LogFAQs > #885291633

Zeus posted...

Nice attempt to falsely conflate the issue to obfuscate the differences in a nation with actual free speech vs a heavily restricted one.

If you think Canada constitutes a nation where free speech is heavily restricted, you badly need to get out more.

Zeus posted...

tbh, leftist politics in a nutshell:


It's McCarthyism on crack.

...says the "left-leaning centrist".

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You are free to say what you want, you are not allowed to make threats. If the words you say in the given context give reason to believe your intents are threatening, you get punished based on your intents, not your words.

That can be said of all restrictions on free speech.

PyroBlade1985 posted...

OK T.C. serious post time.

I admit it, it sucks. There are hateful people out there with horrid views. But you need to accept that with freedom of speech.

You don't actually. Lots of places in the world stipulate that hate speech falls under the same category as threats or libel or slander - speech that is unacceptable and destructive and therefore banned. And, honestly, I don't really see anything wrong with that. I'm fine with the status quo, where bigots are allowed to air their views; but if the government decided tomorrow that it was banning discriminatory hate speech, I wouldn't be the slightest bit bothered.

See, from where I sit, there's a common misconception in the world (actually, mostly in America, but it does sometimes pop up elsewhere) today that Free Speech is meant to be end goal; this is not true. Free Speech is not an end, it is a means to a greater end. It is cherished and protected not because it is a great ideal on its own, but because it underpins so many more of our far more important rights - freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom to voice disagreement with the government without risking jail time. We have free speech because people decided that was the best way to support the flow of ideas and information, with the intended purpose of that flow being personal and cultural progress and improvement. But there's nothing anywhere that says that absolute unlimited freedom of speech is needed for that goal; certainly I agree that restrictions should be minimized and never implemented without very careful consideration, but if we conclude that certain ideas have no redeeming value and serve only to significantly impede or destroy progress, there is nothing saying those ideals cannot or should not be restricted.

And hate speech is just such an idea. Nothing constructive comes out of it, there is no glorious future or greater good at the end of that road. It is one of the rare ideas that is so completely and destructively wrong that I see absolutely nothing wrong with saying that it should be restricted.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!