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.
If you think it is possible to embarrass bigots and racists into silence, I believe you are mistaken. In my personal experience, it seems that it must be a law of the universe, like Murphy's Law, that they cannot be. See Geert Wilders as an example of that in public life.
On the other hand, there are some people who are sheltered enough to just not know any better. I don't think Wilders is one of them though.
I NEVER said that it is possible to embarrass bigots and racists into silence. The court of public opinion can be swayed when shrill cries of hate are met with reason however.
BTW, Wilders was cleared of all charges in court, and lives as a free man today. Theo van Gogh was not so lucky.
ETA: in my opinion Ezra Levant is worse than anyone I've ever seen on fox news, and he is allowed in Canada. What he said about Trudeau was despicable to the point that he was forced to issue an apology lest he get sued, but guess what, by saying it, he has turned off many people from what he has to say. That, my friend, is how free speech works. If you slander someone, you are liable, and can be sued. No hate speech laws are required.
It is interesting that you bring up "public shaming and pressure". Freedom of speech is often enforced by a sort of mob mentality which is not ideal by any means. Ask any white American about the use of the "N" word. People get beaten up or even fired for using it.
I much rather face the courts for saying something obscene than be publicly shamed and lose my job for saying something in a drunken stupor. How is freedom of speech absolute when the law cannot protect me from losing my job for saying something?
You are right when you say that they haven't been charged with hate speech for saying something offensive, but they are not protected either. Why say it is absolute freedom when it is not?
This reminds me of something a guy from India once told me. He said that in villages and towns in India, people sometimes get together and beat up people for harassing women because they are tired of crimes against women. It feels like the laws and courts don't handle this problem adequately so they take it upon themselves to dish out mob style justice.
Isnt this similar to what happens in the US wrt freedom of speech? Universities have to apologize and people have to lose their jobs and even get beaten up for saying the "wrong" thing due to mob pressure.
I NEVER said that it is possible to embarrass bigots and racists into silence. The court of public opinion can be swayed when shrill cries of hate are met with reason however.
BTW, Wilders was cleared of all charges in court, and lives as a free man today. Theo van Gogh was not so lucky.
ETA: in my opinion Ezra Levant is worse than anyone I've ever seen on fox news, and he is allowed in Canada. What he said about Trudeau was despicable to the point that he was forced to issue an apology lest he get sued, but guess what, by saying it, he has turned off many people from what he has to say. That, my friend, is how free speech works. If you slander someone, you are liable, and can be sued. No hate speech laws are required.
I didn't mention the hate charges. It's somewhat ironic that a man who wants to prevent the free speech of others then counts on his own right to freedom of speech to make hateful, idiotic statements. The court of public opinion can also be swayed by nut cases into being bigger nut cases. ISIS would be a current example of that.
Maybe Wilders would prefer to drown Muslims or burn them at the stake like the Dutch did to the Anabaptists in the middle of Dam Square? Mennonite memories are long.
Well, this is not a very good example for many reasons and most (not you) quote it out of context anyway. So I'll ignore this.
To this, I would like to say that "all such speech remains constitutionally protected till it is not". The reason why hate websites and magazines go un-noticed in the US is because it is a big country with a lot of people. And no one is really "looking" to be offended. It would be very different if someone took these magazine publishers to court.
I personally know of two large reputable US universities that have taken down and apologized for running articles that have offended minority groups (on numerous occasions). Big media houses like CNN did not show the Mohamed cartoon when running that story few years ago (what happened to freedom of speech/press?). I can give you countless examples.
"Freedom of speech in US is absolute" sounds good in academic debates. In reality, US is far behind many developed democracies when it comes to freedom of speech or press.
How many times have you heard of celebrities losing endorsements or being fired for saying something trivial (even in private). What happened to their freedom of speech?
Freedom of Press in the US is another big joke. You have freedom till someone in power decides to take you down and ruin your life. Then it becomes okay to arrest without a trial and threaten treason without any evidence.
It is interesting that you bring up "public shaming and pressure". Freedom of speech is often enforced by a sort of mob mentality which is not ideal by any means. Ask any white American about the use of the "N" word. People get beaten up or even fired for using it.
I much rather face the courts for saying something obscene than be publicly shamed and lose my job for saying something in a drunken stupor. How is freedom of speech absolute when the law cannot protect me from losing my job for saying something?
You are right when you say that they haven't been charged with hate speech for saying something offensive, but they are not protected either. Why say it is absolute freedom when it is not?
This reminds me of something a guy from India once told me. He said that in villages and towns in India, people sometimes get together and beat up people for harassing women because they are tired of crimes against women. It feels like the laws and courts don't handle this problem adequately so they take it upon themselves to dish out mob style justice.
Isnt this similar to what happens in the US wrt freedom of speech? Universities have to apologize and people have to lose their jobs and even get beaten up for saying the "wrong" thing due to mob pressure.
I don't quite equate public pressure with a mob mentality.
It would be interesting to know how many statements were retracted or apologized for because the University or whomever was give legal council on the ramifications of standing by the statements?
Things like this really should be judged on a case by case basis.
It is interesting that you bring up "public shaming and pressure". Freedom of speech is often enforced by a sort of mob mentality which is not ideal by any means. Ask any white American about the use of the "N" word. People get beaten up or even fired for using it.
I much rather face the courts for saying something obscene than be publicly shamed and lose my job for saying something in a drunken stupor. How is freedom of speech absolute when the law cannot protect me from losing my job for saying something?
You are right when you say that they haven't been charged with hate speech for saying something offensive, but they are not protected either. Why say it is absolute freedom when it is not?
This reminds me of something a guy from India once told me. He said that in villages and towns in India, people sometimes get together and beat up people for harassing women because they are tired of crimes against women. It feels like the laws and courts don't handle this problem adequately so they take it upon themselves to dish out mob style justice.
Isnt this similar to what happens in the US wrt freedom of speech? Universities have to apologize and people have to lose their jobs and even get beaten up for saying the "wrong" thing due to mob pressure.
Where did you learn your "USA constitution"? Sarah Palin on the US constitution 101????
Freedom of speech is ONLY in the legal sense between the citizen and the government. There is ZERO protection from being fired from your job, shunned by the gereral public and umpteen other consequences that you might face for saying anything really.
You can say whatever you like in Canada. Where the law comes into play is in the PROMOTING of hatred. In other words, I can be a bigoted jerk and say to you that I think such and such people should be rounded up and jailed or worse shot because they are the dirt of society.
What I can't do is start promoting it by setting up webpages, printing out brochures etc and try to get people to join my group.
Ahhhhh ok,thank you for explaining....I do think i understand now!!
Ahhhhh ok,thank you for explaining....I do think i understand now!!
Good.Now come and visit Canada and join the love fest. LOL
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.
