Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 azazel the cat wrote:

But therein lies the problem... the reasonability test applies to the action, the eggshell skull principle applies to the consequence. However, the reasonable person test does not apply in the sense of "would a reasonable person have told a dead baby joke". It applies as "would a reasonable person tell a joke"; it does not bring up matters of taste. Whereas, the eggshell skull principle applies as "intent doesn't matter, that fragile snowflake was offended".

As a result, either the eggshell skull principle must cease to exist in tort law (a bad idea), or else intangible harm (such as being offended) must cease to.

Eggshell skull only applies if it was impossible to predict the result of the action. A) I don't know how I feel about calling a parent who just had their daughter kidnapped 'egghsell skull', I mean, to me it's pretty damn obvious that a father in this condition could be ready to snap. B) Reasonnability applies to both Mens Rea and Actus Reus, so you can apply it to the intention. 'Uncaring' (insouciance in french) is a constituent of Mens Rea. C) You could ''easily'' prove an altered state of emotional makeup by evidence by experts in a court of law.

One other thing I just thought about, as a principle of tort law, eggshell skull implies that something already happened against a particularly vulnerable individual. ''Offence'' laws such as the ones that are described here do not require an actual harm, just that a rational individual could understand that he would possibly harm someone by doing so.

Mattman154 wrote:
However that's the price of free speech. You may not like everything you hear.

I don't buy it. Not all speech is worth protecting, and we have a perfectly functional system that can filter out and restrict speech that is not worth protecting. Offensive words and actions are outlawed in most developed countries. Even the USA, with it's 1st amendment (of which it's awfully proud) has 'fighting words' doctrine, limitations on hate-speech, racism etc.

The only question, IMO, is where do we draw the line? We're in a brave new world at the moment, where nearly everyone is on the internet and using facebook and twitter. It is now possible for idiots to reach truly massive audiences in mere minutes. Previously, the only people who could do that were the media. So society and the law has to catch up, and decide exactly what it is appropriate for people to say and do on the internet.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

But therein lies the problem... the reasonability test applies to the action, the eggshell skull principle applies to the consequence. However, the reasonable person test does not apply in the sense of "would a reasonable person have told a dead baby joke". It applies as "would a reasonable person tell a joke"; it does not bring up matters of taste. Whereas, the eggshell skull principle applies as "intent doesn't matter, that fragile snowflake was offended".

As a result, either the eggshell skull principle must cease to exist in tort law (a bad idea), or else intangible harm (such as being offended) must cease to.

Eggshell skull only applies if it was impossible to predict the result of the action. A) I don't know how I feel about calling a parent who just had their daughter kidnapped 'egghsell skull', I mean, to me it's pretty damn obvious that a father in this condition could be ready to snap. B) Reasonnability applies to both Mens Rea and Actus Reus, so you can apply it to the intention. 'Uncaring' (insouciance in french) is a constituent of Mens Rea. C) You could ''easily'' prove an altered state of emotional makeup by evidence by experts in a court of law.

One other thing I just thought about, as a principle of tort law, eggshell skull implies that something already happened against a particularly vulnerable individual. ''Offence'' laws such as the ones that are described here do not require an actual harm, just that a rational individual could understand that he would possibly harm someone by doing so.

Ah, but I am afraid that I cannot allow you to only consider easy cases. It is within the penumbra where this debate shall occur!

Remember Rule 332: if it exists, someone is offended by it. Eggshell skull applies to potentially everything.

Here shall be my working example of a `hard case`:

I declare aloud that Twilight sucks. This person overhears me:




...and then I get dragged into court for `harming` her with my offensive (to her) statement. Eggshell skull indeed.

I'm work blocked.

Sorry.

Words won't do justice to the pile of fails-at-life shown in the video.

Not really. Most other places in the world are confident they can maintain the right to free speech while still allowing judges to restrict it in cases where harm can be caused. That's the stupid thing a lot of people don't realize, pronoucing words are actions, and they can be aimed at hurting intensively individuals that have been weakened by circumstances.

That cops had to spend their day defending Neo-Nazis from potential harm from holocaust survivors or their family, is to me a sympton, not an indication of social health and freedom.

Just because they're confident they can doesn't mean that they actually do, and frankly, they don't in Canada. I'm not too sure about Quebec, because the PQ seems to take a certain amount of pride from their insulting of muslims and the english. :/

Got 1:16 in

I swear, there has to be a circle of hell reserved for the blight upon God's good Earth that is Twilight fanatics.

There is, right next to Atilla the Hun and Hitler, the fans coincidentally are the hell for His Hunness and the world's most hated man along with other such august scum bags.

I got 5 seconds in. Damn my curiosity.

 Albatross wrote:
I got 5 seconds in. Damn my curiosity.

I stuck it for a about a minute, why did I subject myself to this. I know what 'those people' are like.

It's very daft stuff and I'm fairly convinced that one of these people arrested is going to complain to the European board of human rights about censorship and freedom of expression, win, sue the seven shades of gak out of the police force involved and suddenly the notion of arresting people for putting offensive images on their own private boards will become 'out of vogue' with the constabulary...

And then, perhaps, they could get off their arses and go and solve actual bloody crimes.

Nah, they're too scared to go after real criminals. They might have guns, or knives!

 Grey Templar wrote:
They might have guns, or knives!

Oh goodness no!

 Ratbarf wrote:

Not really. Most other places in the world are confident they can maintain the right to free speech while still allowing judges to restrict it in cases where harm can be caused. That's the stupid thing a lot of people don't realize, pronoucing words are actions, and they can be aimed at hurting intensively individuals that have been weakened by circumstances.

That cops had to spend their day defending Neo-Nazis from potential harm from holocaust survivors or their family, is to me a sympton, not an indication of social health and freedom.

Just because they're confident they can doesn't mean that they actually do, and frankly, they don't in Canada. I'm not too sure about Quebec, because the PQ seems to take a certain amount of pride from their insulting of muslims and the english. :/

Thank you very much for that bs, but the criminal system in Canada is the one inherited from Common Law, and it applies everywhere in Canada just the same. It's our civil laws that are different. And yes, the Criminal Code has plenty of restrictions on free speech... We jailed a horror movie 'producer' under those less than 2 years ago.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Nah, they're too scared to go after real criminals. They might have guns, or knives!

Far more fun to arrest facebook trolls and taser the blind...

Freedom Of Speech is intended to protect political discourse.

It is obvious to most people that it does not grant the right to say anything, anytime, to anyone, anywhere you want. Some juveniles have not understood that. Twitter and Facebook offer idiots even greater opportunity to behave like idiots.

There is naturally a grey area and the law and public opinion have not resolved the issue.

It is obvious to most people that it does not grant the right to say anything, anytime, to anyone, anywhere you want. Some juveniles have not understood that. Twitter and Facebook offer idiots even greater opportunity to behave like idiots.

You see, I would take it as you can say anything to anyone as long as it is done in public or in your home/property. You have no right to call someone out in their own home, but you should be able to do it anywhere else.

Thank you very much for that bs, but the criminal system in Canada is the one inherited from Common Law, and it applies everywhere in Canada just the same. It's our civil laws that are different. And yes, the Criminal Code has plenty of restrictions on free speech... We jailed a horror movie 'producer' under those less than 2 years ago.

Well excuse me for wanting to have a sign that is only in English and a daughter who likes to play soccer in a headscarf.

Honestly I bloody hate the ing Quebec government.

Although Trudeau was also a tool, and gave us that horrendous document which is our Constitution.

 Ratbarf wrote:

It is obvious to most people that it does not grant the right to say anything, anytime, to anyone, anywhere you want. Some juveniles have not understood that. Twitter and Facebook offer idiots even greater opportunity to behave like idiots.

You see, I would take it as you can say anything to anyone as long as it is done in public or in your home/property. You have no right to call someone out in their own home, but you should be able to do it anywhere else.

Why is that relevant? If you can insult someone without consequences, why would you face consequences when doing it in their house?

 Ratbarf wrote:

Thank you very much for that bs, but the criminal system in Canada is the one inherited from Common Law, and it applies everywhere in Canada just the same. It's our civil laws that are different. And yes, the Criminal Code has plenty of restrictions on free speech... We jailed a horror movie 'producer' under those less than 2 years ago.

Well excuse me for wanting to have a sign that is only in English and a daughter who likes to play soccer in a headscarf.

Honestly I bloody hate the ing Quebec government.

Although Trudeau was also a tool, and gave us that horrendous document which is our Constitution.

Ok, so besides being insulting 1/5th of the country, what's the point of this post? French langage laws and laicity laws are all civil laws, not criminal. It has no bearing at all to freedom of speech.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


Not really. Most other places in the world are confident they can maintain the right to free speech while still allowing judges to restrict it in cases where harm can be caused. That's the stupid thing a lot of people don't realize, pronoucing words are actions, and they can be aimed at hurting intensively individuals that have been weakened by circumstances.

That cops had to spend their day defending Neo-Nazis from potential harm from holocaust survivors or their family, is to me a sympton, not an indication of social health and freedom.

Actually, the Neo-Nazis never actually marched in Skokie. They didn't have a lot of money in the first place, and the legal fees for the case (above and beyond the ACLU lawyer) bled them dry.

Either way, it was not a violent activity. It was hateful and wrong, but it's not the government's job to determine what is hateful and wrong. The people can choose not to support such demonstrations, to exercise their own rights and counter-march, or attempt to persuade others not to support them.

codemonkey wrote:
but it's not the government's job to determine what is hateful and wrong.

I disagree. I think that's the whole point of a judiciary system, actually.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

codemonkey wrote:
but it's not the government's job to determine what is hateful and wrong.

I disagree. I think that's the whole point of a judiciary system, actually.

To determine what "actions" are hateful and wrong, because they actually have a physical impact on people? Certainly. To determine what words? Certainly not. The point of democracy is to allow a multitude of viewpoints and ideologies free reign to compete, and the best will win out. Even if it has good intentions, declaring a viewpoint to be wrong, and that it can never be discussed (and rejected) in the public forum is undemocratic (and will simply lead to that ideology going underground). Give a government the power to unnecessarily censor speech, and history shows they will abuse it (in American history, Alien and Sedition Acts, Sedition Act of 1918).

codemonkey wrote:

To determine what "actions" are hateful and wrong, because they actually have a physical impact on people? Certainly. To determine what words? Certainly not. The point of democracy is to allow a multitude of viewpoints and ideologies free reign to compete, and the best will win out. Even if it has good intentions, declaring a viewpoint to be wrong, and that it can never be discussed (and rejected) in the public forum is undemocratic (and will simply lead to that ideology going underground). Give a government the power to unnecessarily censor speech, and history shows they will abuse it (in American history, Alien and Sedition Acts, Sedition Act of 1918).

These are not cases of making words illegal, it's the actions that are constituted mainly by uttering those words that cause problems. Like claiming that you've raped and killed a young girl on a public forum. That's in the cases that OP mentionned.

Freedom pf Speech, like Killkrazy remarked, and that you seemed to have miss, pertains to political discourse. Even then, I claim that a reasonnable judge could determine when 'political discourse' is nothing more than a smoke screen for incitation. Like Skokie .

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

codemonkey wrote:

To determine what "actions" are hateful and wrong, because they actually have a physical impact on people? Certainly. To determine what words? Certainly not. The point of democracy is to allow a multitude of viewpoints and ideologies free reign to compete, and the best will win out. Even if it has good intentions, declaring a viewpoint to be wrong, and that it can never be discussed (and rejected) in the public forum is undemocratic (and will simply lead to that ideology going underground). Give a government the power to unnecessarily censor speech, and history shows they will abuse it (in American history, Alien and Sedition Acts, Sedition Act of 1918).

These are not cases of making words illegal, it's the actions that are constituted mainly by uttering those words that cause problems. Like claiming that you've raped and killed a young girl on a public forum. That's in the cases that OP mentionned.

Freedom pf Speech, like Killkrazy remarked, and that you seemed to have miss, pertains to political discourse.

In that case, you've wasted the police's time. Maybe the person gets punished for misleading the police?

That's exactly what I said. And that's why it needs to be protected. If Neo-Nazi views are wrong, the way to deal with them isn't to use the law as a bludgeon to smack down anyone who utters them. You deal with them by using the same public forums that are available to the Neo-Nazis to explain why their views are wrong.

Why is that relevant? If you can insult someone without consequences, why would you face consequences when doing it in their house?

Every man a king, and his house his kingdom. You should be the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not permissable in your own home. If someone disrespects that you have every right to remove them from your home. The same cannot be said in public, because by it's very nature you are not the final arbiter of what is permissable, therefore whether you are offended or not is irrelevant.

Ok, so besides being insulting 1/5th of the country, what's the point of this post? French langage laws and laicity laws are all civil laws, not criminal. It has no bearing at all to freedom of speech.

It has immense bearing on the freedom of speech, if I want to put up a sign on my property for a business I own I have to make sure it's in French or has the French more prominently displayed. Well I don't want it in French, then I get sued, then I lose my business, all because I wanted a sign in English. If that isn't related to free speech then I think you misunderstand the term. Plus, in addition, it is free speech, because the Quebec Government had to use the notwithstanding clause of our constitution to write that law because they knew it was unconstitutional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I disagree. I think that's the whole point of a judiciary system, actually.

Actually no, it is to decide what is harmful and wrong, which is a very importance difference.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Every man a king, and his house his kingdom. You should be the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not permissable in your own home. If someone disrespects that you have every right to remove them from your home. The same cannot be said in public, because by it's very nature you are not the final arbiter of what is permissable, therefore whether you are offended or not is irrelevant.

That's beyond medieval. Good thing it's not the way it works in real life.

It has immense bearing on the freedom of speech, if I want to put up a sign on my property for a business I own I have to make sure it's in French or has the French more prominently displayed. Well I don't want it in French, then I get sued, then I lose my business, all because I wanted a sign in English.

That's not freedom of speech. That's publicity laws.

If that isn't related to free speech then I think you misunderstand the term.

No, I think it's you who doesn't. And in this case, it's not a term, but a principle of Law.

Plus, in addition, it is free speech, because the Quebec Government had to use the notwithstanding clause of our constitution to write that law because they knew it was unconstitutional.

Doesn't make it a free speech issue. Or a decency issue. Which is what this thread is about...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:

Actually no, it is to decide what is harmful and wrong, which is a very importance difference.

Actually, to be pedant, it's to determine what's reprehensible and which deserve punishment, reparation and compensation.

Plus, in addition, it is free speech, because the Quebec Government had to use the notwithstanding clause of our constitution to write that law because they knew it was unconstitutional.

So the fact that the National Assembly had to use the Not Withstanding clause of the constitution to write a law because they explicitly knew it was contrary to the freedom of speech clause makes something not a freedom of speech issue? Well excuse me, I didn't know I was arguing with the insane.

That's beyond medieval. Good thing it's not the way it works in real life.

No, not really, it's actually incredibly civilised.

A) You quoted yourself

B) Maybe you could point me to a judgement where Law 101 is said to be contrary to Freedom of Speech, and not to the policy of double official language and publication laws in Canada? It'd be a Freedom of Speech issue if it related to the right to express yourself in English, which is not the case.

C) That's, again, insulting. Your arguing with someone who'se completed a certificate in law and who'se Master's specialisation is philosophy of law.

D) No, it's just really backwards. You don't get to make the laws in your own home. You are still responsible against society when your inside your house. Ancient Laws by Henri Summer Maine would be a good read to exemplify this.

Freedom of speech is irrelevent. If someone's trolling on twitter the report them to a bod and block them. There's no need for a criminal conviction at all.

=/ You can offend someone because of their actions, not who they are themselves. I guess that's where I would draw the line. I mean seriously, if you told the police that someone had called you a bad football player then they'd just tell you to man up. If you said that they were you insulting you because of the race then they'd ready the black bag to go over their head I suppose.

Yeah its a complex subject on what's permissible and what's a hate crime or whatever. Personally I'd just suggest whoever has the moral high ground to knock some sense into their opponent. ...An imperfect solution perhaps, but I find that its my typical suggested course of actions.

The way I see it, incitement to violence is a crime, and that's as it should be. If there's reason to believe that a person's words may incite violence then I have no real problem with them being shut up. There's a difference between a sober statement of opinion and needless stirring-up of hatred and anger for it's own sake. Allowing someone to purposely foment hatred and bitterness between communities and people does far more harm to society than shutting up some big-mouthed idiot and slapping a fine on him, or putting him away for a couple of weeks to think about what he's done. At least, that's my take on it as of today. I may change my mind.