[yendu bwam]

Good night, Luis. In the country you would defend, much of what I posted to you tonight would not be allowed. I am glad that I had the freedom to tell you what I think about this - even if you should be offended. It was a good debate. I sing praises for the liberty to have had it.

[Snowyman]

In the country you would defend, much of what I posted to you tonight would not be allowed.

Got news for you. You haven't posted anything that would not be allowed in Canada. That's you're problem. You don't have a clue about the law and you interpret it to fit your needs. For speech to be illegal according to Canadian law, it has to promote hatred against an identifiable group, advocate "genocide" or incite "hatred to such an extent that it will lead to a breach of the peace."

That's what the court ruled the ad, in it's entirety did. Not the verses alone but the verses with the graphics.

Now let's go back to post#158 and New Hampshire, which the last time I looked was still in the USA and Luis when he says: The Supreme Court has recognized several limited exceptions to First Amendment protection, example:

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Court held that so-called "fighting words, which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace," are not protected.

Interesting, "breach of the peace". Sounds almost like Canada is a copycat....imagine that