[pyritechips]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...te-speech-law/

I have really thought about this, as I am working on a lengthy essay on a novel with the above subject matter as one of it's elements.

How far do we go in suppressing that which is considered "offensive" as opposed to "harmful" as outlined in the above article? Are our legislators fuzzing the fine line between saying that we hate somebody and that we want to harm somebody? Have we gone too far in protecting "identifiable groups" from being "offended"? My big question is: why are people so easily offended? Is it nothing more than political motivation? How about censorship in the arts, particularly music? There have been many cases of court cases involving freedom of speech and hate crimes and I offer one below as an example. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph titled "Second trial":

Ahenakew was retried in Saskatoon in 2008. In February 2009, Saskatchewan Provincial Court Judge Wilfred Tucker acquitted Ahenakew because his statements, while "revolting, disgusting and untrue" did not show an intent to incite hatred.[6]

[Drabdr]

So, I'm just trying to understand...

In Canada, there is a law against Hate Speech, to the extent that the hate speech has an element of harm to another group/ person. Is that accurate?

And in this case, this gentlemen was a Nazi who was initially tried, and then acquitted because they could not find this element of harm.

Jim.. an interesting article. I have not researched America's law to verify if there are equivalent laws here. For example, am I protected if I made public statements like "those religious, right wing fundies are psychos. Some should silence them" or something to that extent?

In general, I tend to be uncomfortably tolerant of people right to speech. While I may find what they say as abhorrent and garbage, I would be willing to protect their right to express it.

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by Drabdr

So, I'm just trying to understand...

In Canada, there is a law against Hate Speech, to the extent that the hate speech has an element of harm to another group/ person. Is that accurate?

And in this case, this gentlemen was a Nazi who was initially tried, and then acquitted because they could not find this element of harm.

Jim.. an interesting article. I have not researched America's law to verify if there are equivalent laws here. For example, am I protected if I made public statements like "those religious, right wing fundies are psychos. Some should silence them" or something to that extent?

In general, I tend to be uncomfortably tolerant of people right to speech. While I may find what they say as abhorrent and garbage, I would be willing to protect their right to express it.

First of all let me correct you. The person in question was not a Nazi; yo quote:

...a Canadian First Nations politician, and former National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations.

Secondly, how you use the word silence is critical to this topic. If you mean silence as in censor them then that is an opinion but if you mean silence as in cause harm or death then that is a threat of violence and "harm", around which this discussion lies. As I said, i can call one stupid or even inferior to me because of their race or culture, etc. but that is "offensive" not "harmful". My point being we cannot account for any persons' level of sensitivity, that is how easily is one person offended compared to another?

[buffoon]

This might be of interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_ag...locaust_denial

where variations occur from country to country, the principle motivation for making denial punishable lies in the understanding that

a) such historical falsification can only serve to work towards repetiton of persecution (here: of Jews)

b) survivors of the camps or the relatives of those killed are unacceptably insulted

c) all of it serves to denigrate a certain group (here: ethnic and religious)

One needs to distinguish between mindless ranting in a pub on Saturday night and "official" speeches or publications.

Me, I'd agree with drabdr's Voltaire approach (last paragraph of #2) in general, but where freedom of speech is abused as encouragement for hate and subsequent (resulting) actions, I find it apt to stick a fist in it.

There isn't really much to debate about neo-Nazis' motivation when denying the holocaust.

[pyritechips]

Well, Naziism and the persecution of Jews is only one example. Sometimes I fear to show my disgust at some cultural practices in case I may "offend" a recognizable group. That is the hate crime angle I am trying to explore and what Coyne illustrated in his article: the difference in expressing hatred and "harm". If I say I am disgusted because somebody like wombat au tartar can I be thrown in jail?

[1956brother]

until you threaten someone or encite other to do the same, you can pretty much say whatever you want. this where i draw the line.

a person can be offended by whatever they choose. it is not up to others to say, what someone should be or will be offended by. i never understood why some people are so easily offended? it is not up to me.

i have the right to say whatever i want and i don't care if someone if offended by it. it is called "free speech"

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

Well, Naziism and the persecution of Jews is only one example. Sometimes I fear to show my disgust at some cultural practices in case I may "offend" a recognizable group. That is the hate crime angle I am trying to explore and what Coyne illustrated in his article: the difference in expressing hatred and "harm". If I say I am disgusted because somebody like wombat au tartar can I be thrown in jail?

Hmmmm............not sure whether it should be you or the wombat connoisseur.

On a more serious note, this brings us back to (among other issues) the circumcision thread. Where the opinion of the operation being questionable immediately gets you the label of anti-semite or anti-Muslim.

Fortunately a bias not shared by the courts.

Yet.

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Hmmmm............not sure whether it should be you or the wombat connoisseur.

On a more serious note, this brings us back to (among other issues) the circumcision thread. Where the opinion of the operation being questionable immediately gets you the label of anti-semite or anti-Muslim.

Fortunately a bias not shared by the courts.

Yet.

I share your sentiment.

[nittiley]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...te-speech-law/
My big question is: why are people so easily offended? Is it nothing more than political motivation?

throwing in a couple of cents here.. it seems like people are easily offended because their perceptions become their reality.
one person's wombat tartar could be thought of as:

• having great taste in culinary delights
• a shocking cuisine oddity
• animal cruelty
• possessing an unrefined palate

p-chips'

How about censorship in the arts, particularly music?

were you referring to the jail sentence for russia's punk band/activists <another word for kitty> riot? who, incidentally, were forgiven by the clergy:

Russia's top Orthodox clerics on Saturday asked for mercy for the punk band ***** Riot for its anti-government protest in a Moscow cathedral, but the church's forgiveness is unlikely to change the band's punishment in a case that caused an international furor over political dissent.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-...all-for-mercy/

here is a fun one for dance (& could apply to film as well). when is the human body sans clothing an artistic expression of art, & when is it pornography? have at censorship laws with that one.. !

warning: the article below is absolutely not for the easily shocked or offended. even i read it thinking, "you've got to be kidding.." regarding some of what was, um, unfurled on stage. read those brochures carefully before attending, dance patrons!

Where is the line between art and pornography? But there’s always been a huge overlap between the two; you can see scenes of copulation on Greek vases and Indian temples. What’s more, many works of art have seemed pornographic without nakedness. Many of us are tempted to talk as if art = good, pornography = bad. Yet that’s wrong too. Much art is poor, while the novels of the Marquis de Sade are pornography taken to a brilliant, horrifying and extraordinary peak. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/ar...ewanted=2&_r=1

p-chips'

There have been many cases of court cases involving freedom of speech and hate crimes and I offer one below as an example. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph titled "Second trial":

no easy task sorting out exactly what a human may mean by saying a certain group should be silenced, as was previously mentioned. i lean toward allowing all kinds of speech, unless it can be reasonably demonstrated it's meant to produce harm, & physical harm is obviously more easily defined than emotional. unless someone is obviously & repeatedly using hate speech in an attempt to drive another person or group to extreme emotional distress, the burden appears to be more on the recipient (who should consider the source & attempt to not take it personally, no?)

simple example.. say someone calls me a <oops! can't put those words here>. but any negative words for females.. i could be *highly insulted* or *deeply offended.*

or have fun with it, "why, yes i am a b__, now that you mentioned it ."

or consider why the person uttered such epithets -- merely to provoke & offend, to demonstrate control over another's reaction? perhaps evidence of some gender bias? or maybe they were merely having a bad day, were poorly treated by some other female, or a whole host of scenarios -- & they just spewed a bit in temporary anger or frustration. it happens

[ckphilli]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Fortunately a bias not shared by the courts.

Yet.

Originally Posted by pyritechips

I share your sentiment.

First of all, any discussion of wombats should be illegal.

Secondly, let me play the devil's advocate.

Should we have freespeech? Should you be permitted to make offensive statements regardless of intent? Would society be better off if you were not allowed to state "fat boy has problems", for instance?

We're already limited, I think it's obvious that free speech really isn't free speech...but how far may we get if we limited it more? You could place more controls having to do with people, specifically and still maintain a level of freedom. As in..."Brussels sprouts are the devil"= ok; "Johnny Smith is retarded"= not ok.

Tuesday morning. Devil's advocate. Remember that.

[valis]

question; what if Johnny Smith IS retarded? One thing I abhor (along with wombats) is double-speak. A bald person is NOT follicley challenged, just as a fat person is not horizontally proficient. Nor, for that matter, are fat people under-tall. They are fat. The others are bald.

I guess that's playing devil's advocate to your devil's advocate........

[ckphilli]

I'm not a fan of double speak either Tim. So let's expand the example. Assume John Smith is deaf.

"John Smith is retarded".

John's not retarded, he's deaf.

Now what?

[ckphilli]

Originally Posted by ckphilli

I'm not a fan of double speak either Tim. So let's expand the example. Assume John Smith is deaf.

"John Smith is retarded".

John's not retarded, he's deaf.

Now what?

And just to keep this from spinning wildly out of control (with respect to Jim and his thread), such language can lead to crimes. Not necessarily hate crimes, but crimes nonetheless.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by ckphilli

First of all, any discussion of wombats should be illegal.

There's those that feel wombats should be

Secondly, let me play the devil's advocate.

Uh-oh

Should we have freespeech? Should you be permitted to make offensive statements regardless of intent? Would society be better off if you were not allowed to state "fat boy has problems", for instance?

I personally don't think it would be, on the contrary. "Horizontally challenged" is just taking the sublime to the cor' blimey.

We're already limited, I think it's obvious that free speech really isn't free speech...but how far may we get if we limited it more? You could place more controls having to do with people, specifically and still maintain a level of freedom. As in..."Brussels sprouts are the devil"= ok;

If that refers to those born and raised in the Belgian capital, it would depend on context. That is what other prejudices on Belgians are entertained.

"Johnny Smith is retarded"= not ok.

I thought "retarded" to be a medically acceptable term, meaning merely "slow". I sometimes take painkillers with a "retard" function.

Tuesday morning. Devil's advocate. Remember that.

Have to remember to stay clear of you til Wednesdays.

Seriously though:

Context, motive, ultimate aim (goal) are the criteria for me. When someone denies holocaust (to return to my example), all of those are clear. That doesn't preclude the acceptable practice of historical research aimed to establish the exact number of victims but where the original aim is already to lessen the crimes of fascism by coming up with 4 mill instead of 6 mill, the back of my hand is still too good.

Context! Leading to the other two.

If someone is a slob and also fat, me calling him both would depend on motive. Since I can't conceive of any I'd probably not call him that at all.

[ckphilli]

Originally Posted by buffoon

There's those that feel wombats should be

Those are the ones that should live the life of Papillon.

Originally Posted by buffoon

Seriously though:

Context, motive, ultimate aim (goal) are the criteria for me. When someone denies holocaust (to return to my example), all of those are clear. That doesn't preclude the acceptable practice of historical research aimed to establish the exact number of victims but where the original aim is already to lessen the crimes of fascism by coming up with 4 mill instead of 6 mill, the back of my hand is still too good.

Context! Leading to the other two.

If someone is a slob and also fat, me calling him both would depend on motive. Since I can't conceive of any I'd probably not call him that at all.

Yes, context; agreed. Although I played devil's advocate for a second, such ideas (my earlier post) are borderline preposterous. We would get ourselves into a list of bad words (Carlin style) and then we would have to determine who gets to define the bad words...and then...then...we would come full circle back to the current problem.

Back to Jim's original post: "My big question is: why are people so easily offended?" I could write an essay on that question alone, but in order not to repeat other threads let me offer this: they don't know how to solve problems. BAM! There you go.

There's a growing tendency in this country(among others) to hop straight to a solution (instant gratification) before thoroughly analyzing the problem. Heck, most of the time people don't get as far as defining the problem. Obviously, the solution really isn't a solution because you haven't adequately diagnosed the problem! For example...let's say I'm fat, and you call me fat.
Instead of realizing that my problem is not scientifically related, and that my problem stems from eating crap (and too much of it) I solve my issue by stating that you are a bully! You have no right to call me fat! Now, note that this is just an example. I don't want anyone to think that I think bullies don't exist. Point is, let's identify our problems before we try to solve them.