I like asking “what’s so free about that particular speech?” For example- dishonestly propagating fear. When authority does it, it may be binding. So when authority has the supposed free speech to dishonestly propagate fear, it’s not speech that’s free. It’s binding. The functional freedom to speak, and the functional influence of speech diverge.

Why call it free speech when it binds? Is freedom going to have a context that’s relatable to free or is it a double-meaning word shallow as puddle that secretly means obey to the one’s speaking it?

So are you saying that:

1) UK etc aren't free and modern but the USA is
or
2) there are no free/modern western countries (Cue the great Gandhi response to being asked what he thought of western civilisation)
or
3) The degree of free speech in the UK/etc is sufficient
or
4) ?

I agree ether free speech as a right protects some people. I also agree that hate speech laws will sometimes be applied in ways I disagree with, and will sometimes be abused by those in power.

I not sure about your imposing morality point - that's part of what laws do don't they? I believe/claim that a functioning democracy is the only method of conferring legitimacy on this imposition.

He wasn't charged.

I have very limited knowledge of Canada but 2 points:

1) the good thing about a parliamentary system is we cant revoke, amend and make laws these sorts of laws.

2) afaics from your link this is still the law in Canada

Which sounds similar to the UK law

I don't see how communism in itself is hateful.

I think the UK mostly has free speech, and having it is what got them to where they are.

Not sure if the degree to which the UK has free speech is sufficient. The degree to which they abandon free speech principles will be the degree to which they sink into tyranny.

Chez, it should be noted that Glen is citing an article by Ezra Levant who runs The Rebel. It is basically Canada's version of Brietbart/TPUSA, which is basically just a vehemently racist website that incites hatred and anger. They have partnered with Faith Goldy, Laura Loomer and many other overt white nationalists for their entire history.
That does not speak to him arguing this point in good faith.

Except when, for many years, it was impossible to pass through US immigration without answering in writing the question, 'Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?' If you failed to answer 'No' you'd be banned from entry, the only exceptions being diplomats who didn't have to go through normal immigration procedure in the first place.

Civilisation arises from settled agriculture, leading to urban development and, all-importantly, drains and sewers.

Ezra Levant is an employer of Katie Hopkins and a huge fan of British fascist leader 'Tommy Robinson' (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon). He likes to come over for Lennon's court cases and sits there in the public gallery live-tweeting and getting ticked off by the judge for improper behaviour in court.

Whether knowing that would put chez off Ezra, I couldn't say.

I have never heard of any of those people. And the only reason I knew to link to the first author was I randomly heard Mark Steyn mention him getting in trouble about speaking negatively about radical Islam. I didn't even know his name. I just remembered the story. What I do know is getting in trouble with the government for saying mean things about radical Muslims shouldn't be a crime.

So, you don't even do basic background research before linking to articles from well known bigots? You are posting in a free speech thread without knowing about the most prominent white nationalists to run for office and be banned from social media? That says it all really.

I only linked to Ezra Levant. I spent a minute researching and saw numerous prominent people I respect give him a forum to talk about free speech. Maclean's is the second publication and from what I know they are reputable. It isn't my job to know who every white nationalist you mentioned to is.

Whenever I hear a leftist accuse someone of racism, I automatically assume the person being accused is not racist unless presented with concrete evidence. I strongly suspect you would call people like Mitt Romney or Rush Limbaugh or Tucker Carlson or Hannity racist, in which case your opinion doesn't matter. So it is all the more reason to push back on people who want stifle free expression.

This is interesting. I don't agree with it entirely but he does bring up some good points

In europe we don''t have a thing called free speech. You get jailed for talking about things that are not allowed.

Dude, you didn't even know who he was yesterday and were too lazy to do basic research. Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist, and you like him because you agree with his views.

Levant has tried to stifle free speech in Canada *way more* than just about anyone to the left of him btw. But, you would have to do simplistic research to know this which is well beyond you.

I apologize for giving you serious response.

Next time spend more than a minute researching a topic, you might actually learn something.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gq....y-terrible/amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.wa...outputType=amp

https://www.mediamatters.org/researc...imeline/221741

https://forward.com/news/national/42...rlson-so-much/

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/...-fight-against

The links are not in YouTube form, so I don't expect you to read any. I had forgotten you were the guy who completely melted down and embarrassed themselves in the right wing terror thread. An absolute hilarious thing to go back and read.

Corrected.

Without free speech you can't have a well-functioning democracy, that is a sentiment I support fully. You make some exceptions where expression can hurt other very important rights (life, health and so on), and that is about it.

The flaw is thinking that free speech therefore can't hurt a democracy, this is wrong. Autocrats could for example use free speech as a tool to gather enough support to dismantle the institutions of democracy and even (somewhat ironically) remove free speech all-together.

It's not a pickle you can resolve. The error is in viewing democracy as some kind of "natural state". It isn't. It requires a critical mass of responsible citizens and responsible politicians.

I agree it's about a lot of free speech although I suspect you would be very surprised at the limitations we have had at times in the UK. The argument on some limitations can take two forms (similar applies to big brother and other issues)

1) The restrictions/laws are dangerous to democracy in themselves i.e.democracy requires the right to be hateful

2) The particular restrictions /laws would be fine but there's a slippery slope
(technically there's also the 3rd argument about absolute rights preventing us starting at the bottom of the slope)

So people may agree/disagree with the hitler cat or rape example but the idea that this is some threat to democracy is risible isn't it? What could be a threat would be banning reporting of the cases or criticising the law but there's no plausible slippery slope threat here is there?.

Do you guys know the Emerald Cockroach Wasp?

If not, then check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_cockroach_wasp
Here is a video on the lovely little fellow: https://www.y*utube.com/watch?v=-ySwuQhruBo

This is what happens if you restrict free speech. If the word "enemy" cannot be said anymore, because it may be offensive to someone, you will get killed by that someone in the end. In other words, you must be allowed to hate your enemy, because it is vital for your own survival. This should actually be self-evident.

https://www.y*utube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

What they’re doing doesn’t seem that extreme to me, but I get the slippery slope argument. Mostly it looks like they’re basically allowing a group or class that wouldn’t be able to sue for defamation the means to do so.

The thing about slippery slop arguments is that a 'sloping' mechanism is required as well as a starting point. Too many just offer the starting point and claim it will lead down a
slippery slope when no slope exists.

I've given DS grief in the past for objecting to slippery slope arguments too much because sometimes they are real - it all depends on the situation and as to whether whether Sn makes Sn+1 sufficiently more likely.

If we let people get away with one slippery slope argument then ...

Like I said earlier, just because things could turn real ugly just because they have turned ugly in different times and places – USSR & Nazi Germany – doesn’t mean they would or even could in present times. I really don’t see either scenario playing out with either of our countries irrespective of what laws or rights we put or don’t put in place. Besides, that ugly stuff comes from the heart and if our hearts change to that extent, laws and rights won’t matter much anyway.

Of course they could turn ugly in present times. Very very ugly and very very quickly.

It's the right to free speech that is in question. I think we all agree that a great deal of free speech is incredibly important.