There are 2 pastors in Canada that have paid fines and been ordered to stop preaching because of what they say about homosexuality. One is Rev. Alphonse de Valk the other is Stephen Boisson. With this attitude of arrest people for hate speech, this is coming to us.

Maybe, you would like to see preachers that do this arrested also. But, its just a matter of time before you're not going to be allowed to speak out either. Inciting violence, terrorist threats..that's all BS.

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." -Noam Chomsky

I think that quote about sums it up.

agreed. and as Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote,

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Lol. I always misattribute that quote to Voltaire. I guess it was supposed to be a summary of how he thought, as opposed to something he actually said. Either way, it's a nice aphorism.

The true haters are the ones who instigated the hate crime laws to begin with.

ASSAULT- an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery; The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another; A violent physical or verbal attack.

A crime of assault doesn't necessarily mean that someone has to get injured/killed in order for it to take place.

In any case, should someone have to get physically assaulted before it actually does become a crime? I agree that a few of the actual charges are a bit excessive, but there are at least a couple that can legitimately stick.

This video was more than just someone's view though, it was a threat on the lives of the officers he was denouncing. When verbal communication becomes the direct outlet for violence and the cause of violence it's not just speech anymore.

And Stalin was so paranoid that he encouraged free speech so that he could find out who was against him and send them to the gulags.

Hate speech is still protected under the constitution, how is this anything different then hate speech? His speech was directed at a group not an individual, which I think is exactly why hate groups can't be prosecuted unless they direct their speech towards an individual.

This man made his speech on the internet, he didn't stand outside a police station and yell it, he didn't follow a known police officer through a store and make his speech. Isn't that why we can't charge someone with crimes when they say "lets kill all the Jews."?

This is where the logic behind both sides becomes jaded and criss-crossed. Hate speech is legal, but hate crimes aren't. The objective of hate speech is to achieve hate crime. The two are directly linked yet there lies a coincidental (literally) double standard with the issue caused by the first amendment.

The problem is where to draw the line between free hate speech and assault. He's a real **** because he probably has the mindset that he can get other tools to kill cops for him and he won't get the full blame for it cause he can attempt to declare free speech. As I think about this more, it seems this guy might be smarter than he lets on.

Actually over 13 countries in Europe have outlawed holocaust denial.

I doubt highly he's all that smart, probably making so he looks more "street" or whatever the kids call it these days. You might be right though but I have my doubts.
I just think this guy should be protected under the same logic that when the KKK goes out and stops an African American we don't go out and arrest their leaders for the hate speech. Ofcourse the KKK has far better lawyers then this guy does I'm sure.

Good post by the way.

There does have to be an immediate threat of injury, though, as I've pointed out in an earlier post. The key word being "immediate."

Who's going to go out and commit acts of violence because of the video? Are you? The thing is, it's really difficult for me to imagine that a YouTube video could be the primary cause of violence against a police officer. Videos that show police brutality would be more likely to contribute to someones motivation for a violent act, than would some dude talking. Do you advocate that charges be pressed on people who film those sorts of videos?

Then he clearly didn't facilitate free speech, which is commonly understood as the ability to speak freely without receiving punishment from an authority of some sort.

I've always thought they were pretty backwards in that regard. To outlaw holocaust denial just makes it seem that holocaust deniers must have an awful compelling case to make. Why else worry about them? In America--where holocaust denial isn't illegal-- holocaust deniers are laughed and looked down upon by most. They hardly seem like a threat.

------

You know, I was always under the understanding that you legally say you were going to kill any individual you wanted to in America, except the president. I remember reading a pretty funny opinion piece in Harpers, on how absurd it is that we can't say we want to kill the president here. Then again, telling other people to kill someone might be different. If so, I suppose I would be right up **** creek if were to say, "everyone should go kill George W. Bush: the sitting president of the United States of America."

I wonder how strongly I could imply or allude to that, though, before getting the attention of the law. Is, "I wouldn't mind if someone shot George W. Bush" alright to say? How about, "George W. Bush should be shot in the head, but you shouldn't do it"? I suppose it would all come down to how generally threatening and apt to incite someone killing the president a court thought you were, which kind suggests that juries should be composed exclusively of psychologists, and that charismatic people should be a bit worried.

Just some thoughts...