3 ms·

That doesn't really fit with my experience in Canada, especially given that Canadian law has robust freedom of expression provisions in the charter of rights an

That doesn't really fit with my experience in Canada, especially given that Canadian law has robust freedom of expression provisions in the charter of rights and freedoms. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2b.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec...

FergusArgyll 3y ago
I don't want to start a shouting match and have to prove my case for every country but this is from Wikipedia. "Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of restricted speech in Canada. During the 1970 October Crisis, the War Measures Act was used to limit speech from the militant political opposition."
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Free speech doesn't mean unlimited speech. In the US you are not free to defraud, slander, physically endanger, etc. And everywhere, in everything, there are failures and imperfections.
  - FergusArgyll 3y ago
    If "hate speech and obscenity" aren't covered by free speech protections, what is?
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      I don't understand your question. We can list many things that are protected, but you know that. You also know that sometimes we don't execute perfectly, including on free speech. So I'm a bit lost ...
    - shkkmo 3y ago
      The freeness of speech is a continuum. In some countries you can't say anything critical of the ruling party, even if it's true. In other countries you can say untrue and critical things as long as you don't know they are untrue. The standards and penalties for defamation and libel are an important part of the freeness of speech. Countries have different standards for what qualifies as obscenity and what the consequences are. Countries have different standards for what types of hate speech are allowed. Freedom of Speech isn't a binary value.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > In other countries you can say untrue and critical things as long as you don't know they are untrue. In case it's not clear, in democracies a private citizen can knowingly say false things about public figures, especially political figures. A private citizen can sue you if you damage their reputation. Journalists can't usually knowingly publish falsehoods as news, but can as opinion. (Generally speaking; each country has its own implementations, of course.)
        shkkmo 3y ago
        > democracies a private citizen can knowingly say false things about public figure That is not true. > Journalists can't usually knowingly publish falsehoods as news, but can as opinion Also not true. In the USA, journalists and private individuals have the same free speech rights and there no legal distinction between "opinion" and "news", it just matters if a reasonable person would see a statement of fact.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        >> democracies a private citizen can knowingly say false things about public figure > That is not true. President Biden kicks puppies and secretly owns $2B in BTC, and the SEC manipulates the price for him. Can Biden sue me? Can I be arrested? The Constitution provides special protection for the press, as do many other laws, precedents, etc. What are your claims based on?
        shkkmo 3y ago
        > Can Biden sue me? Yes, but you can sue anyone for anything. You not being a "journalist" doesn't provide any additional protection. Biden being a public figure does though, as he would have to demonstrate "actual malice" on your part to win. > Can I be arrested? Only about 1/4 of states in the USA have criminal libel laws and I am not familiar enough with them to say which if any would apply. > The Constitution provides special protection for the press, as do many other laws, precedents The supreme court has consistently ruled that "the press" in the first ammendment covers anyone publishing anything in any format, not just journalists. The constitution provides no special protections for journalists but instead extends those rights to everyone. See: Associated Press v. NLRB, Bartnicki v. Vopper, Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. and more. Most states do have "media shield laws" that specifically help journalists protect their sources, but these aren't constitutional rights. A district court in Branzburg v. Hayes did rule that a blogger didn't qualify as a journalist under Oregon's media shield law, but that was strongly influenced by the blogger soliciting payment to take the article down so isn't conclusive even there.
    - jancsika 3y ago
      Off the top of my head: * critique of arguments for the existence of God (reasonable or otherwise) * critiques of national policy of a given political party (reasonable or otherwise) * reporting on the alleged wrongdoing of a powerful political official * allegations of infidelity of people considered royalty within a given country * finding and reporting security bugs in medical devices that use proprietary software * satire * propaganda * thought experiments * standing in a public square and lying about established facts of science ** If you can categorize the speech and its not in the category of yelling fire in a crowded theater, I bet it's protected by the 1st Amendment. Edit: clarification Edit 2: Since this is HN and you didn't specify 1st Amendment in your question, let me be pedantic and add an empty bullet point for a type of speech that is protected by the 5th amendment: * Edit 3: I think my empty string is in the wrong scope. One must invoke the fifth amendment by speaking. So the bullet point should look like this: * invoking the fifth amendment to say this: (NUL byte goes here) :)
      - FergusArgyll 3y ago
        All fair, my point is an (some/many/most/at least one) American can't imagine the concept of free speech protections that exclude 'hate speech'. In Israel there is a 'right' to freedom of speeech but it's illegal to call a cop a nazi[0], an American would consider that absurd [0] https://www.news1.co.il/Archive/003-D-48215-00.html https://www.news1.co.il/Archive/003-D-48215-00.html
- shkkmo 3y ago
  That isn't evidence that Canada barely considers free speach "good in and of itself." Different countries have different rules and restrictions on free speech and every country has some. If you setup a framework for comparison, you can rank them, but this doesn't always end up with the USA on top and often it's not even in the top 10. Canada often ranks over the USA. Your assertion is thus pretty clearly not true by the best objective measures we have.
  - quirkyblah 3y ago
    What do you think of the trucker protests and how they were handled? I find it hard to believe any Canadian can honestly claim that Canada has more free speech than the US.
    - shkkmo 3y ago
      I agree with some parts of how it was handled and strongly disagree with others. The USA also has had plenty its own issues with blocking speech. Few people know that the origin of the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" metaphor was coined by the supreme court to justify cracking down on political dissent. I don't think it's particularly useful to attempt compare levels of free speech between the two countries without laying out a clear framework under which to do the comparison. There are organizations that do this, though you may or may not agree with the framework they use.
kruxigt 3y ago
[dead]

FergusArgyll 3y ago

I don't want to start a shouting match and have to prove my case for every country but this is from Wikipedia. "Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of restricted speech in Canada. During the 1970 October Crisis, the War Measures Act was used to limit speech from the militant political opposition."

wolverine876 3y ago
Free speech doesn't mean unlimited speech. In the US you are not free to defraud, slander, physically endanger, etc. And everywhere, in everything, there are failures and imperfections.
- FergusArgyll 3y ago
  If "hate speech and obscenity" aren't covered by free speech protections, what is?
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    I don't understand your question. We can list many things that are protected, but you know that. You also know that sometimes we don't execute perfectly, including on free speech. So I'm a bit lost ...
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    The freeness of speech is a continuum. In some countries you can't say anything critical of the ruling party, even if it's true. In other countries you can say untrue and critical things as long as you don't know they are untrue. The standards and penalties for defamation and libel are an important part of the freeness of speech. Countries have different standards for what qualifies as obscenity and what the consequences are. Countries have different standards for what types of hate speech are allowed. Freedom of Speech isn't a binary value.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > In other countries you can say untrue and critical things as long as you don't know they are untrue. In case it's not clear, in democracies a private citizen can knowingly say false things about public figures, especially political figures. A private citizen can sue you if you damage their reputation. Journalists can't usually knowingly publish falsehoods as news, but can as opinion. (Generally speaking; each country has its own implementations, of course.)
      - shkkmo 3y ago
        > democracies a private citizen can knowingly say false things about public figure That is not true. > Journalists can't usually knowingly publish falsehoods as news, but can as opinion Also not true. In the USA, journalists and private individuals have the same free speech rights and there no legal distinction between "opinion" and "news", it just matters if a reasonable person would see a statement of fact.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        >> democracies a private citizen can knowingly say false things about public figure > That is not true. President Biden kicks puppies and secretly owns $2B in BTC, and the SEC manipulates the price for him. Can Biden sue me? Can I be arrested? The Constitution provides special protection for the press, as do many other laws, precedents, etc. What are your claims based on?
        shkkmo 3y ago
        > Can Biden sue me? Yes, but you can sue anyone for anything. You not being a "journalist" doesn't provide any additional protection. Biden being a public figure does though, as he would have to demonstrate "actual malice" on your part to win. > Can I be arrested? Only about 1/4 of states in the USA have criminal libel laws and I am not familiar enough with them to say which if any would apply. > The Constitution provides special protection for the press, as do many other laws, precedents The supreme court has consistently ruled that "the press" in the first ammendment covers anyone publishing anything in any format, not just journalists. The constitution provides no special protections for journalists but instead extends those rights to everyone. See: Associated Press v. NLRB, Bartnicki v. Vopper, Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. and more. Most states do have "media shield laws" that specifically help journalists protect their sources, but these aren't constitutional rights. A district court in Branzburg v. Hayes did rule that a blogger didn't qualify as a journalist under Oregon's media shield law, but that was strongly influenced by the blogger soliciting payment to take the article down so isn't conclusive even there.
  - jancsika 3y ago
    Off the top of my head: * critique of arguments for the existence of God (reasonable or otherwise) * critiques of national policy of a given political party (reasonable or otherwise) * reporting on the alleged wrongdoing of a powerful political official * allegations of infidelity of people considered royalty within a given country * finding and reporting security bugs in medical devices that use proprietary software * satire * propaganda * thought experiments * standing in a public square and lying about established facts of science ** If you can categorize the speech and its not in the category of yelling fire in a crowded theater, I bet it's protected by the 1st Amendment. Edit: clarification Edit 2: Since this is HN and you didn't specify 1st Amendment in your question, let me be pedantic and add an empty bullet point for a type of speech that is protected by the 5th amendment: * Edit 3: I think my empty string is in the wrong scope. One must invoke the fifth amendment by speaking. So the bullet point should look like this: * invoking the fifth amendment to say this: (NUL byte goes here) :)
    - FergusArgyll 3y ago
      All fair, my point is an (some/many/most/at least one) American can't imagine the concept of free speech protections that exclude 'hate speech'. In Israel there is a 'right' to freedom of speeech but it's illegal to call a cop a nazi[0], an American would consider that absurd [0] https://www.news1.co.il/Archive/003-D-48215-00.html https://www.news1.co.il/Archive/003-D-48215-00.html
shkkmo 3y ago
That isn't evidence that Canada barely considers free speach "good in and of itself." Different countries have different rules and restrictions on free speech and every country has some. If you setup a framework for comparison, you can rank them, but this doesn't always end up with the USA on top and often it's not even in the top 10. Canada often ranks over the USA. Your assertion is thus pretty clearly not true by the best objective measures we have.
- quirkyblah 3y ago
  What do you think of the trucker protests and how they were handled? I find it hard to believe any Canadian can honestly claim that Canada has more free speech than the US.
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    I agree with some parts of how it was handled and strongly disagree with others. The USA also has had plenty its own issues with blocking speech. Few people know that the origin of the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" metaphor was coined by the supreme court to justify cracking down on political dissent. I don't think it's particularly useful to attempt compare levels of free speech between the two countries without laying out a clear framework under which to do the comparison. There are organizations that do this, though you may or may not agree with the framework they use.

kruxigt 3y ago

[dead]