Posted on 06/11/2008 1:52:43 PM PDT by reaganaut1
VANCOUVER, British Columbia — A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States do not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal will soon rule on whether the cover story of the October 23, 2006, issue of Maclean’s magazine violated a provincial hate speech law.
Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say the magazine, Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsweekly, violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They say the magazine should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self respect.”
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions here last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean’s violated the law. As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.
“It’s hate speech!” yelled one man.
“It’s free speech!” yelled another.
In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If "hate speech" is banned in the U.S., conservatives like Mark Steyn will be the target. Criticizing someone is not the same as hating him.
I'm sure they mean giving offense to Blacks and Muslims, but its more likely, considering the current state of the MSM, the targets would be Conservatives, Southerners and Christians.
Criticizing someone is not the same as hating him.
::::::
Hating someone or something is not against the law — it will only be so if the communist thought-nazis take over this country...and we are only one election away from it if the mindless freedom-insensitive voting public is STUPID enought to vote Osama Obama into the Oval Office.
Actually I think this article was pretty good. It’s point was to illustrate how American’s view free speech as opposed to Canada and then the rest of the developed world. The article was very objective and it provided examples and quotes defending all sides.
Still don’t like the NYT’s but this article was ok.
One would think that, on this issue at least, a pure instinct for self-preservation would lead the New York Times to the correct (conservative) view. One would be wrong. The New York Times is willing to concede even its own right to print what it wishes, in the name of political correctness.
I do believe that the First Amendment has more than a few footprints on it. The question is which will go first, the first, or the second.
But here is how you know this is the NYT spinning - they never quote the actual language that is supposed to be hateful. Instead, with all the talk about hate speech and racial epithets and the KKK, they simply leave the impression that the article contained vile and disgusting language. In fact, Steyn was his witty self, and, more importantly, the specific line that led the case, about Muslims breeding like mosquitos, was a quote from a European Muslim, not even Steyn’s own words. So this lawsuit is really about abusing the system to intimidate any critic of Islam, but the NYT conveniently leaves out all of that context. Surprised?
I don’t think the debate has been settled in the United States. It’s just beginning. If we see more hate crime type laws passed, it could drift down into affecting what kinds of stories and what kinds of opinions can be published.
Typical in the sense that all the examples of the evil of incitement to violence were from the "right."
there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence . . . fiery speech urging an angry mob to immediately assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment.
But nary a Nytimese word about a fiery speech urging angry viewers of a national TVshow to attack and kill a white Congressman and his family -- that's just satire.
No problem, no problem at all with -- and no examples of -- wishing death upon Bush Administration personnel that's found on Err America, dailycuss, moron.org, Huff'n Puff Post, mediasmatters, dummyunderground, or any of the "intellectual" web sites so valued by the employees of the MSM.
Another Western country sacrificing rights at the alter of multiculturalism.
Yes, but Liberals invent rules for others to follow. They are always exempt from the same. After all, ‘hate speech’ is simply speech that liberals hate. I doubt the NYT will ever write anything they hate. Quite simple really…
Neither is slander, but no one seems to chase after anyone for that one anymore, else Olberman would never see the outside of a courtroom.
Winston Churchill once said something to the effect that if you want to enjoy the benefits of free speech then you need to be willing to occasionally tolerate some foolish speech. I couldn’t sum it up any better than that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.