The creepy tyranny of Canada's hate speech laws - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

The creepy tyranny of Canada's hate speech laws - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
Lee Iverson

Lee Iverson in leei's Channel

My argument as to why Canada's "hate speech" laws aren't necessarily a bad thing.

Captured on 25 Mar 2010 from www.salon.com

For as long as I'll live, I'll never understand how people want to vest in the Government the power to criminalize particular viewpoints it dislikes, will never understand the view that it's better to try to suppress adverse beliefs than to air them, and will especially never understand people's failure to realize that endorsing this power will, one day, very likely result in their own views being criminalized when their political enemies (rather than allies) are empowered.
That's what Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com said about the letter Ann Coulter received warning her of the potential consequences of her particularly repugnant style of speaking when in Canada as opposed to the U.S.

From my (and many Canadians’) point-of-view its actually not that hard to understand. We are not criminalizing a viewpoint, but the behaviour that might stem from that viewpoint. We don’t say that you can’t be a Nazi or even hang a swastika in your basement, but if you decide to advocate for the murder of Jews or suggest that Hitler was correct to do so, then it is that behaviour which can be sanctioned and referred to the courts.

Just as with any other behaviour, we penalize that which damages others. Even in the “free speech” nirvana that is the U.S. (where corporations doing their best to buy legislators and public opinion can claim that they should be unconstrained in doing so since money=speech as far as the Supreme Court is concerned) there are already limits to speech behaviours. Clearly libel and slander laws limit acceptable speech, and place consequences in one’s way when defaming individuals. And some speech is criminal, even there. Ordering that a felony be committed or merely assisting in the planning of one are both criminal acts that don’t require any behaviour more active than just speech. So why object so strongly to laws that criminalize “hate speech”?  The lines are already in the sand around all of us.  Speech, as sacrosanct as it might appear to some, is already criminal in some cases and subject to civil liability in others.

The simple fact is that in Canada, we’ve said quite simply that speech acts that might be considered libelous or slanderous if directed at an individual are attacks on society in general when they are directed at identifiable groups. The prohibitions and penalties then become a matter of criminal rather than civil law. In essence, we as a society have taken the defense of these groups targeted by the hatemongers as our responsibility and asked our police and prosecutors to act to defend us from those that would so debase our public discourse. The question really comes down to one of whether you trust the courts to adjudicate any criminal laws fairly. In general, we as Canadians do.

Responses

Please Login to respond

Get Gleanr!

What is Gleanr?

Gleanr is the networking engine for digital-age professionals. Get impact (& income!) in the information streams you care about.

How does it work?

Your custom Gleanr channels automate information flow relevant to you. All you do is "click" - we do the rest (instant capture, indexing, and networking).

What is the value?

Gleanr is the only web service where professionals can manage and monetize their expertise.

Is this more web 2.0?

Yes, but for work. Now you can capitalize on your unique ability to filter and enrich professional information streams.

Show me!

Explore the public parts of professional information streams here, or take the Gleanr Tour.

Sign me up!