"Oh, (no) Canada", Coulter

[amicus]

DeeZire:

"...As I illustrated in my example, the government is simply carrying out the mandate in the constitution to maintain the "general welfare" of the citizens..."

~~~

There are many volumes written concerning the meaning of the 'General Welfare' clause.

Somewhere in the deep dark recesses of your litany, you overlook a basic premise that underlines the entire Constitution, both to the letter and the spirit.

You imply, in almost all your posts, the existence of 'government' as a separate entity from the people. You seem to envision 'government' as a Royal institute that administers to the people, or as an intellectual pedastal from which issues are decreed to the benefit of the masses.

I suggest you don't understand the nature of American government nor the philosophy that gave birth to it.

Government is not the bestower of largesse upon needy citizens, within our laws, it is only the protecter of life, liberty and property.

Government is also not the final arbiter determining how wealth is earned and kept, shared or given away; it is merely the provider of laws and courts to insure that justice prevails in all transactions between citizens.

The generally accepted meaning of the 'general welfare' clause, before the Marxist definitions took hold and miseducated generations, was that the government would act, within the limits placed by the Constitution, to defend the sovereinty of the nation, to protect the innate rights of its' citizens to individual freedom without coercion, and to provide a means to enforce and make judgments on the legality of actions between citizens. That, within the letter and law of the Constitution, was and is the intent of our basic laws.

Government, of, by and for the people, is not a separate entity from the people, but indeed is the people, swearing to uphold the Constitution and the liberties and freedoms protected by it.

Your vision of government resembles a 'mobocracy' in which the powerful determine the course of the lives of all people and sets and implements goals for the benefit of the greater good.

Your expressions indicate a total lack of understanding both of our form of government and of even the definition of human individual freedom and liberty. You continually advocate the sacrifice of individual rights and choices for some Utopian concept of the 'greater good.'

In a free country, your rights to rant against the individual in favor of the group, are protected and you may rant conerning any Utopian concept you may have. But please don't claim you are an American supporting American principles of government because you are not.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

My name is in your signature love:kiss:

~~~

Ah, okay, now I understand. That is the list of those who voted in favor of continued Free Speech on a Poll conducted by the owners of the Site.

There was/is a small group of the extreme left who wanted to censor the content of Posts made on this forum.

It is to the honor of those on the forum in general that the effort was rejected.



ami

 

[Bianca_Sommerland]

~~~

Ah, okay, now I understand. That is the list of those who voted in favor of continued Free Speech on a Poll conducted by the owners of the Site.

There was/is a small group of the extreme left who wanted to censor the content of Posts made on this forum.

It is to the honor of those on the forum in general that the effort was rejected.



ami

Of all the quotes I hold closes to my heart, one bear to mind. 'I may not agree with what you say, but I defend with my life your right to say it' (loosely quotes. So sue me )

 

[Dragonlipz]

Bianca Sommerland...thank you and welcome back, although I must confess I don't know what 'shoutout' you are referring to..

But thank you for being one of the few rational voices from Canada and for your questioning of the status quo of what goes on up there.

Regards...

Amicus

Alzhiemer's strikes agin........

 

[My I]

Angry protesters in Canada made Ann Coulter’s point for her. She said she came to prove the point that Canada’s free speech leaves much to be desired. It does, and it did. And now, Ann Coulter’s Human Rights Complaint will move forward against the University of Ottawa where she was to give her speech.

Coulter said, “Since I’ve arrived in Canada, I’ve been denounced on the floor of Parliament—which by the way is on my bucket list—my posters have been banned, I’ve been accused of committing a crime in a speech that I have not yet given, I was banned by the student council, so welcome to Canada!”

Pardon me if I don't read through the entire thread to see if someone already said this, but.....

If you act like an ignorant fucktard bitch, expect to be treated as such.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Pardon me if I don't read through the entire thread to see if someone already said this, but.....

If you act like an ignorant fucktard bitch, expect to be treated as such.

If you are going to have real Freedom of Speech, you have to let ignorant fucktard bitches speak, just as everybody else does. Freedom of speech reserved for those who praise apple pie and motherhood and hockey doesn't mean much.

 

[MzDeviancy]

As to the topic, I love Canada (obviously, I'm Canadian) but I have to ask. Why invite a speaker who's known for controversy, then object to what she 'might' say? From my understanding they canceled her speech? (I skimmed through a lot of the posts, sorry but that was the impression I got)

Noooooo, the CONSERVATIVE club on campus invited her to speak, the University just warned her that free speech is different in Canada and asked her to familiarize herself with those differences, and left-wing protesters who didn't want Ann Coulter there protested outside the doors and things got to the point where it was decided it was too dangerous for her to go in.

I get the limits on free speech, I really do, but seeing the way the Olympic ceremony was condemned for its inclusion of natives and not francophone's in the opening ceremony, and then the mass flooding of bilingual songs to appease the protest, I have my doubts as to our freedoms and respect to any nation even within our own borders.

No one has said that Canada is some utopia free of prejudice. We have a lot of Francophone and Aboriginal issues here. Obviously.

PC is nice, but I'll be damned if I can't tell whoever I want that I hate bill 101 and its restriction in Quebec towards English speakers. And if I want to say I am wary of ease of passage for those of Muslim origin on airlines, considering they may have been heavily influence by the outspoken views against North Americans and Christians, I think I have that right.

Trying to equate protesting a political bill and spewing racial hatred is not a very apt comparison. And as to saying you're "wary of the ease of passage for those of Muslim origin on airlines", it's one thing to say "I have these concerns; what are the realities?" This allows for civil discourse on the subject and gives you the opportunity to learn how many Muslims there are in Canada and how ridiculous it would be to prevent all of them from visiting their families, travelling for work, etc, as well as how discriminatory actions like that fuel terrorism rather than combat it.

It is quite another thing to unequivocally call for all Muslims to be put on a no-fly list without any interest in discussion. Or to say we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all to Christianity. These

I wonder how many would condemn Jewish people for not being fond of Germans or Native Americans of resenting whites even now, decades, if not longer, after their persecution.

I suggest you educate yourself on the history of the Middle East and other Muslim nations so you can understand how off the wall that comparison is. Condemning Muslims for their views on the West is much closer to condemning Natives for hating white people than is condemning Ann Coulter (or Amicus, for that matter) for hating Muslims.

Not to say wholesale condemnation is right, but if someone has a better view, wouldn't it have made more sense to let them speak after her rather than push her away as though they were afraid of what she had to say?

It would make sense if Ann Coulter were making reasoned arguments rather than holding the equivalent of a White Power rally.

 

[DeeZire]

If you are going to have real Freedom of Speech, you have to let ignorant fucktard bitches speak, just as everybody else does. Freedom of speech reserved for those who praise apple pie and motherhood and hockey doesn't mean much.

As has been mentioned before, Box, freedom of speech does not include yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Where a society draws the line on free speech actually means a great deal - it illustrates the values that are important to that society. Outlawing hate speech may seem like an imposition to you, but for many of us, having to listen to hate speech is an imposition. It's degrading and demeaning, just as someone pissing on the American flag would be degrading and demeaning to you.

 

[My I]

If you are going to have real Freedom of Speech, you have to let ignorant fucktard bitches speak, just as everybody else does. Freedom of speech reserved for those who praise apple pie and motherhood and hockey doesn't mean much.

Just remember, that sort of freedom of speech includes the right to say, "Shut the fuck up." and "Ain't no one here that wants to listen to an ignorant fucktard bitch."

Freedom of speech does not guarantee that anyone is going to listen. So if everthing you say is aimed at pissing people off then you can expect people to eventually exercise the other side of freedom of speech, which is freedom to say get the fuck out.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
If you are going to have real Freedom of Speech, you have to let ignorant fucktard bitches speak, just as everybody else does. Freedom of speech reserved for those who praise apple pie and motherhood and hockey doesn't mean much.

Just remember, that sort of freedom of speech includes the right to say, "Shut the fuck up." and "Ain't no one here that wants to listen to an ignorant fucktard bitch."

Freedom of speech does not guarantee that anyone is going to listen. So if everthing you say is aimed at pissing people off then you can expect people to eventually exercise the other side of freedom of speech, which is freedom to say get the fuck out.

This is true, of course, but when you say those things through bullhorns or similar amplification, you are impinging on that person's right to be heard. If you threaten violence against her, you are breaking other laws.

And, apparently, there were persons who did want to hear her speak, because a campus organization had invited her to do so. Later, she said something to the effect that the radical students who were able to stifle her more eloquently stated her case than anything she might have said. And, she's right; they proved themselves to be a mob of ignorant yahoos who should not even make a pretense of advocating freedom of speech.

 

[Boxlicker101]

As has been mentioned before, Box, freedom of speech does not include yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Where a society draws the line on free speech actually means a great deal - it illustrates the values that are important to that society. Outlawing hate speech may seem like an imposition to you, but for many of us, having to listen to hate speech is an imposition. It's degrading and demeaning, just as someone pissing on the American flag would be degrading and demeaning to you.

I think it is safe to say that Anne Coulter was not going to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, nor was she going to incite a riot, although she was probably going to say some things that some people would have found distasteful. That should be her right. Keep in mind that she would have been speaking in a building, and the only persons who would have heard her would have been those who entered the building for that purpose.

In the USA, it is considered to be a legal expression of opinion to desecrate the American flag, although pissing on it might be some other kind of illegal act, such as indecent exposure. I don't like such acts, but I accept them as part of living in a free society. I believe Canada should have the same kind of freedom.

You might say it is none of my business what the laws are in Canada, and you would have a point there, but Canadians on this forum often express their opinions of what happens in the USA, so I feel I have the option of expressing my opinion of what happens in Canada.

 

[DeeZire]

You might say it is none of my business what the laws are in Canada, and you would have a point there, but Canadians on this forum often express their opinions of what happens in the USA, so I feel I have the option of expressing my opinion of what happens in Canada.

No problem Box. If you want to stand up for Anne Coulter's right to disseminate hate speech, at least we now have a crystal clear vision of where you stand.

 

[Bianca_Sommerland]

I suggest you educate yourself on the history of the Middle East and other Muslim nations so you can understand how off the wall that comparison is. Condemning Muslims for their views on the West is much closer to condemning Natives for hating white people than is condemning Ann Coulter (or Amicus, for that matter) for hating Muslims.

See, this is the only point where I think I disagree with you. I hate prejudism, I really do, but I also hate when the right to react to it is restricted to certain minorities and everyone else is supposed to shut up about it.

People are killed for being Americans in other countries, innocent of any crime. There are protest where Muslims speak against Americans as though they are all the same. On American soil and Canadian. That is prejudism and it's not any more right for them than it is for us. If they have the right to voice their opinions, based on a horrible history, shouldn't that right apply to everyone?

If she had been booed off the stage, or better yet, people had walked out, it would have given her the right to speak, and given the people in the audience the power to make a statement against what she was saying. Now she has a whole new podium, with the sympathy of having her freedom infringed on.

I'm enjoying this debate. Pretty civil so far...considering. I'm going to step out before I get dragged in too deep. My opinion on this has nothing to do with how I feel about Muslims or racism, but it's hard to argue for free speech and not sound as ignorant as some of the people using it to spread hate. When it comes down to it, I just don't believe you educate the ignorant by telling them to keep their ignorance to themselves.

 

[Boxlicker101]

No problem Box. If you want to stand up for Anne Coulter's right to disseminate hate speech, at least we now have a crystal clear vision of where you stand.

I made it crystal clear a long time ago. I have always made it clear that I am all for freedom of speech, in the USA or anywhere else. I firmly believe that you and I and Anne Coulter and David Duke and Louis Farakkhan and everybody else has a right to express an opinion, even if it is controversial or even hate speech.

Those who read or listen have the right to accept or reject that opinion, as they see fit.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I made it crystal clear a long time ago. I have always made it clear that I am all for freedom of speech, in the USA or anywhere else. I firmly believe that you and I and Anne Coulter and David Duke and Louis Farakkhan and everybody else has a right to express an opinion, even if it is controversial or even hate speech.

Those who read or listen have the right to accept or reject that opinion, as they see fit.

Box, hate speech is an invention of the left because they have no response to whatever you are discussing. If they don't like what they hear they call it hate speech. You could be telling them that the sky is blue and if they didn't like you saying that, it's hate speech and you are a hater.

There is no such thing as hate speech. If it's your opinion it's not hate speech. But if you're opinion is not their opinion they make up this thing called hate speech and accuse you of propagating hate.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Box, hate speech is an invention of the left because they have no response to whatever you are discussing. If they don't like what they hear they call it hate speech. You could be telling them that the sky is blue and if they didn't like you saying that, it's hate speech and you are a hater.

There is no such thing as hate speech. If it's your opinion it's not hate speech. But if you're opinion is not their opinion they make up this thing called hate speech and accuse you of propagating hate.

Really? This is your reasoned opinion on the subject?

 

[PoppingTom]

There is no such thing as hate speech. If it's your opinion it's not hate speech. But if you're opinion is not their opinion they make up this thing called hate speech and accuse you of propagating hate.

What were you fighting for in WWII, what?

You propagate indifference.

 

[cloudy]

Box, hate speech is an invention of the left because they have no response to whatever you are discussing. If they don't like what they hear they call it hate speech. You could be telling them that the sky is blue and if they didn't like you saying that, it's hate speech and you are a hater.

There is no such thing as hate speech. If it's your opinion it's not hate speech. But if you're opinion is not their opinion they make up this thing called hate speech and accuse you of propagating hate.

This has got to be one of the stupidest statements I've ever read.

eta: there is a LEGAL definition of hate speech, Zeb:

Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.

Perhaps you'd like to reconsider your statement? Holding an opinion is your own business. Voicing that opinion could be considered "hate speech" if it fits the definition above.

 

[Boxlicker101]

DeeZire:
Quote:
"...As I illustrated in my example, the government is simply carrying out the mandate in the constitution to maintain the "general welfare" of the citizens..."

I have often heard or read this. Are you aware that what you refer to does not appear in any article or amendment of the Constitution, which are the parts that are actually law? It just appears in the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,1 promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[MzDeviancy]

eta: there is a LEGAL definition of hate speech, Zeb:

Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.

Hi cloudy, where did you find that definition? Because I tried to find out more about the first amendment and hate speech, and the sources I found all supported the notion that hate speech is protected under the first amendment unless it involves "fighting words" or "imminent incitement".

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htm

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incitement.htm

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus_speech_codes

 

[MzDeviancy]

People are killed for being Americans in other countries, innocent of any crime. There are protest where Muslims speak against Americans as though they are all the same. On American soil and Canadian. That is prejudism and it's not any more right for them than it is for us.

Your original point was how many people would condemn an expression of a prejudice which is somewhat justified by history: my answer is a lot, it just depends on what group you're talking about condemning. It's become very taboo to criticize Jews for anything - unless you roll with the Neo-Nazi crowd - but most groups are not so exempt from criticism. You asked how many would criticize Aboriginals for wholesale prejudice against caucasians? I don't know what part of Canada you're from, but I've heard plenty of people rail against those "bitter" Natives who just "can't let go of the past". Muslim nations complaint against the West is similar to Natives' complaints against caucasians - stolen land, betrayal, loss of life - and, again, most it would seem - yourself included - have no problem critcizing their expressions of prejudice.

What I get from all this is that your race/religion has to endure a genocide before you're free to express prejudice without being criticized. So your argument that the PC double-standard is widespread and muzzling criticism of some prejudice but not others doesn't really work for me.

If she had been booed off the stage, or better yet, people had walked out, it would have given her the right to speak, and given the people in the audience the power to make a statement against what she was saying. Now she has a whole new podium, with the sympathy of having her freedom infringed on.

No one who thought she was a far-right nut before is going to suddenly start listening to her because she was denied her freedom to speak. She already had a book deal and an audience of right-wingers who agree that the Left and Muslims are the source of all that is wrong in the world.

I'm enjoying this debate. Pretty civil so far...considering. I'm going to step out before I get dragged in too deep. My opinion on this has nothing to do with how I feel about Muslims or racism, but it's hard to argue for free speech and not sound as ignorant as some of the people using it to spread hate. When it comes down to it, I just don't believe you educate the ignorant by telling them to keep their ignorance to themselves.

Well, if you come back, my response is waiting.

Also, if you have some idea of how to educate the ignorant, I'm all ears. I agree that calling them whackadoos and telling them to shut up isn't going to open their minds to alternative opinions. Unfortunately, reasoned arguments don't seem to work either when talking to someone who thinks that the Obama health care bill is stage one of Obama's plan to turn the US into a communist country.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

What were you fighting for in WWII, what?

You propagate indifference.

Me personally? I may be old but I'm not that old.

Oh, you mean America...well that was that countryman of yours, you know the one, Hitler, who was trying to socialize the world through the use of violence and destruction.

And you have know idea what I propagate. I doubt you even know what the word propagate means.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Hi cloudy, where did you find that definition? Because I tried to find out more about the first amendment and hate speech, and the sources I found all supported the notion that hate speech is protected under the first amendment unless it involves "fighting words" or "imminent incitement".

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htm

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incitement.htm

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus_speech_codes

She doesn't know...

United States

The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[36] and incitement to riot.[37] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[38] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[39] See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989).

In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[40] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995). Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[41]

There is no such thing as hate speech in the U.S.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Hi cloudy, where did you find that definition? Because I tried to find out more about the first amendment and hate speech, and the sources I found all supported the notion that hate speech is protected under the first amendment unless it involves "fighting words" or "imminent incitement".

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htm

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incitement.htm

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus_speech_codes

Here is a good definition of "Fighting Words."
http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fighting-words/

Finding Cloudy's definition is easy enough. Just google a phrase out of context, and you will get the whole thing.

Originally Posted by cloudy
eta: there is a LEGAL definition of hate speech, Zeb:

Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.

However, the SCOTUS has rarely, if ever, held that hate speech is not protected by the constitution.

 

[PoppingTom]

And you have know idea what I propagate. I doubt you even know what the word propagate means.

You're talking to yourself, don't you ?


Cause I SEE what you propagate. And if you propagate something totally different and you don't care if you get misunderstood or not, well, it's less my problem.