world do not even have the liberties you do?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;29477874]Selfish bastards like you have much greater rights than other people in the world.
Most people couldn't even disagree with the government until the 1800s when free speech began to come around, and you think that by reducing it slightly is a huge problem when most other people in the world do not even have the liberties you do?[/QUOTE]
So we're not allowed to complain if anybody else has it worse than us?
Alright guys threads over, no more complaining for the rest of your life
[editline]27th April 2011[/editline]
This guys a genius listen to him
[QUOTE=archangel125;29471899]See? Nothing unreasonable about it.[/QUOTE]
People seem to think free speech is either absolute or non-existent and that's really not the case
[QUOTE=XxTheAvengerxX;29477917]So we're not allowed to complain if anybody else has it worse than us?
Alright guys threads over, no more complaining for the rest of your life
[editline]27th April 2011[/editline]
This guys a genius listen to him[/QUOTE]
You shouldn't be complaining over such a small thing which will help get rid of hate speech. To have the ability to proclaim that free speech to the max or nothing else whilst most other people in the world do not have free speech pisses me off.
I do not agree with 319. I believe even hate speech has the freedom to be spoken- just because an opinion can be taken as offensive, doesn't mean someone's beliefs should never be heard.
[QUOTE=areolop;29458413]Where I live, in Minnesota; It would fall under Statute: 609.74 - Public Nuisance[/QUOTE]
In the case Synder v. Phelps, the SCOTUS sides with the First Amendment, which supersedes that.
Whatever happened to 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'?
[QUOTE=Detective P;29478277]I do not agree with 319. I believe even hate speech has the freedom to be spoken- just because an opinion can be taken as offensive, doesn't mean someone's beliefs should never be heard.[/QUOTE]
Criminal Harassment.
[QUOTE=archangel125;29479153]Criminal Harassment.[/QUOTE]
I hate maple leafs. Maple leafs are the ugliest leaf. Maple leafs are sub-leaves that deserve to be burned.
You are now offended. I have made you uncomfortable. You can sue me. That is bullshit.
Harassment should only be criminal if it intentionally attacks an individual with intent to cause harm. Words can harm someone mentally, but that's all in how they take it. Stating hatred towards a group is hardly harmful to anyone. All that gets hurt is someone's feelings. Freedom to have an opinion and speak it comes above a group's hurt feelings.
Even Westboro doesn't publicly attack individuals. We have no right to limit anyone's personal beliefs and ideology. Ever.
Note- attacking individuals without evidence, or making false claims, is a different subject and falls more under actual harassment laws, slander/libel, etc. I'm editing this slightly to reflect that.
[QUOTE=Detective P;29479334]I hate maple leafs. Maple leafs are the ugliest leaf. Maple leafs are sub-leaves that deserve to be burned.
You are now offended. I have made you uncomfortable. You can sue me. That is bullshit.
[/QUOTE]
Leaves are not an identifiable group of people, this law doesn't apply
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29479575]Leaves are not an identifiable group of people, this law doesn't apply[/QUOTE]
Harassment does. And that was my point. He has a leaf for his avatar, I was intentionally attacking maple leaves and those affiliated with them, stating how I hate them and their inferiority. That would be considered 'harassment' and 'hate speech'.
"Harassment covers a wide range of offensive behaviour. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset. In the legal sense, it is behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing."
It all comes down to whether the person is offended, and whether I intend offense. If we criminalize things that people say about groups or things based around 'harassment', we're looking at everyone and their mom suing over every little thing anyone says that offends them.
It's all political correctness and it all is unnecessary and intended to limit out liberties so no one has to get offended because some nazi thinks some race is inferior, or some arab has a problem with jews, or some elitist thinks members of the opposite party all have mental problems and don't deserve to vote.
I'd rather be able to express my opinion, even if it does offend someone, or is a generalization, or a stereotype, thank you.
[QUOTE=Detective P;29479668]
It all comes down to whether the person is offended, and whether I intend offense. If we criminalize things that people say about groups or things based around 'harassment', we're looking at everyone and their mom suing over every little thing anyone says that offends them.[/QUOTE]
It all comes down to whether or not a judge is willing to hear his case, actually.
Someone suing you for insulting their internet avatar is going to be laughed out of court.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.