I will not comment upon Canadian politics, bfchesssguy. I am far too fond of the noble moose, maple syrup, Glenn Gould and Angela Hewitt to risk getting it wrong.
But you remain free to draw your own conclusions, I hope. I merely articulated what I think to be a reliable test. If others wish to use that test to elucidate a situation, I would not object.
Wait, I forgot hockey. And one should never forget hockey.
@Raspberry_yoghurt said in #34:
> I guess he's just a troll then. It's annoying starting a debate that looks like a universal one and then it's just about USA.
It isn't a troll and freedom of speech laws are almost the same in all countries..when I made a thread about a specific topic I was talking about countries in general I cannot think of every country and its rules..additionally even if the laws are different..the meaning behind the post is that your freedom stops at others freedom and when you insult someone freedom of speech doesn't protect you which is comun sense tbh
@sdkman said in #42:
> It isn't a troll and freedom of speech laws are almost the same in all countries..when I made a thread about a specific topic I was talking about countries in general I cannot think of every country and its rules..additionally even if the laws are different..the meaning behind the post is that your freedom stops at others freedom and when you insult someone freedom of speech doesn't protect you which is comun sense tbh
Me and Raspberry_yoghurt have wrote I don't know how many times that some countries have some restrictions and everything is fine whatever think some folks whining here it's not the end of the world for decades.
Before speaking too firmly and confidently about what speech should and shouldn't be permitted, it would be very educational to become genuinely familiar with the American case law dealing with our first amendment.
It explores, among other things, the interesting tension between the first amendment and some tort law. New York Times v. Sullivan, for example, is an interesting case to read carefully and contemplate.
I would not insist that every "insult" should be "forbidden."
For example, I would not cast into the dungeon somebody who told me that my pants made me look fat!
I would respond, instead, with an accurate statement of my BMI and perhaps a reference to the speaker's mama. But never follow my lead uncritically since in my case wisdom and prudence are not always assured.
One can always find some people, whose own opinions are not then being jeopardized, who think limitations upon free speech are "like, no big deal."
I caution them to revisit the history of the early Soviet Union, or of Germany in the late 1930s. Restrictions upon free speech need to be very carefully scrutinized -- erring on the side of caution.
Keeping our own freedom sometimes requires being open to the freedom of those who disagree with us.
And sometimes what "everybody knows" turns out to be false, and even harmful. How can that become known if those with whom we disagree are forced to shut up?
I must express one of my fears: lately too many don't seem to learn much from history. Even recent history.
@Noflaps said in #45:
> One can always find some people, whose own opinions are not then being jeopardized, who think limitations upon free speech are "like, no big deal."
>
> I caution them to revisit the history of the early Soviet Union, or of Germany in the late 1930s. Restrictions upon free speech need to be very carefully scrutinized -- erring on the side of caution.
> [...]
I caution you against showing off your ignorance regarding laws, constitution and charter of rights of countries like for example Canada. ;-)
@bfchessguy listen to yourself.
You wish to claim that I've displayed "ignorance" ? And, in particular, you've said I display ignorance "about Canada" ?
I expressly resisted saying anything negative about Canada. Scroll up and read what I actually said. As we all can.
I think you "doth protest too much."
You resort to insulting me. Why?
Those with strong arguments don't need to insult others. They respond with good arguments of their own.
Insult away. You make my point for me.
And you "caution" me? Really? Which of us sounds authoritarian?
Listen to yourself.
don't know what's going on in this thread. you guys have made it about yourselves and your pitiful egos. no one cares.
"you guys"? "nobody cares"?
You've polled everybody? You speak for everybody?
I am discussing free speech and its value. Nothing more, nothing less. And I believe that was the topic.
I also responded to an unnecessary personal insult, whether you "care" or not.
learn what a paragraph is
