Apparently Freedom of Speech Does Not Exist In Canada

[p0ink]

Honestly, when someone is strongly suggesting to eliminate a specific group, then this should not and is not covered by the Constitution.

it is covered by the first amendment, as well it should be. not because i agree with the message (i surely do not), but because i value the ability for anyone to express any and all ideas a person may have, not just a select few and those some politician deems 'ok'.

 

[manny78]

if that is the case, why arent KKK members being hauled off to jail after their rallies? why isnt eminem doing time in a prison? why arent rappers facing judicial wrath?

freedom of speech.

yes, i value having the ability to express any opinion i want, regardless of whether it be racially, religiously, or philosophically motivated. i dont believe in some judge imprisoning people for 'thought crimes'.

Honestly, when someone is strongly suggesting to eliminate a specific group, then this should not and is not covered by the Constitution.

 

[bigschweeler]

Honestly, when someone is strongly suggesting to eliminate a specific group, then this should not and is not covered by the Constitution.

There is a difference between saying that such and such group should be eliminated, and saying I am going to eliminate such and such group with a machine gun. The former should clearly be covered by the first amendment, the latter should not.

 

[manny78]

There is a difference between saying that such and such group should be eliminated, and saying I am going to eliminate such and such group with a machine gun. The former should clearly be covered by the first amendment, the latter should not.

Just cause someone did not specified how he would act, should not keep him away from a trial. Groups like the KKK are clearly orgainzed, have a violent past (pretty obvious for anyone) and they exist only for a reason. I can't see why they deserve any kind of Constitutional protection...

 

[jrw667s]

Well, the freedom of speech isn't a Civil Right in the U.S. either.

 

[the nature boy]

what makes you think we wont be next?

well that WOULD suck. but I don't see the correlation. we're talking about two seperate countries with different styles of government.

 

[p0ink]

well that WOULD suck. but I don't see the correlation. we're talking about two seperate countries with different styles of government.

do you not see all of the laws and regulations from other countries trying to come into ours?

 

[atlantabiolab]

Free speech does not cover speech that encourages the hate and harm of people. That is simple logic.

Actually, this is not logical, for you have not defined the terms of your restrictions. How is "hate" defined? How is "harm" defined?

We could go on for hours about the extremes that these words could be tortured by the human mind, which gives credence to the inapplicability of this restriction in a favorable manner.

 

[atlantabiolab]

well that WOULD suck. but I don't see the correlation. we're talking about two seperate countries with different styles of government.

All you need to do is open up your eyes.

 

[Frackal]

Are you really that blinded by your ingornace?

When you say, "I hate these kikes/niggers/spics/chinks and we should kill/harrass/beat-up all of them," then that is hate speecha nd it is not covered by the Constitution or any other charter of rights.

Actually my man the whole point of the 1st ammendment is to protect the right to say unpopular things. No matter how grotesque.