no time to elaborate

[ironymaiden]

this is one of the reasons that i am still here.

Comments

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

I'm kind of of two minds about this. On the one hand, I think the Maclean's case is ridiculous. On the other hand, I do think true hate speech--that which is used specifically to incite either violence or direct discrimination against an otherwise-protected group--ought to be restricted.

There are some legal provisions for this already, such as those used in the Mulugeta Seraw case, but I'd extend them to include incitements to otherwise-illegal discrimination as well as incitements to violence. Encouraging someone to break the law doesn't seem to me to be protected speech.

[ironymaiden]

Encouraging someone to break the law doesn't seem to me to be protected speech.

i have no problem with encouraging people to break the law.

speech is protected. acting on it is not.

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

It's already illegal, however, to ask someone to commit a crime for you. Would you change that? If not, why not? Why should it be illegal for someone to hire a contract killer and not for a white supremacist to rally his troops to beat people to death?

strong words from a canadian

[buhrger]

not going to argue with you on that one. free speech ftw.

stephen colbert is my master now

[pixxelpuss.livejournal.com]

Agreed on both fronts.

[mimerki.livejournal.com]

Encouraging someone to break the law doesn't seem to me to be protected speech.

Which law? Where? To what extent? What precisely constitutes encouragement? Because based on your statement here, my family's long-standing joke on particularly boring afternoons, "We could go knock over a liquor store," should be banned speech. We are, after all, suggesting that it would be a great family bonding exercise to go commit armed robbery. The fact that we all know that we will actually spend that afternoon playing increasingly cut-throat games of cards is beside the point.

Similarly, what if the law one is verbally encouraging another to break is unjust? It seems to me that people doing just that were once called things like the Abolitionist movement.

The reason we must protect all free speech is that otherwise we cannot guarantee who will get to pick which speech is free. I'm glad there were Abolitionists encouraging slaves to run away, and if that means some people get to say things I think are wrong? That's okay. Because we have other laws in place for people who actually commit acts of violence.

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

Point taken.

However, if the restrictions were very narrow, as with the law in Canada, which is solely about protected classes, and limited specifically to incitements to violence, that would get around the majority of those concerns.

Additionally, people who engage in civil disobedience do so knowing full well that they will still be subject to prosecution for breaking the law. Protesting an unjust law in unlawful ways still comes with consequences. And, I would argue, if it didn't, the protests themselves likely wouldn't get very much attention.

Freedom of speech isn't an absolute anyway. Never has been, and a lot of folks don't really get that. One isn't free to commit perjury, for instance. Or to defame someone. Or to infringe copyright or trademark. And though the government cannot limit the content of protected speech, it can still limit time, place and manner. And private citizens can limit speech all they want. The owner of the corner pub is well within her rights to toss out a patron who's saying something she doesn't like.

I'm a Constitution junkie in a lot of ways, and am especially enamored of the First Amendment (being a journalist, I kind of have to be.) But I still acknowledge that there are plenty of restrictions on behavior--including speech--that are well within Constitutional limits. I think hate speech laws limited as above would be within those limits.

[sinthrex.livejournal.com]

I think it falls on it's face at "protected classes". You want to make incitement to violence illegal, fine. It already is. You want to make incitement to violence against me ok and my gay friend not -> fail.

Never mind the enforcement issues.

[mimerki.livejournal.com]

However, if the restrictions were very narrow, as with the law in Canada, which is solely about protected classes, and limited specifically to incitements to violence, that would get around the majority of those concerns.

Protected classes is pretty much anathema to everything I think my country should stand for. Everyone is equal under the law, and that means people can say things I personally disagree with. Yes, there are laws covering threats and incitement to violence, and that's okay. But when we start talking about "stirring up hatred" it starts to sound like McCarthyism to me.

[e-bourne.livejournal.com]

I read this with extreme interest earlier today.

One of my coworkers grew up with death threats because her father performed abortions in a small town. Because of her experience, and because of what we do for a living, we have wrestled with what this means.

This is what I believe. Anyone has the right to say anything, short of inciting violence against a specific person or class or persons.

Any other person has the right to as vociferously disagree with them however they would like, short of inciting violence against a person or class of persons.

You have the right to say you believe someone is bad or wrong. You do not have the right to say someone or some class of people should die for their beliefs or for who they are.

For example, I believe Hitler is wrong and bad. I do not have the right to say Hitler should die for being wrong and bad, regardless of how I believe.

Someone else is perfectly within their rights to say I'm a femiliberal butch slag for saying Hitler is bad. I'm actually quite cool with that.

The freedom to say what you believe is incredibly precious and unique. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall said, I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I lived in Canada. I still have Canadian status. Canada is not like the US, which both we and they sometimes forget.

[ironymaiden]

others have pretty much covered what i would have said if i had been online earlier.

[sinthrex.livejournal.com]

The issue appears to be far more one of enforcement and public perception. As written, the solicitation statues can clearly cover public speaking that incites violence against people.

But for some reason, a crank standing on a box inciting skinheads to kill people doesn't get prosecuted, but if I asked a buddy of mine to kill a guy, I'd be charged with solicitation (and maybe attemped murder, the standards vary).

So in a way of putting it, the laws aren't necessarily broken. We are.

Re: strong words from a canadian

[ironymaiden]

that was beautiful. i tried to watch it a second time, but by then Viacom had yanked it. *sigh*

[buhrger]

i'm surprised it took that long. it went up a few days ago. it'll be up on the network's site at some point i assume.

[e-bourne.livejournal.com]

Laws change every day, and they are not black and white, for which I am grateful. The law says don't kill, but it also says, did you intend to kill them, did you accidently kill them, did you help to kill them, did you try to save them when you accidently killed them, were you crazy, did they try and kill you first, were they trying to hurt someone around you, and it goes on and on.

In your particular instance, the crank on the box has no standing. They are may be crazy. They are unlikely to cause a person to carry out their request. You are more likely to cause a buddy to carry out your request if you seriously solicit them to kill someone. You have standing with your buddy and we'll assume you're not crazy; you actually want someone dead. Big difference.

Once liklihood that you actually caused someone to be killed is ascertained, you can then (depending on your attorney) go before a judge and jury who will try and puzzle out the facts and intent behind the crime. There's a tremendous amount of gray area there. Very little is black and white in a court of law.

Even as I wrote this, the law changed. Somewhere, some ruling was determined that made a new citation that minutely changed precedent that changed the law.

It makes it complicated. It makes a lot of gray. It keeps the discussion going.