# Restrictions on Hate Speech



## numan (Sep 14, 2017)

'
Hate speech is equivalent to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Canada has Hate Speech Laws, which, up to the present have been applied carefully and sensibly. I am not sure that there are enough careful and sensible people in the United States to apply such laws appropriately.

Here are the relevant sections in the Canadian Criminal Code:

*LINK*

*Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note: Willful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note: Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(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.

Marginal note: Forfeiture

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Marginal note: Exemption from seizure of communication facilities

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Marginal note: Consent

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Marginal note: Definitions

(7) In this section,

communicating includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; (communiquer)

identifiable group has the same meaning as in section 318; (groupe identifiable)

public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied; (endroit public)

statements includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. (déclarations)*

*Definition of identifiable group*

318(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.
.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 14, 2017)

There can be "hate speech" laws or free speech; never both.


----------



## Slyhunter (Sep 14, 2017)

I hate people who try to tell me what to think, or how to express what I'm thinking. So fuck you!


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Sep 14, 2017)

numan said:


> Canada has Hate Speech Laws…



  The U.S. was founded in violent rebellion and defiance against a horrendous tyrant.

  Canada was founded in grovelling and cowering before that same tyrant.

  Thank you for showing us what difference this has made.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 14, 2017)

When you install so called liberal governments you actually put in power control freaks. This is what they are doing under Trudeau now. 


GOLDSTEIN

* Canada now investigates 'climate denial' *






By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun
First posted:  Wednesday, September 13, 2017 05:27 PM EDT  | Updated:  Wednesday, September 13, 2017 05:36 PM EDT





The partial solar eclipse is observed at an event held by the Royal Astronomical Society at the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa on Aug. 21, 2017. (Wayne Cuddington/Postmedia Network)
*Article*

It’s like something out of George Orwell’s 1984.

Canada’s Competition Bureau, an arm’s length agency funded by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to the tune of almost $50 million annually, investigated three organizations accused of denying mainstream climate science for over a year, following a complaint from an environmental group.

The bureau discontinued its 14-month probe in June, citing “available evidence, the assessment of the facts in this case, and to ensure the effective allocation of limited resources”, according to Josephine A.L. Palumbo, Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Deceptive Marketing Practices Directorate.

More at link:

Canada now investigates 'climate denial'


----------



## Blackrook (Sep 15, 2017)

Canada is a pretty fucked up country.  Glad I don't live there.


----------



## PeterJ89 (Sep 15, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> Canada is a pretty fucked up country.  Glad I don't live there.


They are glad of that as well.

And hate speech being outlawed is fucking stupid.  Talk it up, boys. (Mod approved flaming post).


----------



## Linkiloo (Sep 15, 2017)

_I agree with hate speech laws. I don't want sickos inciting violence. I live in Europe so I am also for gun control _


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Sep 15, 2017)

Slyhunter said:


> I hate people who try to tell me what to think, or how to express what I'm thinking. So fuck you!



That's hate speech; you must be arrested and tried!

Wait, are you white or non-white first off? Because that's how I'm gonna decide...


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Sep 15, 2017)

Linkiloo said:


> _I agree with hate speech laws. I don't want sickos inciting violence. I live in Europe so I am also for gun control _



And when the fascists come through your town, you're going to end up in a mass grave just like those thousands French twats who were lambs to the slaughter in WWI.


----------



## BertramN (Sep 15, 2017)

Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Despite the constant assurances by the conservatives who believe themselves to be self-taught constitutional scholars. there are limits to free speech. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct.

As we've seen in recent events, the U.S. Nazi movement's vile hate speech IS obscene and includes strong elements of incitement. And with the encouragement of the Big Orange Idiot, violent clashes between the conservative Nazis and the progressive patriots who refuse to let such a cancer take root here in America's principled culture, are inevitable.

________________________________________________________________________________________________





A reminder to conservatives and their hero, the Big Orange Idiot.


.


----------



## Kosh (Sep 15, 2017)

BertramN said:


> Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Despite the constant assurances by the conservatives who believe themselves to be self-taught constitutional scholars. there are limits to free speech. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct.
> 
> As we've seen in recent events, the U.S. Nazi movement's vile hate speech IS obscene and includes strong elements of incitement. And with the encouragement of the Big Orange Idiot, violent clashes between the conservative Nazis and the progressive patriots who refuse to let such a cancer take root here in America's principled culture, are inevitable.
> 
> ...



See how the far left claims they do not like hate speech, yet use it every chance they get against anyone not far left.


----------



## BertramN (Sep 15, 2017)

Kosh said:


> BertramN said:
> 
> 
> > Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Despite the constant assurances by the conservatives who believe themselves to be self-taught constitutional scholars. there are limits to free speech. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct.
> ...


Untrue. It isn't rage, it's citing the many tragic aspects of conservatism and those who have been infected with it.


----------



## Kosh (Sep 15, 2017)

BertramN said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > BertramN said:
> ...



And another far left drone chimes in and proves my comments correct!


----------



## Boss (Sep 15, 2017)

Sorry to inform you of this but "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment. It's not the same as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Ironically, that phrase is from Oliver Wendell Holmes from a case that had nothing to do with yelling "fire" in a theater. That case was about a group who were distributing fliers and advocating for young men to dodge the draft. SCOTUS ruled that free speech doesn't cover advocating lawless behavior and set forth a three-point criteria to determine "strict scrutiny" of speech. It must threaten lawless action, the threat must be real and it must be considered imminent. The speech must meet all three of these measures to be restricted.

To those who think offensive speech should be restricted, consider this... *NON-offensive speech needs no protection*. There is literally NO purpose in "Free Speech" if it doesn't protect speech that some find offensive.  What many of you are calling "hate speech" is precisely what the First Amendment was intended to protect. Also, consider this; What would be the result of your proposed hate speech restrictions on someone like a Martin Luther King, Jr.? Abbie Hoffman? Harvey Milk? Are you going to be okay when the "other side" wields this law to shut down dissent they don't like? 

I think some of you need to think long and hard before you give up one of your most precious and sacred rights.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 15, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...





BertramN said:


> Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Despite the constant assurances by the conservatives who believe themselves to be self-taught constitutional scholars. there are limits to free speech. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct.
> 
> As we've seen in recent events, the U.S. Nazi movement's vile hate speech IS obscene and includes strong elements of incitement. And with the encouragement of the Big Orange Idiot, violent clashes between the conservative Nazis and the progressive patriots who refuse to let such a cancer take root here in America's principled culture, are inevitable.
> 
> ...



Calling people Nazis who are not is your own brand of hate speech, is it not?


----------



## martybegan (Sep 15, 2017)

BertramN said:


> Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Despite the constant assurances by the conservatives who believe themselves to be self-taught constitutional scholars. there are limits to free speech. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct.
> 
> As we've seen in recent events, the U.S. Nazi movement's vile hate speech IS obscene and includes strong elements of incitement. And with the encouragement of the Big Orange Idiot, violent clashes between the conservative Nazis and the progressive patriots who refuse to let such a cancer take root here in America's principled culture, are inevitable.
> 
> ...



No. It has to be actual incitement. And the obscene stuff mostly applies to it when broadcast, not in public and certainly not when it comes to political speech. 

And Anti-fa "patriots"?

LOLOLOLOLOL


----------



## MrShangles (Sep 15, 2017)

BertramN said:


> Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Despite the constant assurances by the conservatives who believe themselves to be self-taught constitutional scholars. there are limits to free speech. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct.
> 
> As we've seen in recent events, the U.S. Nazi movement's vile hate speech IS obscene and includes strong elements of incitement. And with the encouragement of the Big Orange Idiot, violent clashes between the conservative Nazis and the progressive patriots who refuse to let such a cancer take root here in America's principled culture, are inevitable.
> 
> ...



I didn't see you say anything about antifa or black lives matter, did you forget those in your little rant?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Slyhunter (Sep 15, 2017)

Linkiloo said:


> _I agree with hate speech laws. I don't want sickos inciting violence. I live in Europe so I am also for gun control _


Some people believe that believing marriage should be between a man and a woman to be hate speech. So your going to abolish freedom of religion too.


----------



## williepete (Sep 15, 2017)

Some of you may find this clarification between the terms "hate speech" and "fighting words" interesting:


*Sorry College Kids, There's No Such Thing as Hate Speech*
_by John Daniel Davidson_


...By hate speech, they mean ideas and opinions that run afoul of progressive pieties. Do you believe abortion is the taking of human life? That’s hate speech. Think transgenderism is a form of mental illness? Hate speech. Concerned about illegal immigration? Believe in the right to bear arms? Support President Donald Trump? All hate speech.

But in fact, there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. The answer to the question, “Where does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” is this: nowhere. For the purposes of the First Amendment, there is no difference between free speech and hate speech. Ideas and opinions that progressive students and professors find offensive or “hateful” are just as protected by the Bill of Rights as anti-Trump slogans chanted at a campus protest.

*‘Fighting Words’ Are Not Hate Speech*
There are, of course, certain kinds of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. But those have nothing to do with hate speech, which has no legal definition. For example, there’s an exception for “fighting words,” which the courts have defined as a face-to-face insult directed at a specific person for the purpose of provoking a fight.

*MORE:*
Sorry, College Kids, There's No Such Thing As Hate Speech


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 15, 2017)

9thIDdoc said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



I have no idea why you copied part of our exchange about the Virgin Islands into this thread.


----------



## Syriusly (Sep 15, 2017)

numan said:


> '
> Hate speech is equivalent to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
> 
> Canada has Hate Speech Laws, which, up to the present have been applied carefully and sensibly. I am not sure that there are enough careful and sensible people in the United States to apply such laws appropriately.
> ...



As long as the speech does not specifically call for violence then that speech is protected in my opinion.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 15, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Error. My bad.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 15, 2017)

numan said:


> '
> Hate speech is equivalent to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
> 
> Canada has Hate Speech Laws, which, up to the present have been applied carefully and sensibly. I am not sure that there are enough careful and sensible people in the United States to apply such laws appropriately.
> ...



So this is hate speech, right?









That's a teacher of cops, who is openly anti cop, who proudly defends the right of antqueefa to physically assault people for saying things they don't agree with.

John Jay professor slammed over ‘future dead cops’ tweet


----------



## numan (Sep 16, 2017)

'
All of you mindless jingos should actually read the Canadian law in the Opening Post before you vomit forth your hysterical clichés.
.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Sep 16, 2017)

The law gives the government the authority to define and prosecute "hate speech" however it likes at any particular time with the burden of proof being on the defendant.


----------



## HenryBHough (Sep 16, 2017)

You say shit I don't like and you're  a hate-speaker so must die.

See how simple that can be?


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2017)

numan said:


> '
> All of you mindless jingos should actually read the Canadian law in the Opening Post before you vomit forth your hysterical clichés.
> .




Guess what? This ain't Canada, ass hat!


----------



## numan (Sep 19, 2017)

9thIDdoc said:


> The law gives the government the authority to define and prosecute "hate speech" however it likes at any particular time with the burden of proof being on the defendant.


Nonsense! It is limited by section 318(4).

Moreover, any case brought to court which failed in law to find the defendant guilty would provoke a storm of anger against the government which would cause the government to fall, and new elections would be called.

No government would risk that unless it had an iron-clad case.
.


----------

