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.

A) You quoted yourself

I see I did, My mistake. This is what I meant to quote.

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

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.

I apologize for calling you insane, I didn't really have a reason to do so, I was simply frustrated.

The fact that you have a certificate in the Law simply makes your stance that much more peculiar, seeing as it was a pretty clear cut legal issue.

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.

I believe it was Trudeau, who for all his faults, said that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. I would argue that the government has no place on the property of the nation. What a person does within the confines of their home is their own business (as long as all parties involved are consenting adults). It only becomes someone elses business when what they do interferes with someone else's enjoyment of their property. Since a public space is by its very nature owned by the public such things should be allowed. By no means do they have to be looked upon favourably, but they should be allowed to take place.

This is especially true when it comes to Social Media, if someone posts something on facebook or twitter, it is up to the owner of that service to decide what is and is not permitted on their service, it's their property, they are the final authority.

 Ratbarf wrote:

The fact that you have a certificate in the Law simply makes your stance that much more peculiar, seeing as it was a pretty clear cut legal issue.

Okay, well to admit my mistake, it actually was judged as against the Charter's clause of freedom of expression. I'll still remain on the position that signage is not an expression issue, but a commerce and publication issue.

Which still doesn't have much bearing on the subject at hand, honestly. We're talking about the criminalisation of ''offensive materials'', not fines given to people who won't advertise in the langage of the land.

I believe it was Trudeau, who for all his faults, said that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.

And funnily enough, sodomy is still illegal according to the code. Same as pornography.

And funnily enough, sodomy is still illegal according to the code. Same as pornography.

? Porn is totally legal in Canada, so is Sodomy, as long as you're at or above the age of majority.

 Ratbarf wrote:

And funnily enough, sodomy is still illegal according to the code. Same as pornography.

? Porn is totally legal in Canada, so is Sodomy, as long as you're at or above the age of majority.

Well, in the sense that you'll never get in a court of law because of it, yes, it's legal.

There's an article in the Criminal Code against both tho. I checked less than 2 weeks ago.

Which still doesn't have much bearing on the subject at hand, honestly. We're talking about the criminalisation of ''offensive materials'', not fines given to people who won't advertise in the langage of the land.

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.

I believe that would be a case of judges restricting freedom of speech without any real harm being caused, and Quebec is full of this.

Also, Canada has Human Rights Tribunals, which frankly are nothing about rights, if anything they trample all over a whole bunch of them for no good reason.

Finally,

...maintain the right to free speech...allowing judges to restrict it..

that's paradoxical.

 Ratbarf wrote:

I believe that would be a case of judges restricting freedom of speech without any real harm being caused, and Quebec is full of this.

I'm not that deadset on Bill 22. In social terms, it's far from ideal. Legally, enforcing the majority langage makes a lot of sense. And the North American British Act was basically the contrary ; legal publicity had to be in english. Anyhow, personnaly I'm not that attached to the issue, I just particularly dislike the whole trend to paint it up as facism that's popular as of late.

Also, Canada has Human Rights Tribunals, which frankly are nothing about rights, if anything they trample all over a whole bunch of them for no good reason.

I don't get what your saying.

Finally,

...maintain the right to free speech...allowing judges to restrict it..

that's paradoxical.

I don't get what your saying.

Canada has a history of instituting policy which tramples over Freedom of Speech without due cause.

I just particularly dislike the whole trend to paint it up as facism that's popular as of late.

It wasn't my intention to paint it up as fascism. I simply think it's a terribly unjust law.

I'd argue that the only way to maintain Rights is to define restrictions for them.

Tarnations, I think I just hung myself for this argument, as I think somewhat similar to that.

I think the issue lies in how those rights are restricted, I don't really think I can come up for a case in which freedom of speech should be restricted, except maybe harassment. But only one of the articles posted contained actual harassment, the rest were simply people expressing themselves in totally harmless ways. Often in bad taste, but ultimately harmless. It's not like the fellow who made the jokes about the abducted girl phoned up her parents and told them, he posted them to a privately owned social website.

The only article mentioned in the OP that has any basis for legal action was the one in which the fellow called the lady "you f****** black c***" and even then the only racial thing about that was the word black, it's not like he called her a n*****. I don't think that black should be an illegal pejorative.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

The fact that you have a certificate in the Law simply makes your stance that much more peculiar, seeing as it was a pretty clear cut legal issue.

Okay, well to admit my mistake, it actually was judged as against the Charter's clause of freedom of expression. I'll still remain on the position that signage is not an expression issue, but a commerce and publication issue.

Which still doesn't have much bearing on the subject at hand, honestly. We're talking about the criminalisation of ''offensive materials'', not fines given to people who won't advertise in the langage of the land.

I believe it was Trudeau, who for all his faults, said that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.

And funnily enough, sodomy is still illegal according to the code. Same as pornography.

Only if 3 people are present, or if you send it through the mail, respectively.

Still haven't heard your reply to my confounding argument about the eggshell skull principle.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Look up Skokie, Illinois.

Last time I let a man tell me a story about Skokie, Illinois, it turns out it was Kaiser Soze and I was made to look like a right idiot.

 sebster wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Look up Skokie, Illinois.

Last time I let a man tell me a story about Skokie, Illinois, it turns out it was Kaiser Soze and I was made to look like a right idiot.

so he got you with the huge fat guy in the quartet as well??

"I mean, like, Orca-fat."

I'm also very happy that the two guys in here who were insulting each other have worked it out and stopped. Please keep it friendly from here out.

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=32934&cpage=1

Here's an interesting example of "causing offense"

This young lady, a Ms. Lindsey Stone, decided that it was a great gag to mock that little sign there. For the unaware that sign is one of many in Arlington National Cemetery encouraging a reverent demeanor... a common request in most cemeteries. The respect of the dead is a curious behavior in humans but in line with pretty much every society on earth.

So my question is, is this an arrestable offense under the British and Canadian laws we've been speaking about?

I have to confess if it is I certainly don't think she should be arrested. Held up as an example of a complete donkey cave and mocked publicly? Yes I think that's appropriate. She posted it on social media, it's only fair justice comes the same way via the court of public opinion, but an actual criminal proceeding for being a donkey cave? I dunno...

Indeed, I think its high time that some offenses simply resulted in public humiliation.

Bring back the stocks and rotten veggies

Well I'd say the thousands of patriotic Americans informing her on facebook and the like that she's an utter tosser (not to mention informing her WORK what a donkey cave they have working for them) are the modern equivalent of a solid tomato to the face in the town square.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=32934&cpage=1

Here's an interesting example of "causing offense"

This young lady, a Ms. Lindsey Stone, decided that it was a great gag to mock that little sign there. For the unaware that sign is one of many in Arlington National Cemetery encouraging a reverent demeanor... a common request in most cemeteries. The respect of the dead is a curious behavior in humans but in line with pretty much every society on earth.

So my question is, is this an arrestable offense under the British and Canadian laws we've been speaking about?

See, that's where it gets interesting to me. Because most of the cases in the OP are stuff that just should not happen, but then there are and should be laws for basic public decency, and exactly where free speach ends and public decency begins is a pretty tough question.

Exactly what the difference is I'm not sure I can really articulate that well.

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=32934&cpage=1

Here's an interesting example of "causing offense"

This young lady, a Ms. Lindsey Stone, decided that it was a great gag to mock that little sign there. For the unaware that sign is one of many in Arlington National Cemetery encouraging a reverent demeanor... a common request in most cemeteries. The respect of the dead is a curious behavior in humans but in line with pretty much every society on earth.

So my question is, is this an arrestable offense under the British and Canadian laws we've been speaking about?

See, that's where it gets interesting to me. Because most of the cases in the OP are stuff that just should not happen, but then there are and should be laws for basic public decency, and exactly where free speach ends and public decency begins is a pretty tough question.

Exactly what the difference is I'm not sure I can really articulate that well.

I'd say it's directly comparable to the first article and thread title actually. It's not quite spitting on the Tomb of the Unknown soldier, but it's heading in that general direction, and burning poppies with an insulting little note to the Forces is in a similar vein.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=32934&cpage=1

Here's an interesting example of "causing offense"

This young lady, a Ms. Lindsey Stone, decided that it was a great gag to mock that little sign there. For the unaware that sign is one of many in Arlington National Cemetery encouraging a reverent demeanor... a common request in most cemeteries. The respect of the dead is a curious behavior in humans but in line with pretty much every society on earth.

So my question is, is this an arrestable offense under the British and Canadian laws we've been speaking about?

I have to confess if it is I certainly don't think she should be arrested. Held up as an example of a complete donkey cave and mocked publicly? Yes I think that's appropriate. She posted it on social media, it's only fair justice comes the same way via the court of public opinion, but an actual criminal proceeding for being a donkey cave? I dunno...

Laws aren't that precise. I mean there isn't a law saying it is illegal to make mockery of signs in public parks, however people have been prosecuted for pissing on a war memorial.

The more I read about the "freedoms" in the UK, the more I worry about our allies. I said before that this kind of thing makes me ashamed that Britain is our ally, and it's true. How can the US be the bastion of tolerance and freedom that we claim to be while letting one of our biggest 'partners' enact such atrocities? We'll invade foreign countries over the merest rumor of WMD's, but we won't tell our best friends "Knock that gak off, you're being an idiot."

Lordhat, are you joking?

Not at all.

You're ashamed to have britain as an ally? Have you seen some of your other allies?
Also, have you seen, I dunno, America lately? Gitmo, Patriot Act, etc etc etc?

Your comment is really bizarre to me!

The US is a bastion of tolerance? They can't even tolerate the metric system.

What? We use it a fair amount. Just not exclusivly. Because it would be a drag to rewrite all our recipies for cooking.

Its definitly used in any sort of scientific setting. Everyday use is the English system.

 azazel the cat wrote:

And funnily enough, sodomy is still illegal according to the code. Same as pornography.

Only if 3 people are present, or if you send it through the mail, respectively.

Still haven't heard your reply to my confounding argument about the eggshell skull principle.

I thought the 3 people present made it an aggravated assault, as the 3rd person counted as a weapon for the one 'commiting' sodomy?

For the eggshell skull thing.

Tort Law aims at compensation of harm done, Criminal law would aim at multiple things, including deterrance. As there is no schedule of compensation for 'offence' under private law, there would be no point in invoking eggshell.

I assume, since decency laws are under the Criminal Code, that the justification is that the 'indecent' act they aim at punishing are considered a danger to society. As such, you have a criteria to distinguish between 'offence' that require no punishment and those that do. Personnaly, I wouldn't spend too many tears for the dude murdered by the father of a kidnapped kid, after the donkey-cave claimed on all social media that he was the one who had kidnapped and killed the kid. Which is bad, murderers should not have the sympathy of the public. It devaluates the exercice of justice.

Such 'decency' laws are justified in my opinion, as it gives assurance to those that have lived an acute situation that they cannot be further victimised without a defence against those that target them,

Things like jailing movie producers because their movie was too gory, that's just dumb.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'd say it's directly comparable to the first article and thread title actually. It's not quite spitting on the Tomb of the Unknown soldier, but it's heading in that general direction, and burning poppies with an insulting little note to the Forces is in a similar vein.

Yeah, it's more that it gets me thinking about exactly where the line between political protest and douchebaggery actually rests. I mean, making an ass of yourself at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier should quite rightly be punished, as should burning poppies just for the notoriety. But what if each act instead had a meaningful political intent behind it, such as making a comment that our politicians glorify our dead soldiers to make future wars more politically acceptable?

And if the above is wrong, purely because it is offensive to the memory of our soldiers, then how is that any different to people being douchebags to parents who have a missing child?

I don't know, it's a tough issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lordhat wrote:
The more I read about the "freedoms" in the UK, the more I worry about our allies. I said before that this kind of thing makes me ashamed that Britain is our ally, and it's true. How can the US be the bastion of tolerance and freedom that we claim to be while letting one of our biggest 'partners' enact such atrocities? We'll invade foreign countries over the merest rumor of WMD's, but we won't tell our best friends "Knock that gak off, you're being an idiot."

Dude, the US has an airbase in Turkmenistan. Go read about human rights abuses in Turkmenistan, and then spend some time thinking about how ridiculous your post above is.