2preserve

LSD no. Not enough demand. But I would imagine ecstasy attracts a pretty big criminal element. It's been a popular drug for 30 years

Are tasteless jokes really something that needs to be protected? Sure, if he was making a joke about the government being corrupt , or the over-reach of courts (ironic), I would be on your side. But are you really gonna die on this hill? You will fight for the right of comedians to insult the personal appearance of disabled people? I don't think it contributes much to the democratic discourse. And don't give me any of those "slippery slope" arguments.

> Proving you do not have or support Free Speech, you support "Reasonably Restricted Speech" which is not the same thing

See, this is exactly what I said. I didn't need to build a strawman. You did it for me.

I'm free to run down the street swinging your fists, but if I swing my fist into someone's face and break their nose, that's bad. I think we can all agree on that, right? What if I told you that swinging my fists was a form of "artistic expression", or was part of my religion? Should I be free to express myself at the expense of the rest of society?

The Charter legalized prostitution, gay marriage, abortions, and assisted suicide. It also banned discrimination against homosexuals, extraditing people to countries where they'll be tortured, and warrantless searches of your house. And it recognized that Aboriginals had title to their land. But yeah, you're right, it's pretty weak. Section 33 has been used once in it's 35 year history, so I see your point.

It's actually a great example of how freedom of speech is not a binary. It's possible to curtail some forms of expression, such as hate-speech, without turning the country into an autocratic regime that punishes thought crimes. Lots of Americans like to think that as soon as you moderately curtail freedom of expression, you've crossed some threshold and you're now North Korea. Turns out that with a strong judiciary (that isn't corrupted by money and politics) it's possible to have reasonable constraints on expression!

See, whats funny to me about this, is that you've gone and given yourself the title of "Americans", whereas the people who were there before you, and had established civilizations, are given the title "Native Americans". That doesn't make any sense. How about instead, Native Americans can drop the Native qualifier and Americans can start calling themselves "Foreign Americans". That's much more logical, and historically consistent.

(Also, "independent, foreign-recognized nation in the Americas"? What about the Six Nations? They were certainly recognized as nations by the British)