I don't believe someone is free when they have to live in fear, surrounded by hate, with people advocating the destruction of their group solely because it exists.
This, and the overzealous application of the right to bear arms is why I would/could never live in America.
Hate speech laws in regards to incitement are against speech that would likely cause a breach of the peace (an illegal action) and/or are arguably incitements to commit hate crimes (another illegal action). If the courts can not find these to be true, the person commited no crime.
I'm having trouble verbalizing the correct wordings for the rights I meant (and I find when I write something with any ambiguity, B_S seems to take that as some sort of strange victory). But I'll explain it in terms of discrimination laws.
As the owner of a business you are not free to withhold service from a person for the above reasons. You can't have a sign that says 'Whites Only' or say 'No Jews allowed'. This is true even if you think serving a person of Minority A is an abomination from personal thought/religion (freedom of thought, freedom of religion). If you were the only worker at a store and had this belief, you'd HAVE to serve these groups. This person's rights are being reasonably limited (in the most minimal way possible as the goal) to not infringe on the rights of others to equality and security.
The nature of having protected classes is because if a marginalized minority group led a similar minded bigoted campaign (in the US), the majority would beat them down and make whatever their protest was meaningless. They don't have the numbers or power to enjoy these same rights as you do, so there needs to be some limitations on freedoms to uphold something very important, equality.
A business can refuse service for any reason as long as it is not based on:
race
colour
ancestry
place of origin
religious beliefs
gender (including pregnancy, sexual harassment, and gender identity)
physical disability
mental disability
marital status
family status
source of income
sexual orientation
In the US:
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
where a public accommodation can include:
A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA's title III requirements for public accommodations.
And
Private Clubs and Religious Organizations Are Not Considered Public Accommodations
Just as with the ADA, the HRA does not apply to private clubs or other establishments that are not open to the public. However, either a private club or a religious organization can be considered a public accommodation subject to HRA to the extent that it rents out space to another entity that runs a business, service or activity open to the public.
Example: If a veteran's club rents out its hall for a wedding reception, it will be considered a public accommodation.
So, where in that do you see a KKK owned banquet hall that they rent as a business allowed to refuse service because people are Black? They of course can if its a private residence and occasionally let people use it, but the same is true in Canada.
"Incitement of hatred is communicating an idea, it is not communicating an action -- nor is it inherently inciting an action. Hatred is not something that can be banned, nor is it something that you should try and ban, becuase as everyone else has mentioned all you will do is drive it underground where it will fester and grow until it erupts.
I'm still completely boggled that you can't see how that hate speech banning is thoughtcrime banning... I'm pretty much out of ways to explain it...
"
It's true because I say it is!!! That's all you've been doing.
I know this was referring mostly to BS, but I still am curious your thoughts on this post I made two pages ago that got missed:
How do you feel the internet affects the ability of racism to spread, considering the anonymity that it provides?
If you want to win a little victory here, if symbolic speech is factored into speech, ANYTHING can qualify as speech. That clearly is a bad precedent to set, as it allows everything from rape and murder to be protected as symbolic speech. So constraining speech by saying symbolic speech can't violate other laws I suppose is limiting freedom of speech, but only as much as freedom religion means that you can't make up Murderapia as a religion and claim that it's an integral part of your religious rituals to murder or rape.
@Internet comment:
I'm glad Canada is working towards getting rid of section 13 of the HRCA (the one with rules regarding the internet). There's too many issues/flaws with enforcing such rules over the medium, and I wouldn't consider a hate site 'a public demonstration that is likely to cause a breach of the peace'.
@Rest:
Which is exactly my point that no one seems to want to address. Freedoms have limitations in where they would infringe on others freedoms. Why am I not free to refuse service to minority group A? Discrimination policy to maintain the freedom of those minorities. Why am I not free to incite hatred with imminent breach of peace, or advocate genocide? Hate Speech laws to maintain the freedoms of those minorities.
In applying the law in Canada they follow the Oakes test:
"First, the objective to be served by the measures limiting a Charter right must be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom.
Second, the party invoking s. 1 must show the means to be reasonable and demonstrably justified. This involves a form of proportionality test involving three important components.
To begin, the measures must be fair and not arbitrary, carefully designed to achieve the objective in question and rationally connected to that objective.
In addition, the means should impair the right in question as little as possible.
Lastly, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the limiting measure and the objective -- the more severe the deleterious effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be."
And again:
Exerpt from law section 319:
"
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of...
...Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of"
Somehow incitement is not speech, but incitement of hatred likely leading to a breach of the peace is...
The things we have decided do not have value are not classified as speech and thus this position has no conflict with the stance that speech should not be limited. Your view on the other hand, is that something which is classified as speech can be limited.
I mean, you could apply what you are saying to ANY law. "Who do you think you are deciding that a $20 fine for a parking ticket is not cruel and unusual punishment? I have a right against cruel and unusual punishment, so you can't punish me in any way because you are applying your standard of what cruel and unusual means." This is not the issue. The issue is about the principle of free speech or cruel and unusual punishment, or any law for that matter. We can decide what is not cruel and unusual and still have rights against cruel and unusual punishment (a parking ticket), just like we can decide what is not speech (publishing someone's bank account information) and still be consistent in our belief in the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
You are arbitrarily deciding where that point is. You have decided that point is a little less restrictive than some other countries. This does not make you correct. This reeks of "The constitution/Bill of rights guarentees freedom. I feel I am free and like the constitution/Bill of rights. Therefore anyone who has freedoms different then these are horrible oppressors of human rights!"
And really, using your example who DO you think you are saying that it isn't? Again, boundries are there for both, they are just ever so slightly different. Canadian hate speech laws are pretty darn similar to America restrictions on obscenities or 'fighting words'.
Say we as a country decide that expressing the idea that Gays should be able to be married has no value and isn't covered under 'speech'. How is this different then the example you all so vehemently thrown at me in the first few pages?
Again, you are confusing "sounds coming out of mouth" with "speech". This has been explained multiple times now. Either tell us why making sounds with your mouth which do not express an idea is still speech or drop it.
Who do you think you are deciding what has value and what doesn't? You are gagging some things but not others because you have decided those have no value. I really don't see how you are justifying this.
Perhaps that was not the best example. The intended difference was not that one was more extreme than the other, but rather that one is a verifiable statement (it is either true or false that you molest children), whereas the second is not.
An example of someone who was charged:
"He taught his students that a worldwide Jewish
conspiracy has been responsible for depressions, wars, anarchy, and revolution and that the Jews
created the myth of the Holocaust in order to gain sympathy for themselves. He was charged
under section 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code, first enacted in 1970, which prohibits the
wilful promotion of hatred against groups identified by such characteristics as race and religion.
"
How is this not falsifiable? How could he be saying this in good faith (possible, but was unsuccessful)?
Editted to add!!!
Exerpt from law section 319:
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of...
You aren't banned from believing something, or discussing it, or holding a private discussion talking about how much you all hate a group. You just can't:
" Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of" (emphasis mine of course)
Well, it's more complicated than that. They ruled that I cannot make false statements on a matter of fact, even if I attempt to couch them in a minimal amount of "opinion". In other words, I can't say, "I'm pretty sure mikeg molests children." What I can say is, "I don't like mikeg, he's bad people."
Right, invasion of privacy is not an expression of a view. If I go fish your banking information out of the garbage and publish it online, that's not "speech" on my part.
Well yeah, just like the magnitude of one would be hate speech and the other is just being kind of a jerk (but in no way criminal).
However, if you fish my banking information and go stand on a street corner with a megaphone, you are having your speech stifled when that brings up an invasion of privacy suit. Some people feel the right to privacy is a fundamental right, and we stop free speech that impedes that.
1) People using holocaust denial as a thing Canada bans but shouldn't:
I studied a course in a Canadian University on the Holocaust. We spent a decent portion discussing the validity of evidence presented by holocaust deniers and those stating the holocaust was overstated/exagurated, some of these Canadian historians in good standing with the academic body. This seems to go counter to your claims. The difference is: "Here are reasons that I believe the holocaust was overstated, and possible reasons why." is perfectly fine. Saying "The Holocaust didn't happen because the sneaky, dirty, manipulative Jews lied to gain power and control over us good white people because that's just their way" is much more likely an expression of hate and bigotry and likely to face action.
2) If someone has already answered this, I'm sorry and could you direct me to where?
Freedom of Speech has limitations.
"In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit a crime, etc."
Somehow humans have decided there are a list of fundamental unalienable rights that come as a fact of being human. When these rights contradict one another (following one takes away another), what takes priority? Who decides what these rights are? You are unwilling to let a judicial body (yet already have anyway) decide what you can express, but you are willing to let them decide what are the fundamental rights of man?I can't really get my head around that one.
@Tiax:
"The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege."
"Defamation is also the publication of privy information where one person reveals a matter which is not of public concern, and which would offend a 'reasonable person'. Unlike libel or slander, truth is not a defence for invasion of privacy." Also relevant here.
Just as a fun fact for you bLatch, the part you keep 'exposing' (section 13) is currently in the works and likely to be revoked.
"Bill C-304, which aims to repeal Sections 13 and 54 (dealing with penalties under S.13), was put forward by Alberta MP Brian Storseth (Westlock-St. Paul) and is a private member’s bill, but the legislation has the justice minister’s endorsement. So there’s a good chance the bill will be back in the Commons this spring for final reading, then on to the Senate and, hopefully, passage and royal assent."
Defamation is banned, but truth or reasonable belief in the truth is an absolute defense. And the standards for what qualify for defamation are incredibly stringent, typically require intent to defame, aka Knowingly stating a falsehood.
Incitement to riot and fighting words are banned because they advocate for, and are likely to cause, an immediate criminal act. This is the closest you'll get to banning hate speech, but even that doesn't ban based on the content of the message, it bans based on the message being designed to intentionally cause non-speech laws to be violated.
The only blanket ban in the criminal code of Canada is public discussion stating a desire for genocide. Incitement of hate, and public statements of hate follow the same rules that defamation do, it is just slightly more encompassing. You are most assuredly not 'completely free to speak whatever you want'. The US constitution has drawn the line a little differently then some other countries and you've all decided that any place different is the most intolerant and oppressive thing ever. And also what is your case for hate speech having expressive value?
This is how what is obscene is considered:
The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[2] It has three parts:
-Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
-Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
-Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.[3]
You are letting a governmental body decide what has value, which I fail to see a difference.
In America you are doing something wrong when expressing your ideas/beliefs if they are subjectively judged overly sexual/obscene
In Canada you are doing something wrong if you advocate genocide or your public, hateful, breach of peace actions are subjectively judged to be overly hateful/discriminatory.
I'm not trying to argue that this makes hate speech laws correct, but that there's a bit too much 'USA USA USA' going on here.
Also _ has a pretty good metric there though probably irrelevant if you don't base societal rights on utility.
It's not a logical fallacy, its the truth. Freedom of speech doesn't exist if it's not freedom to express all ideas. IF it's, instead, freedom to express only ideas that the government has deemed socially acceptable, then it is in fact the exact opposite of freedom of speech.
A government prohibition on hate speech means you do not have freedom of speech.
"In the United States, hate speech is legal (except for obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words)."
I wasn't advocating what they are doing is correct. I was stating that with their past/history, it seems unsurprising that they would take hate speech laws a little further than most.
I see nothing wrong with divorce and if people were smarter with prenups it would be a much more stress free situation when they do happen. If someone wants to marry someone they met a month ago, go right ahead.
However, when children get involved I feel it's a whole different story. Divorces with children can seriously cause trouble for the kids and is in no way optimal. People need to take more responsibility and put in more effort when a child is brought into the world.
If the current law is flawed and a quasi-judicial body must be convened in order to facilitate application of the law, then it's clear that at this present time, thought on the subject by many Enlightenment philosophers, as well as prevailing thought on the basic concepts of freedom - to include freedom of speech and expression - are still held valid.
In the United States, we don't take and criminalize free speech. We allow civil courts to handle it, because the Supreme Court has ruled time and again that you can't simply stifle free speech because they said something you didn't like.
Now obviously, there are limits to free speech in the United States. You can't scream out fire in a crowded theatre, you can't can't threaten to kill the President or blow up a school.
Just because someone says, "I hate ******s!" doesn't mean he's breaking the law. If he says it, fine. When he puts that hatred into physical application and denies a minority, say, service at a gas station or life-saving EMT work, then that is where the illegal discrimination occurs. We don't penalize you for saying something. We do penalize you when you act on what you say.
Why did you need a quasi-judicial body to enforce the law anyways? Why not put it in the criminal code to begin with?
I said "How are these not discrimination? "My religion states I can't offer this public service to blacks, and it's not discrimination because that guy over there does!!!!"" because BLatch stated refusing service to someone because they are Gay and you are Christian is not discrimination. This has nothing to do with what was said, but what was actually done. I read the argument by the printer who refused and his response was along the lines of 'why can't they get it printed somewhere else?' which brought about my satirical comment.
I'm still just getting a lot of implying of "Since it's not hurting/happening to me, it clearly isn't wrong".
Saying ""I hate ******s!"" probably wouldn't go anywhere. Saying it to a gathered public with loudspeakers and signs would possibly be a different matter.
And I'll repeat again:
That is what this debate is about. Is Hate Speech something that is part of freedom of speech, and as a continuation is there limitations on the freedom of speech if it goes against other inalienable freedoms? Do any 'objective fundamental rights' have limitations?
This, and the overzealous application of the right to bear arms is why I would/could never live in America.
I'm having trouble verbalizing the correct wordings for the rights I meant (and I find when I write something with any ambiguity, B_S seems to take that as some sort of strange victory). But I'll explain it in terms of discrimination laws.
As the owner of a business you are not free to withhold service from a person for the above reasons. You can't have a sign that says 'Whites Only' or say 'No Jews allowed'. This is true even if you think serving a person of Minority A is an abomination from personal thought/religion (freedom of thought, freedom of religion). If you were the only worker at a store and had this belief, you'd HAVE to serve these groups. This person's rights are being reasonably limited (in the most minimal way possible as the goal) to not infringe on the rights of others to equality and security.
The nature of having protected classes is because if a marginalized minority group led a similar minded bigoted campaign (in the US), the majority would beat them down and make whatever their protest was meaningless. They don't have the numbers or power to enjoy these same rights as you do, so there needs to be some limitations on freedoms to uphold something very important, equality.
race
colour
ancestry
place of origin
religious beliefs
gender (including pregnancy, sexual harassment, and gender identity)
physical disability
mental disability
marital status
family status
source of income
sexual orientation
In the US:
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
where a public accommodation can include:
A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA's title III requirements for public accommodations.
And
Private Clubs and Religious Organizations Are Not Considered Public Accommodations
Just as with the ADA, the HRA does not apply to private clubs or other establishments that are not open to the public. However, either a private club or a religious organization can be considered a public accommodation subject to HRA to the extent that it rents out space to another entity that runs a business, service or activity open to the public.
Example: If a veteran's club rents out its hall for a wedding reception, it will be considered a public accommodation.
So, where in that do you see a KKK owned banquet hall that they rent as a business allowed to refuse service because people are Black? They of course can if its a private residence and occasionally let people use it, but the same is true in Canada.
"Incitement of hatred is communicating an idea, it is not communicating an action -- nor is it inherently inciting an action. Hatred is not something that can be banned, nor is it something that you should try and ban, becuase as everyone else has mentioned all you will do is drive it underground where it will fester and grow until it erupts.
I'm still completely boggled that you can't see how that hate speech banning is thoughtcrime banning... I'm pretty much out of ways to explain it...
"
It's true because I say it is!!! That's all you've been doing.
@Internet comment:
I'm glad Canada is working towards getting rid of section 13 of the HRCA (the one with rules regarding the internet). There's too many issues/flaws with enforcing such rules over the medium, and I wouldn't consider a hate site 'a public demonstration that is likely to cause a breach of the peace'.
@Rest:
Which is exactly my point that no one seems to want to address. Freedoms have limitations in where they would infringe on others freedoms. Why am I not free to refuse service to minority group A? Discrimination policy to maintain the freedom of those minorities. Why am I not free to incite hatred with imminent breach of peace, or advocate genocide? Hate Speech laws to maintain the freedoms of those minorities.
In applying the law in Canada they follow the Oakes test:
"First, the objective to be served by the measures limiting a Charter right must be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom.
Second, the party invoking s. 1 must show the means to be reasonable and demonstrably justified. This involves a form of proportionality test involving three important components.
To begin, the measures must be fair and not arbitrary, carefully designed to achieve the objective in question and rationally connected to that objective.
In addition, the means should impair the right in question as little as possible.
Lastly, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the limiting measure and the objective -- the more severe the deleterious effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be."
And again:
Exerpt from law section 319:
"
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of...
...Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of"
Somehow incitement is not speech, but incitement of hatred likely leading to a breach of the peace is...
You are arbitrarily deciding where that point is. You have decided that point is a little less restrictive than some other countries. This does not make you correct. This reeks of "The constitution/Bill of rights guarentees freedom. I feel I am free and like the constitution/Bill of rights. Therefore anyone who has freedoms different then these are horrible oppressors of human rights!"
And really, using your example who DO you think you are saying that it isn't? Again, boundries are there for both, they are just ever so slightly different. Canadian hate speech laws are pretty darn similar to America restrictions on obscenities or 'fighting words'.
Say we as a country decide that expressing the idea that Gays should be able to be married has no value and isn't covered under 'speech'. How is this different then the example you all so vehemently thrown at me in the first few pages?
Who do you think you are deciding what has value and what doesn't? You are gagging some things but not others because you have decided those have no value. I really don't see how you are justifying this.
An example of someone who was charged:
"He taught his students that a worldwide Jewish
conspiracy has been responsible for depressions, wars, anarchy, and revolution and that the Jews
created the myth of the Holocaust in order to gain sympathy for themselves. He was charged
under section 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code, first enacted in 1970, which prohibits the
wilful promotion of hatred against groups identified by such characteristics as race and religion.
"
How is this not falsifiable? How could he be saying this in good faith (possible, but was unsuccessful)?
Editted to add!!!
Exerpt from law section 319:
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of...
You aren't banned from believing something, or discussing it, or holding a private discussion talking about how much you all hate a group. You just can't:
" Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of" (emphasis mine of course)
Well yeah, just like the magnitude of one would be hate speech and the other is just being kind of a jerk (but in no way criminal).
However, if you fish my banking information and go stand on a street corner with a megaphone, you are having your speech stifled when that brings up an invasion of privacy suit. Some people feel the right to privacy is a fundamental right, and we stop free speech that impedes that.
1) People using holocaust denial as a thing Canada bans but shouldn't:
I studied a course in a Canadian University on the Holocaust. We spent a decent portion discussing the validity of evidence presented by holocaust deniers and those stating the holocaust was overstated/exagurated, some of these Canadian historians in good standing with the academic body. This seems to go counter to your claims. The difference is: "Here are reasons that I believe the holocaust was overstated, and possible reasons why." is perfectly fine. Saying "The Holocaust didn't happen because the sneaky, dirty, manipulative Jews lied to gain power and control over us good white people because that's just their way" is much more likely an expression of hate and bigotry and likely to face action.
2) If someone has already answered this, I'm sorry and could you direct me to where?
Freedom of Speech has limitations.
"In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit a crime, etc."
Somehow humans have decided there are a list of fundamental unalienable rights that come as a fact of being human. When these rights contradict one another (following one takes away another), what takes priority? Who decides what these rights are? You are unwilling to let a judicial body (yet already have anyway) decide what you can express, but you are willing to let them decide what are the fundamental rights of man?I can't really get my head around that one.
@Tiax:
"The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation)
"Defamation is also the publication of privy information where one person reveals a matter which is not of public concern, and which would offend a 'reasonable person'. Unlike libel or slander, truth is not a defence for invasion of privacy." Also relevant here.
"Bill C-304, which aims to repeal Sections 13 and 54 (dealing with penalties under S.13), was put forward by Alberta MP Brian Storseth (Westlock-St. Paul) and is a private member’s bill, but the legislation has the justice minister’s endorsement. So there’s a good chance the bill will be back in the Commons this spring for final reading, then on to the Senate and, hopefully, passage and royal assent."
The only blanket ban in the criminal code of Canada is public discussion stating a desire for genocide. Incitement of hate, and public statements of hate follow the same rules that defamation do, it is just slightly more encompassing. You are most assuredly not 'completely free to speak whatever you want'. The US constitution has drawn the line a little differently then some other countries and you've all decided that any place different is the most intolerant and oppressive thing ever. And also what is your case for hate speech having expressive value?
This is how what is obscene is considered:
The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[2] It has three parts:
-Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
-Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
-Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.[3]
You are letting a governmental body decide what has value, which I fail to see a difference.
In America you are doing something wrong when expressing your ideas/beliefs if they are subjectively judged overly sexual/obscene
In Canada you are doing something wrong if you advocate genocide or your public, hateful, breach of peace actions are subjectively judged to be overly hateful/discriminatory.
I'm not trying to argue that this makes hate speech laws correct, but that there's a bit too much 'USA USA USA' going on here.
Also _ has a pretty good metric there though probably irrelevant if you don't base societal rights on utility.
"In the United States, hate speech is legal (except for obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words)."
Nice freedom to express ALL ideas.
However, when children get involved I feel it's a whole different story. Divorces with children can seriously cause trouble for the kids and is in no way optimal. People need to take more responsibility and put in more effort when a child is brought into the world.
I said "How are these not discrimination? "My religion states I can't offer this public service to blacks, and it's not discrimination because that guy over there does!!!!"" because BLatch stated refusing service to someone because they are Gay and you are Christian is not discrimination. This has nothing to do with what was said, but what was actually done. I read the argument by the printer who refused and his response was along the lines of 'why can't they get it printed somewhere else?' which brought about my satirical comment.
I'm still just getting a lot of implying of "Since it's not hurting/happening to me, it clearly isn't wrong".
Saying ""I hate ******s!"" probably wouldn't go anywhere. Saying it to a gathered public with loudspeakers and signs would possibly be a different matter.
And I'll repeat again:
That is what this debate is about. Is Hate Speech something that is part of freedom of speech, and as a continuation is there limitations on the freedom of speech if it goes against other inalienable freedoms? Do any 'objective fundamental rights' have limitations?