curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
no, cofty. but your question feels pretty random and has a bit of a "do you beat your wife" quality. You must have misread or misunderstood something I have written severely to ask me that...
to be clear: I believe in a very broad definition of free speech but with some limits (fire-in-theater)
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
cofty, my comment was aimed at freemindfade. I don't see why your question is relevant. Do you think my comments suggests such a link?
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
Let me bring up another example so we don't get hung up on the issue the speech happens in a theater:
Suppose someone use his free speech (in a public medium, for instance a public park) to incite domestic terrorism. He quickly has a large following which he every weekend try to convince terrorism is just and right, i.e. he provide reasons for terrorism and explain how it should be carried out.
After a while, the number of terror attacks go up, and it is determined (for instance through interviews) the terrorists are inspired by this person and cite his ideas as why they carried out the attacks.
The person begin to note this in his speeches, and says it is a good and just thing, and intensify his calls for more terrorism.
I belive this would (and should!) constitute "banned speech" because of the (a) obvious and direct danger (b) he is aware of the danger and nevertheless persists. I therefore think the speech should be banned; i.e. his free speech should be limited.
Do you agree?
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
Freemindfade: The "fire in theater" is often cited as an example of the limits of free speech. This is indeed a limit on free speech as it defines a class of "banned speech"; i.e. speech which present a clear and obvious danger. You bring up the periphery issue that speech (yelling) is not allowed in a theater to begin with; this is true, but it is easy to imagine a similar situation in a public venue or a private venue which just happens not to have any such laws. Should it be allowed to (knowing the outcome) yell "fire" in such a setting?
By the way, please wait for me to re-define speech in some technical manner before bringing this issue up; also, I am not in favor of "banning everything". I am discussing your suggestion there should be no limitations to speech.
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
freemindfade: Sorry for calling your "visual aid" with two frames and captions a "cartoon" :-). As someone who is used to the written word I am not aware of such fine distinctions!
So enlightened by the difference, perhaps you can learn that I am not "Cathy"? haha!I guess we should all wish for the Watchtower to change from their silly Caleb and Sophia cartoons about homosexuality and the like and over to serious Caleb and Sophia "visual aids" :-D
In seriousness, just to be very clear: You believe in no free-speech limitations, so that you believe it should be legal to yell "fire" in a theater?
Again, I respect your consistency if this is indeed your oppinion!
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
freemindfade, should it be allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Should it be allowed to post ISIS-related bomb-making guides?
If yes, you are consistent and I congratulate you for that. If no, you do support limiting free speech.
Re. cartoons, my lying eyes will have me believe you posted the bacon and eggs/Cathy cartoon above. Perhaps I am laboring under a too limited definition of "cartoon"?
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
Sorry, I accidentally assumed you agreed with me some forms of speech should be limited (such as propaganda encouraging domestic terrorism). I am sorry for making that mistake.
I would be interested to have a discussion about the limits of free speech (note all countries observe some limitations), however I don't think we are having a very factual discussion right now.
It is interesting for someone who is pro free speech my speech made you so upset you have to post cartoons as an outlet ;-). Sorry, but I don't really care to argue with people who behave in that manner. Have a nice day!
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
Freemindfade:
You bring up that there are groups with certain ideas that radicalize them to create terrorism. You bring up the need to curtail their free speech/free movement/civil rights in different ways; I agree this is a good thing, if done appropriately and with sufficient legal oversight.
I would just add this: The discussion often takes place in an Islamic context. However, recent events in Canada suggest that from a Canadian perspective, the discussion should include non-Islamic groups, such as whatever radicalized the person who carried out the Mosque attack. Keep in mind this is not a cherry-picked example, Breivik discuss in his "manifesto" how he was radicalized by UK extremists.
My point originally was to point out the discussion focuses a lot on muslims, even in a Canadian context, when I think it should be applied more generally and the discussion about limiting movement/censorship could just as well be had in the context of right-wing material.
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
Taking about something completely different, are you guys also annoyed by how the governing body will address very serious and complicated issues using emotionally loaded cartoons? Like the whole Sparlock and Caleb thing. Hogwash! Whenever I see someone do that, I think: Now there is someone who don't have a good argument.
curious what the canadian take is on all this .
i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?
that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.
Freemindfade, my question was about attituded towards terroism in Canada. Nobody is preventing you from talking about something else if you wish!
