Miscellaneous > The Lounge

Hate Speech Laws

<< < (2/3) > >>

Orethrius:
Does anyone else see a quaint trace of humour in the "love the rainbow" bit on their site?  I mean, aren't they supposed to be Bible-twisting bigots?  ;)

Laukev7:
Freedom of speech is protected by the Canadian constitution, as it is in the United States. In addition, it guarantees freedom of thought and opinion. Incitement to violence, be it racist or not, is a different matter altogether, but I see this law as not only a violation of freedom of expression, but as an attempt to regulate which opinions are correct and which ones aren't.

Even worse are the laws in European countries that criminalise non-orthodox opinions such as Holocaust denial (or revisionism). Believing in a different version of facts than most people cannot be possibly equated to inciting hatred against minorities. The idea that people should be protected from certain ideas is the very definition of censorship, and sets dangerous precedents.

anphanax:
"Incitement to violence"

My only worry here is that a joke might be taken seriously. E.g. Someone tells people to take our their guns and kill the leaders of their government, in a dry-sarcastic fashion, and it ends up twisted against them. I know these laws were made with "good intentions" in mind, and i'm probably being a bit too tin-foil about this. Yes, I know people shouldn't even joke around about certian things, but they do.

"The idea that people should be protected from certain ideas is the very definition of censorship, and sets dangerous precedents."

Agreed entirely.

Laukev7:

--- Quote ---My only worry here is that a joke might be taken seriously. E.g. Someone tells people to take our their guns and kill the leaders of their government, in a dry-sarcastic fashion, and it ends up twisted against them. I know these laws were made with "good intentions" in mind, and i'm probably being a bit too tin-foil about this. Yes, I know people shouldn't even joke around about certian things, but they do.
--- End quote ---

Nope, nothing tin-foil about this. In fact, it's already happened; the story of the girl blogger being visited by Secret Service comes to mind.

I think that in the case of incitement to violence, things are less clear cut than in the case of censorship of opinions, but I would tend to agree with you. If someone acts upon incitement, then it is he who is responsible for his crime. If such a law really must be enforced, then there needs to be proof that a crime was committed as a result; otherwise this enters the same shaky order of ideas as the Bushist doctrine of preemtive warfare.

H_TeXMeX_H:
Words can incite violence ... I don't believe it ... unless people believe everything they hear ... well ok I do believe it

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page