| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| I think that calling for someone to be killed might just cross over the line of "the right to express oneself freely" |
That's true, but the response should not be censorship, it should be arrests for assault. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Does this mean the end of Anti-English spectrum? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nismo wrote: |
| Good on them to censor hate speech directed at non-ethnic-Koreans. That's as it should be. There is no country with a no-constraints system of free speech. Even a country as humble as the U.S. that selflessly lifts itself up as a shining example to the world has categorical exceptions to the freedom of speech, including incitement, obscenity, offensive speech, and threats. |
Freedom of speech refers to the freedom to express ideas, not freedom for the language used. Therefore, censoring obscenities does not constitute a limit on free speech. The same can be said of incitement and threats, although less comprehensive, as they can also be re-worded into a simple idea which is legal. Offensive speech is generally not illegal in the US (Klansas City Kable being a good example). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nismo
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| Nismo wrote: |
| Good on them to censor hate speech directed at non-ethnic-Koreans. That's as it should be. There is no country with a no-constraints system of free speech. Even a country as humble as the U.S. that selflessly lifts itself up as a shining example to the world has categorical exceptions to the freedom of speech, including incitement, obscenity, offensive speech, and threats. |
Freedom of speech refers to the freedom to express ideas, not freedom for the language used. Therefore, censoring obscenities does not constitute a limit on free speech. The same can be said of incitement and threats, although less comprehensive, as they can also be re-worded into a simple idea which is legal. Offensive speech is generally not illegal in the US (Klansas City Kable being a good example). |
Myths of the US would be a great book. Chapter 1: the founding fathers as indelible deities.
The first amendment's protection has defined limits and is constantly refined by landmark cases. While hate speech has generally been free of suppression, there are other ways to assert the illegality of hate speech, such as the logical association with incitement or defamation, both of which the first amendment does not cover. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nismo wrote: |
Myths of the US would be a great book. Chapter 1: the founding fathers as indelible deities.
The first amendment's protection has defined limits and is constantly refined by landmark cases. While hate speech has generally been free of suppression, there are other ways to assert the illegality of hate speech, such as the logical association with incitement or defamation, both of which the first amendment does not cover. |
Free speech as a concept has generally been unchanged for awhile. The concept basically states that one is free to express their ideas as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. Laws against slander and libel are dependent on the idea's base in fact; if the statement is a lie, it is the liar causing the harm, if it is true than it is the fact that causes the harm.
To be clear, the only restriction on free speech is in cases of danger to the rights of others. In this case, those who suggest murder for multi-cultural families are infringing on the rights of others (safety), and should be punished. People expressing a general dislike for multi-cultural families are within their right (in the context of free speech, not Korean law) to do so. As much as I despise racism, it is indeed a slippery slope to censor all hateful speech. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nismo
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| As much as I despise racism, it is indeed a slippery slope to censor all hateful speech. |
Canada does it quite well. In fact, the U.S. is no longer the de facto model for the international community to strive towards. Canada is now the go-to for an ideal constitution. The move is quite logical. Canada's constitution act from the 1980s is much more in step with the times than the U.S.'s constitution from thw 1780s. What a difference 200 years makes!
In any event, the Canadian criminal code states:
Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by communicating statements in a 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 crime].
Canada is doing fine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickGHBusan
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| I think that calling for someone to be killed might just cross over the line of "the right to express oneself freely" |
What should happen then is not government intervention but (as was said earlier) legal action against the media providers by the people or groups that are targetted by such comments/threats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickGHBusan
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nismo wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| As much as I despise racism, it is indeed a slippery slope to censor all hateful speech. |
Canada does it quite well. In fact, the U.S. is no longer the de facto model for the international community to strive towards. Canada is now the go-to for an ideal constitution. The move is quite logical. Canada's constitution act from the 1980s is much more in step with the times than the U.S.'s constitution from thw 1780s. What a difference 200 years makes!
In any event, the Canadian criminal code states:
Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by communicating statements in a 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 crime].
Canada is doing fine. |
Yes this opens the door by establishing a legal base on which people can rely if they wish to lodge a complaint against media who would spue racist bile. The government itself would not directly censor media however. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PatrickGHBusan wrote: |
If they (government) starts enforcing these things they will need to hire a lot of people to monitor sites, determine what is acceptable and what is not....
|
Somebody complained to someone. I don't think the government needs to moniter really nasty stuff on websites, the public does it for them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickGHBusan
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| PatrickGHBusan wrote: |
If they (government) starts enforcing these things they will need to hire a lot of people to monitor sites, determine what is acceptable and what is not....
|
Somebody complained to someone. I don't think the government needs to moniter really nasty stuff on websites, the public does it for them. |
Precisely my point....but you chose to partially quote me.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
transmogrifier
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm against most censorship of speech - I have no problem with people being allowed to be bigoted and offensive, as long as we have the right to ignore them, boycott them, or serve it back to them. Simply offending people should not be a crime.
But I can accept making death threats (generic or specific) illegal, because you can argue that it reduces (or is seen to reduce) the safety of the target in question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group |
How do you decide whether 'hatred' has been incited? It's entirely subjective and open to widespread abuse. In this regard, Canada is certainly not a country to emulate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radcon
Joined: 23 May 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nismo wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| As much as I despise racism, it is indeed a slippery slope to censor all hateful speech. |
Canada does it quite well. In fact, the U.S. is no longer the de facto model for the international community to strive towards. Canada is now the go-to for an ideal constitution. The move is quite logical. Canada's constitution act from the 1980s is much more in step with the times than the U.S.'s constitution from thw 1780s. What a difference 200 years makes!
In any event, the Canadian criminal code states:
Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by communicating statements in a 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 crime].
Canada is doing fine. |
Barf. Look at the Macleans magazine/Steyn case. A small politicized group with a certain agenda was able to put a writer and Canada's major news magazine through the ringer (at some "human rights" tribunal)for speech that was even remotely racist in nature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nismo wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| As much as I despise racism, it is indeed a slippery slope to censor all hateful speech. |
Canada does it quite well. In fact, the U.S. is no longer the de facto model for the international community to strive towards. Canada is now the go-to for an ideal constitution. The move is quite logical. Canada's constitution act from the 1980s is much more in step with the times than the U.S.'s constitution from thw 1780s. What a difference 200 years makes!
In any event, the Canadian criminal code states:
Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by communicating statements in a 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 crime].
Canada is doing fine. |
But how is this interpreted? As Canadians we should be careful not to allow our freedom of speech to be stifled. I think people should be allowed views and opinions no matter how repugnant, so long as the person condemns violence and taking the law into your own hands. Call it freedom of speech with repsonsibility attached. Not sure how the courts interpret these things though. But so long as you're not calling for death or violence, people shouldn't be charged. Good way to lose one's democracy and end up in a police state. Though law suits should still be allowed to be initiated.
Thank you very much Mr. Trudeau!!... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| radcon wrote: |
| Nismo wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| As much as I despise racism, it is indeed a slippery slope to censor all hateful speech. |
Canada does it quite well. In fact, the U.S. is no longer the de facto model for the international community to strive towards. Canada is now the go-to for an ideal constitution. The move is quite logical. Canada's constitution act from the 1980s is much more in step with the times than the U.S.'s constitution from thw 1780s. What a difference 200 years makes!
In any event, the Canadian criminal code states:
Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by communicating statements in a 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 crime].
Canada is doing fine. |
Barf. Look at the Macleans magazine/Steyn case. A small politicized group with a certain agenda was able to put a writer and Canada's major news magazine through the ringer (at some "human rights" tribunal)for speech that was even remotely racist in nature. |
Yes, I agree. Could MacLeans go after this suit and sue them for stress, damages, and / or libel? Prob not. These Human rights tribunals imprison Canadians and are a means to replace the courts. They ought to be dismantled. If one is seen to deliberately launch a lawsuit to waste the courts time, one can get in some serious trouble. But, it has to be provable. I'd be curious to know if these Human Rights panels and special interest groups could face the same penalty and punishment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
