by INENT did you mean intent?
Yeah but where do you draw the line! And how do you measure "inent"?
Yes, let's attack typos and not the issue.
Axtech wrote:Personally, I'm a believer that free speech should have limits. If you're speaking with the direct intent to harm or offend someone, you should shut up or be shut up. No one has the right to attack another person - certainly not on the grounds of an arbitrary "right" to say whatever half-baked idea comes to mind. I'm talking on more univeral moral grounds than law, because obviously it's not feasible to enforce laws against bigoted speech.
Rusty wrote:Axtech wrote:Personally, I'm a believer that free speech should have limits. If you're speaking with the direct intent to harm or offend someone, you should shut up or be shut up. No one has the right to attack another person - certainly not on the grounds of an arbitrary "right" to say whatever half-baked idea comes to mind. I'm talking on more univeral moral grounds than law, because obviously it's not feasible to enforce laws against bigoted speech.
Have you ever heard of the Jim Keegstra case? R v Keegstra was a case where a history teacher in highschool taught his students that the holocaust never happened and forced antisematic views upon his students. If they disagreed on tests he would mark them wrong. He was then tried for this and used free speech as an excuse to do so. The case was brought to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it was decided that the Charter did not sanction his hate speech, and in this case free speech had to be limited. It then defined what hate speech was.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests
Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC - 6 hours • PHPBB Powered
Serving Our Lady Peace fans since 2002. Oskar Twitch thanks you for tasting the monkey brains.