Actually it is a RIGHT as well as an ability. You have NO right to be protected or otherwise shielded from things spoken which you are offended by or even damaged by. NONE what so ever.

You and I, him or her have the absolute right to say almost ANYTHING we want.

It is the ~most~ offensive speech which needs the heaviest protection from censorship. This is vital to the founding notions of every successful democratic endevour.

-bear

Lebell, I don't know about Canadian law but that could have happened here, as well, under existing law--regardless of hate crime legislation.

The offended parties could just as easily have taken the offending parties through civil legislation and pressed for damages.

Nizzle seems to be referring to criminal sanctions as opposed to civil mediation.

The founding notions of every successful democratic endeavor are to protect political speech.

Your view that you have an absolute right to say whatever you want is inaccurate according to well-founded law. I do have an absolute right to be protected or otherwise shielded from things spoken which I am offended by or even damaged by.

How do you explain your statement in light of libel and slander suits?

[edit] I should also add statutes banning "fighting words" and stupid or dangerous statements, such as, shouting "Fire" in a crowded theator or threatening to assassinate someone. [/edit]

Neither you nor JcL has addressed the parellel legal construct regarding flailing arms.

Do you believe I do not have a right to be protected from damage by your flailing arms?

Or do you think the government has a duty to limit one's right to flail his or her arms around to restrict the damage one might inflict on another citizen?

Yes, I was aware of all that.

You have absolutely ZERO rights or protections of the sort. ZERO.

Libel and slander both REQUIRE malice. Because it is said or written and you are offended by it does not require malice. This is a different discussion.

As far as quoting me inaccurately and declaring a view I do not possess, I clearly made exception for certain speech which is not protected. It has nothing, what-so-ever to do with the offense taken by an observer.

bear

btw...This isn't really my balli-wick. I'll keep out hence forth, and let you 'heavy-weights' intellectually duke it out.

Nonsense and nonsense.

We are not talking slander or libel here (which you are legally shielded from.)

We are talking about sincerely held religious beliefs that, when spoken, are offensive to others.

And THAT, you are NOT shielded from.

You don't think hate speech is motivated by malice?

Please answer the questions regarding harm versus protection in the parallel legal construction I presented.

My confusion in your response stems from the fact that you claim to be restricted in some of what you can say yet also claim that I have ZERO protection from your statements.

Which is it? The two statements are mutually exclusive--I either have some protection or you believe in an absolute right to say whatever you want.

How is my statement nonsense?

I claim that you don't have an absolute right to say whatever you want as evidenced by libel and slander laws.

That contradicts the claim that you can say whatever you want.

I assert that the law is well-founded in regards to my right to be protected from speech that is harmful to me. Please provide evidence to the contrary.

I said nothing of the sort.

You specifically said,

While you did not specify what you meant by "damaged by", I specifically said that you do not have the right to be shielded from speech that "offends" you.

If you meant that you have a right to be protected from slander, then I agree.

Key word there is almost. There are some things you could say about me that would be considered slander and I would certainly have legal protections.

I meant what I stated: that I have a right to be protected from speech that is harmful to me and the courts agree.

If I think that slander is harmful to me then I can sue you. If I think your hateful speech is harmful to me then I can sue you, as well. In both cases jurors will decide where the line between your freedom to say whatever you want and my freedom to not hear whatever I want should be distinguished.

And this is why I support tort reform.

Frivolous lawsuits are pariah as well as those who bring them.

I don't really have anything more to add at the moment, I think you guys have carried it on quite well, and I especially agree with the sentiments expressed above.

First off the idea that this bill will somehow label the bible hate literature is absurd.

Second off, i don't have a problem with gays whatsoever. Have met several, been to a few gay parties, even the odd bar. No big deal.

I find myself actually agreeing with most of what lebell is saying.

Mainly because i wonder who will decide what is hateful and what is not.

On the other hand, i disagree with Lebell in his assertion that the US doesn't engage in various forms of censorship.

I seem to recall one Marlon Brando who was vilified in the media for speaking out about how the jews run the media in the US and the movies and they have no problem portraying blacks as niggers, or mexicans as spicks but if you try and portray the jew as the kike then you will have any one of 10 jewish defence organisations all over you trying to get your ass thrown in jail.

.

Is your judicial process similar to ours?

In ours we select jury members from a pool of registered voters. This occurs in both civil and criminal cases. Our jurors have special rights and form the final check against our judicial system--their word is final through their ruling and an often unknown principle called jury nullification.

Jury nullification occurs when a jury believes the law was broken but that the law is immoral, unjust, being inappropriately applied, or for any other reason and returns a verdict of not-guilty despite the evidence.

Our structure is based on the premise that the people ultimately draw the lines of our social norms. The legislatures, judges, and police may implement regulations and enforcement but a juror's decision is unalterable--regardless of the law. It can not be appealed and can not be abrogated.

The shorter answer is that our peers will decide what is hateful or not.

Fuck the bible.

People are sheep and are too willing to sacrifice personal freedoms because of fear.

America uses the "reasonable adult in your community" standard to label things obscene. Obscenity is a crime, no one cares about that anymore. Even though the bible has some racy action in it, no one has moved to have it labeled an obscenity. Prolly cause most people would agree that calling the bible obscene is absurd. Same thing here, the idea that canada is going to outlaw the bible is preposterous.

The major difference here is that Brando wasn't sanctioned by the state... His voice was squashed by many of his peers and the public in general.