is the sheer velocity of the speeches here dictated by some bylaws of debating societies? because if so, canadian college students should consider other extracurricular activities. smoking large quantities of pot is not conducive to machine gun diction- you know how those canadians are. oh, wait, forgot about rap music. never mind.

i know this is a side point, but i was kind of shocked at some of the atrocious english and some of the garbled idea-connections of these kids. i had the impression that much of this was the result of trying to push the envelope on some kind of time limit. i may be wrong about this, but one thing i'm pretty sure of: some of these children (god bless them) are no strangers to cannabis.

how about "love speech"? will i get arrested for saying i love canadians? they just shouldn't get high before engaging in public debate, thats all. they should have spoken facing a large, psychedelic blacklit poster saying " thought, speech, action- they're all, like, different things."

you should only be able to be arrested for actions. hatred is not an action. INCITEMENT (which is the real issue here even though the word is never used) requires intent, and is itself an action.

To ban hate speech doesn't solve the problem. People will hate and will breed their hate with or without having a public forum to do it. "Gary" Fallwell will "hate" gays no matter what, because it's what his religion teaches (or so he thinks). Where do you draw the line between hate speach and other speech? I want to criticize religion's flaws, but the government could say it's hate speech, because i'm speaking about a certain group.

The "ban hate speech" side has it wrong. Nobody is saying "i hate". They are saying "i disagree with your belief". Most of the KKK gets their belief from the bible ("mark of Cain") to reinforce their ideas of being superior. To say such things doesn't incite violence, it's the violence itself that causes problems. I need those people to say these things outloud so I can debate them and argue my side of why they are wrong.

John: Are you high? I'm kidding, but that first guy did have quite the cadence.

This kinda shows that the Brits are better at speaking politely and being heard correctly, whilst still getting cross and making points at the same time.

Hitchens even got a few jokes in.

@John: Thanks for all that useless text above the part that mattered. College kids, weed, chortle-chortle. I get it.

@Adam: You're right. The speakers here can totally be used as a basis of judging all Canadians. Long live Britain (or however you choose to word your patriotism. I don't want to get it wrong, but I'm just so gosh-darn ignorant!)!

I think there were great points all around, both for and against the concept of hate speech and it's effect on the groups it does and does not target. The final speaker in particular served up a reasoning I can agree with: that if enough people say it's alright to hate then there will be some who say it's alright to hurt.

These kids appear to have coal fire metabolisms, with the boiler about to explode. It is hoped that they nobody hurt themselves in the proceedings. I think the wearing of mutton chops and monocles would've topped it off nicely.

This is awful. I move that we classify students posing as grown-ups while giving speeches, as hate speech.

The first kid was bad enough, gesturing and generally overselling his point -- but the next one barery allowed herself to draw breath, gasping in breaths of air like a drowning man in between propelling syllables out of her mouth.

Hate speech should be allowed, of course.

Just watched both the Hitchens and student clips. I gotta say, as much as I hate Christopher Hitchens, I was blown away by his speech. The comments on the Hitchens post interest me. Why is it that we can't recognize a good point made by a person we disagree with? I have a problem with my allies on the left when they start acting like blind conservatives. Liberal humanists get lost by "towing the party line" just as much as right-wing conservatives. As thinking adults we must listen to what is being said and not only focus on who is saying it. Good people sometimes say bad things and bad people sometimes say good things. that is why free speech is so important.

some of these children (god bless them) are no strangers to cannabis.

Jonathan, though I agree with you on the issue of free speech, I must say your cannabis comment reeked of O'Reilly's casual ad hominems. That said, I applaud you good sir. Nicely done.

i was kind of shocked at some of the atrocious english

Do you mean atrocious as in your refusal to capitalize the first letter in the beginning of all your sentences or some other milder form of atrocious?

Feel free to respond to my arguments with declarations of hate in honor of freedom of speech.

P.S. I LOOOVVEE all of you. Quickly, arrest me as my utterance of my deep-seated love for you all may translate into an action of sodomy rape!

Also, could anyone find the Profanity video from Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" series season two and post it here? It's highly relevant to the discussion and very entertaining.

I hate Bush, his cabinent, and the Republicans that stand by him. I hate the conservative leader that is now in power in Canada, and I hate the policies that he has created.

^^^^This type of free speach is what's truly at the heart of the matter. Governments decorate these laws as helping those racial/religious minorities that are usually highlighted by hate speach, but what they're really trying to do is make critism illegal. I can back up my statements a million ways till next Tuesday as to why I hate the above (well, I actually don't know anything about the Canadian PM, I just threw that out there cause this debate is taking place in Canada), but because I've voiced hate, it would become illegal. Self actualization is important, but what's more important is the ability to govern youself, and hold your government accountable by being able to speak up against it. This kids should have talked more about that.

That last kid was exceptionally annoying, I felt.

The crux of the oppositions argument was that hate speech has no rationality and therefore should be criminal.

But, who in the hell says that any speech has to be rational? and who is the judge of rationality?

Freedom is of speech is absolute: 'nuff said.

Freedom of sppech does not mean freedom of responsibility for your own speech.

Nothing is free. And freedom most certainly is not. How many times have you heard the prahse that you have to fight for freedom in USA?

Just an example. Make a false claim or slander against people. And you'll be sued for libel.

Your freedom of speech does not include the freedom to adversely affect the lives of those you are attacking with your speech.

Your freedom of speech should not include the freedom to lie about things to mislead people. Scooter Libby found that out the hard way. Hopely more from Bush's administration will do that as well.

In every society, there are some rules and norms, not all of them, that placed for the betterment of all.

Just as the individual receives certain benefits from society, he is also under obligation to society.

Freedom of speech should come with the caveat that your speech must be informed, make sense and based on verifiable facts.

Anyone can do this if he or she is passionate about a topic. Unless the person is lazy or just want to lie to mislead others.

If that is the case, that person do not have the maturity to handle the obligations behind the right to free speech.

Hi, I'm a Canadian so obviously I can't pick up on the atrocious language. It just blends in with the garbage that comes out of my mouth. Some examples of the atrocious use of the English language would be appreciated so I could perhaps improve my own speech.

For those who are advocating freedom of speech with no checks or restrictions, do consider this?

How does hate speech improve the wellbeing of society or even the people mouthing it?

Doesn't hate speech lead to more hate speech?

Where does hate come in when it comes to the commandmant to love thy neighbour?

Why is hate a legitmate response to someone different from you or who have a different view point?

And more importantly, should hate be a permissable behaviour in the public?

Should hate be encounraged at all as a behaviour?

I've made my point.

What about yours?

Your freedom of speech does not include the freedom to adversely affect the lives of those you are attacking with your speech.

Sure it does as long as it's true.

Okay Kes, who decides what is hate speech? That is why we allow all speech with only a very few exceptions. What if I decide your posts about Israel are hateful and ban them? One man's hate is another man's passionate argument.

Well, Norm, your example is a little superficial for my taste. Let me explain.

For me to call me anti-semite or my points against Israel as hate speech, the onus is on you to prove that my postion is based on hate and not based on facts or credible research.

================

Passion does not excuse a person for lying to deceiving others to persuade or convert them to his cause.

If you have passion, you have even less reasons not to do even more homework to bring to the table the facts and research that backs their opinion.

If not, I doubt the person has any passion, beyond his need to mislead others.

=================

So far, I have successfully shown that neither is a label nor a stereotype that anyone can dump on me.

Criticism against Israel is not hate speech as long as it deals with the actions of the Israeli government based on the rules of international agreements, humanitariana and democractic principles.

That is what I have done and over again.

Norm, you have done that as well as by bringing criticsm of Israel's actions as discussion topics into this blog last year, not me. As a result, the pro-Israeli crowd has called you anti-semite among other things. Do you agree with them?

From your posts on the topics, clearly you don't.

I came here to read about religion and science since Nov 1995 and I've not read or posted anything on Israel until the pro-Israeli crowd invaded this website with their false propaganda.

I have made it very clear that Israel has no right to be exempted from the behaviour that characterise rogue states who are punished for such behaviour.

Just as I support the punishment of Saddam for invading another country, I expect Israel to be punished for doing the same. That has not happened for the last 60 years and Israel has taken that to mean that the right of self-defence allows Israel to invade its neighbours at will.

I am all for prosecuting countries that allows proliferation of nuclear weapon technology like North Korea, Pakistan, Libya. So why is Israel not prosecuted for developing a clandestine nuclear arsenal without international supervision and for transferring nuclear WMD technology to the rogue state of South Africa.

Why do the world need to freeze aid to the Palestine leadership for electing Hamas to power, when Israel can elect Menacham Begin as its 7th Prime Minster in the later 1970s who first terrorism as a politcal tactic to the Middle East in the 1940s and is the leader of the Jewish Irgin terrorist group?

Why is Israel exempt? That has been the focus of my points against Israel.

I'm really passionate about this. That's why I have no problem finding United Nation sources, Jewish sources, quotes from Israeli historians as well as international media, and not Arab sources?

You're missing the point. I'm asking you who gets to make the decision as to what is hate speech and what is not. What if the proof I offer in my 'superficial example' convinces whoever decides what hate speech is and he locks you up. Answer the question. Who decides? Does the fact that it's true automatically mean it's not hate speech. Is calling someone a faggot, hate speech, if it's true the person is a homosexual. I don't think you've thought much about this subject.

For those who advocate freedom of speech with no limits, lets test your passion for this topic.

1] Do you accept the right that a person can shout hate speech against your family from his side of the street?

2] Does the right of free speech gives him the right to say what he wants about you or anyone else you know with no truth, no facts and utterly no reason?

3] Does freedom of speech gives people the right to slander your dead relatives, family members, ancestors or just people who are dead and can't respond?

4] Does freedom of speech give people the right to blaspheme against other faiths, cultures and civilisations which these people do not understand?

Does freedom of speech comes with a license to overside human decency, courtesy and propriety?

Does it come with a license to hurt with no cause and no truth?

My position is simple here.

A line needs to be drawn when it comes to freedom of speech.

And it has been drawn by your own legal system i.e. statues on libel and whistleblowing etc.

Up to now, I have not heard any persuasive point that freedom of speech should be free of any checks, obligation and responsibilities.

So do tell.

No offense intended.

I'm just exerting my right to free speech based on personal responsibility.

Just as a fair number of people here exert their right to unrestrained free speech to call their distractors racist slurs and other insults on baseless grounds for 6 months since June 2006 at this very blog.

Thank goodness for a moderation policy. And I note that such policies do not seek to give the right of free speech a blank check even if it is in cyberspace.

As to what classifies hate speech or not, there are acceptable rules and norms in how one can exercise free speech in society.

You can have your government set them or have a referendum to vote on them.

You can even arbitrarily set some principles that are universally acceptable.

Here are just 2.

1] Speech must be honest and truthful to the best knowledge of the speaker. That means that the speaker do not recycle claims that have been refuted by facts over and again.

2] Speech must not be intended for the simple purpose of malice or hurting others. Make the point. Don't attack the messenger.

I'm sure the other posters here have their inputs on this.

Kes,

1] Do you accept the right that a person can shout hate speech against your family from his side of the street? Yes I do.

2] Does the right of free speech gives him the right to say what he wants about you or anyone else you know with no truth, no facts and utterly no reason? Yes it does. I also have the right to sue him for slander if he knows it is not true.

3] Does freedom of speech gives people the right to slander your dead relatives, family members, ancestors or just people who are dead and can't respond? Yes it does.

4] Does freedom of speech give people the right to blaspheme against other faiths, cultures and civilisations which these people do not understand? Yes, absolutely.

Does freedom of speech comes with a license to overside human decency, courtesy and propriety? Yes it does.

Does it come with a license to hurt with no cause and no truth? Yes it does, but again, it also comes with the responsibility to live with the punishment if you are found to be willingly promote falsehoods.

Not all hate speech includes falsehoods. If I were to express negative views towards a particular race, I would not be promoting falsehoods but yet carrying about in hate speech.

If there are standards of hate speech, what are the protected classes that are not to be hated against?

wow, managed to get tickled by the wonka, erick, and some canadian guy. i admit to getting a little blog-happy there.(must have been the amsterdam hydroponic. can't be bothered with caps when i'm on that stuff, mannnn.) and i shouldn't have mentioned the atrocious english issue if i was too lazy to provide examples (i am.) but you, especially, dzwonka- abit of the pot calling the kettle black. whatever- love your stuff. and you too erick. and ALL canadians.

sorry, meant daowan not dzwonka. sorry about that.

That was Awfulllllll. I couldnt really take them very seriously, and was bored. And yes western society should value freedom of speech.

I may not have the concrete answers for any debate:

But I know when I'm bored.

Most of the criticism of the speakers is irrelevant. This type of debate is a learning exercise. You can't expect them to be professionally accomplished. What is what school is for. I wonder how those critics would manage in public speaking.

As has been mentioned here and addressed by Hitchens, who qualified to determine what "hate" and thus "hate speech" are?

Judging by the criticism of of Garrison Keillor piece, some people seem to think that that is an example of "hate speech".

The speaker in opposition spoke about making "contributions". What does that mean? Who decides that one thing is a "contribution" and another is not?

kes gets this wrong, "Freedom of speech should come with the caveat that your speech must be informed, make sense and based on verifiable facts."

This would eliminate most speech. I have not sympathy for godophiles, but this would eliminate all sermonizing. Maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing, but it seems to be too large.

Also as Hitchens points out, prohibiting "hate speech" would eliminate much of the bible and the koran and who knows what else. The multi-cultural tolerationists are engaged in a self-defeating process.

I find the argument about religion particularily compelling. If it is considered hate speech to denounce the tenets of a faith, then all those religious are guilty. You cannot, for example, believe that Jesus was a prophet and not God without denying the must fundamental principle of Christianity. You cannot be a Muslim and a Jew at the same time; one must be right and one must be wrong.

A point of fact and interest: Under Canadian law, the correctness, accuracy and truth of actionable statements has no bearing on guilt or innocence of the charges. I think it was in the Keegstra trial, perhaps Zundel, in which the ruling was made that "truth is no defense" in a hate speach trial.

For me, the Onion put it best: "If we don't protect freedom of speech, how will we know who the assholes are?"

You can have your government set them or have a referendum to vote on them.

So if we have a referendum here and decide your speech is hate speech that's good enough for you?

Does tyranny of the majority mean nothing to you?

I guess it comes down to how much power you give words. I mean JUST words. If someone says something hateful, it is almost inevitably stupid and untrue. An independent, intelligent person thinks, "that is stupid and untrue" end of ordeal. Now if we are worried about stupid people hearing hate speech and ACTING hateful as a result... is the answer to limit speech or expand education? Do we restrict things or do we work harder to expand things? To quote Frank Zappa: "They're just words, man! If you don't like them, don't listen."

I suppose I am for "freedom of speech" -- whatever that means. However, can one call a small black child a "nigger" to his face and not get in trouble?

Does freedom of speech protect death threats? Why not? Who decides?

If you're for absolute freedom of speech (absolute, the only way it can be free) there can not be any confusion. Why should libal/slander/plagarism be crimes? They're just words.

Excuse me, libel.

Re: Death Threats.

I suppose one person may say that a death threat directly states you are going to commit an illegal crime.

Fair enough.

"I'm going to steal a candy bar today."

"I'm going to destroy the Earth."

Should one be arrested for those statements?

Should one be arrested for those statements?

Rights of free speech are, of course, not absolute.

The test in the U.S. per our constituion is how clear and imminent and likely the danger is which said speech presents.

The test in the U.S. per our constituion is how clear and imminent and likely the danger is which said speech presents.

But shouldn't it be absolute? Until a person does the act, his or her words remain only words.

Death threats and Hate speech are very different:

"I'm going to kill the President"

"All Jews are rotten"

The former infers an action to come, the later is simply a shitty thing to say.

Just curious, not that I wish to participate in this discussion but I don't believe the debate was finished. I used to debate and Ren should have spoken after Rory for about three more minutes. You'll notice that the speaking times are disproportionate between the two teams.

Norm, there's a big difference between the rule of the majority and the tyranny of the majority.

For anyone to equate both as the same thing, you'll need proof and facts for that position.

Things that most people can agree on are not necessarily regarded as tyranny of the majority.

Is the freedom to have a religion or decide not to have one that hard a principle to vote on?

Or the right to self-determination for the democractic majority in any country?

Popular democracy is hardly the rule of the mob.

Just as an enlightened moderation policy from a sole moderator of a website does not imply the a dictatorship.

===============

Let's get back to the issue, which is on the freedom of speech and whether there should be any restraints on this freedom.

==============

I am not going to point out the obvious on the implications of moderation or posting policies on websites with regards to freedom of speech.

Let's instead focus on American democracy and its institutions.

When leaders make spurious claims such "Saddam has nukes." or "I did not have a blowjob", what do they plead on?

Is it the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

Or is it the Fifth Amendment?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Shouldn't the freedom of speech includes the freedom to lie or mislead the public with no consequences or checks whatsoever?

I do find the US Bill of Rights a bit dubious in that people have the right to free speech and the right to no speech.

So what's the problem with with having checks on both free speech and no speech?

Such checks are already present.

For example, executive privilege does not allow government personnal to remain silent if subponoaed to speak on matters not related to national security.

As far as I'm concerned, with such legal conditions or statuettes such as on perjury and libel, there are already restrictions on freedom of speech even in USA.

So why are arguing whether the right to free speech should be unrestrained or otherwise?

Perhaps you Americans can enlighten me on these issues.

The last thing I want is to blindly subscribe to the global perception of American hypocrisy and arrogance on issues such as human freedoms and democracy as practised by the American nation.

Norm, there's a big difference between the rule of the majority and the tyranny of the majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannyofthe_majority

I don't think you understand the concept. Constitutional protections and bills of rights are meant to avoid abuses by a majority. Rights that all have, and that aren't subject to being changed by a simple majority. History is replete with examples of abuses by majorities, that you seem to be unaware of this fact is quite remarkable. That you would agree to accept a majority rule of what was acceptable speech is foolhardy.

Norm, I'm not sure if you've addtressed the crux of what I've said.

Norm, there's a big difference between the rule of the majority and the tyranny of the majority. For anyone to equate both as the same thing, you'll need proof and facts for that position... Popular democracy is hardly the rule of the mob.

Here's an example of what I mean.

An election in a democractic nation can only take place after the people agree on some guiding principles. To do this, there has to be no division between majority and minority here.

With a consensus on these principles by all the people involved, everyone in that nation are bound to abide by the results of the election, regardless whether you are in the majority or the minority and that is fine definition yet to be decided before the elections.

If you want to discuss this further, we can talk via email as it may be off topic here.

=====================

As I've stated my preference is to continue with the discussion on whether there's a need or no need for checks or restraints on free speech, which is the subject of this topic.

And I've highlighted that such checks are even endorsed by Americans and have been operating in American society for hundreds of years.

I've made my points on these issues in my last post and I'll not belabour them any longer.

I'll leave the floor open for other people to come in with their own inputs.

Thanks for your patience.

1] Speech must be honest and truthful to the best knowledge of the speaker. That means that the speaker do not recycle claims that have been refuted by facts over and again.

2] Speech must not be intended for the simple purpose of malice or hurting others. Make the point. Don't attack the messenger.

On 1: Key word is “to the best knowledge of the speaker.

Am I the only one who sees multiple potential copouts from people like Bush’s cabinet in that “from the best of their knowledge” the intelligence they had with them at the time seemed reliable to them, therefore no criminal basis for purposefully misleading the public?

</cue to wave American flag>

How does censoring speech in this sense protect the problems we currently witness? By the way, do you only plan on advocating for a restriction of this speech to political offices or to a much broader public? If the latter, then doesn’t that criminalize a large percentage of undereducated class members of society who are either ignorant in many areas and/or do not have ample resources to fact check whether or not their arguments have been debunked? Notice that this can get rather sticky as a Creationist, for example, might say that evolution has been debunked numerous times by competing arguments. In casual speak, much of us express our selves rather unscientifically in our approach to many issues in day to day interactions with people. Your storm-troopers-of-language idea seems rather too punitive and causes much more woes for society than benefits. This restriction would suppress the expression of an individual not only on speech actions but their thoughts as well. It’s better to expose and see the haters for what they really are instead of creating an environment free of passion—even if that passionate expression gives you a vomitous aftertaste.

On 2: Ad hominems are perceived as offensive statements. Profanity can be included in such attacks. Are we to criminalize that as well in your mind?

The essayist and novelist George Orwell said “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Orwell argues that a society that is too careful not to offend cannot be truthfully expressive, artistic, or diverse. Taking offense to speech is an arbitrary response. To account for every possible way a phrase may be found offensive is not only impossible, but a hindrance to freedom of expression and even thought. (Wikipedia).

Norm, this didn't warrant a posting. That "prime minister" should get over himself. Bombastic with no substance.

Sorry, the link seems to be a bad one. Go here and click on 'Download the preview video here 2.2mb (Right Click, Save As)'.

Should work now...

Sorry I couldn't fine the entire video.

Am I the only one who sees multiple potential copouts from people like Bush’s cabinet in that “from the best of their knowledge” the intelligence they had with them at the time seemed reliable to them...

Erick, a good point but I was actually referring to a universal rule of conduct on the internet or at a website. I'll admit that I am giving out a copout to the few people here who have dazzled us with their inability to give honest views or make meaningful factual statements at this site.

As for the Bushies, oh yes please go ahead to impeach them for perjury and lying to the American public. Their behaviour is a lot more serious than those coming from a few dishonest posters in a website i.e. a few black sheep.

Free speech.. here? Pretty hypocritical, considering that I've been banned from posting here. And hypocritical is the polite way of saying it.

And to pretend there's I wasn't censored because you have an open discussion about Israel... disgusting.

Holdencaufield above has it about right, "Until a person does the act, his or her words remain only words."

If it is not and act, it is then only a thought crime. Might as well throw almost all novelists in jail, particularly those who write detective/police/crime stories. Add to that who knows how many movie directors.

Bernarda said //Holdencaufield above has it about right, "Until a person does the act, his or her words remain only words."//

Yes, close, as far as the laws of the U.S. are concerned, per the U.S. Constitution.

The test in the U.S., per our constitution, is how clear and imminent and likely the danger said speech presents.

I'm sure it has been pointed out but the first speaker was not fast in cadence due to "smoking pot". These speeches are timed and, as such, as much content must be put on the table as succinctly as possible while still remaining impervious logically.

You do have to talk fast in timed debates (one way you could tell was that he had a time warning when the women banged on the table).

As much as I disagree with hate speech, we must marginalize it socially rather than through law. We should do much the same with religious belief but that is another debate.

I'm probably not being fair -- after all, these are kids -- but I find this really annoying. These kids are not terribly good at making reasoned arguments.

I believe that all speech should be free, unless it specifically incites harm against a people or person. You should be able to say that you hate black people or gay people (not that i don't totally disagree with that), but you shouldn't be able to go on TV and declare a fatwah against a cartoonist.

Some of these speakers were way too naive and idealist, because you can't expect to have a reasonable debate with a KKK member or Jerry Falwell, because their hate is not based on reasonable or arguable logic. I've talked to a lot of people whose ideas conflicted with mine, and 90% of the time they ignored every point i made and came to the conclusion that they were right no matter how much i tore apart their argument. I like to think that i can accept my ideas as false and change my opinion as new evidence arises.

Maybe rather than making hate illegal, we should make a mandatory class in school on logic and debate, and teach people how to form an educated opinion. If you could succeed in that, you'd stand a much better chance of dissolving hatred.

George W. Bush is an idiot. No, this is not an ad hominem attack. This is an observation that agrees with the very meaning of the word. Idiot: A mentally deficient person, having low intelligence, being unable to guard against dangers, and incapable of learning connected speech. George Bush has all these characteristics: obvious low intelligence, lack of awareness of the world, and exhibits disconnected speech (when not reciting his speech writers words) not to mention that he has put America in grave danger by starting wars and thus creating far more terrorists against the U.S. than ever before, and he doesn't even acknowledge the danger or recognize his impotency to guard against it. Bush is an idiot by his very behavior.

--Spatch Pentameter

Thought that^ would be appropriate for this discussion.