this is probably a good point to quote the article
"The proposed law would likely run afoul of the First Amendment in the U.S., but despite popular misconceptions Canada is actually its own country."
Contrary to popular (American) opinion laws regulating speech are in fact not a new and authoritarian invention but have existed in the so called 'West' for literally centuries.
To have a rational discussion about this when it comes to countries that don't happen to be the US, like in this case, it would probably be good to not act as if these laws were somehow conjured up out of nothing. The United Kingdom, probably having a claim to be one of the world's longest lasting liberal democracies, has laws concerning speech that in many cases go well beyond laws on continental Europe, so any discussion about speech in the Western (and even specifically Anglo) tradition probably should be had on that ground, rather than just vague pointing about slippery slopes.
It's almost as if America was a radical attempt at a new kind of government, where its founders tried to avoid many of the pitfalls they had observed in Europe. The "United Kingdom" ("England" when we broke up with it) had (and still has) a method of governance that was flawed. That's why we didn't copy it. Any country that still has an intact monarchy, however ornamental, has no business lecturing others on the ideal forms of government.
>Contrary to popular (American) opinion laws regulating speech are in fact not a new and authoritarian invention but have existed in the so called 'West' for literally centuries
It's common sense that without a history in the West of regulating free speech, there wouldn't have been a first amendment in the US. You don't have to know what the regulations were.
So you are not just generalizing Americans as ignorant of history, but also as unable to use basic logic.
It's common sense that many American institutions are a reactions to old European institutions, and you don't need to know that history if you don't care, but if you want to have a discussion about speech in Canada (which is still part of the Commonwealth and the topic of this thread), you better have an actual idea of the way those countries function rather than applying your standards to them.
If you want to claim you have an idea whether the American reaction and discarding of old norms was actually a good idea nor not, you need to have an actual understanding about what the ideas you were discarding were actually for. Otherwise you're actually ignorant, and arrogant and that is a bad long term combination.
That is the most American response I could have read. It’s basically “well I don’t have to know the history. I can just trust that our brilliant founding fathers got it right.”
Yes, and the UK arrested a man for teaching a dog the Nazi salute. A dog. In fact they arrest over 2400 people a year for saying mean things on the internet. I find that deeply chilling.
So everyone who holds any restrictive position on speech, incompatible with your own is uncivilized and philosophically unsophisticated, as in the rest of the world? Civilizations thousands of years old are... uncivilized?
See this is the supreme irony. You've turned freedom of speech into dogmatic faith. Ironically enough, no discourse is so dogmatic and blind and unable to question its own values as the American one. You can question everything, just not your own values on speech. It's all just platitudes about authoritarianism and slippery slopes and ironically enough unoriginal, replicated talking points.
> Ironically enough, no discourse is so dogmatic and blind and unable to question its own values than the American one.
This speech seems rather ... hateful. Shall we fine you? Officers! This man is screaming hateful speech in the public arena!
Or maybe you disagree with that being hate speech? In an uncivilized society, if I have the power then it doesn't really matter. You still get fined or worse.
> You can question everything, just not your own values on speech
No, you can still question that in a free society if you so choose. But you may not necessarily be able to in an unfree one.
> You've turned freedom of speech into dogmatic faith.
This is entirely disingenuous. Supporting a philosophical position is not without reason, as you well know, and is not automatically dogmatic.
> It's all just platitudes about authoritarianism and slippery slopes and ironically enough unoriginal, replicated talking points.
Perhaps, you can better explain your dogmatic devotion to your belief that freedom of speech is not an important tenant of modern civility and sophistication?
It doesn’t seem hateful whatsoever, and everyone knows it, including you. So I don’t think you’ve made your point very effectively here.
I think the well-known distinction between “freedom to” and “freedom from” is relevant here. In the wake of Nazism, Germany also banned hate speech. You could argue that Germany made it less free to be a Nazi. You could also argue that Germany made it easier to be free from Nazism. You may disagree with the choice they made but I don’t think many would reasonably argue that Germany is not a free society.
Thank you for this. I'm so tired of the rhetoric lately decrying "intolerance of intolerance." Sorry folks, but me nor the state should respect someone who hates others for who they are. "I hate Jews" is not the same as "I hate those who hate Jews", and it should not be tolerated as such.
"The proposed law would likely run afoul of the First Amendment in the U.S., but despite popular misconceptions Canada is actually its own country."
Contrary to popular (American) opinion laws regulating speech are in fact not a new and authoritarian invention but have existed in the so called 'West' for literally centuries.
To have a rational discussion about this when it comes to countries that don't happen to be the US, like in this case, it would probably be good to not act as if these laws were somehow conjured up out of nothing. The United Kingdom, probably having a claim to be one of the world's longest lasting liberal democracies, has laws concerning speech that in many cases go well beyond laws on continental Europe, so any discussion about speech in the Western (and even specifically Anglo) tradition probably should be had on that ground, rather than just vague pointing about slippery slopes.