What does it say about your policies when a*******es like these approve of them?


Bill C-304: Hate Speech Clause's Repeal Gives White Supremacists Rare Moment Of Glee (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08/bill-c-304-hate-speech-tories_n_1581437.html?ref=canada)

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/638579/thumbs/r-BILL-C304-HATE-SPEECH-CANADA-large570.jpg (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08/bill-c-304-hate-speech-tories_n_1581437.html?ref=canada)

A Conservative private members’ bill that repeals part of Canada’s hate speech laws has passed the House of Commons with scant media attention, and even less commentary. But it's being cheered by many Canadian conservatives as a victory for freedom of speech. And it's being cheered most vocally by another group: White supremacists....all the opposition parties voted against the private members’ bill in Parliament Thursday, with NDP public safety critic Randall Garrison arguing that it would now be much harder to prevent hate speech online.

“We do have a serious problem,” Garrison told the National Post. “If you take away the power to take (websites) down, it’s not clear they have any mandate to even to talk to people about it and educate them about it.”

(HuffingtonPost (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08/bill-c-304-hate-speech-tories_n_1581437.html?ref=canada))

In order to enjoy true freedom of speech, we must also support the free speech of people with repulsive ideas--even White Supremacists, even Black Supremacists. Those who fold up like yesterday's daffodils when the concept includes ideas that we despise don't deserve the protection of free speech at all.

"The freedom of speech which demands protection is the freedom of speech with which you do not agree."
– Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Kind of like "Only the true messiah would deny his divinity." :clap:

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” ― Noam Chomsky

.

Freedom of speech and Hate speech are two completely different things.

Hate speech is designed to incite violence and prejudice towards a race, color, ethnicity etc..

It should be squashed and stamped on at the very first sign of it.

There is absolutely no "freedom" in hate speech. Any group that calls for violence and prejudice towards another group should be shut down.

Freedom of speech and Hate speech are two completely different things.

Hate speech is designed to incite violence and prejudice towards a race, color, ethnicity etc..

It should be squashed and stamped on at the very first sign of it.

There is absolutely no "freedom" in hate speech. Any group that calls for violence and prejudice towards another group should be shut down.

You believe in freedom, then, but only for some people and only for some ideas. In which case, you don't believe in free speech at all. Too messy to be free. Too dangerous to allow the free exchange of ideas in the marketplace of ideas.

The right to engage in "safe speech" must first be filtered through your dictatorial sensibilities.

So-called "hate speech" (what a pathetic piece of Orwellian terminology) should be driven out by better ideas, not government agents.

.

The problem is just where exactly to draw the line. What one group thinks should be silenced, another group thinks should be spoken.

And soon, you will find yourself silenced.

.

You believe in freedom, then, but only for some people and only for some ideas. In which case, you don't believe in free speech at all. Too messy to be free. Too dangerous to allow the free exchange of ideas in the marketplace of ideas.

The right to engage in "safe speech" must first be filtered through your dictatorial sensibilities.

So-called "hate speech" (what a pathetic piece of Orwellian terminology) should be driven out by better ideas, not government agents.

I believe in freedom for all people. I believe no group should be victim to another group who are saying things trying to incite violence against them.

In order to enjoy true freedom of speech, we must also support the free speech of people with repulsive ideas--even White Supremacists, even Black Supremacists. Those who fold up like yesterday's daffodils when the concept includes ideas that we despise don't deserve the protection of free speech at all.

"The freedom of speech which demands protection is the freedom of speech with which you do not agree."
– Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Kind of like "Only the true messiah would deny his divinity." :clap:

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” ― Noam Chomsky

How very true. "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" Voltaire.

Paix, mes amis.

.

.

Yet on ehMac as of late, it has become frowned upon or unacceptable to use terms such as OGL etc. in reference to the PM/ PMO etc.

Interesting.

Freedom of speech and Hate speech are two completely different things.

Hate speech is designed to incite violence and prejudice towards a race, color, ethnicity etc..

It should be squashed and stamped on at the very first sign of it.

There is absolutely no "freedom" in hate speech. Any group that calls for violence and prejudice towards another group should be shut down.

I am afraid my opinion is different from yours Mr. Mayor. I agree with MacFury here. Freedom of speech is not selective. I do not condone hate speech, but I support the right of hate-speech to survive, just as I support the right of any other speech to survive.

Everyone has and should have the right to express their opinions, irrespective of whether that opinion is acceptable to others or not.

Right and Wrong are not absolute, they are, at best, a matter of opinion.

Cheers

In Poland, yesterday Holland was warming up and some people in the stands started making monkey and jungle sounds at the black Dutch players. By your saying, these people should have full right to do that under the guise of free speech???

I call complete and utter BS. There are a million scenarios in which many of you above would condemn people for what they are saying and say they should be stopped. There is no such thing as absolute free speech, it's a ridiculous fantasy in your mind that would crumble a thousand different instances. You're making comments behind a keyboard, but there are so many instances and scenarios that if they happened in real life to affect you personally in respects to personal safety for you or your family, you'd throw your lofty free speech ideals out the window in a second.

What if a pedophile wanted to talk to your children about explicit sexual things he would want to do to them?

What if a white supremacist started talking to your elderly parents and tell them, they should be killed because of their ethnicity?

What if Hell's angels wanted to have a parade on your street with signs that everyone on that block should support their drug trading or that they might get killed?

Hey, free speech! If you don't let them, you don't believe in free speech at all. Come on man, stop with the dictatorial tendencies.

Give. Me. A. Break.

In Poland, yesterday Holland was warming up and some people in the stands started making monkey and jungle sounds at the black Dutch players. By your saying, these people should have full right to do that under the guise of free speech???

Who owns the stands? They have a right to impose behavioural controls on those who enter freely into them of their own free will--or not.

Take a look at the response in the real life incident:
Two Netherlands players, Mark van Bommel and Ibrahim Afellay, were quoted Thursday as saying that members of the Dutch squad were taunted with racist chanting by a group of spectators at an open training session.

"We heard it because we were jogging right by the stands,'' (Netherlands) team captain (Mark) Van Bommel said.

The Dutch soccer federation didn't file a complaint to European soccer's governing body. UEFA said Friday it had been informed there were "isolated incidents of racist chanting'' and it will take action if there is a repeat of such abuse.

............

Such was the disgust among players that they moved to the other side of the field.

"We will not accept that one of us is confronted with monkey chants,'' Van Bommel said in Friday's edition of De Telegraaf. "We will point it out to the referee and if such chants are heard again we will ask him to intervene.''

............

...referees will stop matches if players are subjected to racist abuse. But he also warned players they would be shown a yellow card if they acted alone by walking off the field.

"UEFA has a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to discriminatory behavior and has given the power to referees to stop matches in case of any repeated racist behavior,'' UEFA said Friday.

Dutch team hears racist chants at Euro practice - - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/soccer/wires/06/08/2050.ap.soc.euro.2012.netherlands.racism.2nd.ld.wr itethru.0971/index.html#ixzz1xHEM2hsq)

Also:
The practice came only hours after the team - which for decades has reflected the nation's multicultural makeup - made solemn visits to the former Auschwitz-Birkenau death camps close to Krakow.

Having visited this important historical site of appalling tragedy, perhaps the team's very minimalist responses to the jeering shows they understand the dangerous results of undermining the rights and freedom of others.

I call complete and utter BS. There are a million scenarios in which many of you above would condemn people for what they are saying and say they should be stopped. There is no such thing as absolute free speech, it's a ridiculous fantasy in your mind that would crumble a thousand different instances. You're making comments behind a keyboard, but there are so many instances and scenarios that if they happened in real life to affect you personally in respects to personal safety for you or your family, you'd throw your lofty free speech ideals out the window in a second.


You din't understand ideals then--or the people who really believe in and maintain them.

IWhat if a pedophile wanted to talk to your children about explicit sexual things he would want to do to them?

Then we would arrest him for threatening our children with an illegal act--not for violating any notion of free speech.

IWhat if a white supremacist started talking to your elderly parents and tell them, they should be killed because of their ethnicity?

Then he should be arrested for threatening to kill them. Or if he did so repeatedly against the wishes of my parents, he could be arrested for harassment... but not free speech.

What if Hell's angels wanted to have a parade on your street with signs that everyone on that block should support their drug trading or that they might get killed?

Then they should be arrested for threatening to kill the people on my street--not speaking freely.


Hey, free speech! If you don't let them, you don't believe in free speech at all. Come on man, stop with the dictatorial tendencies.

These examples only represent a conundrum to those who don't really believe in free speech in the first place.

Give. Me. A. Break.

Amen.

OMG!!!!! Will you guys get real, talk about myopia! Freedom of speech, as we interpret it is a cultural implant from the U.S. Constitution. So using that line of thought their Supreme Court ruled shouting Fire in a Cinema does not constitute an act of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a higher level concept that supports the right of an individual to have the right of expression..... WITHIN CERTAIN BOUNDARIES...... Even the most capital C
conservative can understand the anything that promotes hate will lead to trouble.... Take a look at history... We most certainly do not need to have lessons of the past repeated.

I am afraid my opinion is different from yours Mr. Mayor. I agree with MacFury here. Freedom of speech is not selective. I do not condone hate speech, but I support the right of hate-speech to survive, just as I support the right of any other speech to survive.

Everyone has and should have the right to express their opinions, irrespective of whether that opinion is acceptable to others or not.

Right and Wrong are not absolute, they are, at best, a matter of opinion.

Cheers

I agree with tilt and others. Free speech cannot be limited by the personal beliefs of some. Free speech is either an absolute right, or it is no longer free.

I agree with tilt and others. Free speech cannot be limited by the personal beliefs of some. Free speech is either an absolute right, or it is no longer free.

Well put, John Clay. I especially liked Macfury's point that "Having visited this important historical site of appalling tragedy, perhaps the team's very minimalist responses to the jeering shows they understand the dangerous results of undermining the rights and freedom of others." Very true.

I personally believe in freedom of speech and expression, but with responsibility in that expression (e.g., the example of not calling out "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire). I have a difficult time with "hate speech", as described by tilt, but I think that, once again, Macfury makes the case as to is the speech the violation or the intent/act of doing harm that is at fault. At times, it is hard to distinguish between the two, but that is the price we pay to have this freedom of speech/thought/expression.

Paix, mes amis.

Who owns the stands? They have a right to impose behavioural controls on those who enter freely into them of their own free will--or not.

Take a look at the response in the real life incident:


Dutch team hears racist chants at Euro practice - - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/soccer/wires/06/08/2050.ap.soc.euro.2012.netherlands.racism.2nd.ld.wr itethru.0971/index.html#ixzz1xHEM2hsq)

Also:


Having visited this important historical site of appalling tragedy, perhaps the team's very minimalist responses to the jeering shows they understand the dangerous results of undermining the rights and freedom of others.



You din't understand ideals then--or the people who really believe in and maintain them.



Then we would arrest him for threatening our children with an illegal act--not for violating any notion of free speech.



Then he should be arrested for threatening to kill them. Or if he did so repeatedly against the wishes of my parents, he could be arrested for harassment... but not free speech.



Then they should be arrested for threatening to kill the people on my street--not speaking freely.



These examples only represent a conundrum to those who don't really believe in free speech in the first place.



Amen.


Well your comments on the Dutch team are far off, suggesting it "shows they understand the dangerous results of undermining the rights and freedom of others". The Dutch team, UEAFA, all parties involved from top to bottom want that stamped out. Period. So much so, that they'll leave the field during a live match watched by hundreds of millions of people with tens of Billions of dollars in TV rights and ad revenues. What are they supposed to do, jump up into the stands and start fighting them, or during a warm-up, start shouting back at them?

It couldn't be any more clear that they don't think these racists should have any "free speech" rights, regardless who owns the venues as you suggest. The same rules would apply if those people did it when Holland was coming off the bus on a public street. EUFA will cancel matches, fine teams and players, and fans can and have been arrested. The only reason for the tranquil approach is the size and magnitude of this tournament. If this was an international friendly match, the reaction would of been swift and immediate.

My examples, you say they have nothing to do with free speech. You're completely missing it then. How are the examples any different than other examples of Hate speech? They haven't done anything, they are just saying words on what they think should be done. It's no different than the KKK or a group of white skinheads having a march in your neighbourhood with signs saying that they think black people should be hung by a noose. That's hate speech, the threat or the inciting of violence etc.. to another group or individual.

Words are precursors to actions.

Some people in today's society think there's no harm in a hundred or so white fascist having a little rally in some suburban corner of Canada with a group of police controlling the crowd. Hey, free speech, their right. They only say that because it's only a hundred or so, in a suburban corner of Canada, with many police controlling the parade.

But what happens if the climate changes, something or some event sparks outrage, and now the hundreds becomes thousands and tens of thousands?

I think there should always be intolerance to intolerance. To not have the ability where some people can use free speech and their human rights to undermine the human rights of others. There will always be bullies who want that right and who will want to warp the idea of free speech to suit their needs.

There should not have been free speech for Hitler and the Nazi Party in Germany in the 1920s. With speech and words, they grew in strength and influence. They were allowed the opportunity to propagandize, gain respectability and enter the political mainstream. The Dutch team understands that all to well. The day after visiting aushwitz, they were reminded again why that kind of hate speech and intolerance to members of our society should never be tolerated or protected under the guise of free speech.

I'm certainly not "up" on the issue of "free" speech in Canada (and we do need to make a distinction between "free" and "hate" here, which some commenters appear to not understand).

In reading this article at the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08/bill-c-304-hate-speech-tories_n_1581437.html), the following comment caught my attention:

Turdinthepunchbowl

11 hours ago (11:14 PM)

The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has been the subject of much mythology from the right. For example, most of the claims made by Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn (who both make a living off telling half-truths about the CHRC) are mostly provable nonsense.

For example, Levant often states that the CHRC Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate. He tells you half the story. As provided by Prof Moon of University of Windsor Faculty of Law exposes Levant and his half-truths. Between 2001-2008 there were 73 complaints filed under section 13 of the CHRC. This doesn't include the many vexatious and ridiculous cases simply dismissed out of hand by the CHRC before proceeding.

Of these remaining 73, 32 were dismissed by the CHRC after investigation, while 10 more were resolved through mediation. This left 16 that resulted in conviction by TRIBUNAL of the CHRC. This is where Levant claims a 100% conviction rate for the CHRC TRIBUNAL, when the vast majority are dismissed even prior to getting to this stage. Again, a Levant half-truth.

What's more, the vast majority of complaints brought before the CHRC are for claims of discrimination based on disability (access for wheelchair bound people to a restaurant). So Levant and his co-conspirator-consipracy-advocate Mark Steyn are really huge tellers of half-truths and in some cases outright lies about the CHRC. If I am telling an untruth sue me Levant and Steyn.

No great surprise to see Levant's name pop up here...

OMG!!!!! Will you guys get real, talk about myopia! Freedom of speech, as we interpret it is a cultural implant from the U.S. Constitution. So using that line of thought their Supreme Court ruled shouting Fire in a Cinema does not constitute an act of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a higher level concept that supports the right of an individual to have the right of expression..... WITHIN CERTAIN BOUNDARIES......

In fact the notion of falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre is attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes. The issue at hand was whether one could distribute pamphlets opposing a military draft during World War One. It was likened to to the theatre scenario and it thus was ruled that protesting the draft was to be prohibited and did NOT to constitute free speech. If you accept the crowded theatre limitation, then you also accept that the real issue behind it--protesting a war during a war--is not permissible.

Holmes later changed his mind on this issue.

Well your comments on the Dutch team are far off, suggesting it "shows they understand the dangerous results of undermining the rights and freedom of others". The Dutch team, UEAFA, all parties involved from top to bottom want that stamped out. Period. So much so, that they'll leave the field during a live match watched by hundreds of millions of people with tens of Billions of dollars in TV rights and ad revenues. What are they supposed to do, jump up into the stands and start fighting them, or during a warm-up, start shouting back at them?

It couldn't be any more clear that they don't think these racists should have any "free speech" rights, regardless who owns the venues as you suggest. The same rules would apply if those people did it when Holland was coming off the bus on a public street. EUFA will cancel matches, fine teams and players, and fans can and have been arrested. The only reason for the tranquil approach is the size and magnitude of this tournament. If this was an international friendly match, the reaction would of been swift and immediate.

In fact they will leave the field to protest the speech, should it occur. They are battling the idea with their free right to protest the idea. Not to muzzle the perpetrators. I applaud them for this.

My examples, you say they have nothing to do with free speech. You're completely missing it then. How are the examples any different than other examples of Hate speech? They haven't done anything, they are just saying words on what they think should be done. It's no different than the KKK or a group of white skinheads having a march in your neighbourhood with signs saying that they think black people should be hung by a noose. That's hate speech, the threat or the inciting of violence etc.. to another group or individual.

It's you who are missing the point. If I promise to kill you, then I am not being arrested for any kind of speech. I am being arrested because I intend to kill you. In each of your examples you've thrown in an explicit threat of violence to try to juice your argument. Your argument fails because of it. If a group of people say they believe the white race is supreme, so be it. If they march down the street promising to kill other races, they should be arrested for threatening to kill members of other races--not because they hate them.

Some people in today's society think there's no harm in a hundred or so white fascist having a little rally in some suburban corner of Canada with a group of police controlling the crowd. Hey, free speech, their right. They only say that because it's only a hundred or so, in a suburban corner of Canada, with many police controlling the parade.

Exactly.

But what happens if the climate changes, something or some event sparks outrage, and now the hundreds becomes thousands and tens of thousands?


If the climate changes and there are widespread riots of hundreds of thousands, you're going to invoke a ban on hate speech? Please....

I think there should always be intolerance to intolerance. To not have the ability where some people can use free speech and their human rights to undermine the human rights of others. There will always be bullies who want that right and who will want to warp the idea of free speech to suit their needs.

Which human right is being violated by saying you hate someone or something?

There should not have been free speech for Hitler and the Nazi Party in Germany in the 1920s. With speech and words, they grew in strength and influence. They were allowed the opportunity to propagandize, gain respectability and enter the political mainstream.

So you are suggesting that we should outlaw political parties and control their ability to speak freely because of their potential to do damage? Nip them in the bud so to speak? Who better to do that than the party currently in power. We have Mulcair talking about threatening the energy security of Canada with his attacks on the Oil Sands--perhaps we should muzzle him right now? The PQ supports language policing? Let's make THEM illegal before these ideas get out of hand.

The Dutch team understands that all to well. The day after visiting aushwitz, they were reminded again why that kind of hate speech and intolerance to members of our society should never be tolerated or protected under the guise of free speech.

You are trivializing Auschwitz, if you believe it is a horrible monument to political freedom.

I was under the impression that the Libertarians believe in freedom, up to the point, of harm to others.

Words can be very hurtful and harmful to the listener. Therefore, there can be no absolute to freedom of speech, there are limits because of the effects on others.

I was under the impression that the Libertarians believe in freedom, up to the point, of harm to others.

Words can be very hurtful and harmful to the listener. Therefore, there can be no absolute to freedom of speech, there are limits because of the effects on others.

These are the views of the Canadian Libertarian Party re freedom of speech.

Individual Rights | | Libertarian Party of CanadaLibertarian Party of Canada (http://www.libertarian.ca/individual-rights/)

This is the US Libertarian Party's stand of the freedom of speech.

Freedom of Speech | Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/issues/freedom-of-speech)

I was under the impression that the Libertarians believe in freedom, up to the point, of harm to others.

Words can be very hurtful and harmful to the listener. Therefore, there can be no absolute to freedom of speech, there are limits because of the effects on others.

You are under the wrong impression. The subjective hurt feelings and unhappiness of the listener do not constitute "harm" in these definitions. The limit to freedom you describe involves a tyranny of the public's subjective feelings on the use of each and every word.

In fact they will leave the field to protest the speech, should it occur. They are battling the idea with their free right to protest the idea. Not to muzzle the perpetrators. I applaud them for this.



It's you who are missing the point. If I promise to kill you, then I am not being arrested for any kind of speech. I am being arrested because I intend to kill you. In each of your examples you've thrown in an explicit threat of violence to try to juice your argument. Your argument fails because of it. If a group of people say they believe the white race is supreme, so be it. If they march down the street promising to kill other races, they should be arrested for threatening to kill members of other races--not because they hate them.



Exactly.



If the climate changes and there are widespread riots of hundreds of thousands, you're going to invoke a ban on hate speech? Please....



Which human right is being violated by saying you hate someone or something?



So you are suggesting that we should outlaw political parties and control their ability to speak freely because of their potential to do damage? Nip them in the bud so to speak? Who better to do that than the party currently in power. We have Mulcair talking about threatening the energy security of Canada with his attacks on the Oil Sands--perhaps we should muzzle him right now? The PQ supports language policing? Let's make THEM illegal before these ideas get out of hand.



You are trivializing Auschwitz, if you believe it is a horrible monument to political freedom.

I'm trivializing Auschwitz? I believe it is a horrible monument to political freedom??? You think the Dutch team wants some fans to have the right to make monkey noises at their black players? You think hate speech is just saying things that "aren't nice". These are ridiculous conclusions.

With free speech, yes, you are free to say these things. You are free to not have a clue what hate speech / hate propaganda is, in that yes, they contain very explicit threats of violence and wanting genocide of the group that they hate.

Interesting that a rugged individualist can't see the difference between hating a person, which is perfectly legal and hating a person because that person is a member of an identifiable group and against the law.

When the hatred is based solely upon that person being a member of that identifiable group this act of freedom harms another person(s).

You think the Dutch team wants some fans to have the right to make monkey noises at their black players?

I can't speak for the team as a whole, but I suspect, from their measured responses, that they accept their right to make a "monkey noise"--and wish wholeheartedly for this to stop.

You think hate speech is just saying things that "aren't nice". These are ridiculous conclusions.

No. Hate speech is appalling. Still, I will defend the right of people hate others, no matter how difficult that is for me. This is a difficult test of democracy--to defend free speech for those you disagree vehemently with. I will not, however, defend the infliction of violence.

With free speech, yes, you are free to say these things. You are free to not have a clue what hate speech / hate propaganda is, in that yes, they contain very explicit threats of violence and wanting genocide of the group that they hate.

If they say they will kill or hang somebody, then this is the promise to commit a crime of violence. We have laws for that already. It is not a free speech issue. You continue to attempt to couple free speech with an implicit promise to kill, maim or hang somebody--this is weak reasoning.

Interesting that a rugged individualist can't see the difference between hating a person, which is perfectly legal and hating a person because that person is a member of an identifiable group and against the law.

When the hatred is based solely upon that person being a member of that identifiable group this act of freedom harms another person(s).

No. Harming people harms them. Hating them--no matter how reprehensible the hatred is, or how specific that hatred is--does not.

I can't speak for the team as a whole, but I suspect, from their measured responses, that they accept their right to make a "monkey noise"--and wish wholeheartedly for this to stop.



No. Hate speech is appalling. Still, I will defend the right of people hate others, no matter how difficult that is for me. This is a difficult test of democracy--to defend free speech for those you disagree vehemently with. I will not, however, defend the infliction of violence.



If they say they will kill or hang somebody, then this is the promise to commit a crime of violence. We have laws for that already. It is not a free speech issue. You continue to attempt to couple free speech with an implicit promise to kill, maim or hang somebody--this is weak reasoning.



No. Harming people harms them. Hating them--no matter how reprehensible the hatred is, or how specific that hatred is--does not.

Macfury, I agree with all four of your points. Well said, mon ami. Paix.

Have to say that MF is dead right on all counts. That is the reality, missed by others who may be allowing emotion to rule their opinions.

Have to say that MF is dead right on all counts. That is the reality, missed by others who may be allowing emotion to rule their opinions.

Agreed, Sinc. Still, it makes my blood boil when I listen to the rants of neo-nazis or Holocaust deniers. However, that is the price I pay for being a Canadian and living in a society that recognizes that they are free to rant their hatred so long as it does not incite others to do violence against individuals or groups of people. Paix, mon ami.

I, like you Dr. G., have no use for those kind, but do not dispute their right to express contrary views in a free society as long as it is done peacefully without threats or violence.

I, like you Dr. G., have no use for those kind, but do not dispute their right to express contrary views in a free society as long as it is done peacefully without threats or violence.

Well, I see their point, Sinc, but I still feel that regardless of my concerns, I would rather have the right to express my views freely if it means letting others express their views as well.

Paix, mon ami.

I am not convinced. Don't we give up some rights as a part of being a member of an organized society (as opposed to an every-man-for-himself anarchy)? We give up these freedoms in order to live longer, safer lives; to protect minority groups; to manage risk, and other benefits I am sure...

It would be perfectly reasonable for a society to hold its members to speaking responsibly and respectfully; or at least to hold some subjects as being off-limits, like child porn and libel. I can picture 'hate' crimes falling into this category.

I don't know, maybe I am getting confused between hateful and inciteful behavior. However, if it is confusing for me, imagine how our children are supposed to make sense of the hateful rants of a white supremacist high-school instructor?

It seems a grey area that might benefit from some policy or legislation.

I am not convinced. Don't we give up some rights as a part of being a member of an organized society (as opposed to an every-man-for-himself anarchy)? We give up these freedoms in order to live longer, safer lives; to protect minority groups; to manage risk, and other benefits I am sure...

The beauty is that you can give these up yourself, without waiting for others to do it.

It would be perfectly reasonable for a society to hold its members to speaking responsibly and respectfully; or at least to hold some subjects as being off-limits, like child porn and libel. I can picture 'hate' crimes falling into this category.

Speaking about child porn is not against the law. Libel involves proof of damages. You are free to say what you want, but if you have libeled someone, you may be forced to pay damages for what you have said.

I don't know, maybe I am getting confused between hateful and inciteful behavior. However, if it is confusing for me, imagine how our children are supposed to make sense of the hateful rants of a white supremacist high-school instructor?

School boards have made such decisions all along, determining what a teacher may do in public before it becomes impossible to employ them as effective teachers. While the teacher has a right to free speech, he or she does not have the right to be employed, regardless of what they do in their private lives.