4 ms·

I don't think expecting basic good judgment of those in law school is 'scary'. Further it is worth mentioning that hateful speech is not protected in Canada, an

I don't think expecting basic good judgment of those in law school is 'scary'. Further it is worth mentioning that hateful speech is not protected in Canada, and while you could say that it was but a response, such a tweet is almost certainly in violation of several new anti-'cyber' bullying restrictions.

stfu 13y ago
So in your world "Some bitch at school did x" falls under hateful speech/cyber-bullying? Well, I guess by now we have to prosecute half of the YouTube and Twitter population. After all all those "first" posters are most certainly making a highly discriminatory remark against all those coming "second".
- corresation 13y ago
  No, stfu, my "world" isn't quite so black and white: The choice isn't between prosecution or free-for-all, but if you're trying to incite freedom of expression over hateful speech, all while bringing disrepute upon a law school, you probably aren't going to get very far.
  - milsorgen 13y ago
    I don't think using a mild profanity on twitter constitutes "expecting good judgement of those in law school" it seems like vast overreach to me and as long as we accept moments like this in any form it will do nothing but get worse. If the graffiti of Pompeii is any indication humans want to be short, crass and coarse and I am okay with that and I think that is something we should accept and embrace as a society and culture. We give too much power to words when in fact it is the listener who derives the negative experience not the speaker.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    >while bringing disrepute upon a law school Quite a feat, I would say.
  - mcantelon 13y ago
    The claims that a benign, offhand comment on social media will bring the school into "disrepute" is absurd. The fact that claims like this are becoming increasingly common would indicate that the West (or perhaps just North America) is slowly retreating from the idea of reasonable individual freedom of expression.
    - corresation 13y ago
      What absurd responses, though hardly unexpected given the story. Rabble rabble rabble! An institution gains disrepute through many actions over time. This particular action is very small, just as the response is. Hysterical responses as if she were sent the gallows denote a complete inability of so many to discuss a complex topic without instantly jerking to an extreme. But there is no extreme. And the whole slippery slope thing is simply nonsense. The idea that you represent such institutions when you go out of your way to incant it has been true throughout history.
      - mcantelon 13y ago
        "Rabble rabble rabble!" Oh the little people and their tiresome concern for freedom and dignity. It's not absurd, or hysterical, to be concerned about people being interrogated for reasonable, completely normal forms of expression. The slippery slope thing isn't nonsense. Society changes incrementally. Over longer timeframes continual incremental changes in a certain direction become recognizable trends.
stretchwithme 13y ago
I think it all depends on the contract between the girl and the school. Did she agree to such restrictions on a 24/7 basis?
gngeal 13y ago
hateful speech is not protected in Canada How do they prove that a speech is hateful instead of merely being ordinarily contemptuous?
- dnautics 13y ago
  they don't. speech is not protected in Canada Is that better?
- corresation 13y ago
  Just talking abstractly (again, the only reason I mentioned that is that saying "free speech!" is a non-starter when you're calling someone a bitch -- even if unnamed, if any other party could identify who you mean, it isn't anonymous -- and bringing disrepute upon an institution), but Canadian rights are generally based upon the idea that your rights end where my nose begins, and your right to free speech ends when you intrude on the rights of others not to be harassed, disparaged, etc. Rights go both ways, and there is a balance to be found somewhere in the middle. Westboro is a hate group, by Canadian law. Their hateful protests are actionable. We have a new crop of anti-bullying laws -- particularly focused on the online world -- because the speaker can't fallback on the notion that their speech is protected, because it isn't.
  - gngeal 13y ago
    So calling an idiot an idiot is not an option in Canada?
    - 001sky 13y ago
      In 19th and early 20th century medicine and psychology, an "idiot" was a person with a very severe mental retardation PC police will probably getcha for that, too.
  - mcantelon 13y ago
    >We have a new crop of anti-bullying laws Please cite the specific law that would make a single mention of an unnamed "bitch" criminal.
anoncowherd 13y ago
> Further it is worth mentioning that hateful speech is not protected in Canada It's worth noting that speech is just speech. There's no objective definition for what constitutes hateful speech, nor should there be. If there's someone on a street corner shouting that all black people should be killed, you're perfectly free to ignore him and his ideas. You could perhaps even tell him that he's being an idiot. But someone else might be saying something worth listening to, even if it didn't happen to align with your current views.
droithomme 13y ago
Hateful speech, such as calling someone a moron, an idiot, a dummy, a bitch, a fool, etc, is not the same as hate speech. I have no doubt you are aware of this. You are probably also aware that on the issue of laws regulating "hate speech" in Canada, which have generally been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, these laws are by Province and Territory. Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code defines it one way, Alberta has another, B.C. has another, and the Northwest Territories have another.

stfu 13y ago

So in your world "Some bitch at school did x" falls under hateful speech/cyber-bullying? Well, I guess by now we have to prosecute half of the YouTube and Twitter population. After all all those "first" posters are most certainly making a highly discriminatory remark against all those coming "second".

corresation 13y ago
No, stfu, my "world" isn't quite so black and white: The choice isn't between prosecution or free-for-all, but if you're trying to incite freedom of expression over hateful speech, all while bringing disrepute upon a law school, you probably aren't going to get very far.
- milsorgen 13y ago
  I don't think using a mild profanity on twitter constitutes "expecting good judgement of those in law school" it seems like vast overreach to me and as long as we accept moments like this in any form it will do nothing but get worse. If the graffiti of Pompeii is any indication humans want to be short, crass and coarse and I am okay with that and I think that is something we should accept and embrace as a society and culture. We give too much power to words when in fact it is the listener who derives the negative experience not the speaker.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >while bringing disrepute upon a law school Quite a feat, I would say.
- mcantelon 13y ago
  The claims that a benign, offhand comment on social media will bring the school into "disrepute" is absurd. The fact that claims like this are becoming increasingly common would indicate that the West (or perhaps just North America) is slowly retreating from the idea of reasonable individual freedom of expression.
  - corresation 13y ago
    What absurd responses, though hardly unexpected given the story. Rabble rabble rabble! An institution gains disrepute through many actions over time. This particular action is very small, just as the response is. Hysterical responses as if she were sent the gallows denote a complete inability of so many to discuss a complex topic without instantly jerking to an extreme. But there is no extreme. And the whole slippery slope thing is simply nonsense. The idea that you represent such institutions when you go out of your way to incant it has been true throughout history.
    - mcantelon 13y ago
      "Rabble rabble rabble!" Oh the little people and their tiresome concern for freedom and dignity. It's not absurd, or hysterical, to be concerned about people being interrogated for reasonable, completely normal forms of expression. The slippery slope thing isn't nonsense. Society changes incrementally. Over longer timeframes continual incremental changes in a certain direction become recognizable trends.

stretchwithme 13y ago

I think it all depends on the contract between the girl and the school. Did she agree to such restrictions on a 24/7 basis?

gngeal 13y ago

hateful speech is not protected in Canada How do they prove that a speech is hateful instead of merely being ordinarily contemptuous?

dnautics 13y ago
they don't. speech is not protected in Canada Is that better?
corresation 13y ago
Just talking abstractly (again, the only reason I mentioned that is that saying "free speech!" is a non-starter when you're calling someone a bitch -- even if unnamed, if any other party could identify who you mean, it isn't anonymous -- and bringing disrepute upon an institution), but Canadian rights are generally based upon the idea that your rights end where my nose begins, and your right to free speech ends when you intrude on the rights of others not to be harassed, disparaged, etc. Rights go both ways, and there is a balance to be found somewhere in the middle. Westboro is a hate group, by Canadian law. Their hateful protests are actionable. We have a new crop of anti-bullying laws -- particularly focused on the online world -- because the speaker can't fallback on the notion that their speech is protected, because it isn't.
- gngeal 13y ago
  So calling an idiot an idiot is not an option in Canada?
  - 001sky 13y ago
    In 19th and early 20th century medicine and psychology, an "idiot" was a person with a very severe mental retardation PC police will probably getcha for that, too.
- mcantelon 13y ago
  >We have a new crop of anti-bullying laws Please cite the specific law that would make a single mention of an unnamed "bitch" criminal.

anoncowherd 13y ago

> Further it is worth mentioning that hateful speech is not protected in Canada It's worth noting that speech is just speech. There's no objective definition for what constitutes hateful speech, nor should there be. If there's someone on a street corner shouting that all black people should be killed, you're perfectly free to ignore him and his ideas. You could perhaps even tell him that he's being an idiot. But someone else might be saying something worth listening to, even if it didn't happen to align with your current views.

droithomme 13y ago

Hateful speech, such as calling someone a moron, an idiot, a dummy, a bitch, a fool, etc, is not the same as hate speech. I have no doubt you are aware of this. You are probably also aware that on the issue of laws regulating "hate speech" in Canada, which have generally been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, these laws are by Province and Territory. Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code defines it one way, Alberta has another, B.C. has another, and the Northwest Territories have another.