Supreme Court rules in favor of Westboro protesters

I suppose I understand it at an intellectual level. But I can't believe that you're okay with a bunch of Nazis telling Holocaust survivors that none of it actually happened.

 

I'm perfectly all right with it. (I mean, I think they're wrong, and need to be met with opposition. But in the marketplace of ideas, not by the government).

 

That's not the power to censor expression on the basis of decency. That's the power to differentiate between speech for expression and speech for the purpose of harassment.

 

Or the direct incitement of violence.

 

Exactly. It differentiates between action and the expression of an idea.

 

We have no lack of respect for free speech. Where the hell did you come up with that?

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_ lays it out:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

And the courts have decided (and I agree) that there's a big difference between hate propaganda and free speech

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/charter_of_rights/chart_right_free_ov.cfm

Hate Propaganda vs. Free Speech

In a high-profile case in 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada weighed James Keegstra’s rights to free speech against the offence of wilfully promoting hatred under the Criminal Code. As a teacher, Keegstra made racist comments in the classroom.

The court ruled that under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a limitation of free expression is justified in a democratic society. The court stated that since hate propaganda harms us all, then stopping its spread helps people from different backgrounds to live together — and may even reduce violence in Canada. For these reasons, the Supreme Court said that section 1 of the Charter "saves" the crime of wilfully promoting hatred. In other words, the court said that that Keegstra had in fact broken the law.


You can disagree with that but to claim it's a "blight" is both hyperbole and arrogant

 

That's exactly the point. Canada has decided that certain types of speech make it uncomfortable enough that they won't stand up for true freedom of expression. That's a blight in my book.

 

Things slow on the Wal-Mart thread or are you working on your next 2,000 word "Unions destroyed America" post?

This was an idiotic decision by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council based on a single complaint.
The vast majority (over 80%) were appalled by the decision.

In protest, a number of Canadian radio stations played the unedited version non stop.

In the end it's much ado about nothing since the CBSC's stupid decision will be overturned.

 

The American message board censor haranguing the Canadian for the Canadian's intolerance of certain American-style freedom of speech.

How meta...