Discussions tend to grow unwieldy as the number of exchanges grow. So I'm going to be a bit brief on some things, and if you feel that I didn't address an impor

Discussions tend to grow unwieldy as the number of exchanges grow. So I'm going to be a bit brief on some things, and if you feel that I didn't address an important point let me know and I'll circle back to it. Feel free to do the same. Plus it's getting late and i don't expect you'll see this until tomorrow. Not supporting restrictions on free speech doesn't mean you're only worried about your own ability to voice your opinions. You (and I) both support rights and protections for groups of people that may not impact us directly. I think surveillance / warrantless wiretapping demonstrates the opposite effect: small, seemingly reasonable extensions of surveillance & a less-than-absolutist view of the importance of the right to privacy are what led to the problem. I agree with you on the diagnosis of the problem (the ease of hatred, human cognitive biases against outsiders, etc). I still think the solution is education (even state-sponsored anti-racism education is fine by me) and more speech disclaiming the things you disagree with rather than criminalizing it. I think you can demonstrate institutional opposition to racism in other ways that aren't in such direct opposition to the free exchange of ideas. I agree that transphobia is a problem, but as you might have guessed, I don't think hate speech laws are the right solution. I too am a fan of QC. You say that hate speech causes great harm to society, and I agree. There are plenty of other things that I think cause great harm to society. People that oppose gay marriage believe that it does great harm to society. Believing that someone else expressing themselves is causing harm doesn't mean we should criminalize the expression of their ideas. I, too, have great trust in the Canadian government and judicial system (although I'm American). But I don't trust that they are always right. And that's what you're basically claiming when you criminalize speech that you don't agree with. Those laws will never be repealed. Any attempt to do so would just end with any supporters being called racist. You're claiming that you're know 100% that you are right, and are thus making speech contrary to your opinions illegal. As I mentioned before, what if people 50 years ago had the same ideas as you do about the non-absolute nature of free speech? They were probably just as sure that gay marriage is wrong as you are that racism is wrong. But they didn't codify a ban on pro- gay rights speech into law, thank god. Here's another human cognitive bias: we all think we're right, and that we know the right thing to do. But what if we're wrong? That's a question you have to ask yourself. Your system of government has to take that into account. Finally, I want to take a second to talk about the purpose of free speech. It's not just so that anyone can say whatever the hell they want and damn the consequences! Free speech is there to prevent atrocities. It's there to prevent genocides, wars, oppression, and corruption. Free speech helps to protect democracy. That's why it's so important. That's why I am absolutist in my support of free speech. I agree that there is a moral responsibility to prevent harm if you can. I just think protecting free speech does a better job of it than any restriction ever could. Whew... too long. The last three paragraphs are my main points.