Should the Freedom of Speech Always be allowed?

keith99 · Aug 18, 2008

There is a huge difference between Whatever

and

Wherever.

In the U.S. the courts have held much more for whatever than for wherever. I agree.

Step one inch inside the property of the graveyard and arrest him. Personally I have no problem with a general injunction of within 500 feet of any funeral.

But any restriction on what he is saying? No way. His words are hateful and hurtful and he is scum, but rights mean nothing if they only belong to those we find likeable.

Washington · Aug 18, 2008

cantata said:
I think picketing a funeral could constitute harm, really.

Possibly, but in the USA we don't prohibit speech on grounds of possibility. It amounts to prior censorship. The law assumes that we are cognizant of the fact that anyone can sue anyone else for anything, including personal harm. So we are expected to recognize any potential harm in what we say, and that if someone feels they have been harmed by our speech or writings they can obtain redress through the courts. However, actual harm has to be proved. So, we don't hamstring our free speech by declaring certain forms of it off limits. We let people say what they want and fully expect them to do so, all with the understanding of its possible consequences. Aside from a few special exceptions, like national security information, we decide on the legality of one's speech based on its subsequent effect.

If picketing a funeral causes identifiable harm then the the picketers are liable for any actionable redress. If it doesn't cause identifiable harm then those picketed are just out of luck.

Honkytnkmn · Aug 18, 2008

Guid said:
Do you believe that peopel should always be allowed to have Freedom of Speech? Do you see any place where there should be restrictions?

Yes, it should always be allowed. No, there should be no restrictions what so ever in the verbal expression of your legitimate opinions.

Now obviously one shouldn't be permitted to Fire! in a theatre or hurl obscenities in public, nor is slander and libel permissible. But as far as the realm of ideas goes, no absolutely no restrictions.

Click to expand...

Good one! Yelling fire in a theater proposes an immediate danger to the individuals in the theater. Saying "God hates Gays" does not. Like Guid says, ideas and expression should not be restricted.

Having said that,

Freedom of Speech means Government can't arrest or punish you for what you say. It doesn't mean you can't be fired, thrown out of an establishment, boycotted or whatnot for what you say.

When the Dixie Chicks site freedom of speech in protest of people not buying cds because of what they said. That is not covered.

Someone getting fired from their job for expressing the opinion that their boss is an @..Hole is not covered.

etc............

Click to expand...

seeker777 · Aug 18, 2008

Guid said:
But even today, I heard on the radio that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) wants to strip doctors of the right to practise should they refuse to carry out medical procedures the doctor finds morally reprehensible. E.g. a doctor can be stripped of her ability to practice if she refuses to prescribe some drug she thinks is dangerous, or to perform an abortion, or - should it ever come in - kill a patient the government has slated for execution under some eugenics law.

A doctor should not have the choice to refuse to provide a valid, accepted, legal and necessary medical procedure, based upon nothing more than moral principals.

If Doctors have the choice to refuse, then you may as well give police officers the same right to decide which 911 calls they want to attend and which ones they will ignore based upon moral grounds.

Why stop there?

Give the right to with hold services on moral grounds to fire fighters and paramedics as well.

seeker777 · Aug 18, 2008

I don't think allot of people understand the actual Criminal Code ( CC) application of a hate crime in Canada.

I want everyone to know that a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has absolutely nothing to do with a hate crime under the CC.

Take for example, someone who spray paints a swastika on a wall in a Jewish neighborhood. Now, certainly the act is vandalism ( mischief in Canada) as the accused did not have the right to deface the property.

What the hate crime legislation recognizes is that the swastika on the wall, is not merely a splash of paint, rather it is a symbol that has the potential to negatively affect an entire community. The hate crime legislation recognizes that such acts do cause alarm and fear within a community and thus provides the court better redress to properly deal with the crimes.

Spray paint a silly picture on a wall, you'll get a $300 city bylaw fine.

Spray paint a swastika, you're going to get charged under the Criminal code with hate crime, harsher sentence, criminal record and probation.

It's a great way to deal with these hateful bottom feeders.

I repeat, the hate crime laws, have nothing at all to do ( SERIOUSLY, NOTHING) with human rights tribunals.

Honkytnkmn · Aug 18, 2008

seeker777 said:
A doctor should not have the choice to refuse to provide a valid, accepted, legal and necessary medical procedure, based upon nothing more than moral principals.

If Doctors have the choice to refuse, then you may as well give police officers the same right to decide which 911 calls they want to attend and which ones they will ignore based upon moral grounds.

Why stop there?

Give the right to with hold services on moral grounds to fire fighters and paramedics as well.

Its not the same, if you believe abortion is murder and it goes against your religion. You should not be forced to perform one. There are plenty of areas in medicine that you can practice in without going against your religious beliefs. I believe this is covered under the first amendment also.

Just as if you're religion preached pacifism, you would not be forced to go to war. (granted this is harder to prove to the government)

On the other hand, a firefighter would know in advance they would have to go into fires and have taken on that contract when they except their job. If they were unable to perform this duty they would probably have to resign seeing as how this is directly related to the job they have. Not to mention I have never heard of a religion saying, saving lives was wrong.

Guid · Aug 18, 2008

cantata said:
In the UK it's illegal to incite violence against anyone. I am not sure whether Phelps' "God says to kill f*gs" would qualify as incitement to violence - but I kind of hope they would. I am grudgingly happy for him to be allowed to wave his signs wherever he chooses, but I draw the line at suggesting that one should kill homosexual people. The fact is that there's enough violence against gay people in this country and in America anyway, without some moron making it worse by waving signs encouraging it.

I used to think hate speech laws were OK but I have changed my mind. Here (Canada) they are already being used to put a chill on discourse and destroy people. They should be repealed. My suggestion is to instead counter nonsense speech with good sense speech and not worry about it.

When we start to restrict opinions we disagree with etc. we step out onto the slippery slope of leftist or fascist totalitarianism. They are jailing people in Canada for opinions posted on forums their websites - like the Nazis did for anyone who dissented from their point of view. It is a crime commited by the government itself - the laws should be repealed, the jailed released, and any properties restored.

Have a good day,

Guid

Guid · Aug 18, 2008

Honkytnkmn said:
Its not the same, if you believe abortion is murder and it goes against your religion. You should not be forced to perform one. There are plenty of areas in medicine that you can practice in without going against your religious beliefs. I believe this is covered under the first amendment also.

Just as if you're religion preached pacifism, you would not be forced to go to war. (granted this is harder to prove to the government)

On the other hand, a firefighter would know in advance they would have to go into fires and have taken on that contract when they except their job. If they were unable to perform this duty they would probably have to resign seeing as how this is directly related to the job they have. Not to mention I have never heard of a religion saying, saving lives was wrong.

Agreed. To add, "medicine" is an extremely wide field and human rights - both the patient's and the doctor's - are important. It's complicated and therefore rights need to be protected: the patient's, of course .. but also the doctor's.

A doctor may be of the opinion a certain drug is dangerous .. in good conscience she or he cannot prescribe it. A certain procedure might be considered harmful by a well trained doctor - in good conscience she or he cannot perform it.

How would you like it if the gov't forced your doctor to prescribe crummy drug A when the doctor knows for sure drug B is much better? And so on.

In Canada, the only thing the government should be doing in the medical field is footing the bill for legitimate health care and testing the drugs for their effects. Patients are free to choose any doctors they want. Doctors are trained, certified and learned. Leave the medical decisions to the patients and the doctors.

Guid

seeker777 · Aug 18, 2008

Honkytnkmn said:
If they were unable to perform this duty they would probably have to resign seeing as how this is directly related to the job they have. Not to mention I have never heard of a religion saying, saving lives was wrong.

I'll remind you, Canada has Universal Health Care. If the doctor doesn't want to provide abortions, he or she had better not become a doctor that will touch that area of medicine.

LittleNipper · Aug 18, 2008

seeker777 said:
A doctor should not have the choice to refuse to provide a valid, accepted, legal and necessary medical procedure, based upon nothing more than moral principals.

If Doctors have the choice to refuse, then you may as well give police officers the same right to decide which 911 calls they want to attend and which ones they will ignore based upon moral grounds.

Why stop there?

Give the right to with hold services on moral grounds to fire fighters and paramedics as well.

People can go to a specialist with regard to doctors. A brain surgeon doesn't have to do an aborton. As a cop, I may have to decide which one of two guys shooting at each other is the bad guy. That would be a moral dilemma where a choice might occur... I might add that I never heard of a fire fighter, paramedic, or policeman performing an abortion as a part of their calling.

seeker777 · Aug 18, 2008

If a doctor has the right to refuse to provide services based upon religious and moral conviction, then clearly that right would have to be extended to all persons who work in the service of the public.

seeker777 · Aug 18, 2008

Guid said:
Agreed. To add, "medicine" is an extremely wide field and human rights - both the patient's and the doctor's - are important. It's complicated and therefore rights need to be protected: the patient's, of course .. but also the doctor's.

A doctor may be of the opinion a certain drug is dangerous .. in good conscience she or he cannot prescribe it. A certain procedure might be considered harmful by a well trained doctor - in good conscience she or he cannot perform it.

How would you like it if the gov't forced your doctor to prescribe crummy drug A when the doctor knows for sure drug B is much better? And so on.

In Canada, the only thing the government should be doing in the medical field is footing the bill for legitimate health care and testing the drugs for their effects. Patients are free to choose any doctors they want. Doctors are trained, certified and learned. Leave the medical decisions to the patients and the doctors.

Guid

In that regard you make a good point.

Perhaps this is more to protect patients whose doctors would place their own moral and religious convictions over the needs of their patient.

LittleNipper · Aug 18, 2008

seeker777 said:
I'll remind you, Canada has Universal Health Care. If the doctor doesn't want to provide abortions, he or she had better not become a doctor that will touch that area of medicine.

That's a real shame. People who really love babies and children may not. Those that could care less are likely not to be the sort of practitioners one would want to deal with...

seeker777 · Aug 18, 2008

LittleNipper said:
That's a real shame. People who really love babies and children may not. Those that could care less are likely not to be the sort of practitioners one would want to deal with...

What point are you indirectly trying to make?

Mling · Aug 18, 2008

My understanding of Canadian Hate Speech laws is that they do not ban speech merely for being hateful, but that it is basically a broadening of slander laws to apply to groups of people, rather than just individuals.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that law bans teaching or preaching things like "Homosexuals are trying to take over our school system so they can molest our children." It doesn't restrict things like, "Homosexuality is an abomination and an affront to God."

I think that is a pretty good standard. I wouldn't push for it in America, but I wouldn't be upset if it was established, either.

My knee-jerk reaction to the "where is the line?" question is that the freedom should end when the speech provides means, motives or opportunity to commit violence beyond what would already exist in minds of the audience. So, "They should die" is ok, as anybody who would agree with it already believes it, and people who don't aren't going to be swayed by it. "They should die...here's how you build a bomb:" not so much. Or, "They should die, like John Doe, and he lives at 23 Elm st." Or just, "...and there's one now!" Statements like that don't just encourage violence in the abstract. They deliberately narrow the focus to make specific acts more likely.

edit: I think it's hysterical when I get censored for saying the "other" f-word

Guid · Aug 18, 2008

seeker777 said:
In that regard you make a good point.
Perhaps this is more to protect patients whose doctors would place their own moral and religious convictions over the needs of their patient.

For a moment I thought you got me. But then I realized: the patient is free to get a second opinion and a third and a fourth. So it's not as if the patient is stopped, only the doctor because of her or his conscience - which she or he has every right to.

OK. Before you toss the "Well, what if it's the only doctor in a thousand miles!?" .. that's rare in Ontario and there are thousands upon thousands of doctors in the province (27,000 +). There's even helicoptor air service for some situations .. so .. it's decidely not enough reason to force all the doctors of the province to do things they find reprehensible. And even in that contrived ultra rare situation where there is only one doctor for a thousand miles, it's snow storming and the helicopter can't fly, no matter what the decision the doctor makes, no one is going to die needlessly.

Guid

Guid · Aug 18, 2008

seeker777 said:
I'll remind you, Canada has Universal Health Care. If the doctor doesn't want to provide abortions, he or she had better not become a doctor that will touch that area of medicine.

IMHO, universal health care simply means - or should mean - that the gov't foots the bill for legitmate health care and does not interfere (save perhaps for drug testing or setting cleanliness standards) .. the decisions are made by the doctors and the patients, not the government.

Guid

seeker777 · Aug 18, 2008

Mling said:
My understanding of Canadian Hate Speech laws is that they do not ban speech merely for being hateful, but that it is basically a broadening of slander laws to apply to groups of people, rather than just individuals.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that law bans teaching or preaching things like "Homosexuals are trying to take over our school system so they can molest our children." It doesn't restrict things like, "Homosexuality is an abomination and an affront to God."

Your example is pretty good. I remind everyone again, hate crime laws, have nothing to do with human rights tribunals...nothing at all.

Hate crime laws simply recognize that some speech or acts do more harm than merely affect individuals, rather the speech or actions can inflict harm upon an entire targeted community.

The laws do limit hate speech to a certain degree, but they provide a reasonable protection for citizens against the dissemination of hatred, that serves no purpose except to strike fear into the hearts of those targeted.

Human rights tribunals in Canada may be a thing of the past one day, but I guarantee that hate crime laws are here to stay.

I get a kick out of the odd American who comments that Canada is in danger of becoming a dictatorship or we're in danger of losing our rights etc...

I'll remind everyone, were the only Western country in the world whose courts have dismissed the complaints of mega music corporations, sided with individual citizens and have struck down any law suits that attacked P2P file sharing.

In the U.S. the courts are constantly siding with the mighty corporations.

If Canada is in danger of becoming a totalitarian state, we're off to a slow start as we are one heck of a left leaning nation of Liberals. ( Except Albertans...they're as right as you come. )

seeker777 · Aug 18, 2008

Guid said:
IMHO, universal health care simply means - or should mean - that the gov't foots the bill for legitmate health care and does not interfere (save perhaps for drug testing or setting cleanliness standards) .. the decisions are made by the doctors and the patients, not the government.

Guid

What if the Doctor places his religious convictions over the needs of his patient?

No over sight? Who cares? Surely that's not what your suggesting!

seeker777 · Aug 18, 2008

Guid said:
For a moment I thought you got me. But then I realized: the patient is free to get a second opinion and a third and a fourth. So it's not as if the patient is stopped, only the doctor because of her or his conscience - which she or he has every right to.

OK. Before you toss the "Well, what if it's the only doctor in a thousand miles!?" .. that's rare in Ontario and there are thousands upon thousands of doctors in the province (27,000 +). There's even helicoptor air service for some situations .. so .. it's decidely not enough reason to force all the doctors of the province to do things they find reprehensible. And even in that contrived ultra rare situation where there is only one doctor for a thousand miles, it's snow storming and the helicopter can't fly, no matter what the decision the doctor makes, no one is going to die needlessly.

Guid

So your suggesting that a Doctor who works in a busy emergency room has the right to refuse all blood transfusions for trauma patients, all because he is a JW and he believes it is a sin?

I know you don't believe that. The doctors emergency patients would die if they didn't receive the blood transfusion they need in order to continue living.

Doctors cannot individually decide what legal services they will perform based upon their religious or moral convictions.

Should the Freedom of Speech Always be allowed?

sola dosis facit venenum

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Thinking is not a sin.

Thinking is not a sin.

Newbie

Active Member

Active Member

Thinking is not a sin.

Contributor

Thinking is not a sin.

Thinking is not a sin.

Contributor

Thinking is not a sin.

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)

Active Member

Active Member

Thinking is not a sin.

Thinking is not a sin.

Thinking is not a sin.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency