Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wont quote the above, but thank you for taking your time to explain it. I'd like to see if there are any other opinions on the matter that may offer instances I do not disagree with. The practice seems sensible enough as you've described. But what happens if somebody posts on their Facebook: "I think all obese people should be slaughtered"?
I'm surprised more people aren't in favor of this. I'd do it in a heartbeat without any hesitation. Canada would make a great addition to the States. The only real issue I see is that we'd get some pesky francophones in the bargain. I'd like this idea even more if we granted Quebec independence as part of the deal.
I wont quote the above, but thank you for taking your time to explain it. I'd like to see if there are any other opinions on the matter that may offer instances I do not disagree with. The practice seems sensible enough as you've described. But what happens if somebody posts on their Facebook: "I think all obese people should be slaughtered"?
Are you looking for an equivalent Canadian case to this one in Texas?
1957
The U.S. Supreme Court determines that “obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.” In Roth v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court determines that obscenity is a category of speech not protected by the First Amendment. In his opinion, Justice William Brennan writes: “Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest.” He explains that the determination of whether material is obscene should be judged by “contemporary community standards.”
1968
In United States v. O’Brien, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the conviction of David Paul O’Brien, an anti-war protester accused of violating a federal statute prohibiting the public destruction of draft cards. O’Brien claims that the burning of draft cards is “symbolic speech” protected by the First Amendment. The Court concludes that conduct combining “speech” and “non-speech” elements can be regulated if the following four requirements are met: (1) the regulation is within the constitutional power of the government; (2) it furthers an “important or substantial” government interest; (3) the interest is “unrelated to suppression of free expression;” and (4) “incidental restriction” on First Amendment freedoms is “no greater than is essential to the furtherance” of the government interest. The Court concludes that all requirements were satisfied in this case.
This one is a good one to illustrate comparative thinking of both countries:
1969
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group is convicted under Ohio law and sentenced to prison primarily on the basis of a speech he made at a Klan rally. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rules that speech advocating the use of force or crime is not protected if (1) the advocacy is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and (2) the advocacy is also “likely to incite or produce such action.”
1972
In Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that owners of a shopping center may bar anti-war activists from distributing leaflets at the center. The Court finds that citizens do not have a First Amendment right to express themselves on privately owned property.
1973
The U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. California defines the test for determining if speech is obscene: (1) whether the “average person applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
1973
The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton that a state may constitutionally prohibit exhibitions or displays of obscenity, even if access to the exhibitions is limited to consenting adults.
1983
The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Connick v. Myers that the First Amendment rights of a former assistant district attorney were not violated when she was dismissed for distributing a questionnaire criticizing workplace practices. The case, along with the Court’s 1968 Pickering decision, forms the basis of much public-employee First Amendment law.
This one's a doozy:
1986
The U.S. Supreme Court case Bethel School District v. Fraser curtailed the protections established in the Tinker case. Bethel School District in Spanaway, Wash., suspended 17-year-old Matthew Fraser, an honors student, for two days after what was considered a lewd spring election campaign speech at a school assembly with 600 students present. His candidate won. However, the courts held that the manner of speech, delivered before a captive audience, rather than the content, was disruptive and contrary to the values the school intended to promote.
There are many, many cases such as those I've picked but this is to be expected when you are dealing with something as transitive as a concept.
Both countries are struggling mightily with applying reason, logic and some amount of fairness to this most basic of rights issue.
But what happens if somebody posts on their Facebook: "I think all obese people should be slaughtered"?
Nothing. Outside of the fact that obese people are not a protected group under the legislation, the "I think" portion of their statement puts it into personal opinion--thus, not prosecutable.
If obese people were a protected class, then "All obese people must be slaughtered," would be prosecutable.
Can you see the difference that "I think" and "must" make? Words used are very important in these matters.
Glad to know that I could help. Any other questions, just ask.
Last edited by ChevySpoons; 07-17-2015 at 03:53 AM..
Hey, if you're willing to learn, I'm willing to explain. Note that I practice in this area, so hope that you will accept my experience and study as my cites. I'll also use the generic "Martians" so as to avoid misinterpretations of my remarks.
We start from the proposition that all speech is free, unless it advocates violence or genocide against an identifiable group. So you do not take out a newspaper ad saying, "Let's round up all the Martians and shoot 'em!" You do not buy radio or TV time to say, "Martians need to be rounded up and put in re-education camps, and if they are too stupid to get it, let's just gas them!" A guy who hauls off and slugs a Martian, for no other reason than he is a Martian, will be guilty of a hate crime.
So what is permitted? Contrary to what many Americans think, it is perfectly permissible to state that you do not like an identifiable group. Thus, "I don't like Martians; they're dirty and smelly," is fine in any media. "Martians are too stupid to give up their religion," is likewise fine. "Martians should be denied citizenship and deported; they contribute nothing to Canadian society," is fine too. I could go on, but you get the idea.
There have been a number of high-profile Canadian cases that have defined Canadian hate speech laws. Ernst Zundel is perhaps the best known; Zundel published a book called, "Did Six Million Really Die?" which denied that the Holocaust ever happened. Jewish groups were outraged, and to make a long procedural story very short, Zundel was put on trial for advocating hate. But he didn't; he merely published an opinion, which (given the parameters I outlined above) is just fine. He won his case, all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Zundel walked free.
In another incident, about nine or ten years ago, magazine publisher Ezra Levant was taken to task before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for publishing the Mohammad cartoons from a Danish magazine. A Calgary Muslim was "offended," because no depictions of Mohammad are allowed in Islam, and he launched a complaint. Levant (who was also a lawyer) went before the Human Rights Tribunal, told them they were breaching his Charter s. 2(b) rights to publish anything he liked in his magazine, and that the Charter does not include "the right not to be offended," and walked out. The matter was dropped.
The Levant matter illustrates another point: individuals can be discriminated against (just like in the US), but they cannot take offense because they belong to a group that is the target of speech that they find offensive. The Martian who lodges a Human Rights complaint because a guy at the sports bar said, "I hate Martians" will be shown the door. Same for the Martian who disagrees with an op-ed in the newspaper that doesn't speak highly of Martians. Offensive speech is perfectly permissible; it's when it crosses the line into advocating violence or genocide, that it becomes illegal.
It is true that some Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals, who tend not to be made of people who have studied the Charter and its caselaw, have prosecuted cases that are--well, to put it frankly--bogus, according to what I've outlined above. But there is always a right of appeal to the court system, where real judges will listen to real arguments from real lawyers, and decide according to precedent--just like in the US. It is not the "kangaroo court" system many in the US would have you believe.
Mwahfromtheheart, this is a very brief explanation, but I hope that it helps answer your question.
Well, we can advocate violence and genocide here in America.
The only exception is incitement to violence, meaning that your words actually result in immediate injury to others.
But even that isn't always prosecuted.
Michael Brown's uncle screamed "Burn it down!" repeatedly in Ferguson, and they burned it down.
Obama's racist "Justice" Department was just fine with that.
I'm aware that threats are illegal in the US, and I'm aware of harassment laws and the incite doctrine in regards to speech. However, I don't think these cover a Facebook post that says "all obese people should be slaughtered", since nobody is indicating they are going to carry it out. They are just posing an idea.
ChevySpoons, I think that may be where Canada and I separate ideologically. I believe very strongly in equal protections for all. If one human being is protected from hate speech, everybody should be. I'd like to think that the US would change that theory in Canada if we were to become Canada, but it's taken this long just to allow gays to marry so probably not.
still haven't had enough of invading other countries eh Yank??
What makes you think he's American? Annexing other countries is more the eurotrashs style, it's too bad your empire is down to one little island, isn't it.
No thank you...hard enough trying to keep united the various people and interests of the USA. I would rather see the USA broken into a few countries than adding one.
It seems as if there could be quite a bit to gain if the U.S were to annex Canada, although it would certainly be controversial.
No way, no how.....never happen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
