In Canada freedom of speech and religion is against the law, sometimes.

[mossrose]

I don't think there's a court of law that is going to classify those sayings as hate speech. If they're going to do anything, they might classify a particular speech using such a phrase in a certain way, as hate speech depending on context. I can imagine some circumstances where I agree that a use of it would be hate speech, but in and of itself, it isn't.

The Supreme Court of Canada has classified the Bible as hate speech. So there you go.

http://culturecampaign.blogspot.ca/2...speech-in.html

[firstfloor]

The Supreme Court of Canada has classified the Bible as hate speech. So there you go.

http://culturecampaign.blogspot.ca/2...speech-in.html

Rubbish. What the judgement actually says is “In other words, the Biblical passage which suggests that if a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to hatred.”

[mossrose]

Rubbish. What the judgement actually says is “In other words, the Biblical passage which suggests that if a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to hatred.”

Perhaps you missed this bit at the beginning, ff.

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that citizens are NOT free to quote the Bible regarding the sin of homosexual behavior. Bill Whatcott's pamphlets (from 2001) using the word "sodomites," and criticizing the Gay Agenda in public schools, were deemed to incite hatred against homosexual people.

Regardless, I won't change your mind, and you won't change mine. Carry on on your way to destruction, but please leave me behind.

[firstfloor]

Perhaps you missed this bit at the beginning, ff.

That is not in the actual decision. That is religious hysteria.

[Starlight]

The Supreme Court of Canada has classified the Bible as hate speech.

If they were to rule that Bibles are not permitted to be published, sold, and distributed within Canada due to the hate-speech content... that would be them classifying the Bible as hate speech. They haven't done that. I think your statement is misleading because it implies that that's the sort of thing they've done - that they've deemed the bible as a whole to be hate speech (they haven't). This is what FF is getting at - you're presenting what they've done as if it were much broader than it really is.

What they've said is that selectively citing particularly anti-gay bits of the bible can qualify as hate speech.

[Joel]

If a Muslim called for the death of all Christians, and published selected verses from the Quran in a newspaper ad that said a variety of nasty things about Christians including saying God commands their death, would that be hate speech in your opinion? Would you want that to be legal?

Yes, it should be legal.

Would you be happy with Muslim clerics in California calling for Jihad? Would you be happy if they held a rally at the 9/11 site calling for repeats of it?

If free speech is not about protecting even speech that you are not happy with, it is nothing.

Even the US has laws against slander and libel (not quite sure how you guys do the mental gymnastics of pretending those are constitutional).

They should be repealed.

[Adam]

As I think I said before eventually, Joel is a troll, just daring us to respond to outrageous posts.

[thewriteranon]

As I think I said before eventually, Joel is a troll, just daring us to respond to outrageous posts.

??? I agree with him. It's a libertarian perspective, which is a minority but certainly not unheard of.

[Adam]

Yes, but he carries Libertarianism to such extremes (even anarchy) that it seems he is shoving it in our faces. He figures his best defense (since he has none) if a more vigorous offense. That's where he becomes a troll. He's shouting us down.
I used to be a libertarian myself. That's how I now his responses are beyond the pale.

[thewriteranon]

Yes, but he carries Libertarianism to such extremes (even anarchy) that it seems he is shoving it in our faces. He figures his best defense (since he has none) if a more vigorous offense. That's where he becomes a troll. He's shouting us down.
I used to be a libertarian myself. That's how I now his responses are beyond the pale.

Lol. Joel doesn't seem radical at all to me.

[Joel]

As I think I said before eventually, Joel is a troll, just daring us to respond to outrageous posts.

What's outrageous about my post? I was surprised that only one other person so far in the thread answered yes to the question. It's crazy how illiberal "liberals" have become these days. They used to defend freedom of speech.

It should be obvious that protecting (as legal) only speech that you are happy with is actually the opposite of freedom of speech.


The only part of my post that could be expected to be somewhat controversial (though I wouldn't think "outrageous") would be my opposition to slander/libel laws, which was not the most important part of my post. (Though it is a position I think follows from careful reflection of the nature and history of such laws.) You can ignore that part of my post if it makes you feel better.

[Adam]

Joel,
If your views are really simple libertarianism, please cite references for your more outrageous claims. I don't think any reputable libertarian would agree with you. Or if they do, I will know whom to disdain. Libertarians, not anarchists--you're giving libertarianism a bad name.

[Starlight]

If free speech is not about protecting even speech that you are not happy with, it is nothing.

I feel like that misses the point.

The importance of "free speech" IMO is about one's ability to freely express opinions that are critical of those in power. It is about being able to say in public that you don't like Obama. It is about the media being able to print a headline saying that Obama's policies on drone-strikes is wrong. It's importance hence stems from the fact that we have a democracy: In a democracy it is essential to be able to openly discuss your views of the current political leaders and their actions, without fear of them punishing you for it. (Historically, it was this notion of free political speech that motivated Madison to put the freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the first amendment)

By contrast, countries like Russia and Turkey, where a person who publicly expresses negative opinions of their leaders can currently expect to be killed or imprisoned, lack freedom of speech. It's pretty hard to have a meaningfully functional democracy if people are not allowed to publicly express a negative opinion of their current leaders.

IMO, the importance of free political speech is rooted in the importance of having a properly functioning democracy. People must be able to express political opinions that their leaders dislike.

However, that doesn't mean that other types of speech shouldn't be prohibited. Where individuals are, through their words, causing harm to and impinging upon the freedoms of, other individuals, the state can legitimately interfere. Just as the state should prevent me enslaving you or stoning you to death, so too it should act in cases where my words are causing you serious harm (asking others to kill you, inciting violence against you, sexually harassing you, libel and slander etc).

[Joel]

Joel,
If your views are really simple libertarianism, please cite references for your more outrageous claims. I don't think any reputable libertarian would agree with you. Or if they do, I will know whom to disdain. Libertarians, not anarchists--you're giving libertarianism a bad name.

Again, what do you find outrageous in my post?

Or if you are talking about claims I've made in other threads, let's take it there or start a new thread (so we don't derail this thread) and I'd be glad to answer you there.

[Joel]

I feel like that misses the point.

The importance of "free speech" IMO is about one's ability to freely express opinions that are critical of those in power. It is about being able to say in public that you don't like Obama. It is about the media being able to print a headline saying that Obama's policies on drone-strikes is wrong. It's importance hence stems from the fact that we have a democracy: In a democracy it is essential to be able to openly discuss your views of the current political leaders and their actions, without fear of them punishing you for it. (Historically, it was this notion of free political speech that motivated Madison to put the freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the first amendment)

By contrast, countries like Russia and Turkey, where a person who publicly expresses negative opinions of their leaders can currently expect to be killed or imprisoned, lack freedom of speech. It's pretty hard to have a meaningfully functional democracy if people are not allowed to publicly express a negative opinion of their current leaders.

IMO, the importance of free political speech is rooted in the importance of having a properly functioning democracy. People must be able to express political opinions that their leaders dislike.

However, that doesn't mean that other types of speech shouldn't be prohibited. Where individuals are, through their words, causing harm to and impinging upon the freedoms of, other individuals, the state can legitimately interfere. Just as the state should prevent me enslaving you or stoning you to death, so too it should act in cases where my words are causing you serious harm (asking others to kill you, inciting violence against you, sexually harassing you, libel and slander etc).

Freedom of political speech is extremely important. But it's not the only reason freedom of speech has been recognized as important. Another important reason is the truth is more likely to prevail under conditions of freedom of speech. Even in the case of awful, hateful, bigoted speech (for example), it is diminished far more effectively by exposing it to the light of day than by suppression by law. Furthermore, defending your position, and suppressing your opponents, by the force of law only serves to discredit your own position. It indicates that your position cannot stand on its own merits of right reason but must be imposed on people by force. Sometimes these principles are referred to as the benefits of a "marketplace of ideas". They were advocated by John Milton and John Stuart Mill and many others, and have been a principle adhered to by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Consider, for example, how Galileo should have been free to challenge the scientific consensus of his day.

Consider Thomas Jefferson:

"The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg...Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error....They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only."
--Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVII,
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp

He goes on to use Galileo as an example as I did, and then continues:

"Descartes declared [the earth] was whirled round its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices. In fact, the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principle of gravitation is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in, and to make it an article of necessary faith. Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature.... Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth... We cannot effect [that people in error be "gathered into the fold of truth"] by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged;"

Others have defended a right to freedom of speech founded on the fact that your tongue is yours. As Thomas Gordon and John Trenchard (who were influential in the American colonies), pointed out, "where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing else his own" (http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/tr...-17-1721-lf-ed)

Here is a small portion of Mill's thorough arguments:

Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion [against free speech], either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
--John Stuart Mill, On Liberty http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/...ml#Chapter%202

The arguments, like those of Jefferson and Mill here, are strong arguments even against slander and libel laws.

Now, going back to your original questions: "If a Muslim called for the death of all Christians, and published selected verses from the Quran in a newspaper ad that said a variety of nasty things about Christians including saying God commands their death...Would you want that to be legal?" and "Would you be happy with Muslim clerics in California calling for Jihad? Would you be happy if they held a rally at the 9/11 site calling for repeats of it? Would you say "free speech, first amendment, it's all good"?"

My understanding is that saying those things is already legal in the U.S. The Supreme Court has held that merely advocating violence is not illegal incitement, and cannot be banned. The Court has even held that advocating violent overthrow of the government cannot be banned. Incitement has a higher standard of intent, imminence (clear and present), and likelihood. And even on this, other Justices, like Hugo Black and Douglas, have taken a stronger view that even the case of incitement is not supportable (or doesn't have a high enough bar), and has been used to dismiss many legitimate free speech claims.

Even the famous "falsely crying 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" exception has been generally criticized by free speech thinkers. The example originated from Justice Holmes, who later was convinced he was wrong. More recently Christopher Hitchens severely ridiculed the supposed exception.