[Victoribus Spolia]

You don't have the freedom to cause harm to others with your speech.

What do you mean by causing harm? Can you explain? I am genuinely curious, not trolling. I want to know what is really meant by these ideas as they are common, but generally not well-defined or explained...

[Godstud]

Inciting violence. Impeding education by teaching children a false narrative of hate.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Inciting violence.

So basically, speech in this sense is said to cause harm when it acts as a direct call to physically harm others? Or do you mean something else?

Impeding education by teaching children a false narrative of hate.

I am confused by this, what do you mean when you say that education is impeded? There are plenty of villainous people that have several degrees, so what do you mean by impeded education?

Also, what is a "narrative of hate?" This goes back to when I asked for a definition of hate in general....what is "hate" in this usage? Malevolent intents in reference to violence? or something else?

[Godstud]

Yes, when it calls for direct violence or insinuates such.

This:
Limits on speech were incorporated in the criminal code in relation to treason, sedition, blasphemous and defamatory libel, disruption of religious worship, hate propaganda, spreading false news, public mischief, obscenity, indecency and other forms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_o ... _in_Canada

[Pants-of-dog]

I think the first question that needs to be asked is:

What is the purpose of free speech?

[Victoribus Spolia]

blasphemous

Can you explain this? Does this imply that talking bad about God is not protected by law? So should all of your anti-Christian blasphemies be regarded as illegal?

hate propaganda

What does this mean? Insinuation of violence as well? If so, that seems like a redundancy as violence was already covered in the law. If it means something else, what does it mean?

obscenity, indecency and other forms.

You agree with this part? Would you say pornography and southpark should be illegal? Those seem to be covered under obscenity and indecency by any definition I have ever seen for those terms....

[Decky]

No, anti party activities, speech and thought are doubleplussungood. Would you let a child drink poison without slapping the container from his hand? No, of course not. The same is true of businessmen and preachers and other asocials pouring their foulness into the minds of the working class.

[Balancer]

I believe people are free to say whatever they like, but that doesn't necessarily shield them from the consequences of their words, e.g. you can't go to a club for predominately PoC and/or homosexuals and shout "N***** & F@GG0T$" and not expect to get your face broken.

With this approach, there are no restrictions on freedom of speech in general

Just in some places you will be beaten for the incorrect word, in others - they will kill. But say something you can!

[Victoribus Spolia]

skinster wrote:
I believe people are free to say whatever they like, but that doesn't necessarily shield them from the consequences of their words, e.g. you can't go to a club for predominately PoC and/or homosexuals and shout "N***** & F@GG0T$" and not expect to get your face broken.




With this approach, there are no restrictions on freedom of speech in general

Just in some places you will be beaten for the incorrect word, in others - they will kill. But say something you can!

I guess I agree with this, I would make one distinction though....

I think there is a difference between intentional provocation which can be seen as instigated an altercation (assuming a fight ensues), and someone getting fired from their job for the political opinions of their spouse which were inferred from her liked-pages by the husband's co-worker (an example which more-or-less happened to me).

I think free speech should be legally protected to some degree in an active rather than merely a passive sense, especially political-oriented speech. Calling someone a N***** or a faggot is different, in my opinion, than supporting a tea party rally. If the you do the latter, I do not think an employer should be permitted to fire their employees or penalize them for such an exercise of their rights, if they do the former at work, they very well could be fired and such could serve as evidence to lighten the penalty on the queer kenyan that decked him in the face.

[Politiks]

As a South American I not only believe in freedom of speech as I believe in the right to offend. If isn't offensive to some you shouldn't even post, say or write

[Balancer]

I guess I agree with this, I would make one distinction though....

In fact, this is a complex philosophical and ethical problem for which I do not have a common and unequivocal solution In an ideal world there should be complete freedom of speech. Everyone should be able to say anything without any consequences for themselves. But in the real world today this can not be solved. There is information that can harm the innocent. There is information that can harm the state. Both should be somehow limited.

But this problem will have to be solved in the near future in an acute form. Many distributed systems allow you to publish information in anonymously. A number of technologies, such as the blockchain in principle, do not allow you to delete once published. It is necessary, for example, to forget about the right to be forgotten ... So it is necessary to either stop progress and return to the pre-information era or learn to live in a new reality.

[Elyzabeth]

Of course !

The ONLY exception is, that you can not shout fire in a crowded theatre !

FREEDOM is FREEDOM, many people in other cultures do not really understand this...

Americans Do

[Pants-of-dog]

Why should racist speech be protected?

[Ter]

Why should racist speech be protected?

Who will decide what is racist ?

[SolarCross]

Why should racist speech be protected?

It doesn't need to be protected but needn't be punished either. Words are just words.

Repeat after me:

Stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

[Pants-of-dog]

Who will decide what is racist ?

Ideally, people of colour.

Now that i have answered your question, can you answer mine?

———————————

It doesn't need to be protected but needn't be punished either. Words are just words.

Repeat after me:

Stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

Please note that you have not given an intelligent reason as to why raxist speech should not be illegal.

[Elyzabeth]

[quote="Pants-of-dog"]Why should racist speech be protected?

The answer is, it should not !

People are allowed to say vile things that other people totally disagree with

in America.

I live in a European country, where that is not the case, as I suspect it is not I other parts of Europe

If you disagree with what a person says vote for people who will make changes...
boycott the services of the person you disagree
with or simply speak out against them !

A quote I have often heard is :

"I thoroughly disagree with what you are saying, but I will die to protect you right to say it"

(It has been attributed to several different people)


[/b]

[SolarCross]

[Pants-of-dog]

If it is not intelligible to then you must be pretty stupid. Don't blame me for your lack of intelligence.

If you are going to pretend to be smarter than me, you should not confuse intelligent and intelligible. They are two different words with two different meanings.

Now, unless you have an actual argument, please ignore my question.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Can somebody define racist in this context?

It seems that most Americans view "racism" as having malicious feelings towards others soley on the basis of their race, with a desire to discriminate. This alone being racism for most.

however; the left denies that blacks for instance, can be racist because of the "power plus prejudice" horseshit..

so which is it @Pants-of-dog?

Because if it is the latter sense, then basically only whites would be forbidden from using "racist" speech because they would be, by definition, the only ones capable of it.

Further, are generalizations racist? What about citing crime statistics? or discussing the curse of ham? etc, etc., would all of these be considered racist simply in lieu of being discussed? What about black jokes or white jokes? How about advocating for an occupation of an African country?

Intentional provocation should be legal, but not protected from potential consequences, like calling someone a N*****.

however, I think attending an alt. rally in your spare time should both be passively and actively protected speech. If some d-bag on PoFo doxxes you for writing opinions on here, it should be illegal for a business to fire you in my opinion.