There's a difference between freedom of speech and racism.
Comments = speech.
Freedom of speech means people are free to say things you don't like. There are exceptions, such as "calling fire in a crowded theater" and threats of physical harm. This constitutes neither of those exceptions.
So I'm not allowed to say (making up examples now, not expressing personal thoughts) that "black people are stupid and should go back to africa" or that "mexicans are lazy and should go back to mexico?" Those things would be nasty to say, and not make anyone many friends, but they are not threats and most distinctly fall under freedom of speech, racist or not, that has nothing to do with it.
A police investigation into someone slandering Schenn by posing as him is one thing and I think warranted as it is a specific malicious intent, but investigating the comments themselves as illegal is another and one I think is stupid and a sign of how ridiculously oversensitive people are.
Ever since the modern lawsuit, people think anything they don't like should be against the law.
There are laws about hate speech though and the impersonator made a number of slurs.
There isn't much to go on here. First, hate speech is subject to personal opinion. Second, the way they built facebook it's legaly the same as talking to your friends inside your own home.
I feel bad for Brayden and I don't appreciate the message the impersonator is pushing, but I hate seeing the law get involved in things like this.
Freedom of speech means people are free to say things you don't like. There are exceptions, such as "calling fire in a crowded theater" and threats of physical harm. This constitutes neither of those exceptions.
So I'm not allowed to say (making up examples now, not expressing personal thoughts) that "black people are stupid and should go back to africa" or that "mexicans are lazy and should go back to mexico?" Those things would be nasty to say, and not make anyone many friends, but they are not threats and most distinctly fall under freedom of speech, racist or not, that has nothing to do with it.
A police investigation into someone slandering Schenn by posing as him is one thing and I think warranted as it is a specific malicious intent, but investigating the comments themselves as illegal is another and one I think is stupid and a sign of how ridiculously oversensitive people are.
Ever since the modern lawsuit, people think anything they don't like should be against the law.
I'm speaking without seeing the actual comments posted on fake Schenn Facebook, but I was under the understanding those comments were more nasty than that and may even have involved threats that would also be deemed racist. Something along the lines of "kill Indians" (not a presonal thought/belief of mine either, just stating for example).
Raced based threats is racism still, and under that example charges may be applicable not just on the threat, but also as a hate crime. IE criminal.
There isn't much to go on here. First, hate speech is subject to personal opinion. Second, the way they built facebook it's legaly the same as talking to your friends inside your own home.
I feel bad for Brayden and I don't appreciate the message the impersonator is pushing, but I hate seeing the law get involved in things like this.
I think the offending person/people should be found and told to remove the page, and leave it at that.
If they refused for whatever reason, I think the law should get involved. I work in the media and am all for freedom of speech and for keeping the law out of life issues, but there should be a way to force the issue if need be. If there was only one thing in the world we were allowed to keep for ourselves exclusively, it should be our name/image.
There's a difference between freedom of speech and racism.
Actually there isn't. Just look at the matters that happened recently with that UCLA student and her youtube comments about Asians on the campus. She later withdrew from the school due to death threats, but the school and lawyers all, while obviously not agreeing with the comments, backed the video as being free speech. She just makes derogatory statements, but doesn't threaten anyone's lives. That falls under free speech.
__________________
"It has not been a good day. I lost my glasses early this morning and I had to go buy a pair of 79 dollar reading glasses today. 79 bucks. You can literally get them at Costco, three-for-20." - Darryl Sutter's response to going up 2-0 in the series.
Illegal? Does Canada not have freedom of speech? (honest question, don't know much about their laws).
In poor taste? Absolutely. But racist COMMENTS being illegal? At what point do we outlaw thinking unfavorable thoughts?
To answer your question, yes, there are laws in Canada against "hate speech". I don't know the extent of them but I know they are ultra-PC up there. They just banned the song "Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits after it has been played on the radio for 25 years because he says a word that starts with an "f" and rhymes with maggot in the song a few times. But in the song when he says it, he is saying in the 3rd person as if somebody is saying it about him. They completely took it out of context. But that should give you an idea about how PC they are.
To answer your question, yes, there are laws in Canada against "hate speech". I don't know the extent of them but I know they are ultra-PC up there. They just banned the song "Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits after it has been played on the radio for 25 years because he says a word that starts with an "f" and rhymes with maggot in the song a few times. But in the song when he says it, he is saying in the 3rd person as if somebody is saying it about him. They completely took it out of context. But that should give you an idea about how PC they are.
Actually there isn't. Just look at the matters that happened recently with that UCLA student and her youtube comments about Asians on the campus. She later withdrew from the school due to death threats, but the school and lawyers all, while obviously not agreeing with the comments, backed the video as being free speech. She just makes derogatory statements, but doesn't threaten anyone's lives. That falls under free speech.
I'd check the Canadian laws. Big difference. I don't have the time (or energy) to look it up, but from what I've seen in the media, this is something that would be a legal issue up here.
To answer your question, yes, there are laws in Canada against "hate speech". I don't know the extent of them but I know they are ultra-PC up there. They just banned the song "Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits after it has been played on the radio for 25 years because he says a word that starts with an "f" and rhymes with maggot in the song a few times. But in the song when he says it, he is saying in the 3rd person as if somebody is saying it about him. They completely took it out of context. But that should give you an idea about how PC they are.
If by "they" you're referring to literally one person in Canada who complained to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, you're right. However, the CBSC is a non-government entity and thus can't "ban" anything. The CRTC- the actual regulatory body "up here"- told the CBSC to go stuff themselves, and at least two stations in Canada played the song for an hour non-stop without penalty.
If we're going to get into a discussion about which country is more PC when it comes to free speech, I'd suggest you look up a fellow named Lenny Bruce and start from there. Oh, and someone named Janet Jackson once did something memorable at the Superbowl- but instead of choosing to fine the bejesus out of every broadcaster in our country, the CRTC received more complaints about the volume of the commercials than they did the wardrobe malfunction!
Never said he wouldn't, I simply said people shouldn't and wont feel sorry for him. It comes with being a PRO. You know how many Death Threats Kobe Bryant gets daily ?
To answer your question, yes, there are laws in Canada against "hate speech". I don't know the extent of them but I know they are ultra-PC up there. They just banned the song "Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits after it has been played on the radio for 25 years because he says a word that starts with an "f" and rhymes with maggot in the song a few times. But in the song when he says it, he is saying in the 3rd person as if somebody is saying it about him. They completely took it out of context. But that should give you an idea about how PC they are.
As a Canadian I can say that for sure there is a PC element up here, but I really don't know if it's any greater than down South where you're not getting ******* on TV. I go to Hawaii, and Washington a lot and really don't notice a difference in political correctness. I don't have many posts on here, but I do have a respectable number of banishments from the Canucks page ... so I'm sure the Mods can attest to Canadians not being any more, or less, politically correct. The only difference is we're just a little better looking up here.
Also, anyone I know thinks that Dire Straits thing was bs.
Last edited by Bateman*: 04-02-2011 at 11:16 AM.
Reason: addition
I'd check the Canadian laws. Big difference. I don't have the time (or energy) to look it up, but from what I've seen in the media, this is something that would be a legal issue up here.
Yeah, didn't realize we were talking about Canada till afterward Mind your manners in Canada.
(kind of)
Mind your manners in Canada.
