Comments on: “Hate Speech” Versus Free Speech

By: Vincent

Vincent — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:12:09 +0000

‘n Tapes…

By: orwellduk

orwellduk — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:34:25 +0000

Nike’s corporate right to lie activism(Nike vs Kasky) has set us all free. Livewrong and livestrong knowing this corporate cult is going to cure cancer, lock most of the campus in a weird altitude chamber and conquer Adidas with pork barrel olympic sport economic development”partnership”scams and strange”clear” potions. How do we get tickets to the Ducks China goofball game that is coming up? The track ducks are delivering some PREZ labeled nikes soon- how fucking cute. Did you see the story? Nice gimmick Phil. Shall we have a controversial Nike altitude facility retrofitted into the White House next? Or do we not know about those yet? Yeah, the ASUO is most important -no need to look at Nikes tech human guinea pig fetish.

By: Olly

Olly — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:08:22 +0000

“Dad? Are you now Canadian?”

If the Graf family were a daytime soap, that would be one hell of an episode.

By: T

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:15:51 +0000

Dad? Are you now Canadian?

By: old white guy

old white guy — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:40:44 +0000

as a canadian i am offended and angry that any government agency thinks it can tell me what i can or cannot say, or who or what i can hate. this will result in honest people being turned into criminals. i for one would die before appearing or even acknoledging these people. what police officer is prepared to kill me for my beliefs?

By: Vincent

Vincent — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:00:23 +0000

No, no. They’re dragging him behind a carriage.

By: Timothy

Timothy — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:18:06 +0000

Steyn has not said anything that should be subject to prosecution by any kind of (ahem) troika,

Wait, the Canadian government is forcing Steyn to undergo Russian folk dancing? What is the world coming to?

By: Vincent

Vincent — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:59:49 +0000

And don’t give me any of those “ahems”.

By: Vincent

Vincent — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:57:46 +0000

Of course there are some categories of speech that are unprotected (libel, “fighting words,” etc.), but I think they can be considered different than “hate speech,” as it’s commonly accepted, don’t you?

By: olly

olly — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:32:29 +0000

Yes. But:

“Being subjected to a racist tirade, suffering a homophobic rant, or being the target [sic] of any of what might be called “hate speech”… should not be anything but legal.” [my emph.]

As we are all perfectly aware, not all speech is protected, and for good reason.

However, Steyn has not said anything that should be subject to prosecution by any kind of (ahem) troika, as one can tell by reading his website or his book.

(Maclean’s also had someone filing dispatches from the hearing, and they’re a good read.)

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:50:20 +0000

YES YES YES YES.
So true.

Thank you Vincent.