(February 10, 2021 at 2:37 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Free speech, then, is not the position that you are advocating. You are advocating for a right to incitement of hatred.
Here are some comments from your supreme court about what hatred means, legally.
Quote:Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.
Quote:In my view, "detestation" and "vilification" aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.
Do you genuinely believe that you have, or should have, a right to incitement of hatred as described in your laws?
Absolutely I do. I don't see why not. You can do that where you're from, the US, where they actually have free speech. It's not the same as yelling fire in a crowded theatre at all. When you do that, you are putting people's lives at immediate risk. Dehumanizing people does not do that. People should be held responsible for their own actions if they decide to commit acts of violence. The inciters of hatred didn't make that decision for them. They made that decision for themselves. No one forced them.