6 ms·

Canada has robust, tried and tested hate speech laws. They've also previously said they would start regulating platforms unless they started to "self regulate."

by latch 7y ago

Canada has robust, tried and tested hate speech laws. They've also previously said they would start regulating platforms unless they started to "self regulate." It's time.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
I know Canada's hate speech laws are pretty broad, but I'm not sure they make it a crime to call people nasty names.
- latch 7y ago
  I don't know either. You might be right. (Does Crowder cross that line between harassing an individual and targeting groups?) Doesn't change that Canada should be applying its laws to these platforms.
- lostgame 7y ago
  It really depends. If someone just walked up to the street here in Toronto where I live, and, for instance, with no provocation, called me a faggot for holding hands with my girlfriend, that, in my opinion, is hate speech, and that individual certainly could face consequences. If you, say, make a joke about someone being an 'edgefag', 4-chan style, I think that's fine, in context, and somethimg I did myself, years ago. In Law, there's the 'Word' of the law and the 'Spirit', or Intention, of the Law, and ultimately, in a court of law, it's the intention, specifically with hate speech, that really determines if it's criminal in nature or not. Full disclosure: I'm lesbian, polyamourous, and I am extremely happy that my partners and I can feel safe walking around downtown holding hands without people acting this way.
lostgame 7y ago
My own Father may end up in court for hate speech against me (Bill C13) for being transgender ('you're a disgrace to God', 'you're a disappointment to myself and the family,' the usual ignorant hate speech about half of trans people get, especially from 'Christians' like my Father who use God to defend their bigotry - I am a Christian myself, by the way...I have nothing wrong with Christians, I have a problem with ignorant bigots like my Father or Westboro Baptists...). Our laws are very fair. I'd love to see him face serious consequences for the psychological damage his awful words have caused me. I'm glad to live here. So, so very many trans people have no point of recourse for the nights we spend crying ourselves to sleep from the hate we get, especially from those who claim to 'love us'. EDIT: Downvotes? Really? If you're downvoting this, consider yourself priviliged enough to not have to go through this. Guessing it's mostly fathers who would be horrified to see their kid take them to court?
- busterarm 7y ago
  I have a 6 out of 10 on the Adverse Childhood Experiences test due to my mom and I still have a problem with the idea of putting her in jail over it. Especially for the verbal abuse part of it, which I'm sure you agree hurts worse than the rest of it. Take it from me, things have the possibility of changing given time. Our parents are flawed people often not capable of doing any better than they did. No amount of punishment from the state can make up for that.
  - lostgame 7y ago
    I have actually had a lot of financial and career damage due to these specific incidents, and in certain instances he even acknowledged on paper his behavior was negatively affecting my career and well being and chose to actively continue his hateful behavior. My mother was physically, verbally, and emotionally abusive, but recently passed away. While I believe people can change, and am having some level of difficulty with it, unfortunately he does need to be held responsible for the thousands of dollars of damage to my career, at the very least. My psychiatrist and I are working through it, but at this point unfortunately it looks like it will have to be the course of action. :(
    - whatamidoingyo 7y ago
      You know you could have just moved out of the house at any time, right? That's what most people do. > unfortunately he does need to be held responsible for the thousands of dollars of damage to my career Stop blaming your problems on other people. It looks weak. It is weak. Do you see here? Are you going to come at me with a lawyer for damaging your career for saying these things right now? Most likely you're going to close the tab and move on with your life, as most would. Sure, you didn't deserve the treatment, but you got it. There was a story I read where a father kept his daughter in the basement for ~12 years (?). She couldn't speak, walk, or anything. She slept tied to a chair. She experienced extreme torture. You were called names. Get over it. Stop being weak. We've all been there, some of us much worse than you could ever imagine.
chroma 7y ago
Back in 2007 Christopher Hitchens argued that Canada's hate speech laws are not only immoral but self-contradictory. The motion: "Be it resolved: Freedom of speech includes the freedom to hate." Hitchens was fully in favor of that statement.[1] His argument has three parts. First, freedom of speech isn't about the rights of the speaker. It's about the rights of people who want to listen to that person's ideas. Every time you silence someone, you are infringing upon the rights of that audience. The audience might not agree. Maybe they want to understand the speaker's ideas so they can refute them. But if you prevent the audience from hearing those views, they can't refute them, and the bad views continue to spread. Second, censoring requires delegating a censor. But if you follow the first argument, you'll see that a censor decides for you what you are allowed to read or hear. I'm an adult and can decide that for myself, thank you very much. Third, if you are going to censor hate speech, then you must censor every major religious text. The bible and the quran contain passages encouraging hatred of homosexuals, subjugation of women, and taking of slaves. By our standards, they are utter abominations and any impartial application of a hate speech law would see these books banned. The oration by Hitchens is his best. He starts off by yelling "Fire!" to the audience, and explains just why the analogy of yelling fire in a crowded theater is a terrible one. (Mainly that it was coined in a SCOTUS ruling that jailed socialists in WWI for distributing pamphlets against US involvement in the war.) 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY
- jhanschoo 7y ago
  Freedom of speech has always been qualified, and this argument does not change it. At best it succeeds in arguing for free speech restricted to certain platforms, and the hate speech laws still allow for free speech to private audiences. I'll just refute the points you have summarized here since I have no interest in listening to the entire speech to just extract the argumentative points he makes. The first argument doesn't make much sense. If I have terrible views but do not want to communicate them it is my right to be silent, but if this argument passes I am infringing on the rights of my potential listeners. If I choose to discuss my views to an exclusive membership, I am infringing on their rights as well. Similarly, IP and copyright laws infringe on this right since they limit the audience of a work. Second, just as most people we can agree that certain substances are harmful and should be made difficult to distribute, similarly most people can agree that some thoughts are harmful and should be made difficult to communicate. The question isn't a matter of whether to censor or not, but the degree and topics. The final argument, similarly, does not pass for general spaces. Christians and Muslims do not think that the more icky parts of their texts should be read by children without appropriate direction. Neither would want a terrible passage displayed out in the open for their children to see. Some may even have an interest in restricting it, so as to prevent a critic appropriating their text to portray them in a bad light. Academics do not think that immoral should be read by children without proper direction.

by latch 7y ago

Canada has robust, tried and tested hate speech laws. They've also previously said they would start regulating platforms unless they started to "self regulate." It's time.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

I know Canada's hate speech laws are pretty broad, but I'm not sure they make it a crime to call people nasty names.

latch 7y ago
I don't know either. You might be right. (Does Crowder cross that line between harassing an individual and targeting groups?) Doesn't change that Canada should be applying its laws to these platforms.
lostgame 7y ago
It really depends. If someone just walked up to the street here in Toronto where I live, and, for instance, with no provocation, called me a faggot for holding hands with my girlfriend, that, in my opinion, is hate speech, and that individual certainly could face consequences. If you, say, make a joke about someone being an 'edgefag', 4-chan style, I think that's fine, in context, and somethimg I did myself, years ago. In Law, there's the 'Word' of the law and the 'Spirit', or Intention, of the Law, and ultimately, in a court of law, it's the intention, specifically with hate speech, that really determines if it's criminal in nature or not. Full disclosure: I'm lesbian, polyamourous, and I am extremely happy that my partners and I can feel safe walking around downtown holding hands without people acting this way.

lostgame 7y ago

My own Father may end up in court for hate speech against me (Bill C13) for being transgender ('you're a disgrace to God', 'you're a disappointment to myself and the family,' the usual ignorant hate speech about half of trans people get, especially from 'Christians' like my Father who use God to defend their bigotry - I am a Christian myself, by the way...I have nothing wrong with Christians, I have a problem with ignorant bigots like my Father or Westboro Baptists...). Our laws are very fair. I'd love to see him face serious consequences for the psychological damage his awful words have caused me. I'm glad to live here. So, so very many trans people have no point of recourse for the nights we spend crying ourselves to sleep from the hate we get, especially from those who claim to 'love us'. EDIT: Downvotes? Really? If you're downvoting this, consider yourself priviliged enough to not have to go through this. Guessing it's mostly fathers who would be horrified to see their kid take them to court?

busterarm 7y ago
I have a 6 out of 10 on the Adverse Childhood Experiences test due to my mom and I still have a problem with the idea of putting her in jail over it. Especially for the verbal abuse part of it, which I'm sure you agree hurts worse than the rest of it. Take it from me, things have the possibility of changing given time. Our parents are flawed people often not capable of doing any better than they did. No amount of punishment from the state can make up for that.
- lostgame 7y ago
  I have actually had a lot of financial and career damage due to these specific incidents, and in certain instances he even acknowledged on paper his behavior was negatively affecting my career and well being and chose to actively continue his hateful behavior. My mother was physically, verbally, and emotionally abusive, but recently passed away. While I believe people can change, and am having some level of difficulty with it, unfortunately he does need to be held responsible for the thousands of dollars of damage to my career, at the very least. My psychiatrist and I are working through it, but at this point unfortunately it looks like it will have to be the course of action. :(
  - whatamidoingyo 7y ago
    You know you could have just moved out of the house at any time, right? That's what most people do. > unfortunately he does need to be held responsible for the thousands of dollars of damage to my career Stop blaming your problems on other people. It looks weak. It is weak. Do you see here? Are you going to come at me with a lawyer for damaging your career for saying these things right now? Most likely you're going to close the tab and move on with your life, as most would. Sure, you didn't deserve the treatment, but you got it. There was a story I read where a father kept his daughter in the basement for ~12 years (?). She couldn't speak, walk, or anything. She slept tied to a chair. She experienced extreme torture. You were called names. Get over it. Stop being weak. We've all been there, some of us much worse than you could ever imagine.

chroma 7y ago

Back in 2007 Christopher Hitchens argued that Canada's hate speech laws are not only immoral but self-contradictory. The motion: "Be it resolved: Freedom of speech includes the freedom to hate." Hitchens was fully in favor of that statement.[1] His argument has three parts. First, freedom of speech isn't about the rights of the speaker. It's about the rights of people who want to listen to that person's ideas. Every time you silence someone, you are infringing upon the rights of that audience. The audience might not agree. Maybe they want to understand the speaker's ideas so they can refute them. But if you prevent the audience from hearing those views, they can't refute them, and the bad views continue to spread. Second, censoring requires delegating a censor. But if you follow the first argument, you'll see that a censor decides for you what you are allowed to read or hear. I'm an adult and can decide that for myself, thank you very much. Third, if you are going to censor hate speech, then you must censor every major religious text. The bible and the quran contain passages encouraging hatred of homosexuals, subjugation of women, and taking of slaves. By our standards, they are utter abominations and any impartial application of a hate speech law would see these books banned. The oration by Hitchens is his best. He starts off by yelling "Fire!" to the audience, and explains just why the analogy of yelling fire in a crowded theater is a terrible one. (Mainly that it was coined in a SCOTUS ruling that jailed socialists in WWI for distributing pamphlets against US involvement in the war.) 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY

jhanschoo 7y ago
Freedom of speech has always been qualified, and this argument does not change it. At best it succeeds in arguing for free speech restricted to certain platforms, and the hate speech laws still allow for free speech to private audiences. I'll just refute the points you have summarized here since I have no interest in listening to the entire speech to just extract the argumentative points he makes. The first argument doesn't make much sense. If I have terrible views but do not want to communicate them it is my right to be silent, but if this argument passes I am infringing on the rights of my potential listeners. If I choose to discuss my views to an exclusive membership, I am infringing on their rights as well. Similarly, IP and copyright laws infringe on this right since they limit the audience of a work. Second, just as most people we can agree that certain substances are harmful and should be made difficult to distribute, similarly most people can agree that some thoughts are harmful and should be made difficult to communicate. The question isn't a matter of whether to censor or not, but the degree and topics. The final argument, similarly, does not pass for general spaces. Christians and Muslims do not think that the more icky parts of their texts should be read by children without appropriate direction. Neither would want a terrible passage displayed out in the open for their children to see. Some may even have an interest in restricting it, so as to prevent a critic appropriating their text to portray them in a bad light. Academics do not think that immoral should be read by children without proper direction.