HATE IS ILLEGAL IN CANADA
I am sure that the vdov authorship remembers our old, Canadian pal who ever so politely and succinctly let us know that “…hate is illegal in Canada.” The sacrifice of free speech at the altar of “not being offended” has now come to fruition in our good Nation to the North.
For those not closely following (anything in Canada) the dust up over free speech in Canada I will provide a couple basics. Several individuals including Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have been hauled before provincial “Human Rights Commissions” to be tried for things they have said or written that may have offended individuals or groups. The idea being that what these individuals wrote or said was “hate speech” that disenfranchises people.
My general view is that all speech should be free, naturally. I take the “sticks and stones” approach with the caveat of speech that incites immediate violence. I am very much in line with standard American legal thinking. By placing restriction on forms of speech considered “offensive” or “hateful” a broad and completely subjective stifling of speech can occur which I find completely unacceptable. The point of all of this being that the current “trail” of Mark Steyn for his writings provides an excellent example of the farcical nature of limiting some forms of speech “for the greater good.” Andrew Coyne has been liveblogging the trial of Mark Steyn. The whole process is not only ridiculous from the standpoint of truly free speech it crosses into the realm of self parody because the Human Rights Council itself seems completely unable to justify or conduct itself in any kind of competent legal framework.
I am hoping that folks around here will take a crack at this one. It’s at least worth some discussion.
I’m curious. what would you classify as “speech that incites immediate violence” ?
IANAL obviously… yet… but the legal definition in the US is speech that causes “a clear and present danger” which was later revised by Brandenburg v Ohio to “imminent lawless action”.
As I understand it speech can be curtailed only if it is likely to provoke a lawless action faster than anyone can respond to it (i.e. inciting a riot or yelling “fire” in a crowded theater)
ah yes, i remember that post well. one of the more lively discussions here at vdov.net.
anyway, i agree with afischer here, especially since his statement is so general and agreeable. i’m vaguely aware of what is going on in canada (i wish i could read more right now but the conference awaits). the most interesting comment to me was your followup to shollen which i was unaware of.
“As I understand it speech can be curtailed only if it is likely to provoke a lawless action faster than anyone can respond to it (i.e. inciting a riot or yelling “fire” in a crowded theater)”
this wasn’t my understanding of the law yet when i think about incidents in the past it makes some sense. though, in its broadest definition even this can be applied to seriously curtail speech. who defines what is likely to provoke a lawless action? i’m not really comfortable with this definition, and my libertarian streak compels me to suggest that even this is going too far.
Man where were you two in civics class? Anyway the person who decides would be the judge in whatever lawsuit would arise. Then you could keep rising up on appeal ultimately to the Supreme Court.
I realize that the links above are not underlined but “clear and present danger” and “imminent lawless action” both link to the wikipedia.
I don’t have too much problem with the imminent lawlessness test as interpreted by the Supreme Court (from the decision of Brandenburg v. Ohio). The specific definition is taken from the cases where it has been tested and opinions written on those cases (the wiki article above gives a good overview of it.) Basically, Brandenburg was a Klan member who was recorded calling for all kinds of lawlessness, revenge against blacks and Jews, etc. He was tried under an Ohio law for inciting violence. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction as unconstitutional because he was not precipitating “imminent lawless action.” So as I understand it you have to be very specifically and clearly inciting immediate lawless action not just symbolically or abstractly talking about it.
The thing that kills me about the Canada business is that 1) there were never any specific threats against Muslims 2) If you sue someone in these Human Rights Councils the government pays for it but if you get sued by someone you pay… its basically making an incentive to abuse the system to stifle speech you don’t like.
You misunderstood my intended point. Thanks for you confidence in my knowlege of the basics of our legal and legislative systems though. Not going to fully respond on iPhone.
Fair enough.
i will not object. unfortunately, i was never in a civics class.
NYT takes a stab at the issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
I think it is a little silly that the NYT’s first source for saying that the US has gone too far in speech protection has spent most of his life outside the US.
I really like/am worried by the quote “We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat.”
The one serious problem is that the NYT does not comment at all on the actual content of Steyn’s article. They lump it in fairly readily with “hate speech” but don’t give it even a perfunctory review. They don’t quote pertinent sections or give a really accurate depiction of its content.
I don’t think it matters a whit what the content is in general as I support free speech in the American sense, but it seems to matter significantly to the article when they state in the opening paragraph “The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States do not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.” That statement is not even perfunctorily supported.
“I think it is a little silly that the NYT’s first source for saying that the US has gone too far in speech protection has spent most of his life outside the US.”
That isn’t even remotely how I read the article.
I loved that quote. Brilliant. I also loved the quote at the end of the article which read: “Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion.”
Your last quote makes little sense to me. I read the whole thing from front to back twice and I didn’t see it as an attack on the “US-style free speech model”. In fact I saw it is highly critical of the non-US model. But if that’s how you read it then fine. I’d go even further in my defense of our model than is currently implemented, as I alluded to in previous conversation.
“The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States do not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.”
I figured you’d love that.
also, who the hell cares where their first source is from? i don’t know that many people inside the US who agree with the non-US model, just as i imagine the reverse is true. i’m sure it was quite a bit simpler to find public figures of said mind elsewhere.
I don’t really care where the first source is from necessarily. However, if you are going to make the contra-case to US style free speech why would your most prominent source be a non-US legal entity writing in a book review? Just seems a little weak from a rhetorical standpoint.
I do agree completely (as I am sure you do) with the pro-US model of the article. I just wish it was more forceful in it’s support. The word “milquetoast” comes to mind.