Free speech vs Hate speech

[GirlinContempt]

Poll question: Free speech vs Hate speech

In countries like Canada, which have laws protecting freedom of speech, there are also laws against hate speech.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/online_hate/when_is_hate_a_crime.cfm

Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code make it a criminal offense to:

*
advocate genocide
*
publicly incite hatred
*
willfully promote hatred

against an "identifiable group."



An identifiable group is defined as any section of the public distinguished by:

*
colour
*
race
*
religion
*
ethnic origin

Sexual orientation has been added since this was published

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression to all Canadians. However, all Charter rights are subject to reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether or not section 319(2) of the Criminal Code (the crime of willfully promoting hatred) violates our constitutional right to freedom of expression, in the Keegstra case. James Keegstra was an Alberta high-school teacher who taught his students that the Holocaust did not occur and was part of a Jewish conspiracy. The Court held that, although section 319(2) does limit free speech, it is a reasonable limit consistent with a democratic society, and is therefore constitutional.

...there are many safeguards that could give that person immunity. A person could not be convicted if:
* The hate speech was expressed during a private conversation.
* If the person can establish that the statements made are true.
* If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would give clergypersons immunity from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.
* If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy.
* If he described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group "for the purpose of removal" of that hatred.
* If the provincial Attorney General refused to give permission. The Attorney General's consent is required before charges can be laid..

However, as most of you are aware, in the US no such laws exist. There are certain laws regarding libel , and as I understand it, if you actually manage to incite a riot, there may be punishments for the riot AND the inciting.

In the U.S., a person cannot legally yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. But they are free to say just about anything else without danger of criminal prosecution. For example, a conservative Christian teleminister in the early 1990s advocated the execution of all Wiccans in the U.S. More recently, a Baptist pastor from Texas advocated that the U.S. army round up Wiccans and burn them alive with napalm. Both clergy were immune from prosecution due to the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment which guarantees almost complete freedom of speech in the country. (We do not wish to overemphasize genocidal advocacy of Wiccans by conservative Christians. However, we are unaware of any other instances in North America where genocide has been actively advocated in recent years.)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm (highly biased site)


What do you think? Complete freedom of speech? Freedom from hate? Why?

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Ears hooked to intelligent brains ,will police ' hate speech' and the....

....ignorant bastards that use it . Laws guiding behavior should have to do with safety and health of the community ,not personal Liberties, where do you start and stop?

[eallen]

2. Those laws are consistently abused. Canada's an example. I say: no limitation on content.

I remember some years ago a lesbian bookstore had its shipments to Canada seized because of the S&M content of some of the books. And if preachers in Sweden are at risk from teaching that homosexuality is a sin, how certain are you that atheists won't be at risk for saying that Christianity is nuts?

The first amendment stands at the pinnacle of American law. It needs defending, not weakening.

BTW, it's perfectly legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. I've even seen that incorporated into plays. What's illegal is sounding a false alarm, whether by voice or by pulling the lever on a fire alarm. Because of the first amendment, American legal restrictions on speech have focused entirely on the specific effects of particular speech. So yes, you can be arrested for inciting a riot. But not for publishing ideas that perhaps cause others to riot. Before suggesting a change in that jurisprudence, consider the cases that led to it. You might not want to take us back to the day when a publisher could be prosecuted for printing a book by a communist anarchist or Lady Chatterly's Lover. Those were the works that were prosecuted, when first amendment jurisprudence wasn't so clear. If we roll back that jurisprudence, what makes you so sure the government will prosecute the speech you view as hateful, rather than the speech you value?

[GirlinContempt]

5. Well, living in Canada

I can say that atheists are at no risk, unless they decide to publish hateful things about Christians as a group and attempt to incite violence and/or persecution.

I guess I find it interesting talking to people who grew up with this 'First Amendment', because I grew up with Section 2 and subsequent limitations, and I haven't seen many differences between the two countries handling of the vast majority of free speech issues. I get the defense of pure, free speech. (The fire thing was from that article, not me) However, living my whole life in a country with specific restrictions on free speech, I will say that I find the communist, anarchist etc comparisons to be overblown. If anything, I've had more problems getting my Marxist stuff over the US boarder, and getting MYSELF over the US boarder for being part of a Marxist organization, and I found our school libraries less restricted (Admittedly it was a long time ago that I checked).

In the US, I think the issues are different, maybe because there is less of a divide between the courts and the capitol. I don't necessarily trust this government that I have right now, but the court system has shown me time and time again that it is trying to uphold the law, based on it's outlines, reasonably, and when unreasonable decisions are reached they're knocked down. I guess the idea that the government will attempt to do something like that doesn't really occur to me because it's pretty well a democracy, and those types of restrictions are highly unlikely and would be struck down if tried.

However, there was a controversy here recently when a British Muslim was denied entry to Canada to speak at a University based on what was considered to be hate speech, yet Franklin Graham has spoken the same type of things and was allowed to enter and put on a massive concert. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061020/graham_protest_061020/20061020?hub=Canada&s_name=
It's still being dealt with. And I hope it is and the proper precedent is struck, one way or another.

[Toots]

3. Just "hate speech" is okay I guess, we hear it all the time but Hate Speech meant

to terrify should be illegal. I mean like putting a burning cross in front of a black family's home...

[-..__...]

4. Ideas arent dangerous until acted upon.

Bomb making and drug manufacturing instructional materials should be protected as well.

For example, a conservative Christian teleminister in the early 1990s advocated the execution of all Wiccans in the U.S. More recently, a Baptist pastor from Texas advocated that the U.S. army round up Wiccans and burn them alive with napalm. Both clergy were immune from prosecution due to the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment which guarantees almost complete freedom of speech in the country.

As well it should be.

There is no crime being committed here... what is and should be a crime, is when people choose to turn words into actions. Just because someone advocates an idea or belief that can be interpreted as being wrong (as defined by most Western standards), no one is forced or obligated to comply with them.

[porphyrian]

6. I'm for complete freedom of speech.

First, I'd rather know who the people are who are bigots. Let them say what they think so they can be identified.

Second, people don't always mean what they say, especially when it's out of anger and/or frustration. This doesn't excuse their saying it, especially if it hurts others significantly, but for that reason alone I don't believe it should be a crime. If they repeatedly say things of this nature, then we know who they are.

Third, punishment is not preventative, it always occurs after the fact. Our resources are better spent fighting the causes of bigotry and hatred.

Fourth, prison is about as racist and angry a place as it gets. Sending someone there for hate speech is like sending a homicidal maniac to a war. It actually trains them to be better bigots.

[Finder]

20. I agree completely. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

7. It should be illegal to express hatred

for the freedom of expression.

[orpupilofnature57]

11. It should be against the law to exploit the less fortunate, for

a free market .

[mondo joe]

12. Please explain in practical terms what that would mean.

Thank you.

[orpupilofnature57]

21. I mean people abuse aspects of Democracy and there are pitfalls,

but we cant and shouldn't be able to tell each other how to think or what to believe no matter how warped,Until it involves anyones Else's, safety or security.I hate Shrub I wouldn't break the law to express how much , But I should be able to ,without fear of reprisal.

[mondo joe]

8. How anyone, after the Bush administration, could EVER want the government to

control what we're allowed to say, is a total fucking mystery to me.

[MUSTANG_2004]

13. Agree completely. n/t

[TomClash]

9. The only way to combat "hate speech"

is to speakly freely about it.

[Warpy]

10. Couple of problems

Unanswered hate on major media has caused civil war and genocide in other parts of the world, notably Bosnia and Rwanda. Hate must be answered. If we manage to get the Fairness Doctrine back, we can count it as free speech, and that's fine with me. It always says more about the hater than the hated, IMO. Without the fairness doctrine, we have to keep it off the public airwaves, and that includes cable and subscription satellite service.

Also, I notice that women, the largest and most consistent group of hate crime victims, have been exempted from the legislation.

Typical.

[EstimatedProphet]

14. I gotta go with freedom from hate

We just have to be able to define hate speech legally. The only thing is, there will be assholes who get judicial power and misuse the principle, btu aren't there always?

[Jed Dilligan]

15. One thing leads to another

In a country where people are fundamentally decent (Canada), a law like this can successfully serve its purpose.

In America, however, ANY limitation on personal freedom, no matter how reasonable it looks on the books, will be perverted by aspiring fascists into a way to crush opposition, terrorize the public, and fill the coffers of sleazy organizations while subjecting countless innocents to a life of rape and slavery. The only hate speech that should be limited here is hate speech by the government and its enforcers.

[BuyingThyme]

16. Amen.

:applause:

[mondo joe]

17. Right. With a purely benevolent government you don't need almost any rights

- at least not hypothetically.

But those rights are your only protection against any less-than-perfect government.

[NaturalHigh]

18. As soon as ANY speech is banned...

all freedom of expression is endangered.

[GirlinContempt]

19. So, you're free to go on TV and call for the violent overthrow of your government?

I don't know of anywhere that lets you do that.

[orpupilofnature57]

22. the inconvenient truth

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Canada also thinks it's okay to ban porn by and for consenting adults.

no thanks.

[LSdemocrat]

24. Other: Only incitement to violence should be banned

[orpupilofnature57]

25. Agreed