Canadian school suspends student for not removing YouTube videos, threatens schoolmates - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30316238] Nowhere in the world (where other people live, of course - can't enforce restrictions on freedom of speech if the person is talking to themselves) has absolute freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] ...really? Let me give you a hint. The country is south of us. [editline]7th June 2011[/editline] Well I guess if were going into the shady idea of "absolute" you may be right, but I hold the U.S. as a pinnacle of what free speech should be.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;30316273]...really? Let me give you a hint. The country is south of us.[/QUOTE] America has many restrictions to freedom of speech. You can't threaten someone, you can't incite violence or panic, you can't talk about ongoing criminal investigations, you can't phone up the russians and tell them the launch codes, etc Lots of states even have provisions for "fighting words", whatever that means Basically if you provoke someone with speech, they hit you, you hit them back, you may not be able to claim self defense

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30315824]You don't seem to be familiar with how or when hate speech laws are applied. They don't apply in this case, they weren't, and they can't be. Hate speech has nothing to do with "offending someone" as you seem to think. Go read up. [editline]7th June 2011[/editline] Of all the charges brought against people for hate speech, only a small handful are controversial enough to be noteworthy. You need to be saying some pretty nasty shit (like on WBC-level) to get charged.[/QUOTE] If a law is bad, it shouldn't exist saying, "yeah the law is bad but lawmakers selectively apply it" does not make it any better. Either you have a right to say things others deem "hateful" (which are NOT incitement to violence which is a different issue entirely) or you don't. Rights are by definition absolute and don't come and go according to how much bad press exercising them brings.

[QUOTE=Novistador;30316414]If a law is bad, it shouldn't exist saying, "yeah the law is bad but lawmakers selectively apply it" does not make it any better. Either you have a right to say things others deem "hateful" (which are NOT incitement to violence which is a different issue entirely) or you don't. Rights are by definition absolute and don't come and go according to how much bad press exercising them brings.[/QUOTE] You find me a law that hasn't been and can't be applied unjustly or incorrectly and I'll find you a blue pig I never said the law was bad, in fact I support it. I said that in the past it has been used for stupid things and that's why it gets a bad rap. If the number of strikes against hate speech laws are enough to overturn them then we better overturn murder laws too.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30316113]"Aboriginals in this country are scum. All of them are scum. Criminals, drug addicts, whores, rapists, disgraces to humanity. There is not a single good aboriginal in this country. I call upon every employer, every hotel manager, every restaurant owner. Refuse to hire them. Refuse service to them. We will run them out of this country. And we will make a better Canada for it. My white brothers and sisters, stand by my side, and help me RID this country of these vile people!" should be legal? There weren't any threats, no slander against a specific person, but I find it really hard to offer legal protection to it.[/QUOTE] Yes, it should be legal Someone uttering that statement does not force anyone to take its advice.

[QUOTE=Novistador;30316592]Yes, it should be legal Someone uttering that statement does not force anyone to take its advice.[/QUOTE] I think it's easy for someone who is not of a minority to think statements such as those are no big deal The fact remains, they cause severe harm to society and preventing them protects more people than it hurts Think of the amount of animosity the WBC has caused

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30316615]I think it's easy for someone who is not of a minority to think statements such as those are no big deal The fact remains, they cause severe harm to society and preventing them protects more people than it hurts[/QUOTE] Stating those things doesn't cause anybody any harm, people believing the ideas that that statement conveys is what causes harm. The only way to fight ideas is with ideas. If you disagree with the that statement then you should make it known why you disagree and try to disseminate truthful information, or support an organization that does.

[QUOTE=Ataxia;30316048]This case is the tip of the ice burg when it comes to Canadian schools and their bullshit. During 5th grade I accidentally broke a window, I was given a -two month- "in school suspension" which basically comprised of having to go to school (otherwise they would have called the police and had my parents arrested for child endangerment) and sit in a small room being denied an education. I wasn't allowed out at recess or lunch and had to go directly to the principle if I wanted to so much as go to the bathroom. This was never out in the public, all the schools administrators knew and did nothing. Three weeks after that ended I was raped after gym class by an older student. Canadian schools are fucked, on every level.[/QUOTE] :wtc:

[QUOTE=Novistador;30316727]Stating those things doesn't cause anybody any harm, people believing the ideas that that statement conveys is what causes harm.[/QUOTE] If the ideas weren't being permeated less people would support them [quote]The only way to fight ideas is with ideas. If you disagree with the that statement then you should make it known why you disagree and try to disseminate truthful information, or support an organization that does. [/quote] Do you have any idea how hard it is for a minority's voice to stand against a majority's Majorities are usually the ones who have to advance minority's rights and statements like my example serve only to make that harder to do Like I said, are you a minority

a school is prosecuting a kid for flash videos he made and published completely independent of the school? sue the school

I think that the whole "if we let people say racist/false things then everyone will believe racist/false things" philosophy reflects an incredibly cynical and condescending view of human beings in general. If you think that racist ideas are false, but people are not educated enough in the laws of reasoning and argumentation to understand why they are false that just means an effort has to be made on the part of us who do understand how a claim is proven true or false to inform those who do not. Really what I'm hitting at here is the hierarchical nature of knowledge and philosophy. Before we can begin to talk about the truth or falsehood of things(law, morality, politics) we must first know how one aquires knowledge(epistemology). You can't argue one without at least reaching a consensus on the previous one. [editline]7th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;30316836]If the ideas weren't being permeated less people would support them Do you have any idea how hard it is for a minority's voice to stand against a majority's Majorities are usually the ones who have to advance minority's rights and statements like my example serve only to make that harder to do Like I said, are you a minority[/QUOTE] I don't think having a government thought police benefits anyone Of course majorities have to protect and advance the rights of minority's . But if we really lived in a world where the majority of people were as racist as you insinuate I doubt the majority would have any interest in maintaining or abiding by anti-hate speech laws. In other words, anti hate speech laws can only exists in societies which are enlightened enough not to require them.

[QUOTE=Novistador;30316881]I think that the whole "if we let people say racist/false things then everyone will believe racist/false things" philosophy reflects an incredibly cynical and condescending view of human beings in general. If you think that racist ideas are false, but people are not educated enough in the laws of reasoning and argumentation to understand why they are false that just means an effort has to be made on the part of us who do understand how a claim is proven true or false to inform those who do not. Really what I'm hitting at here is the hierarchical nature of knowledge and philosophy. Before we can begin to talk about the truth or falsehood of things(law, morality, politics) we must first know how one aquires knowledge(epistemology). You can't argue one without at least reaching a consensus on the previous one.[/QUOTE] You seem to underestimate how clever people with a racial or otherwise prejudicial agenda can be. Twisting facts, lying, forming political parties called the GOP, operating the largest media outlet in the United States, the list goes on. It isn't cynicism what I believe. In the west, people with a bigoted thing to say have a larger platform to stand on than people who want to talk about tolerance and understanding. We can't seem to get rid of the platform so let's remove the microphone from it instead.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30316308]you can't phone up the russians and tell them the launch codes[/QUOTE] whoops

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30316970]You seem to underestimate how clever people with a racial or otherwise prejudicial agenda can be. Twisting facts, lying, forming political parties called the GOP, operating the largest media outlet in the United States, the list goes on. It isn't cynicism what I believe. In the west, people with a bigoted thing to say have a larger platform to stand on than people who want to talk about tolerance and understanding. We can't seem to get rid of the platform so let's remove the microphone from it instead.[/QUOTE] You can't legislate a change in peoples views and attitudes. Any long lasting positive societal change has to come from the prejudice people either realizing the errors of their ways, or the majority of non-ideological people who just coast on societal norms becoming uninterested in what the prejudice people have to say. Education is what brings this kind of change, not force, you can't beat an ideology out of existence. I don't think the majority of people in North America (except for perhaps some localized exceptions) are racist, at least not to the point of refusing service or employment and I think the minority of racists is only going to get smaller as people become more and more educated as to why racism is false. I think there are enough of us good guys out there to protest/educate the racist people so that they either see the error of their ways or are forced to be passively racist instead.

[QUOTE=Novistador;30317085]You can't legislate a change in peoples views and attitudes. Any long lasting positive societal change has to come from the prejudice people either realizing the errors of their ways, or the majority of non-ideological people who just coast on societal norms becoming uninterested in what the prejudice people have to say. Education is what brings this kind of change, not force, you can't beat an ideology out of existence.[/QUOTE] Alright, fair enough system of beliefs. I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said, just that I don't think blatantly disparaging comments directed at specific groups of people need to be protected. We'll need to agree to disagree here. On a slightly different note but still related - why shouldn't something that easily constitutes mental harm be illegal? Even the slightest unwanted physical contact is battery in the eyes of the law and that causes a lot less harm to someone than telling them they're an affront to society and an abomination in the eyes of your god. Just a second way of looking at hate speech laws and I'd like your opinion on it

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30317198]Alright, fair enough system of beliefs. I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said, just that I don't think blatantly disparaging comments directed at specific groups of people need to be protected. We'll need to agree to disagree here. On a slightly different note but still related - why shouldn't something that easily constitutes mental harm be illegal? Even the slightest unwanted physical contact is battery in the eyes of the law and that causes a lot less harm to someone than telling them they're an affront to society and an abomination in the eyes of your god. Just a second way of looking at hate speech laws and I'd like your opinion on it[/QUOTE] Because you not immune to physical harm so long as you consent to being harmed. No one can force you to accept an idea. There is one responsibility that you can't defer to someone else, and that is the responsibility to think for yourself. You can't force self esteem upon someone, and similarly you can't take it away unless the person lets you. Once again the issue is education, people either need to think for themselves and realize these things, or need to be educated by the people who have already figured such things out.

[QUOTE=ThisGuy0;30312812]Exactly what grounds are they able to get the police involved on?[/QUOTE] on the grounds that if people don't listen to authority they're obviously criminals

[QUOTE=Novistador;30317280] No one can force you to accept an idea. [/QUOTE] Don't think about elephants. That line is a bit of pop culture that actually has quite a bit of power to it. You ever been called an abomination? Ever been told you're eroding the fabric of society? Ever been told that you need to [i]die[/i] by powerful lobby groups with thousands of members and millions of dollars? In public I can laugh in the face of shit like that but that doesn't mean it won't scratch around back there later.

That is not to say that there can't be cases of psychological harm which could be viewed as criminal. Such as child abuse(emotional, verbal), intentionally inflicting traumatizing experiences upon someone that do not necassairly involve physical violence( perhaps you harass someone through stalking them and leaving ambiguously threatening phone calls).

[QUOTE=Novistador;30317346]That is not to say that there can't be cases of psychological harm which could be viewed as criminal. Such as child abuse(emotional, verbal), intentionally inflicting traumatizing experiences upon someone that do not necassairly involve physical violence( perhaps you harass someone through stalking them and leaving ambiguously threatening phone calls).[/QUOTE] Why is harassing a single person worse than blanket harassing a million?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30317323]Don't think about elephants. That line is a bit of pop culture that actually has quite a bit of power to it. You ever been called an abomination? Ever been told you're eroding the fabric of society? Ever been told that you need to [i]die[/i] by powerful lobby groups with thousands of members and millions of dollars? In public I can laugh in the face of shit like that but that doesn't mean it won't scratch around back there later.[/QUOTE] Thats making me think of something, not making me accept an idea. An example of making me accept an idea would be saying "elephants are all purple" or "elephants are the devils children and should be exterminated" you uttering those statements does not make me accept them, It is my responsibility as a organism capable of intricate though to analyze those statements and decide whether I should accept, reject, or gather more evidence regarding them. If I was uninterested in the truth I could just passively accept whatever is said to me and default on my responsibility to think, but it would be at significant cost to myself. As for the possibility of false statements of something of a negative nature about yourself scratching around in the back of your head, That just illustrates the necessity of self confidence, a person must be aware of their competence to make judgments about truth and falsehood, and have the conviction to stand by those judgements. Once again this is something you can't force on somebody and they have to come to that conclusions themselves, or be taught as much.

Self confidence works when you're facing down a bully, not when you're facing down the status quo.

[QUOTE=Novistador;30316592]Yes, it should be legal Someone uttering that statement does not force anyone to take its advice.[/QUOTE] See, this is where it becomes evident you haven't lived in a country other than your own. Because you probably wouldn't be saying that if you had.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30317388]Why is harassing a single person worse than blanket harassing a million?[/QUOTE] Saying, "Jews are terrible people who deserve death", or even "bob is a terrible person who deserves death" is not in and of itself harrasment. I would say that for something to count as harrasment it would have to involve an intentional effort to constantly barrage someone with information designed to cause them distress. I would not consider for example an anti-semitic television ad to be harrasment no matter how incorrect or offensive it was (short of issuing actual threats or actually calling for violent riots). but if for example a group started a campaign where they put anti-semitic pamphlets specifically on the door steps of Jewish people, or constantly called them with their anti-semitic message, or stood in the road outside their homes holding anti-semitic signs, that would definatly be harrasment. Another example of non-violent prejudicial harassment would be the burning of crosses on the lawns of black people. So the difference is that Harrasment involves the specific targeting of "hate speech" towards the object of the hate, and the intentional issuing of acts which can be considered ambiguous threats.

[QUOTE=Novistador;30317698] but if for example a group started a campaign where they put anti-semitic pamphlets specifically on the door steps of Jewish people, or constantly called them with their anti-semitic message, or stood in the road outside their homes holding anti-semitic signs, that would definatly be harrasment. [/QUOTE] So why is it okay when many individual people who may not belong to a single bona fide group do the same things? Everyone who says gays / blacks / jews / whatevers need to die or something don't necessarily belong to a group but they don't have to because in a lot of cases the things they're saying are supported by society, or at least met with a large amount of apathy

Now i see why Zeke sticks to one liners most of the time. [QUOTE=Zeke129;30317323] You ever been called an abomination? Ever been told you're eroding the fabric of society? Ever been told that you need to [i]die[/i] by powerful lobby groups with thousands of members and millions of dollars? In public I can laugh in the face of shit like that but that doesn't mean it won't scratch around back there later.[/QUOTE] Funny you say this, I'm often called those things :v: Novistador is right. You see, many people on Facepunch fear internet censorship, as they should, but only to go back to real life and to be told that you can't express yourself in the manner you wish. It isn't about who's right or wrong - that isn't the issue. Would you support a law outlawing people the ability to proclaim there's a flat earth? Sun revolved around the earth? Climate change doesn't exist? Exactly to what extent does this logic serve you? People have a right to be wrong and believe whatever the fuck they want to believe - so long as they don't physically harm other people. Whether you want to believe it or not, and no matter how stupid it may sound to you, people with prejudice are also a minority, and they should be protected in believing what they want to believe or saying what they want to say. That is the foundation of our society. I don't believe anyone to be "criminally" wrong, or "criminally" offensive. There's no such thing. They're just wrong and offensive, and as a society we have a right to ostracize these people and tell them how wrong they are, it seems to have worked fairly well up until now. Yes we have the WBC here, what harm have they caused? I can't think of any. They've made a lot of noise and said very stupid things, but in terms of actual harm caused, none. [editline]e[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;30317756]So why is it okay when many individual people who may not belong to a single bona fide group do the same things? Everyone who says gays / blacks / jews / whatevers need to die or something don't necessarily belong to a group but they don't have to because in a lot of cases the things they're saying are supported by society, or at least met with a large amount of apathy[/QUOTE] Who supports those things? What are you talking about? I've seen nothing but condemnation for those people - as it should be. They shouldn't be victim to legislation because of it though. Call back when they've actually done something wrong and weren't just spouting insensitivities. Harassment is one thing, and where i stand on that issue is property based. If somebody is consistently violating your property (putting up fliers, encroaching on your property, calling you when you've asked them to stop) that's one thing, just uttering an opinion is another.

[QUOTE=s0beit;30317781] Yes we have the WBC here, what harm have they caused? I can't think of any. They've made a lot of noise and said very stupid things, but in terms of actual harm caused, none.[/QUOTE] Physical harm maybe, but the family of the people whose funerals they picketed? They might beg to differ on the mental part.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30317549]Self confidence works when you're facing down a bully, not when you're facing down the status quo.[/QUOTE] The situation is exactly the same except perhaps amplified. So perhaps it might be more difficult to come to the correct conclusion in one, but its not impossible, and its certainly not impotent. For example Black people They are capable of thinking just as efficiently as any other person, if someone says they are scum they have to look at that statement and decide whether or not its true, as I said before you can't defer the responsibility of thought. Even if you were to say that Black people are so oppressed that they are incapable of thinking properly (which I don't think they are) thats where people who have already realized the truth come in and have to help them along the way. So Yes, If the societal status quo is "black people are terrible" and your a black person grappling with this idea self confidence is exactly what you need to put that Issue to rest, it might not be easy but important ideological issues seldom are.

[QUOTE=s0beit;30317781] Would you support a law outlawing people the ability to proclaim there's a flat earth? Sun revolved around the earth? Climate change doesn't exist?[/quote] No, why would I? How are those disparaging to anyone? [QUOTE=s0beit;30317781]People have a right to be wrong and believe whatever the fuck they want to believe - so long as they don't physically harm other people.[/quote] Why is mental harm considered irrelevant to you? Don't people have the right to dignity? [QUOTE=s0beit;30317781]people with prejudice are also a minority[/quote] Holy shit, majority alert. [QUOTE=s0beit;30317781]Yes we have the WBC here, what harm have they caused? I can't think of any. They've made a lot of noise and said very stupid things, but in terms of actual harm caused, none.[/QUOTE] The WBC has said the things that other anti-gay people were too afraid to.

Someone Email the phrase, "I hope you have good lawyers".