Jennifer Pawluck convicted in police graffiti case

Peculiar that the article whitewashes this, where that same outlet routinely (as recently as this week) props up specious claims of harassment as a tactic to silence their political opponents.

"‘One cop, one bullet': Quebec woman convicted not for the graffiti she instagrammed, but the hashtag attached"

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/one-cop-one-bullet-...

While critics in Quebec have charged she was arrested merely because of “a picture,” the case hinged largely on the notes she attached to the posted image.

“On the photo there were links, or hashtags, with Ian Lafrenière’s name written in different ways and allusions like (‘All cops are bastards’) and (‘One cop, one bullet’) to the point where, given the context, there was criminal harassment,” prosecutor Josie Laplante said after the conviction.

> Pawluck is also prohibited from posting anything about police or anyone associated with the judicial system.

> she wasnt convicted because she posted the picture. she was convincted because she posted the picture, with hash tags like "one bullet one cop" and all cops are bastards".

If true, it sounds a bit more plausible to call it criminal harassment. I haven't followed up, though.

Looking at the title I was expecting her to be the graffiti artist, but the fact that she isn't is what I find most shocking.

Hitchens makes three excellent points in defense of free speech, including hate speech. The bits I've transcribed are in italics.

First, freedom of speech is really more about freedom of hearing:

...it’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard. It is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear. And every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something. In other words: Your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view.

Second, if you restrict speech then you must designate a censor. Is there any person or group you are willing to trust with the power to determine what you can read or hear?

Who's going to decide? To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker, or to determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the task of being the censor?

Did you hear any speaker in opposition to this motion (eloquent as... one of them was) to whom you would delegate the task of deciding for you, what you could read? To whom you'd give the job of deciding for you, relieve you of the responsibility of hearing what you might have to hear? Do you know anyone- hands up- to whom you would give this job? Does anyone have a nominee? You mean there's no one in Canada good enough to decide what I can read? Or hear? I had no idea... but there’s a law that says there must be such a person. Or there's a subsection of some piddling law that says it. Well to hell with that law then. It's inviting you to be liars and hypocrites and to deny what you evidently already know already.

And finally, if you censor hate speech, you must censor many religious texts:

Look anywhere you like for the warrant for slavery, for the subjugation of women as chattel, for the burning and flogging of homosexuals, for ethnic cleansing, for antisemitism, for all this you look no further than a famous book that's on every pulpit in this city and in every synagogue and in every mosque. And then just see whether you can square the fact that the force that is the main source of hatred is also the main caller for censorship. And when you've realized this you'll therefore this evening be faced with a gigantic false antithesis. I hope that still won't stop you from giving the motion before you the resounding endorsement that it deserves. Thanks awfully. Night-night. Stay cool!

If you're interested in that sort of thing, I highly recommend watching the whole speech. It's quite possibly the best oration by Christopher Hitchens.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM Unfortunately, the whole debate is only viewable with a flash player at http://tvo.org/video/188405/christopher-hitchens-freedom-spe...

Note: I transcribed this about 6 months ago, but it seemed relevant enough for me to mention it again.

Edit: found it I think. https://postmediamontrealgazette2.files.wordpress.com/2015/0...

Eye for an eye and all...

[0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/03/27...