I hope the judge get removed from office. I don't want people like that in charge of justice.
Some of those I agree with. Some I don't. Point is Supreme Court has rightly ruled Free Speech is not a absolute right. It does not trump all other rights. Nor all the duties/responsibilities we put onto governments.
Apropos of anything else, if I go somewhere and broadcast Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, or whatever, that is in no way my speech, and regulating the ability to do so without commission or royalty in no way restricts my ability to speak.
That said, I believe there are still provisions for something like "moral rights" where the original author could sue to block publication.
That said, you may be right about this particular situation.
This collapses separation of powers, is against the idea that "law" and "politics" are separate things, and paves the way for removing judges who don't support the views of the Party.
But i do believe that judges should be appointed by a panel of existing judges, and once appointed, can only be removed by said panel (and not the gov't).
Often, a lower court will be bound to make a particular judgment, because of precedent. It isn't unheard of for a judgment to say "We have to decide this way, but it would be really nice if this was appealed up to someone with the authority to decide the other way".
To me, anyways, there's overwhelming anecdotal proof that having some limits on speech correlates (and more than likely contributes) to a safer and more just society without any virulent side effect. This is not a slippery slope.
I think it's good to be vigilant about these things and scrutinize judges and officials though.
I'm of the view that it should be for everybody or nobody and not to discretion because their discretion always leads to selfish behavior that holds the people who most need to be held accountable to be the least so.
no serious person would suggest that this is a situation which requires limits on speech. you're using it as a platform for suggesting that it is, which I think is insane.
> This is not a slippery slope.
this is the very definition of a slippery slope.
Free speech is one of those things that fits into this category, regulating speech that makes people uncomfortable does have a very provable slippery slope effect.
https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-la...
We've experimented with aggressively limiting free speech before, and it went very very bad, very fast, I'd rather not try the experiment again.
Another point I'd like to make, is that I'd rather know what peoples 'real' views are, so I can either avoid them or help change their mind, pushing objectionable opinion underground, does not stop people from holding those opinions, it just hides them where it cannot been seen, and actioned upon.
Yeah, I can tell you hate speech laws don't work well, since any group with an agenda can push for those laws to be used against the common good, or even injudicious application of it, such as we see in the GB, where a woman has been sentenced to community service for quoting song lyrics, or the moronic laws of my country that make the denial of the Holocaust illegal.
However, I'd argue that from a moral standpoint, these laws are even more reprehensible. Language (and thought) are how we test ideas, and when you start to limit that because they're the wrong kind of language or ideas, you limit not only our capability to discuss ideas, but also our ability to talk about these ideas, but also our ability to test them, and therefore, if it is really such a repugnant idea, find out the arguments for why it is so.
There are other reasons why I believe that hate speech is a toxic idea. For example: hate speech is a term used by the small-minded to shut down anything they don't agree with. Serious discussion on any contentious subject is immediately rendered moot by the new Godwin that is calling something hate speech.
It's got entrenched constitutional protections for freedom of expression which courts are willing to use to invalidate laws, but the same constitution explicitly allows certain limits on that freedom.
The balance isn't perfect, especially not as applied to most Canadian defamation laws (Quebec is a bit friendlier to defendants here). But it's pretty good and way better than the UK's lack of any restraint on Parliament's surveillance state tendencies.
We should obviously all have the freedoms to be offensive, because like you say, offence is essentially arbitrary. But we draw limits on that freedom all the time - for safety, libel, or public order reasons, for example. The real argument should be about where that line is drawn, and not those silly straw men about “they are going to arrest me for calling a man a man”
There are also 0 restrictions on offensiveness in the US. Any restrictions on speech are restrictions on other crimes. You can’t incite violence for example. If your straw man of what free speech means we’re true, then a gang leader could freely sit behind a desk and direct others to commit crime on his behalf all day because all he’s doing is speaking, right?...
That's not true: see "seven dirty words".
Except it's literally not; that was a deliberate misrepresentation popularized by people like Jordan Peterson. [0]
> There are also 0 restrictions on offensiveness in the US
Incorrect, see literally the entire field of obscenity law.
[0] http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-crimi...
Like, calling your superior tu?
Please cite the text of a law which actually says this or any case where someone has been convicted for this under a law which does not explicitly say it.
No, it's not criminal in either place, if it's not coupled with more. Another poster replied with a link debunking this myth as applied to Canada.
And yes, laws aimed at preventing a hostile work environment, even speech-based ones, have been held to be constitutional in the US.
For a US federal example, repeatedly targeting someone with racial slurs within a workplace* will also get you into punishable trouble.
*Yes, I know certain employers, like 2-person companies, are excluded from these laws. Doesn't change the general point.
2. There are limitations of free speech in every country, including the US. It’s a matter of where the line is drawn.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5715727/Police-threa...
https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/201...
2. The restrictions on speech in the US mostly relate to other crimes, like inciting violence. You can’t be arrested in the US for saying something that’s too offensive (like they do in the UK every day).
You clearly are unfamiliar with the entire domain of obscenity law not in the US, which is exactly about defining what is so offensive as to be outside the scope of First Amendment protection.
It's their actual job.
I think you mean "double-plus wrong".