15-07-2005 03:54									#241
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker I don't have to prove that you're wrong; you just are.

See, now you're starting to get it. If you think that allowing speech of the kind I provided is acceptable then you're a hopeless case as far as I'm concerned. Like a Libertarian, only not quite as dumb. My job is done when I get you to agree with what I believe will be viewed as a ridiculous statement

quote: It's not legal until the law against fraud is passed. So prior to a law against X that results in imprisonment/execution, speech supporting the law should be banned.

Stupid argument. The speech supporting the law is supporting the idea of legalised violence/detention. First they want the law passed, then they want it applied If it goes further and urges people to take action before the law is passed then it shouldn't be allowed.

quote: Thanks for missing the point that I don't have a problem with this logic when we aren't talking about expression (though I don't agree that there is an "inherent action" in the speech).

See, you're just trying to change the accepted definition of words. It communicates in words, thus it is an expression by definition. It might not communicate something you think is worthy, but too ****ing bad.

quote: Better the police occasionally fail than ideas be suppressed in the name of safety.

What a dumb, overly generalised statement

Sucker.

	15-07-2005 04:02									#242
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse See, now you're starting to get it. If you think that allowing speech of the kind I provided is acceptable then you're a hopeless case as far as I'm concerned. Like a Libertarian, only not quite as dumb. My job is done when I get you to agree with what I believe will be viewed as a ridiculous statement

Some people do, some people don't. I've provided cogent arguments, you've said "it's absurd".

quote: It's not legal until the law against fraud is passed. So prior to a law against X that results in imprisonment/execution, speech supporting the law should be banned.

quote: Stupid argument. The speech supporting the law is supporting the idea of legalised violence/detention. First they want the law passed, then they want it applied If it goes further and urges people to take action before the law is passed then it shouldn't be allowed.

There should be a law making it legal to lynch blacks!

quote: See, you're just trying to change the accepted definition of words. It communicates in words, thus it is an expression by definition. It might not communicate something you think is worthy, but too ****ing bad.

political and philisophical expression. I'm sorry I don't type that all out every time

quote: Better the police occasionally fail than ideas be suppressed in the name of safety.

quote: What a dumb, overly generalised statement

What's generalized about it?

Better that occassionally, such actions devolve into violence that actually hurts people, than the government actively suppress political speech that most people don't like? That's what it always comes down to, really, no matter how you are justifying it. And, in the end, what if they're right? What if the communists are correct, that violent revolution is necessary? What if the rabid anti-abortionists are right, that a fetus is sentient and abortion doctors are committing murder?

(Spare me the "illegal killing" BS - murder can just as easily be "immoral killing".)

You would fit in with UR and the PRC on Fulan Gong

	15-07-2005 05:22									#243
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Better that occassionally, such actions devolve into violence that actually hurts people, than the government actively suppress political speech that most people don't like? That's what it always comes down to, really, no matter how you are justifying it. And, in the end, what if they're right? What if the communists are correct, that violent revolution is necessary? What if the rabid anti-abortionists are right, that a fetus is sentient and abortion doctors are committing murder?

Or, as an elaboration-

One might say that salty food in excess is bad for people and can lead to death--- so should we ban eating salty food? or fatty food?

Or that bicycling is dangerous for children --- so should we ban bicycling?

Or that swimming in the river is dangerous--- so should we ban swimming in the river?

Too many laws exist that protect 'people from themselves' in much the same way that a law against hate speech would...

Laws against hate speech would be created under the impression that someone's words could convince another to hate... however, it is the other person's CHOICE to listen to this hate- much like it is someone's choice to eat fatty or salty foods, or bicycle, or swim, etc.

Therefore, because laws against hate speech controvert the principle of self-autonomy and self-responsibility- they are just as silly as the lady who sued mcdonalds because she received a 'hot cup of coffee.'

	15-07-2005 05:37									#244
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: What Canadians have done is decided that expression which is likely to lead to damage (fire in the theatre, or public expression that is likely to encourage an environment of racist violence) will be unlawful. I don't think anyone pretended that our laws by themselves will stamp out racial hate (or other bigotted views). What we are doing is saying that it is not acceptable to us, that it is a crime, and that there will be some (minor) punishment.

I'm saying that by stopping the Indian Chief from saying something like what he said will make people afraid to speak and will have a chilling effect and censorship effect far greater in damage to what could be done by preventing the chief from saying what he did- if you examine his statements as Vel did- you will see merely a statement that it 'was good that jews died' and that they are 'less than human.'

Frankly, as I stated before, it's a doublestandard for the Canadian government to ban speech like that and not to ban 'mein kampf' or even history books written pre 1950's when blacks were referred to as niggers and other 'races' were considered inferior to the whites.

So then, since those aren't considered literature- you start blocking more and more ideas.

Books ARE speech. They are considered part of speech. anyone who separates the two will find it impossible! Just like internet-writing is SPEECH, so too are books. If one can be censored, it only makes sense that the other be censored as well.

Under current american laws, almost no books can be censored by the government- even obscenity laws can't strike them down from being printed- though they can prevent them from being shown in schools for example... but the mere propogation of ideas, and thoughts cannot and should not be suppressed.

When one starts to censor speech, then one begins to force people to think a certain way- by not letting people discuss things and state them in the marketplace of ideas by presenting their views in the public square- then one is destroying the very foundations of freedom.

--
And as for your refutation of my quoted article about suppression of hate speech leading to Hitler gaining power- I would think that would be an even better argument to allow hate speech to exist- only by allowing the idiots to speak and not to be able to state 'everyone is against me because I am right' and that 'the govenrment is oppressing me' can the society be able to see what idiots those people truly are.

And once again about the internet free-speech items-
What is the demarcation between making a speech in public and making a speech on the internet- the internet is public too. Just as many people can read things there. It is ludicrous to expect people to ban speech in person but not on the net as the medium becomes more and more widespread.

Heck- China can already request Google to not display certain search results... and some sites requested and sued not to be listed by google- the technology is there to make 'sites disappear.'... What's to stop the government from doing so in the name of a 'safer society'?

I mean, ban hate speech and everyone will be safer, right?

I think that Germany's experience has taught us that lesson is false.

	15-07-2005 05:44									#245
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

What's worse, is if I'm understanding the argument presented by the other side correctly, there would have been no harm, no foul if the man had simply said:

"Do you know what I heard!? I heard someone say that the jews were a disease and that hitler did a good thing by frying them up!"

By even casually referencing the "hated" speech as someone else's quote, suddenly it's okay? (and if not, then our mentioning his words here, in this forum, is every bit as illegal as the original speakers). That's absurd. The same words were spoken, and if they were truly that magically powerful, potent, evil things, then the expected effects must be considered the same.

But they're not, and the law can't even function within its own confines.

Of course, this is not surprising, because the PURPOSE of the law is not to make society "safer" from those who mean to cause harm, any more than a zero tolerance policy against knives at school which brings about the explusion of a 6th grader who brings a plastic knife in his lunchbox to spread mayo serves any sort of purpose to make schools safer.

It's about control. The bizzare, neurotic NEED for control, based on the irrational fear that people can't think or fend for themselves.

And it's nonsense.

-=Vel=-

	15-07-2005 10:16									#246
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Better that occassionally, such actions devolve into violence that actually hurts people, than the government actively suppress political speech that most people don't like? That's what it always comes down to, really, no matter how you are justifying it.

One wonders if you would be so nonchalant about the harm if it were your churches being burned, your grave sites being desecrated, and people who were visibly of your group being attacked for simply belonging to your ethnic-religious group.

That is the case with the Jewish population in Canada at the moment. Not very many, no, but one such act is one too many.

	15-07-2005 10:34									#247
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud I'm saying that by stopping the Indian Chief from saying something like what he said will make people afraid to speak and will have a chilling effect and censorship effect far greater in damage to what could be done by preventing the chief from saying what he did- if you examine his statements as Vel did- you will see merely a statement that it 'was good that jews died' and that they are 'less than human.' Frankly, as I stated before, it's a doublestandard for the Canadian government to ban speech like that and not to ban 'mein kampf' or even history books written pre 1950's when blacks were referred to as niggers and other 'races' were considered inferior to the whites.

Mein Kampf is a historically significant document. Try publishing your own version today, or starting a political movement based on it.

quote: So then, since those aren't considered literature- you start blocking more and more ideas. Books ARE speech. They are considered part of speech. anyone who separates the two will find it impossible! Just like internet-writing is SPEECH, so too are books. If one can be censored, it only makes sense that the other be censored as well.

Yes, and?

Canadians have decided that expression that contributes to racial or otherwise bigotted intolerance is not acceptable. Books, movies, and the internet included. Your point, other than your thinking that making hate speech illegal will result in some sinister spirit of repression suddenly overtaking Canadian society?

What? Canadians are all of a sudden going to go beserk and start bashing on science, or religion, or seals? Erm, nevermind the seals.

quote: Under current american laws, almost no books can be censored by the government- even obscenity laws can't strike them down from being printed- though they can prevent them from being shown in schools for example... but the mere propogation of ideas, and thoughts cannot and should not be suppressed.

Who cares what the US does? Do you care that the Brits agree with us and have similar laws?

I'll call your US Constitution and raise you a Commonwealth and a German Federal Republic.

quote: When one starts to censor speech, then one begins to force people to think a certain way- by not letting people discuss things and state them in the marketplace of ideas by presenting their views in the public square- then one is destroying the very foundations of freedom.

Pish. We are censoring rascist violence, not Mary Popins, or the Kama Sutra. We, and you too, 'censor' expressions leading to a crime (conspiracy to murder, armed robbery, etc.). We lock people up when they get caught talking about it. Oh my!

Rascist violence is a crime as well, and encouraging it is illegal in Canada, and elsewhere. What's taking so long for the Yanks to get with the 21st century?

Racist violence belongs in the marketplace of ideas about as much as fraud does in the marketplace of currencies.

	15-07-2005 10:41									#248
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx What's worse, is if I'm understanding the argument presented by the other side correctly, there would have been no harm, no foul if the man had simply said:

From what you say, I don't think you're understanding the situation in Canada correctly.

	15-07-2005 15:31									#249
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

So which is it then? Would my rephrasing of it be illegal? (and if so, then one must imagine that it would have been illegal each and every time we have brought it up here), or did I have it pretty spot on?

But of course you're right. I'm not in Canada, I'm not Canadian, and I'm not speaking from that perspective.

I'm speaking from the perspective of tolerance. Not tied to any particular nationalistic version of tolerance, just tolerance itself.

Part of BEING tolerant means acknowledging that other people might have ideas vastly different from my own, AND THAT some of those ideas might make my skin crawl.

That it does so, however, in no way diminishes the right of those ideas to EXIST, or to be discussed.

Again, I'm not saying that all speech is of equal merit.

Hardly.

I'm simply stating that there's an inherent hypocracy in talking about tolerance and BEING tolerant of other viewpoints, and then banning entire lines of thought that you disagree with on the weak line of thought and thinking that they MIGHT...MIGHT lead to an increase in violence against a particular group.

Where would we be, as a society, do you suppose, if we outlawed EVERYTHING that MIGHT hurt someone?

May as well unbuild the cities right now if you carry the thinking to its logical conclusion.

Which is why I stand by my earlier statements.

-=Vel=-

	15-07-2005 15:59									#250
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Since when is being tolerant a good in itself?

And no, we can't outlaw everything that might hurt someone. It does not follow we can't or shouldn't outlaw anything that might hurt someone.

	15-07-2005 16:08									#251
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx I'm speaking from the perspective of tolerance. Not tied to any particular nationalistic version of tolerance, just tolerance itself. Part of BEING tolerant means acknowledging that other people might have ideas vastly different from my own, AND THAT some of those ideas might make my skin crawl. That it does so, however, in no way diminishes the right of those ideas to EXIST, or to be discussed. Again, I'm not saying that all speech is of equal merit. Hardly. I'm simply stating that there's an inherent hypocracy in talking about tolerance and BEING tolerant of other viewpoints, and then banning entire lines of thought that you disagree with on the weak line of thought and thinking that they MIGHT...MIGHT lead to an increase in violence against a particular group.

But tolerance has to be a two way thing to work. I can demand others to be tolerant as well. And if they are not, and if there are harming people with their intolerance then they have to face the consequences, at least in certain cases. There's is nothing hypocritical in that view, since everyone has to accept the same line, the same consequences.....

	15-07-2005 16:23									#252
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither One wonders if you would be so nonchalant about the harm if it were your churches being burned, your grave sites being desecrated, and people who were visibly of your group being attacked for simply belonging to your ethnic-religious group.

One wonders if it's a good thing to base your decisions on your personal emotional reactions rather than on rational grounds. Yes, I would probably feel differently were that tha case. Yes, I probably would support the death penalty if a friend had been raped and murdered. Doesn't make either of them right. (Though I actually am not against the DP.)

quote: That is the case with the Jewish population in Canada at the moment. Not very many, no, but one such act is one too many.

Yes. But suppression of an entire school of thought is infinitely worse than a few deaths. It immediately invalidates any democracy and freedom in the

Are the acts the result of riots started by a public speaker, or people who read the words on their own?[/serious question]

	15-07-2005 17:51									#253
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Yes. But suppression of an entire school of thought is infinitely worse than a few deaths. It immediately invalidates any democracy and freedom in the

What school of thought? It isn't that dumbass antisemitism is something like an accepted philosophy.....and by accepted I don't mean politically accepted, but as reasonable idea or concept grounded on facts.

	15-07-2005 19:05									#254
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Yes. But suppression of an entire school of thought is infinitely worse than a few deaths. It immediately invalidates any democracy and freedom in the

The end of the sentence seems to be missing ...

Anyway, the notion it invalidates democracy is ridiculous. It's illiberal, but not undemocratic.

	15-07-2005 22:44									#255
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx So which is it then? Would my rephrasing of it be illegal? (and if so, then one must imagine that it would have been illegal each and every time we have brought it up here), or did I have it pretty spot on?

Read the actual words of the law that I posted and you will get your answer, and discover why you are wrong.

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx I'm simply stating that there's an inherent hypocracy in talking about tolerance and BEING tolerant of other viewpoints, and then banning entire lines of thought that you disagree with on the weak line of thought and thinking that they MIGHT...MIGHT lead to an increase in violence against a particular group.

First off, as mentioned before there is no hypocrisy in saying that I believe in freedom, but I believe that criminals should be jailed, and denied their freedom, for their crimes.

The fact that people praise tolerance does not mean they have to tolerate intolerant behaviour.

Secondly, you say "might" lead to violence. This is wrong. As has been said many times, violence caused by hate propaganda is a routine occurance.

Right now, there are people preaching how the West is evil and how the West is out to destroy Islam. As a result, we have terrorists.

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Where would we be, as a society, do you suppose, if we outlawed EVERYTHING that MIGHT hurt someone?

And what kind of society do we have when we allow people to advocate violence against others, and that violence is carried out.

You can live in your dream world where your incredible powers of persuasion will convert the violent racists, but the rest of us live in a real world.

	16-07-2005 04:45									#256
	Suffering from ads?

Secondly, you say "might" lead to violence. This is wrong. As has been said many times, violence caused by hate propaganda is a routine occurance.

Ahhh, very good. Then show me. Give me a list of all the people who have been physically injured by this man's words.

Since it is such a common occurance, I would assume that this would not be a difficult request.

Right now, there are people preaching how the West is evil and how the West is out to destroy Islam. As a result, we have terrorists.

And you believe this is the whole story? Nothing more to it than that, right? Important cleric gets up and preaches America = Bad, and suddenly, we get more terrorists? If so....mayhaps rethinking that whole, "who-lives-in-a-dream-world" thing might be in order.


And what kind of society do we have when we allow people to advocate violence against others, and that violence is carried out.

Please quote to me where the star of our thread urged people to act violently against the jews. Then show me the headlines listing all the people who have been hurt in the mad rampage of anti-semitism that followed his evil words. I read what the guy said...just like you. An opinion piece on a historical event. Not a particularly enlightened opinion, but then, stupidity isn't (yet) a crime, is it?

But tolerance has to be a two way thing to work.....
Does it? There's a story about a man who lived some two thousand years ago who might disagree with this line of thinking. Whether or not you believe the story to be fantasy is irrelevant....we all need something to aspire to, yes?

Since when is being tolerant a good in itself?
Since when ISN'T it?

-=Vel=-

Last edited by Velociryx on 16-07-2005 at 04:53

	16-07-2005 04:53									#257
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx But tolerance has to be a two way thing to work..... Is it? There's a story about a man who lived some two thousand years ago who might disagree with this line of thinking. Whether or not you believe the story to be fantasy is irrelevant....we all need something to aspire to, yes?

Well, he got nailed to a cross, I seem to recall. Sounds like an argument for tolerance having to be a two-way street.

quote: Since when is being tolerant a good in itself? Since when ISN'T it?

I think the burden of proof, or at least justification, lies on them who claim it is.

	16-07-2005 04:56									#258
	Put an end to popups!

Well, he got nailed to a cross, I seem to recall. Sounds like an argument for tolerance having to be a two-way street.


Except that the guy we're talking about would disagree with you...even after the fact.

I think the burden of proof, or at least justification, lies on them who claim it is.

You're right. And in that case, your side had best get cracking! You are, after all, on the side that supports further limitations on free speech. One would think that, in order to make your case adequately, some better evidence than has been presented thus far ought to be forthcoming.

-=Vel=-

	16-07-2005 07:10									#259
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Mein Kampf is a historically significant document. Try publishing your own version today, or starting a political movement based on it.

And of course that would be banned.

Frankly anything is historical once it's been published- since it contributes to dialogue/discussion and literature. If you want to defend something because it's historical- then please think again... many books were considered useless when first published, and only useful to read upon later reflection.

quote: Yes, and? Canadians have decided that expression that contributes to racial or otherwise bigotted intolerance is not acceptable. Books, movies, and the internet included. Your point, other than your thinking that making hate speech illegal will result in some sinister spirit of repression suddenly overtaking Canadian society? What? Canadians are all of a sudden going to go beserk and start bashing on science, or religion, or seals? Erm, nevermind the seals.

If you agree about that, then you can censor which sites a canadian can visit on the internet... since certain sites would spread racist/hate speech... but they would be based in say, Bahrain, where Canada has no legal jurisdiction- how do you propose to stop non-canadians from spreading hate?

And why wouldn't the government then decide to ban listening to hate speech? Or looking it up on the internet?

And when you censor sites that canadians can visit- then you are inevitably blocking other ideas that might be on the site that aren't racist. And who determines what sites are censored? How do you ensure that they don't start censoring sites that aren't hate-based? Since these sites are 'too dangerous for the average citizen to view' then who can view and judge them?

Read Brave New World to see a society where books are withheld from people- keeping them ignorant.

quote: Who cares what the US does? Do you care that the Brits agree with us and have similar laws? I'll call your US Constitution and raise you a Commonwealth and a German Federal Republic.

I think it's a good example. Since Americans are hardly having any problems with churches/synagoges being burned, etc. and even though America lets the KKK march- there has been almost nil KKK violence since the 1970s... even though David Duke (an admitted KKK Grand Wizard) was elected Governor of Louisiana...

and as for violence against gays... the 2 incidents of most repute recently (the dragging of a gay man behind a truck in texas, being one), the ideas were inspired by people talking in private and reading the bible- not listening to public figures.

quote: Pish. We are censoring rascist violence, not Mary Popins, or the Kama Sutra. We, and you too, 'censor' expressions leading to a crime (conspiracy to murder, armed robbery, etc.). We lock people up when they get caught talking about it. Oh my!

Okay. Saying that you should kill someone is a crime, of course... saying that "jews are scum" isn't. It doesn't ask people to go out and commit crimes.

Treating people rudely isn't a crime.

	16-07-2005 07:11									#260
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Last Conformist The end of the sentence seems to be missing ... Anyway, the notion it invalidates democracy is ridiculous. It's illiberal, but not undemocratic.

I'm not sure what I meant to finish the sentence with

And if there isn't freedom of expression, there isn't really democracy.

	16-07-2005 07:14									#261
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx So which is it then? Would my rephrasing of it be illegal? (and if so, then one must imagine that it would have been illegal each and every time we have brought it up here), or did I have it pretty spot on?

You're way off.

quote: (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

The law specifically disqualifies discussions such as ours from being subject to prosecution. Is the law proper? Is what he said serious enough to merit prosecution? Is what he said valid or true? These are all things that merit public discussion.

quote: But of course you're right. I'm not in Canada, I'm not Canadian, and I'm not speaking from that perspective. I'm speaking from the perspective of tolerance. Not tied to any particular nationalistic version of tolerance, just tolerance itself. Part of BEING tolerant means acknowledging that other people might have ideas vastly different from my own, AND THAT some of those ideas might make my skin crawl. That it does so, however, in no way diminishes the right of those ideas to EXIST, or to be discussed. Again, I'm not saying that all speech is of equal merit. Hardly. I'm simply stating that there's an inherent hypocracy in talking about tolerance and BEING tolerant of other viewpoints, and then banning entire lines of thought that you disagree with on the weak line of thought and thinking that they MIGHT...MIGHT lead to an increase in violence against a particular group. Where would we be, as a society, do you suppose, if we outlawed EVERYTHING that MIGHT hurt someone? May as well unbuild the cities right now if you carry the thinking to its logical conclusion. Which is why I stand by my earlier statements. -=Vel=-

Except that **** disturbers spouting hate speech DO result in racist violence from time to time. Just like **** disturbers standing on a street corner urging riots DO result in riots from time to time. Both are illegal, in this country. Being unsuccessful is no defense.

That is our decision. Speech directed at stirring up racist violence has no merit in Canadian society. We do not acknowledge such tripe a right to exist, no more than we acknowledge slavery a right to exist.

	16-07-2005 07:18									#262
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker One wonders if it's a good thing to base your decisions on your personal emotional reactions rather than on rational grounds. Yes, I would probably feel differently were that tha case. Yes, I probably would support the death penalty if a friend had been raped and murdered. Doesn't make either of them right. (Though I actually am not against the DP.)

The foundation of a civil society is the Golden Rule.

quote: Yes. But suppression of an entire school of thought is infinitely worse than a few deaths. It immediately invalidates any democracy and freedom...

Horse hockey.

	16-07-2005 07:21									#263
	Remove this text

And, as a highly tolerant individual, I respect your decision, of course, and fully acknowledge that it is yours to make.

I also disagree with it, and personally think it to be an incorrect, illogical, and hypocritical decision, but then...I am free to hold that opinion as well...

-=Vel=-

	16-07-2005 07:21									#264
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker One wonders if it's a good thing to base your decisions on your personal emotional reactions rather than on rational grounds.

Since the dominant secular belief in our society is the Humean doctrine that morality is based on sentiment, that rings a bit hollow.

	16-07-2005 07:26									#265
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Right now, there are people preaching how the West is evil and how the West is out to destroy Islam. As a result, we have terrorists.

What's to say that they aren't wrong? If you believe in banning speech like that, then you're going beyond banning simple hate speech that says "I want XX Dead" or that "Americans should die"... now you're going into the realm of banning 'spreading dislike.'

I can almost agree with banning speech saying "jews should die" except for the explanation provided in my post above.

However, banning speech that threatens no group- by saying that "the west is out to destroy islam and we should protect ourselves" would damage free speech to an amazing degree... If you ban that, then you could VERY easily ban someone stating that "John Q is an anti-semite who hates jews and therefore we should shun him and hate him." (even if it were true)... or that "president bush is an anti-islamist who hates islam and we should protect ourselves from him."

	16-07-2005 07:27									#266
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud And of course that would be banned. Frankly anything is historical once it's been published- since it contributes to dialogue/discussion and literature. If you want to defend something because it's historical- then please think again... many books were considered useless when first published, and only useful to read upon later reflection.

Somehow, I doubt your Postmodern Nazi Cookbook will ever have any merit.

quote: If you agree about that, then you can censor which sites a canadian can visit on the internet... since certain sites would spread racist/hate speech... but they would be based in say, Bahrain, where Canada has no legal jurisdiction- how do you propose to stop non-canadians from spreading hate?

We don't. Follow along, OK? The Canadian gvmt isn't doing anything to enforce our laws on this topic outside our borders. Also note that it is not illegal to read.

quote: And why wouldn't the government then decide to ban listening to hate speech? Or looking it up on the internet? And when you censor sites that canadians can visit- then you are inevitably blocking other ideas that might be on the site that aren't racist. And who determines what sites are censored? How do you ensure that they don't start censoring sites that aren't hate-based? Since these sites are 'too dangerous for the average citizen to view' then who can view and judge them? Read Brave New World to see a society where books are withheld from people- keeping them ignorant.

Read Chicken Little to see a demonstration of the value of screaming about ill events that never come to pass.

	16-07-2005 07:29									#267
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Read Chicken Little to see a demonstration of the value of screaming about ill events that never come to pass.

Or banning speech without good cause?

-=Vel=-

	16-07-2005 07:30									#268
	Suffering from ads?

There's that opinion again, what is or is not a good cause?

	16-07-2005 07:33									#269
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Quite true.

Just seems to me that, we should begin with the notion of absolutely free, completely unfettered speech, and make a case for ANY restrictions put upon it...as opposed to the other way around (beginning with no freedom of speech and justifying why we should be allowed to speak).

And when it comes time to justify why we can't allow people to speak hateful opinions (even when we disagree vehemently with them), I've seen little tangible evidence to support any of your claims.

About the best you've been able to come up with thus far is essentially: look...this is what we decided, and that's the end of the story.

And that is true, certainly.

But it's also a poor justification, as I am sure you realize.

-=Vel=-

	16-07-2005 07:53									#270
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Actually, you're simply choosing to ignore that we are seeking to protect the weak and vulnerable (minorities).

But that's OK. We wouldn't have an argument if you granted any wisdom to what we are seeking to do.