[Godstud]

Of course, being subject tyranny is par-for-the-course in canuckistan.

Stupidity and ignorance is 'par-for-the-course', when it comes to America, it appears. Your poor education and ethnocentrism is showing.

It easy to oppose hate-speech when its not your speech being deemed as hateful or harmful.

Awwww... Do you get upset when you can't practice your bigotry and hatred? Too bad. Don't come to Canada. Amerikkka's perfect for you.

[One Degree]

@Godstud
You didn’t respond to any of my examples. Are they ‘hate speech’ or not? How about Democrats calling for accosting Republicans in public? You can see the direct harm this causes. Is this hate speech?

[Godstud]

Your "examples" are juvenile attempts at an argument that you can't even form coherently. They are "whataboutisms". You then try to make irrelevant arguments about Democrats, when that doesn't even relate to the topic.

I've presented evidence that hate speech does in fact cause harm. You cannot dispute that, so you try to derail the topic with unrelated or irrelevant bullshit.

Troll off.

[One Degree]

Your "examples" are juvenile attempts at an argument that you can't even form coherently. They are "whataboutisms". You then try to make irrelevant arguments about Democrats, when that doesn't even relate to the topic.

I've presented evidence that hate speech does in fact cause harm. You cannot dispute that, so you try to derail the topic with unrelated or irrelevant bullshit.

Troll off.

Still no response? How about simply answering true or false to two statements? Can you handle that?
1. Democrats urging accosting of Republicans in public is hate speech.
2. Neo Nazis urging accosting of Jews in public is hate speech.

[Godstud]

Democrats urging accosting of Republicans in public is hate speech.

False.

This isn't happening in Canada, and is thus off-topic. American freedom of speech rules differ, as my source I presented to you, mentioned.

Ruining someone's dinner is a long way from calling for people to actually assault people, as Trump urged at his rallies, and yet suffered no consequences. Want to try again?

Neo Nazis urging accosting of Jews in public is hate speech.

True.

Neo-Nazis urge a lot more than "accosting" Jews, and you are well aware of this. Is your history so poor that you've never heard of The Holocaust?

Pretty much off-topic stuff, though.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Godstud,

I addressed an argument to you on this very issue in TLTE, and you failed to answer it. Lets try again and see if you are intellectually capable of comprehending and addressing the point:

What if leftist or liberal speech were regarded as hate speech by a majority of Canadians? Its not like that end of the spectrum has not been known for violence either.

Calls for equality and the liberation of the working classes have also led to mass violence, arguably even greater than that of "racists." Should that be hate speech as well? Yes or NO?

[Godstud]

Take your American pre-school philosophy questions somewhere else. I'm not going to play your childish "What if..." scenario. Canada's hate speech laws are pretty clear-cut and if you don't like them, then keep your hate speech south of Canada's border.

[One Degree]

False.

This isn't happening in Canada, and is thus off-topic. American freedom of speech rules differ, as my source I presented to you, mentioned.

Ruining someone's dinner is a long way from calling for people to actually assault people, as Trump urged at his rallies, and yet suffered no consequences. Want to try again?

True.

Neo-Nazis urge a lot more than "accosting" Jews, and you are well aware of this. Is your history so poor that you've never heard of The Holocaust? :?:

Pretty much off-topic stuff, though.

@Godstud
You are admitting the action is irrelevant and only your view of the groups matter. What could be more blatant bigotry?

[Drlee]

What if leftist or liberal speech were regarded as hate speech by a majority of Canadians? Its not like that end of the spectrum has not been known for violence either

It actually is by a significant number of Americans. The Christian far right considers support of abortion as inciting to murder. Should they take power they could easily suppress any discussion of a woman's right to choose an abortion to be hate speech. Or worse. Inciting others to commit the crime of murder of the unborn child.

It is not too far afield to imagine a situation where the Christian far right takes power and considers remarks such as the atheist meme "flying spaghetti monster" as hate speech against Christians. I personally find it offensive in the extreme. If I were not a proponent of free speech, I wonder how loudly I would shout about laws banning it.

[Godstud]

@One Degree It's irrelevant because this topic is about Canada, and not the USA. I will not continue to address your ignorance and bullshit.

Stop trolling. It's childish.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Take your American pre-school philosophy questions somewhere else. I'm not going to play your childish "What if..." scenario. Canada's hate speech laws are pretty clear-cut and if you don't like them, then keep your hate speech south of Canada's border.

Well, since natural law philosophy was the basis behind the laws of both the U.S. and Canada its quite relevant.

Nonetheless, I understand why you are afraid to engage on this, there is only one possible result from such an exchange.

Besides, if you are not up to debating the legitimacy or illegtimacy of Canada's law, then why post on this thread at all?

This is a political debate forum, as you should know, and whether or not Canada's law is clear is quite besides the point as to whether it is just.

You don't want to discuss that because you cannot defend it.

So quit wasting everyone's time if you are not actually here to debate issues.

It actually is by a significant number of Americans. The Christian far right considers support of abortion as inciting to murder. Should they take power they could easily suppress any discussion of a woman's right to choose an abortion to be hate speech. Or worse. Inciting others to commit the crime of murder of the unborn child.

Indeed, excellent point.

It is not too far afield to imagine a situation where the Christian far right takes power and considers remarks such as the atheist meme "flying spaghetti monster" as hate speech against Christians. I personally find it offensive in the extreme. If I were not a proponent of free speech, I wonder how loudly I would shout about laws banning it.

Absolutely, but since @Godstud isn't interested in debating the actual issue of this crappy law, I suppose we'll never know how he'd handle such objections.

If this isn't an example of partisanship or political tribalism at the expense of reasoned debate, I don't know what is.

Indeed @Drlee, if we were Canadians, @Godstud would probably have us turned in for hate speech for simply questioning this law, meanwhile not seeing the irony of such tyranny being conducted in the name of "protecting people against violence" will at least serve for our amusement as much as it does for our disgust.

We are living in some frightening times my friend.

[Pants-of-dog]

Obtuse denial and incompetence is your argument.

We've also seen what happens when your kind gets the power to censor and compel, you're just as dangerous as those idiots.

For the same reasons we have to keep tolerating yours. The main reason is that nobody can be trusted with that kind of power, it always leads to the gulag.

So, what exactly is the reason we should still allow free speech for Nazis?

Becuase of “gulagism”?

If your only “argument” is repeating that word over and over again, then you have no real argument.

———————————

@Drlee

Yes, this is specifically about unaddressed bulk mail:

From the article in the OP

"After having carefully considered the recommendations of the independent board of review, I have decided to issue a final prohibitory order that will prevent the delivery of the publication Your Ward News, or any substantially similar material developed by its authors, through Canada Post's unaddressed bulk mail," Carla Qualtrough, the minister responsible for Canada Post, said in a statement.

It is basically the same service used by grocery stores to distribute their flyers.

———————————

The difference between Nazism and Marxism is that Nazism is inherently racist, discriminatory, and at odds with democratic values. Marxism is not.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So, what exactly is the reason we should still allow free speech for Nazis?

Same reason it should be allowed for Bolsheviks and Stalinists.

Didn't we have this debate before Pants? on a free-speech thread a few months back?

[Pants-of-dog]

Same reason it should be allowed for Bolsheviks and Stalinists.

Didn't we have this debate before Pants? on a free-speech thread a few months back?

And what is that reason?

[Victoribus Spolia]

And what is that reason?

Because the principle of free-expression is a natural right that cuts both ways. If talking about national socialism ought to be illegal because nazis have killed people in tragic genocides, then the same can be said about proponents of marxist thought as well, indeed, Mao and Stalin being more violent in their genocides than Hitler would itself imply that they should be regarded as a greater threat (from the perspective of hate speech) than the Nazis. Hell, the nazis are usually so apt to argue that they do not believe in killing the jews that even try to deny the holocaust; whereas, the Maoists and Stalinists haven't been so quick to distance their professed views from those acts.

Of course, this is all ad-reductio, for these historical atrocities have not been proven to necessarily to follow from these ideologies in logical manner (in the context of this discussion atleast), and if "commiting an atrocity" were our only criteria for censoring a view, we wouldn't have many acceptable views left in all honesty because nearly all ideologies held en masse have been guilty of this at some point in history.

So long as violence is not directly incited, the presentation of ideas, even political ones, are not a direct threat against a person or their property; nor is the misconduct of the proponents of such a proof of a necessity therein.

____________________________________________________________________________________
EDIT: added later

The difference between Nazism and Marxism is that Nazism is inherently racist, discriminatory, and at odds with democratic values. Marxism is not.

This begs the question though, why should racism and sexism be censored? why should undemocratic views be censored?

Likewise, why should marxism be regarded as democratic? Marxism is revolutionary first and foremost and democratic only in a pragmatic and opportunistic sense. Historically, the democratic nations of the world have seen communism as a threat to democracy, not as compatible with it. Likewise, what about Stalinism, etc? The regimes of such an ideology have been historically viewed as undemocratic for very important reasons, based in simply observation I might add.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because the principle of free-expression is a natural right that cuts both ways.
If talking about national socialism ought to be illegal because nazis have killed people in tragic genocides, then the same can be said about proponents of marxist thought as well, indeed, Mao and Stalin being more violent in their genocides than Hitler would itself imply that they should be regarded as a greater threat (from the perspective of hate speech) than the Nazis. Hell, the nazis are usually so apt to argue that they do not believe in killing the jews that even try to deny the holocaust; whereas, the Maoists and Stalinists haven't been so quick to distance their professed views from those acts.

Again, Nazism is inherently racist, discriminatory, and inconsistent with democratic values. Marxism is not.

To argue that all ideologies are the same and should be treated with equal respect is illogical.

Of course, this is all ad-reductio, for these historical atrocities have not been proven to necessarily to follow from these ideologies in logical manner (in the context of this discussion atleast), and if "commiting an atrocity" were our only criteria for censoring a view, we wouldn't have many acceptable views left in all honesty because nearly all ideologies held en masse have been guilty of this at some point in history.

So long as violence is not directly incited, the presentation of ideas, even political ones, are not a direct threat against a person or their property; nor is the misconduct of the proponents of such a proof of a necessity therein.

Since I never made the “atrocity” argument, I am going to ignore this.

___________________________________________________________________________________
EDIT: added later

This begs the question though, why should racism and sexism be censored? why should undemocratic views be censored?

Likewise, why should marxism be regarded as democratic? Marxism is revolutionary first and foremost and democratic only in a pragmatic and opportunistic sense. Historically, the democratic nations of the world have seen communism as a threat to democracy, not as compatible with it. Likewise, what about Stalinism, etc? The regimes of such an ideology have been historically viewed as undemocratic for very important reasons, based in simply observation I might add.

Racism, sexism, and Nazism do not provide any benefits at all, and have already been discussed ad nauseum. We have even experimented with having these as our ruling ideologies. We have given these ideas every chance. They end in death camps.

Marxism has been democratic in the past. It is not inherently undemocratic like Nazism.

We also still have a lot to learn from Marxism. What do we have left to learn from Nazism?

[One Degree]

Pod, “people I like are good. People I don’t like are bad. I believe everyone should be treated equally.” Lol

[Pants-of-dog]

Your misunderstanding is not an argument.

[One Degree]

Your misunderstanding is not an argument.

Are Nazis equal human beings? Yes or no.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Again, Nazism is inherently racist, discriminatory, and inconsistent with democratic values. Marxism is not.

To argue that all ideologies are the same and should be treated with equal respect is illogical.

Yes, but I was specifically speaking of the connection to supposed violence which has been a justification for hate-speech legislation.

In that regards, if fear of actual harm is a concern, Marxism is worse than Nazism.

Racism, sexism, and Nazism do not provide any benefits at all, and have already been discussed ad nauseum. We have even experimented with having these as our ruling ideologies. We have given these ideas every chance. They end in death camps.

Marxism has ended in more death camps of greater lethality.

This is not an argument against having views of racial prejudice and traditional views regarding gender and the relation of such to democracy.

You seem to be confusing suffrage with democracy, which are not the same thing, but even if it they were the same, such does not address the point.

WHY should anti-democratic views not be permitted to be discussed if they are not directly inciting violence?

For instance, if Nazism should be opposed for being anti-democratic with censorship, should every variant of marxism and every writing in Marx that could be construed as a threat to the democratic order likewise be censored?

Meanwhile, should other racist ideologies in the New Right that do believe in representative government and universal suffrage within a nation, remain uncensored?

I doubt that is the outcome you would want, but thats the point of free-speech. Its not about what we want, its about what is right.

I may not want marxism to exist, but its not right for a state to prevent marxists from speaking about their views.

Marxism has been democratic in the past. It is not inherently undemocratic like Nazism.

It also provided the world with the most intolerant and genocidal regimes in human history; whereas, people holding to racist and sexists views were arguably the creators of democracy itself in the first place.

We also still have a lot to learn from Marxism. What do we have left to learn from Nazism?

Besides being purely dependent on the perspective of the idealogue in question, this point would needlessly derail the conversation into philosophy, and I would argue that Marxism is a failed philosophy in a manner commensurate to nazism, but nazism atleast acknowledges the need for the natural order's social structures for the perpetuation of western civilization, or any meaningful civilization. Hence, we have more to learn from Nazism than Marxism in my opinion.

However, this is all irrelevant, why should speech be censored merely because it isn't intellectually contributive?

Can you imagine the implications of that highly subjective criteria?