Canadian Civil Libertarians Defend Coulter

[blindsage]

Would saying you think all child molesters should be thrown in prison for life or killed be considered hate speech? Would saying that religion leads to suffering and should be eradicated be considered hate speech? Would saying that skinheads are a plague on the earth be considered hate speech?

Wouldn't hate speech laws be considered hate speech, since they are specifically prejudiced against certain individuals and their speech?

 

[CoryKS]

Calling the Shrub "Chimpy McBushitler" (btw, I like that. Can I use it?)wouldn't be hate speech anymore than you calling me an @$$hole would be, however openly calling for his assassination would definately have some hate-speech laws violated.

In the example I was responding to, it was stated that calling someone a bad name is hate speech. By that argument, calling someone "Chimpy" or, for that matter, "Shrub" would also be hate speech. Though I'm sure that there will always be an excuse why our name-calling isn't hate speech. And that's the whole point - by allowing a person or person(s) to define what speech is acceptable, you allow them to control the debate according to their biases.

 

[girlbug2]

I disagree.

Saying you're against same sex marriage is a viewpoint. Calling John Edwards a "F@&&0T" as Anne Coulter did, is hate speech.

Disagreeing with the Israeli policy of building new settlements in disputed territory is expressing your viewpoint. Saying that Jews "need to be perfected," as Coulter did, is hate speech.

Saying you want airport security to profile young Muslim-appearing males is a viewpoint. Telling a Muslim woman she should "take a camel" instead of flying, as Coulter did, is hate speech.

Hate speech is usually defined as speech that specifically disparages a person or group based on some characteristic such as religion, race, gender or sexual orientation. It's not at all the same as dissent.

The problem with defining hate speech that way is that it's too broad. If you "disparage" somebody, what does that really mean anyway...anything said that is negative about that person, if they happen to be a different gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation than yourself, could be called hate speech. But the same Wikipedia definition of hate speech goes on to say that hate speech is forbidden by law because it may "incite violence or prejudicial action against the individual".

So how does telling the muslim woman that she should "take a camel" incite violence or prejudicial action against her? I can see that an already prejudiced person may say to themselves, Yeah, she should take a camel. Yes it may reinforce an already bigoted person to continue to feel bigoted. But I don't see it directly inciting violence or prejudicial action.

I dont' even know what "perfecting" means in this context, so I won't comment on that.

As to the foul slur that John Edwards was called, once again...it may reinforce somebody's feelings of bigotry against him, but I don't see a direct connection to that by itself inciting violence against him or prejudicial action taken against him.

 

[JDenver]

Would saying you think all child molesters should be thrown in prison for life or killed be considered hate speech?

No, that's not an ethnic group and not targetted to a group based on genetic disposition; women, gay, etc. However, you certainly couldn't say, 'we should kill pedophiles when we see them, they deserve to die'. That promotes hatred, a fairly straight forward definition of hate speech for me.

Would saying that religion leads to suffering and should be eradicated be considered hate speech? Would saying that skinheads are a plague on the earth be considered hate speech?

No, that's not an ethnic group and not targetted to a group based on genetic disposition; women, gay, etc. However, you certainly couldn't say, 'we should kill bishops when we see them, they deserve to die'. That promotes hatred, a fairly straight forward definition of hate speech for me.

Wouldn't hate speech laws be considered hate speech, since they are specifically prejudiced against certain individuals and their speech?

No. I find this an interesting difference between Americans and Canadians, that is, Candians seem to understand that free speech has limits. You can't promote hatred to women or gays just because you feel you have the 'right' to. You don't. Homosexual peole have the right to live full and safe lives. Your right to free speech can't utterly intrude on another person's safety. There are limits.

 

[Scott T]

In the example I was responding to, it was stated that calling someone a bad name is hate speech. By that argument, calling someone "Chimpy" or, for that matter, "Shrub" would also be hate speech. Though I'm sure that there will always be an excuse why our name-calling isn't hate speech. And that's the whole point - by allowing a person or person(s) to define what speech is acceptable, you allow them to control the debate according to their biases.

Well, when you use a term like fa-got it points to an entire portion of society much as it does when you use the word ni-ger, and in contemporary society it is always used in a derogatory manner. On the other hand Chimpy or Shrub points to an specific individual. That's where the Coulter cow (See, that one's directed at an individual) got it wrong. In telling that particular student she can ride a camel (or the flying carpet from earlier in the exchange) she was addressing that student as a Muslim, not as an individual.

If I make a speech that says all whiteys are a waste of skin that need to be exterminated and hung by the lamp-posts by their entrails because they're white, then that's hate speech.

Before you try to interpret Canada's laws on this particular subject in a way that suits an agenda, study it first

 

[blindsage]

No, that's not an ethnic group and not targetted to a group based on genetic disposition; women, gay, etc. However, you certainly couldn't say, 'we should kill pedophiles when we see them, they deserve to die'. That promotes hatred, a fairly straight forward definition of hate speech for me.

The two parts of your comment her conflict, either it has to be something based on genetic disposition or not. Your straight forward definition of hate speech sounds like semantics to me.

No, that's not an ethnic group and not targetted to a group based on genetic disposition; women, gay, etc. However, you certainly couldn't say, 'we should kill bishops when we see them, they deserve to die'. That promotes hatred, a fairly straight forward definition of hate speech for me.

Again, is it based on ethnic group/ genetic disposition or not?

No. I find this an interesting difference between Americans and Canadians, that is, Candians seem to understand that free speech has limits. You can't promote hatred to women or gays just because you feel you have the 'right' to. You don't. Homosexual peole have the right to live full and safe lives. Your right to free speech can't utterly intrude on another person's safety. There are limits.

Americans certainly understand there are limits to free speech, just not the one's you're stating. Why can't you promote hatred? You're drawing an arbitrary line for the sake of your argument. Promoting hatred does not necessarily intrude on another person's safety. If you can prove that someone has directly incited violence by their speech, you can be prosecuted in the U.S. as well. But just going to a public place and saying you hate xyz group and others should too, is not even remotely the same as saying to a mob of angry people "there's one, let's get him" and then proceeded to attack them. The difference for Americans is that once you limit speech in this way, based on one arbitrary standard there is a precedent to do it for other arbitrary standards. You can't say you hate women, but you can prosecute people for saying they do? That's called a double standard.

 

[Phoenix44]

I would also want all those witty freethinkers who called our last president "Chimpy McBushitler" rounded up too.

Well, you might want them "rounded up," but it wouldn't be for "hate speech." You're perfectly free to call the president an idiot, and you wouldn't be "rounded up" for it. That comment refers to Bush's personal idiocy, and not to any racial, religious or gender stereotype.

 

[CoryKS]

Well, you might want them "rounded up," but it wouldn't be for "hate speech." You're perfectly free to call the president an idiot, and you wouldn't be "rounded up" for it. That comment refers to Bush's personal idiocy, and not to any racial, religious or gender stereotype.

Like I said - people will come up with any excuse why their behavior is perfectly alright.