Human Rights Speech Complaints II
Sun, 2008-08-03 17:34
#1
Sven
Human Rights Speech Complaints II
Sun, 2008-08-03 17:34
#2
Sven
A current update to [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009767]this thread[/url]:
Now, someone is in trouble with B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for saying, in a very public way, [b][url=http://ezralevant.com/2008/08/is-turnaround-fair-game.html]"Jesus Sucks!"[/url][/b]
This absurdity...and threat to free speech...continues unabated.
Sun, 2008-08-03 18:27
#3
Sven, no one is "in trouble" with any tribunal.
Some low-life has filed a [url=http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=b120c918-ce63-426a... which is designed to ridicule minorities who are victims of real discrimination and hate.
quote:
Skoreyko, who viewed the stunt online, said in an online form filed with the B.C. human rights tribunal that "my Christian beliefs and upbringing were publicly ridiculed." ...Skoreyko, who once sought the nomination to run for the federal Conservatives in Okanagan-Shuswap, told the National Post he filed the complaint on behalf of the silent majority that would object to such antics. He said he wanted to make the point that the human-rights system applies double standards, favouring only minority interests.
I hope the tribunal shuts up Skoreyko. What a waste of space.
Sun, 2008-08-03 23:46
#4
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]A current update to [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009767]this thread[/url]:Now, someone is in trouble with B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for saying, in a very public way, [b][url=http://ezralevant.com/2008/08/is-turnaround-fair-game.html]"Jesus Sucks!"[/url][/b]
This absurdity...and threat to free speech...continues unabated.[/b]
So if you phone the police and complain that your next door neighbour used a four letter word is that the police's fault?
It's not the BC HRT's fault if someone makes a frivolous complaint.
Mon, 2008-08-04 14:33
#5
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
[b]It's not the BC HRT's fault if someone makes a frivolous complaint.[/b]
I agree with you there.
It will be interesting to see if BCHRT dismisses this complaint. I hope they do. In fact, I [i]expect[/i] that they will because the speech, in this case, is "offensive" only to some Xians.
Mon, 2008-08-04 14:34
#6
Of course it will be dismissed. It will never get to the tribunal. The interesting question is why any newspaper would give credence to a scummy complaint like this.
Mon, 2008-08-04 14:52
#7
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]I agree with you there.
It will be interesting to see if BCHRT dismisses this complaint. I hope they do. In fact, I [i]expect[/i] that they will because the speech, in this case, is "offensive" only to some Xians.[/b]
So where is this "threat to free speech" you speak of?
Mon, 2008-08-04 14:59
#8
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
[b]So where is this "threat to free speech" you speak of?[/b]
Punishing speech because it is merely "offensive", whether it's "Jesus Sucks!" or political cartoons lampooning Mohammed.
Mon, 2008-08-04 15:23
#9
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Punishing speech because it is merely "offensive", whether it's "Jesus Sucks!" or political cartoons lampooning Mohammed.[/b]
See here you are jumping the gun as there has been no punishment handed down in either case - and that's what people have been trying to point out to you repeatedly.
You are confusing complaints with convictions. Any idiot can make a complaint just like any idiot can file a lawsuit.
[ 04 August 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]
Mon, 2008-08-04 15:48
#10
"Punishing speech because it is merely "offensive", whether it's "Jesus Sucks!" or political cartoons lampooning Mohammed. "
What if it's "gay people suck". Is it ok then? Do you (and I ask this of the general readership, not just you in particular) approve of the actions the HRCs have taken in this vein in the past?
Mon, 2008-08-04 15:53
#11
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
[b]See here you are jumping the gun as there has been no punishment handed down in either case - and that's what people have been trying to point out to you repeatedly.You are confusing complaints with convictions. Any idiot can make a complaint just like any idiot can file a lawsuit.[/b]
I agree. Any idiot can file a complaint. I hope and expect that the "Jesus Sucks!" complaint does get summarily dismissed by the BCHRT.
But, that is not the case with all of the Mohammed political cartoon complaints (i.e., they have not been summarily dismissed). They have, instead, been moving ahead (slowly but surely) for many, many months.
It is my understanding that all but one of the Section 13 human rights complaints (that is the section dealing with "offensive" speech) which have gone to a full hearing have resulted in the defendants being found "guilty". Based on that track record, my bet is that the Mohammed-political-cartoon cases will end up with a similar result.
But, time will tell.
Mon, 2008-08-04 15:54
#12
quote:
Originally posted by Zak Young:
[b]"Punishing speech because it is merely "offensive", whether it's "Jesus Sucks!" or political cartoons lampooning Mohammed. "What if it's "gay people suck". Is it ok then? Do you (and I ask this of the general readership, not just you in particular) approve of the actions the HRCs have taken in this vein in the past?[/b]
Please tell me who has been punished by an HRC for saying "gay people suck"?
Mon, 2008-08-04 15:56
#13
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]I agree. Any idiot can file a complaint. I hope and expect that the "Jesus Sucks!" complaint does get summarily dismissed by the BCHRT.[/b]
Unfortunately the (conservative) Liberal government in BC streamlined the HR system in BC by abolishing the Human Rights Commission which previously had the job of screening complaints and rejecting the frivolous ones. This is why the Maclean's case ended up being heard by the BCHRT while the federal CHRC was able to reject it before it got to the federal tribunal.
Mon, 2008-08-04 15:59
#14
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]It is my understanding that all but one of the Section 13 human rights complaints (that is the section dealing with "offensive" speech) which have gone to a full hearing have resulted in the defendants being found "guilty". Based on that track record, my bet is that the Mohammed-political-cartoon cases will end up with a similar result.[/b]
What percentage of complaints to the CHRC actually get to the Tribunal stage?
I don't know what the stats are here but in the US over 90% of criminal cases that make it to trial result in a guilty verdict. Of course, that doesn't take into account the number of cases that are dropped before they get to trial which is the problem with taking one statistic in isolation.
Mon, 2008-08-04 16:03
#15
Further to my point here are the actual statistics:
[url=http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/ar_2007_ra/page6-en.asp]http://www....
In 2007 there were 861 complaints that were concluded only 136 were referred to the Tribunal. That's 15.7%
Isn't it odd that the right wing boards never cite that statistic. It's not odd that all or virtually all the cases that actually go to the Tribunal result in a finding of fault when you consider that almost 85% of the complaints made were screened out before getting to the Tribunal stage!
[ 04 August 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]
Mon, 2008-08-04 16:05
#16
Speaking of speech, I'd like to point out that Zak passed from "recent rabble rouser" to "rabble rouser" by lunch of his first day.
Ya gonna shoot for the 100 post benchmark before turning in?
(tee-hee...I'll find a justification to ban him at 99 [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] )
Mon, 2008-08-04 16:15
#17
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
[b]Further to my point here are the actual statistics:[url=http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/ar_2007_ra/page6-en.asp]http://www....
In 2007 there were 861 complaints that were concluded only 136 were referred to the Tribunal. That's 15.7%
Isn't it odd that the right wing boards never cite that statistic. It's not odd that all or virtually all the cases that actually go to the Tribunal result in a finding of fault when you consider that almost 85% of the complaints made were screened out before getting to the Tribunal stage![/b]
Interesting statistics.
I'd like to see the stats on the percentage of Section 13 complaints, specifically, that get filed versus those that go to a hearing. Of those which do not go to a hearing, it would be interesting to see which did not go to a hearing because the defendant plead "guilty" versus outright dismissal by the commission.
Mon, 2008-08-04 16:31
#18
That's not broken down in the stats. According to figure 13, which breaks down complaints by category, 2% (or 16) of all complaints fell under section 13 but figure 13 can't be correlated to figure 14 since not all cases that are opened in one year are concluded in the same year - and table 14 does not break down complaints by the categories used in table 13.
However, it should be pointed that even the 15% figure is misleading since many cases that are referred to the tribunal end up being settled through mediation so the percentage of "convictions" is actually lower.
Mon, 2008-08-04 16:34
#19
I'm just going through the CHRT annual report now:
[url=http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/pdf/annual07-e.pdf]http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca...
The claim that has been made by some right wingers that all cases that end up being heard by the tribunal also end up in "convictions" is false. I've already found one case, Sugimoto v. Royal Bank of Canada 2007 CHRT 5, the resulted in the complaint being dismissed by the *Tribunal*.
Mon, 2008-08-04 16:40
#20
quote:
Originally posted by Zak Young:
[b]"Punishing speech because it is merely "offensive", whether it's "Jesus Sucks!" or political cartoons lampooning Mohammed. "What if it's "gay people suck". Is it ok then? [/b]
Uh, no, and I'll pretend that that's just an incredibly ignorant question.
"Jesus Sucks" is fine. "Mohammed stinks" is perfect. "Moses and God are idiots" is wonderful.
"Christians suck" or "Muslims stink" or "gay people suck" are not "ok". They can well be the subject of hate speech. They could be punishable under the Criminal Code, depending on the circumstances.
But setting aside legalities, if you attack people as a group based on sex, religious belief, colour, sexual orientation, etc. - you will have your sorry ass heaved out of this forum, or my home, or my trade union, or (hopefully) anywhere that decent people gather.
But I know you were just asking a silly question for the sake of clarification, not because you can't tell the difference. Hope you're thinking more clearly now that you've had an explanation.
Mon, 2008-08-04 16:57
#21
Zak, ironic racism, bigotry etc.is not allowed here. It's been problematic, and that's the way it is.
I should probably mention generally, that our policy specifically forbids poor bashing, just in case you find yourself approaching that line, so if you really are shooting for 100 posts, please be aware.
Actually, I think every 25 posts or so, you should pause, rehydrate, and reread the policy statement you agreed to.
Other than that, you seem to be providing people with an opportunuty to revisit some basic issues at a "101" level, which doesn't hurt now and then I guess.
Mon, 2008-08-04 17:31
#22
"Zak, ironic racism, bigotry etc.is not allowed here. It's been problematic, and that's the way it is."
Sure, but I wasn't being bigoted, I was asking a question. I mean, ban me if you want - I don't care, and I fully expect to be banned sooner rather than later - but I don't think there's any way even the most politically correct person could accuse what I said of being motivated by hate. It was a question plain and simple. I mean I'm moving in with a gay couple in 11 days for crying out loud.
I find it sad that people here seem to think sensitive speech should only be protected when it is speech they agree with. I don't mean on rabble; as a private entity I fully support your right to censor, but I mean in regards to the government cracking down on unpopular speech. That is a very dangerous precedent to set. Should it be illegal to say Conservatives Suck? Or liberals suck? Or socialists suck? What about redheads? Should it be illegal to say redheads suck? Or homophobes? Should it be illegal to say homophobes suck? How about communists? How about social conservatives? How about warmongers? How about sociopaths? How about freemasons?
What groups of people should it be illegal for me to say suck and what groups of people should I be allowed to criticize?
Mon, 2008-08-04 17:34
#23
quote:
Originally posted by Zak Young:
[b]"Zak, ironic racism, bigotry etc.is not allowed here. It's been problematic, and that's the way it is."Sure, but I wasn't being bigoted, I was asking a question. I mean, ban me if you want - I don't care, and I fully expect to be banned sooner rather than later - but I don't think there's any way even the most politically correct person could accuse what I said of being motivated by hate. It was a question plain and simple. I mean I'm moving in with a gay couple in 11 days for crying out loud.
I find it sad that people here seem to think sensitive speech should only be protected when it is speech they agree with. I don't mean on rabble; as a private entity I fully support your right to censor, but I mean in regards to the government cracking down on unpopular speech. That is a very dangerous precedent to set. Should it be illegal to say Conservatives Suck? Or liberals suck? Or socialists suck? What about redheads? Should it be illegal to say redheads suck? Or homophobes? Should it be illegal to say homophobes suck? How about communists? How about social conservatives? How about warmongers? How about sociopaths? How about freemasons?
What groups of people should it be illegal for me to say suck and what groups of people should I be allowed to criticize?[/b]
Saying someone "sucks" is one thing - saying someone should be killed is quite another, wouldn't you agree?
Mon, 2008-08-04 17:41
#24
Yes I do agree they are different, but a poster above said that saying gay people suck should be against the law, and no one but me has said he is wrong.
Mon, 2008-08-04 17:51
#25
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Zak Young:
[b]Yes I do agree they are different, but a poster above said that saying gay people suck should be against the law, and no one but me has said he is wrong.[/b]
Well, that should be a hint you are way off base, beacuse indeed it is you who are wrong.
Jesus, is a myth, or a very long time dead person, who left no record of his being.
Gays are real people who can be subjected to hate actions, whereas Jesus cannot be.
Mon, 2008-08-04 17:59
#26
So, what group of people should I be allowed to say suck, and what group of people should I not be allowed to say suck? I don't want to wind up in prison for saying the wrong thing! Redheads are real people you know. Should it be a crime to say redheads suck? Social conservatives are also real people too, but I think if we locked up everyone who said social conservatives suck, this board might be rather empty!
[ 04 August 2008: Message edited by: Zak Young ]
Mon, 2008-08-04 18:33
#27
I once heard a story of a park in London where people go to make speeches. Many are offensive, but its not illegal. People who do say rediculous, racist, homophobic, sexist things, get laughed at. I think perhaps instead of putting things into legal terms of which groups can and can not be said 'to suck', it would be much more productive to have our country's offensive morons make their speeches, whereupon we can publicly humiliate and ridicule them, and possibly throwing fruit at them afterwards.
Then again, maybe the UK isn't the world's most shining example of a harmonious society.
Tue, 2008-08-05 05:41
#28
quote:
Sure, but I wasn't being bigoted, I was asking a question. I mean, ban me if you want - I don't care, and I fully expect to be banned sooner rather than later - but I don't think there's any way even the most politically correct person could accuse what I said of being motivated by hate. It was a question plain and simple. I mean I'm moving in with a gay couple in 11 days for crying out loud.
Just as an aside zak, I don't remotely think you're a bigot. Historically, on this board the use of the linguistic device of ironic racism in order to make a point has caused problems, and therefore is now discouraged. That's all.
Second, sometimes a new babbler comes along and I want to ban them. I watch as they walk toward predictable pitfalls, fall in, the close their account. I've even been known to sort of push them in first. I don't want to ban you, so I'm pointing them out. Heck, I even sort of like you though god knows why. You're some sort of cross between Andy Hardy and Donald Trump with a dash of benzadrine. I have banned people I like lots more though.
Carry on.
Tue, 2008-08-05 05:57
#29
quote:
Originally posted by Zak Young:
[b]So, what group of people should I be allowed to say suck, and what group of people should I not be allowed to say suck? [/b]
What do you mean by "allowed"? As far as I'm concerned, in decent company, you're not allowed to stereotype any group of people based on religion, race, colour, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, language, and several others. I'm not talking about the law - I believe the law should permit any kind of speech short of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre or "kill them!" in a lynch mob or publishing malicious lies about individuals (libel etc.).
quote:
[b]I don't want to wind up in prison for saying the wrong thing![/b]
Don't worry, society has better ways to spend scarce resources than giving you free room and board.
quote:
[b]Redheads are real people you know. Should it be a crime to say redheads suck?[/b]
Not a "crime" (my, how you like to inflate and exaggerate). But it depends on context. If my kid is being ridiculed and harassed in school for being a redhead, the offenders should be educated, warned, suspended, expelled, depending on frequency and severity.
Even though you think it's a joke, this has actually been identified as [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6725653.stm]a problem in the U.K.[/url] (and I've witnessed it myself here, mostly among kids):
quote:
Photographer Charlotte Rushton has been chronicling the UK's redheads for a book, Ginger Snaps. Of the 300 she snapped, only two have been spared bullying because of their hair. She herself has suffered verbal abuse from complete strangers.
quote:
[b]Social conservatives are also real people too, but I think if we locked up everyone who said social conservatives suck, this board might be rather empty![/b]
People on this board do not condemn "social conservatives" (whatever that loaded phrase might mean). We certainly condemn those (particularly political or religious "leaders" - people with power) who try to impose anti-human or misogynistic or homophobic views on society, and we condemn the views themselves. I have never seen a condemnation of the millions of Canadians who may not be pro-choice or pro-same-sex-marriage etc.
It can be difficult to distinguish between people who believe in certain ideas and lifestyles, and those ideas themselves, and those who seek to impose those ideas upon others.
Make the effort to make the distinction. It's vital.
Tue, 2008-08-05 11:42
#30
unionist :
Should it be against the law to say "gay people suck"?
Should it be against the law to say "red heads suck"?
Should it be against the law to say "conservatives/liberals/homophobes suck?"
How can anyone think it should be against the law to say "x group of people suck?" What about free speech?
Tue, 2008-08-05 13:25
#31
Did you bother to read what unionist said? Because if you did, you wouldn't need to ask the question...again.
Tue, 2008-08-05 15:15
#32
Thanks, Stargazer, you beat me to the punch.
Tue, 2008-08-05 18:03
#33
Yes I did. I have repeatedly asked a very straight forward yes or no question and received no answer from anyone. Why are you people dodging the question?
Tue, 2008-08-05 18:06
#34
quote:
Originally posted by Zak Young:
[b]unionist :Should it be against the law to say "gay people suck"?
Should it be against the law to say "red heads suck"?
Should it be against the law to say "conservatives/liberals/homophobes suck?"
How can anyone think it should be against the law to say "x group of people suck?" What about free speech?[/b]
W-e-l-l, I-'-m g-o-i-n-g t-o t-y-p-e t-h-i-s r-e-e-e-e-a-a-a-a-l-l-l-l-y s-l-o-w-w-w-w-w-w-l-y:
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I believe the law should permit any kind of speech short of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre or "kill them!" in a lynch mob or publishing malicious lies about individuals (libel etc.).[/b]
Now, what was your question again? Perhaps you could repeat it just an itsy bitsy teeny weeny few more times, so that we can "dodge" it some more?
[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Tue, 2008-08-05 20:25
#35
As slowly as you are typing, you have, for the third or fourth time, failed to answer my question. I would repeat it but I suspect you are having some annoying joke at my expense. If you are interested in answering it, scroll up.
You raise the most commonly held example of a proper limitation on free speech - that is namely 'shouting fire in a crowded theater'. It is only through the paradigm of property rights that we can fully understand what limitations to speech should exist. Ultimately, there are no rights except for property rights (including the right to self ownership). Thus you have no right to free speech, but the right to own your own body, and do with it as you please, including using it to speak out. After all, my right to free speech hardly means I can show up at your house and lecture you for hours on why socialism is stupid! Since you own the property of your house, you have the right to what can be said or not said in it / who can be there or cannot. You have no right to 'a free press' but you have the right to create or purchase a newspaper, or contract with the owner to write in it. After all 'the right to a free press' hardly means the new york times must publish my essays on why liberals are idiots.
Thus we can see that 'yelling fire in a public theater' should be forbidden not because it may be dangerous (after all, one could argue that talking about communism is dangerous, as it may lead to communism, but we would hardly want to forbid people from talking about it) but because the property owner makes a rule that says you cannot yell fire (or anything else, as that would take away from your enjoyment of the play) there. There are no other satisfactory explanations for these exceptions that I have come across.
Tue, 2008-08-05 20:33
#36
quote:
Originally posted by Zak Young:
[b]You raise the most commonly held example of a proper limitation on free speech - that is namely 'shouting fire in a crowded theater'. It is only through the paradigm of property rights that we can fully understand what limitations to speech should exist. [/b]
You can't yell "Fire!" at a party in your own house either.
Whoops - what happened to your whole sophomoric thesis about "property rights"?
I used to encounter arguments like yours in high school. Their proponents invariably flunked.
So, you are very very very unhappy that I, a "leftist" (in your rogue's gallery notion), have stated, in cyber-print, that none of your childish statements should be legally banned.
Your whole ringing denunciation of leftists was based on the fact that we ban speech that we don't like. Of course, you know nothing about progressive politics, and you never bothered reading one word of this board before turning on your spigot, so I suppose you can be excused for jumping off the debating cliff.
Wed, 2008-08-06 10:48
#37
After over 900 days, the Alberta Human Rights Commission has [url=http://ezralevant.com/2008/08/punished-first-acquitted-later.html]dismis... the complaint against [i]The Western Standard[/i](now defunct) for publishing the infamous Mohammed cartoons.
If you can bear the link to Ezra (who is opposed to the HRCs as a whole and is always over the top in terms of his rhetoric - I am only opposed to the speech policing that they do), here are some of his comments:
quote:
But I’ve read the dismissal letter three times now, and each time it makes me more angry. Because I haven’t been given my freedom of the press. I’ve simply had the government censor approve what I said. That’s a completely different thing.Pardeep Gundara – a second-rate bureaucrat, a nobody – had to give me his approval for me to be allowed to go back to my business. For 900 days I was in the dock, waiting for this literary giant to pronounce his judgment on me. And I found favour in his eyes – but barely.
Sorry. I don’t give a damn what Gundara or the HRC says. Getting his approval is not a success. I won't legitimize his arrogant "authority" by saying "thank you, master". I'll say: "who the hell are you? Besides a busy-body bureaucrat?"
Look at his rationale for acquitting me: because the Western Standard met Gundara’s home-made tests of reasonableness. We published the cartoons in “context”; we published letters that “criticized” them; and my favourite, the cartoons weren’t “simply stuck in the middle” of the magazine. Gundara must have thought for ten whole minutes to come up with that list of journalistic do’s and don’t’s. And – phew! – he likes me. He really likes me!
Sorry again, I don’t give a damn if he likes me. In fact, it rather creeps me out that a whole squad of teat-sucking bureaucrats spent 900 days inspecting me and the Western Standard. I positively want to offend them. In fact, that’s pretty much the only test of my freedom: can I do exactly what Gundara says I shouldn’t? I’m not interested in publishing recipes or sports scores. I’m interested in bothering the hell out of government.
The complaint should have been dismissed on day one as ridiculous.
Wed, 2008-08-06 15:02
#38
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]After over 900 days, the Alberta Human Rights Commission has dismissed the complaint against The Western Standard(now defunct) for publishing the infamous Mohammed cartoons.[/b]
I think the AHRC didn't want to tangle with Levant. Unlike most defendants, Levant was ready to aggressively fight back. He and his lawyers would have made the AHRC look like fools—particularly if the AHRC issued an adverse ruling and he took the matter to a [i]real[/i] court.
I don’t think the AHRC wanted any part of that.
Wed, 2008-08-06 15:07
#39
quote:
I once heard a story of a park in London where people go to make speeches.
You're right. It's called Piccadilly Circus.
Edited to add correct info: Hyde Park is where the speaker's corner is. Here is more info:
quote:
In the 19th century Hyde Park had become a popular place for meetings. In 1872, in response to riots after police tried to disband a political meeting, Speaker's Corner was established to create a venue where people would be allowed to speak freely. Here, every Sunday people stand on a soap box and proclaim their views on political, religious or other items, sometimes interrupted and challenged by their audience.
[url=http://www.aviewoncities.com/london/hydepark.htm]http://www.aviewoncitie...
[ 06 August 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]
Wed, 2008-08-06 19:38
#40
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I believe the law should permit any kind of speech short of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre or "kill them!" in a lynch mob or publishing malicious lies about individuals (libel etc.).[/b]
I found this interesting story behind "shouting Fire in a crowded theatre":
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater]http://e...
quote:
"Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!". Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment."
"Falsely" seem to be the key. If one believes there is a fire, he is not only allowed to shout fire, but may be obliged to do so.
Also interesting that the argument about shouting fire was originally made to shut down objection to the draft during WWI.
Wed, 2008-08-06 20:35
#41
M. Spector
double post
[ 06 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Wed, 2008-08-06 20:37
#42
M. Spector
A good argument can be made that shouting fire in a crowded theatre - falsely or otherwise - isn't really "speech" at all. It's merely the verbal equivalent of pulling a fire alarm.
The protection of speech is intended to protect the expression of controversial or unpopular ideas, and not spontaneous utterances of alarm. So shouting fire in a crowded theatre isn't really a genuine exception to the rule at all.
Holmes's analogy is bogus.
[ 06 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Wed, 2008-08-06 20:53
#43
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]I think the AHRC didn't want to tangle with Levant. Unlike most defendants, Levant was ready to aggressively fight back. He and his lawyers would have made the AHRC look like fools—particularly if the AHRC issued an adverse ruling and he took the matter to a [i]real[/i] court.
I don’t think the AHRC wanted any part of that.[/b]
I think they dismissed it because his magazine didn't meet the test for hate speech. What I'm curious is how Levant can possibly be claiming he has a huge legal bill when he appeared before the AHRC without a lawyer.
I know he's out of a job and all that but frankly his constant fundraising for his "legal costs" seems somewhat suspicious.
Wed, 2008-08-06 21:21
#44
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
[b]What I'm curious is how Levant can possibly be claiming he has a huge legal bill when he appeared before the AHRC without a lawyer.[/b]
Why do you say that? In, for example, the [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8]video taped preliminary AHRC hearing[/url], his lawyer is sitting right next to him!
I think he was subject to (at least) two "human rights" tribunal inquiries for his political speech and he's been (laughably) sued for libel by Richard "Section 13" Warman (and he's got at least a couple of other Warmanesque suits). He's represented by the McLennan Ross law firm in at least some of those matters (if not all of them).
He has said that his legal fees have exceeded $100,000 (and, being someone who hires outside litigation counsel for my company, that's not only possible but highly probable). Through EL's freedom of information inquiries, he has reported that the AHRC itself spent over $500,000 prosecuting him on the two "human rights" violation matters that they belatedly dismissed.
The only way Levant has been able to defend himself is through the support of the blogesphere, something that other defendants in these "human rights" inquisitions over "offensive speech" have not had the luxury of tapping.
So, the AHRC found itself in a street fight with a smart, aggressive defendant, who is supported by able counsel, and they wisely threw in the towel because they were almost certainly going to get the asses handed to them while living a P.R. nightmare.
Better to throw that fish back in the pond and try to hook smaller fish with no teeth.
Wed, 2008-08-06 21:29
#45
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Why do you say that? In, for example, the [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8]video taped preliminary AHRC hearing[/url], his lawyer is sitting right next to him![/b]
I hadn't noticed that as Levant seemed to be doing all the talking. Truth be told I can only take Levant in small doses so I didn't watch the whole video.
Fri, 2008-08-08 04:50
#46
Surely the libel suits ought not count in Levant's tally of costs. He slanders people regularly it seems and the laws of libel deal with personal attack.
In fact Ezra himself is very prone to using libel law if he believes his character has been maligned.
[url=http://merleter.blogspot.com/2008/04/ezra-levant-sues-and-is-being-sued.... likes to sue[/url]
So much for free speech Ezra style.
And I agree with akaMycroft, given the number of times I have seen Ezra shall we say "misrepresent the truth" [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] I would like to see an accounting of the alleged $100,000.00 he claims to have spent.
Fri, 2008-08-08 04:53
#47
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
[b]Surely the libel suits ought not count in Levant's tally of costs. He slanders people regularly it seems and the laws of libel deal with personal attack.[/b]
Libel does not simple deal with "personal attacks". I can call someone a "fucking moron" all day long and it's not libel. Libel requires, among other things, a statement to be factually incorrect.
Fri, 2008-08-08 05:02
#48
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Libel does not simple deal with "personal attacks". I can call someone a "fucking moron" all day long and it's not libel. Libel requires, among other things, a statement to be factually incorrect.[/b]
True, but one can file frivolous libel suits over personal attacks and, in regards to Merle Terlesky and his comments in a Calgary weekly, it appears that Levant has done precisely that.
Fri, 2008-08-08 05:09
#49
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Libel does not simple deal with "personal attacks". I can call someone a "fucking moron" all day long and it's not libel. Libel requires, among other things, a statement to be factually incorrect.[/b]
Yes, but ohara is right in that the $100,000 cannot include costs incurred for things unrelated to the human rights complaint. His figure of $500,000 (cost to AB taxpayers for a 900 day investigation involving 15 bureaucrats) is relevant (if proven factually correct - those employees were not spending 100% of their working hours on his one case).
I disagree with Ezra ever having been investigated at all for printing political cartoons blaspheming a freaking prophet (!), and I think the AHRC was scared of taking him on directly, due to to how many views the other you tube vids have received. however, he is still over-the-top, loves to sue people and calls for the dismantling of all human rights commissions, rather than just the revocation of speech-related investigations adn prosecutions.
Fri, 2008-08-08 05:14
#50
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]A good argument can be made that shouting fire in a crowded theatre - falsely or otherwise - isn't really "speech" at all. It's merely the verbal equivalent of pulling a fire alarm.[/b]
I agree.
Here's my example of speech that should be banned:
A child goes missing. Someone spreads the story (via speech, posters, meetings, marches, sermons) that the Japanese/Aboriginals/Jews/Queers (take your pick) have kidnapped and murdered the child to use in some ritual.
That person's freedoms (speech, assembly, press, etc.) should be abrogated to the extent required to stop that activity. Depending on the scale and gravity of the propaganda, the penalties may range from nothing to ridicule to imprisonment.
Everyone agree?
Fri, 2008-08-08 05:22
#51
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Libel requires, among other things, a statement to be factually incorrect.[/b]
In U.S. law maybe, but that's not true in Canada.
In Canada, you can plead truth as a defence against a libel or defamation charge, but it's not an absolute defence if your statements were malicious.