‹ First  < 11 12 13 14 > 
 
   
 

College students unclear about Free Speech - FIRE

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3431
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
10 August 2019 11:35
 
mapadofu - 10 August 2019 11:10 AM
icehorse - 10 August 2019 08:19 AM
mapadofu - 10 August 2019 08:02 AM

How about a process like this? Applicant applies for a permit to hold a speech/rally/march.  There is a public comment period.  If there are public objections, then the city council adjudicates whether the event should proceed.

Similar processes could be embodied at private institutions too.

I’d wager that most us of on this forum share similar values: Neo-Nazis are bad, transgender people should be supported, and so on. But what if some folks want to hold a transgender march in some highly conservative, highly religious town, and the townies vote the speech permit down?

Then their permit wouldn’t be issued.  From there people could mobilize politically, or turn to civil disobedience etc.

If you want to play the what if game there are corresponding abuses of an overly permissive stance on speech.


I’m not going to be able to put together something me perfect framework in this thread.  That’s why the law is complicated and multi-layered.  The main point is that there is a lot of options other than going straight to so called thought police.

(Okay, maybe not quite ready to bow out of this thread ... entirely.)

I agree that there are a lot of options, but ...

Towns don’t/shouldn’t have the ability to override anyone’s right to peaceful protest.  Permits are/should be given for peaceful marches to be held in public spaces (i.e. not neighbourhoods), with those opposed avoiding those spaces or counter-demonstrating.  The police’s job is to ensure it remains peaceful and arrest anyone only when violence is threatened and shut it down only when necessary to protect the public safety.

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7662
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 August 2019 11:36
 
mapadofu - 10 August 2019 11:10 AM
icehorse - 10 August 2019 08:19 AM
mapadofu - 10 August 2019 08:02 AM

How about a process like this? Applicant applies for a permit to hold a speech/rally/march.  There is a public comment period.  If there are public objections, then the city council adjudicates whether the event should proceed.

Similar processes could be embodied at private institutions too.

I’d wager that most us of on this forum share similar values: Neo-Nazis are bad, transgender people should be supported, and so on. But what if some folks want to hold a transgender march in some highly conservative, highly religious town, and the townies vote the speech permit down?

Then their permit wouldn’t be issued.  From there people could mobilize politically, or turn to civil disobedience etc.

If you want to play the what if game there are corresponding abuses of an overly permissive stance on speech.


I’m not going to be able to put together something me perfect framework in this thread.  That’s why the law is complicated and multi-layered.  The main point is that there is a lot of options other than going straight to so called thought police.

I’ll get back to an earlier question that I believe has remain unanswered:

Who do you know who is wise enough to decide for YOU, what YOU cannot hear?

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7662
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 August 2019 11:41
 
Jan_CAN - 10 August 2019 11:35 AM
mapadofu - 10 August 2019 11:10 AM
icehorse - 10 August 2019 08:19 AM
mapadofu - 10 August 2019 08:02 AM

How about a process like this? Applicant applies for a permit to hold a speech/rally/march.  There is a public comment period.  If there are public objections, then the city council adjudicates whether the event should proceed.

Similar processes could be embodied at private institutions too.

I’d wager that most us of on this forum share similar values: Neo-Nazis are bad, transgender people should be supported, and so on. But what if some folks want to hold a transgender march in some highly conservative, highly religious town, and the townies vote the speech permit down?

Then their permit wouldn’t be issued.  From there people could mobilize politically, or turn to civil disobedience etc.

If you want to play the what if game there are corresponding abuses of an overly permissive stance on speech.


I’m not going to be able to put together something me perfect framework in this thread.  That’s why the law is complicated and multi-layered.  The main point is that there is a lot of options other than going straight to so called thought police.

(Okay, maybe not quite ready to bow out of this thread ... entirely.)

I agree that there are a lot of options, but ...

Towns don’t/shouldn’t have the ability to override anyone’s right to peaceful protest.  Permits are/should be given for peaceful marches to be held in public spaces (i.e. not neighbourhoods), with those opposed avoiding those spaces or counter-demonstrating.  The police’s job is to ensure it remains peaceful and arrest anyone only when violence is threatened and shut it down only when necessary to protect the public safety.

So does that mean the Neo-Nazis have the right for peaceful protest or rallies? Years ago in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, a largely Jewish community, Neo-Nazis were allowed to march. While I find them despicable, I do think it was correct to allow them to march.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  706
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
10 August 2019 11:50
 

Ok, so assume in my hypothetical that I live in the town where the religious zealots have shot down the gay pride event.  Since that process was public, I’m aware of the people/organization trying to hold it, and those who were opposed to it. From there I can seek them out to find out what they have to say. So a few extra steps relative to just going to a public shindig, but I’m still able to decide who and what I hear.

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3431
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
10 August 2019 11:53
 
icehorse - 10 August 2019 11:41 AM
Jan_CAN - 10 August 2019 11:35 AM
mapadofu - 10 August 2019 11:10 AM
icehorse - 10 August 2019 08:19 AM
mapadofu - 10 August 2019 08:02 AM

How about a process like this? Applicant applies for a permit to hold a speech/rally/march.  There is a public comment period.  If there are public objections, then the city council adjudicates whether the event should proceed.

Similar processes could be embodied at private institutions too.

I’d wager that most us of on this forum share similar values: Neo-Nazis are bad, transgender people should be supported, and so on. But what if some folks want to hold a transgender march in some highly conservative, highly religious town, and the townies vote the speech permit down?

Then their permit wouldn’t be issued.  From there people could mobilize politically, or turn to civil disobedience etc.

If you want to play the what if game there are corresponding abuses of an overly permissive stance on speech.


I’m not going to be able to put together something me perfect framework in this thread.  That’s why the law is complicated and multi-layered.  The main point is that there is a lot of options other than going straight to so called thought police.

(Okay, maybe not quite ready to bow out of this thread ... entirely.)

I agree that there are a lot of options, but ...

Towns don’t/shouldn’t have the ability to override anyone’s right to peaceful protest.  Permits are/should be given for peaceful marches to be held in public spaces (i.e. not neighbourhoods), with those opposed avoiding those spaces or counter-demonstrating.  The police’s job is to ensure it remains peaceful and arrest anyone only when violence is threatened and shut it down only when necessary to protect the public safety.

So does that mean the Neo-Nazis have the right for peaceful protest or rallies? Years ago in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, a largely Jewish community, Neo-Nazis were allowed to march. While I find them despicable, I do think it was correct to allow them to march.

Yes, even neo-Nazis have the right for peaceful protest.  However, the importance is in the details.  In my opinion, they should have had to march in a central, public place and not have been able to select a Jewish community as this appears to have been meant to provoke, to threaten a community and the general peace.  Also, with anti-hate propaganda laws, they would not be permitted to threaten with racist slogans.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7662
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 August 2019 12:11
 
mapadofu - 10 August 2019 11:50 AM

Ok, so assume in my hypothetical that I live in the town where the religious zealots have shot down the gay pride event.  Since that process was public, I’m aware of the people/organization trying to hold it, and those who were opposed to it. From there I can seek them out to find out what they have to say. So a few extra steps relative to just going to a public shindig, but I’m still able to decide who and what I hear.

Isn’t it just as easy to concoct a far less convenient scenario? What if the event was to be held 2000 miles away from you and it was going to be broadcast in some way? The bottom line is this: Are you really willing to let the religious zealots decide what you cannot hear?

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7662
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 August 2019 12:14
 
Jan_CAN - 10 August 2019 11:53 AM
icehorse - 10 August 2019 11:41 AM
Jan_CAN - 10 August 2019 11:35 AM
mapadofu - 10 August 2019 11:10 AM
icehorse - 10 August 2019 08:19 AM
mapadofu - 10 August 2019 08:02 AM

How about a process like this? Applicant applies for a permit to hold a speech/rally/march.  There is a public comment period.  If there are public objections, then the city council adjudicates whether the event should proceed.

Similar processes could be embodied at private institutions too.

I’d wager that most us of on this forum share similar values: Neo-Nazis are bad, transgender people should be supported, and so on. But what if some folks want to hold a transgender march in some highly conservative, highly religious town, and the townies vote the speech permit down?

Then their permit wouldn’t be issued.  From there people could mobilize politically, or turn to civil disobedience etc.

If you want to play the what if game there are corresponding abuses of an overly permissive stance on speech.


I’m not going to be able to put together something me perfect framework in this thread.  That’s why the law is complicated and multi-layered.  The main point is that there is a lot of options other than going straight to so called thought police.

(Okay, maybe not quite ready to bow out of this thread ... entirely.)

I agree that there are a lot of options, but ...

Towns don’t/shouldn’t have the ability to override anyone’s right to peaceful protest.  Permits are/should be given for peaceful marches to be held in public spaces (i.e. not neighbourhoods), with those opposed avoiding those spaces or counter-demonstrating.  The police’s job is to ensure it remains peaceful and arrest anyone only when violence is threatened and shut it down only when necessary to protect the public safety.

So does that mean the Neo-Nazis have the right for peaceful protest or rallies? Years ago in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, a largely Jewish community, Neo-Nazis were allowed to march. While I find them despicable, I do think it was correct to allow them to march.

Yes, even neo-Nazis have the right for peaceful protest.  However, the importance is in the details.  In my opinion, they should have had to march in a central, public place and not have been able to select a Jewish community as this appears to have been meant to provoke, to threaten a community and the general peace.  Also, with anti-hate propaganda laws, they would not be permitted to threaten with racist slogans.

Now you’re getting into finer distinctions. I’m happy to leave it here, or dive in more deeply if you want to.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7662
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 August 2019 12:15
 
Garret - 10 August 2019 10:45 AM

It’s not a law.

It’s a component in a system that includes laws.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  491
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
10 August 2019 12:23
 
icehorse - 10 August 2019 12:15 PM
Garret - 10 August 2019 10:45 AM

It’s not a law.

It’s a component in a system that includes laws.

So are the chairs that members of Canada’s parliament sit in.  Those chairs still aren’t laws.

Cite me an example of someone being punished in the Canadian legal system for disobeying a non-binding parliamentary motion.  If you can’t do that, cite the specific mechanism you think that this could lead to someone being punished because of this non-binding parliamentary motion.

Are you concerned because of your opinion that you should be worried?  Or do you have evidence that there is something dangerous?

If I told you that your car was going to explode tomorrow while driving it, but if you paid me $10, I could prevent it for you, would you trust my opinion?  Or would you want specifics?  I’m not a car mechanic.  I’m just some random guy on the internet.  If opinions are sufficient enough to arrive at conclusions, I’ll PM you my cashapp info.

[ Edited: 10 August 2019 12:31 by Garret]
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7662
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 August 2019 12:34
 
Garret - 10 August 2019 12:23 PM
icehorse - 10 August 2019 12:15 PM
Garret - 10 August 2019 10:45 AM

It’s not a law.

It’s a component in a system that includes laws.

So are the chairs that members of Canada’s parliament sit in.  Those chairs still aren’t laws.

Cite me an example of someone being punished in the Canadian legal system for disobeying a non-binding parliamentary motion.  If you can’t do that, cite the specific mechanism you think that this could lead to someone being punished because of this non-binding parliamentary motion.

Are you concerned because of your opinion that you should be worried?  Or do you have evidence that there is something dangerous?

If I told you that your car was going to explode tomorrow while driving it, but if you paid me $10, I could prevent it for you, would you trust my opinion?  Or would you want specifics?  I’m not a car mechanic.  I’m just some random guy on the internet.  If opinions are sufficient enough to arrive at conclusions, I’ll PM you my cashapp info.

No easy answers, but you can start with this article:

m103

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7119
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
10 August 2019 14:18
 
icehorse - 10 August 2019 12:11 PM

Are you really willing to let the religious zealots decide what you cannot hear?

Like ‘they’ do on the AMC movie channel.
I find it cute, and hilarious when the sub in some ‘non-profane’ words in place of the actual F***s and S***s ‘n stuff.
A lot of the time it just highlights the awkward change and draws more attention to the language that was supposed to have been ‘removed’.  You know Gene Hackman or Robert Duval or Robert DeNiro etc… wouldn’t shy away from ‘profane language’.

This is, of course, rooted in the prudishness of the evangelicals who, collectively, feel that it is their duty to decide what you cannot hear on this movie channel.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3431
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
10 August 2019 14:19
 
icehorse - 10 August 2019 12:34 PM
Garret - 10 August 2019 12:23 PM
icehorse - 10 August 2019 12:15 PM
Garret - 10 August 2019 10:45 AM

It’s not a law.

It’s a component in a system that includes laws.

So are the chairs that members of Canada’s parliament sit in.  Those chairs still aren’t laws.

Cite me an example of someone being punished in the Canadian legal system for disobeying a non-binding parliamentary motion.  If you can’t do that, cite the specific mechanism you think that this could lead to someone being punished because of this non-binding parliamentary motion.

Are you concerned because of your opinion that you should be worried?  Or do you have evidence that there is something dangerous?

If I told you that your car was going to explode tomorrow while driving it, but if you paid me $10, I could prevent it for you, would you trust my opinion?  Or would you want specifics?  I’m not a car mechanic.  I’m just some random guy on the internet.  If opinions are sufficient enough to arrive at conclusions, I’ll PM you my cashapp info.

No easy answers, but you can start with this article:

m103

Bill M-103 came about because of an increase in anti-Muslim rhetoric and discrimination, including the mass murder at a Mosque in Quebec City.  This bill caused a lot of controversy and emotionalism on both sides and I don’t think served the intended purpose in the long run.  Muslims were protected under existing laws against discrimination (freedom of religion, race) before and after the reading of this bill.  It’s basically old news that’s been discussed ad nauseum, has no bite in relation to legal issues, and no specific groups are named in actual laws concerning hate speech/propaganda.

 

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  706
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
10 August 2019 14:41
 
icehorse - 10 August 2019 12:11 PM
mapadofu - 10 August 2019 11:50 AM

Ok, so assume in my hypothetical that I live in the town where the religious zealots have shot down the gay pride event.  Since that process was public, I’m aware of the people/organization trying to hold it, and those who were opposed to it. From there I can seek them out to find out what they have to say. So a few extra steps relative to just going to a public shindig, but I’m still able to decide who and what I hear.

Isn’t it just as easy to concoct a far less convenient scenario? What if the event was to be held 2000 miles away from you and it was going to be broadcast in some way? The bottom line is this: Are you really willing to let the religious zealots decide what you cannot hear?

Who’s deciding to not broadcast it?  Do we already have laws that regulate that?  Is it a national broadcaster (Ike the BBC)? licensed in some way?  Are there pre-established mechanisms limiting what does gets on the air or is this a more ad hoc situation?

And again, if this all is done transparently, I still get to choose if I want to put in the effort to make sure I get to hear it.

The bottom line is you think that there is a simple answer but there isn’t.

Who is going to force the broadcaster to distribute the material, propaganda police?  You want the government dictating that certain things get broadcast? What gives you the right to zealously dictate to other people that they have to spend their time and effort making sure you get to hear everything possible?  Imagine that the broadcaster bowed out due to threat of a boycott.  They have to suffer the economic consequences because /you/ want to hear the broadcast?

[ Edited: 10 August 2019 15:01 by mapadofu]
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7662
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 August 2019 19:13
 

map, that last post was just silly wink

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  706
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
10 August 2019 20:01
 

Just a little silly.  I hat point are you trying to make with the 2000 mile hypothetical?

Seriously though.  Who is going to force someone to broadcast something you’ve decided you want to hear?


You swing the free speech hands around far enough and someone’s face will get in the way.

[ Edited: 11 August 2019 04:06 by mapadofu]
 
‹ First  < 11 12 13 14 >