Semi-related: I'd like to honestly hear my American friends' opinions on this situation. Because I go back and forth a bit on the whole "all speech should be free" thing.
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3...th-hate-crimes
On November 15, Toronto Police charged Sears with two accounts wilful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups (women and Jewish people) for the content found in Your Ward News, a community paper in which he is the editor-in-chief. The publisher of Your Ward News, Leroy St. Germaine, 76, is facing the same charges. The two were arrested Wednesday morning.
The paper, in recent years, has become one of Canada’s most notorious publications. Inside its pages you can find rape advocacy, an abundant amount of anti-Semitism, conspiracy theories, and just too much to list here. One article, published last year, states that “age of consent should be the age at which a woman can safely have sex, and not a random number chosen by our ZioMarxist oppressors.”
Contrast this situation with the one from a few years ago where Canada's Human Rights Tribunal found a comedian guilty for calling some really annoying female hecklers a variety of lesbian/overweight slurs. He was charged and, frankly, I don't agree with that one.
Last edited by tigeraid; November 17th, 2017 at 08:09 AM.
The American standard is typically that you can, legally, say anything that doesn't do one of the following:
1) Promote violence against an individual or group ("I hate Jews" is legal, "we should attack Jews" is not)
2) Incites panic (the common example being yelling "fire" in a crowded theater
3) State things as fact which it can be proven that you know aren't
4) I'm sure other things I'm forgetting
The reasoning given for #1 is that, if you make hate speak illegal to even say, it will still be said but only in private and with more group-think that is never questioned, leading to outrageous and inflammatory views.
Get that weak shit off my track
I think the "rape advocacy" part could definitely fall under promoting violence and get you charged down here. Then again, that whole "incels" group on Reddit basically have been doing that forever and nobody seemed to go after them.
The rest of it is horrible stuff, and shouldn't be without consequences (like the rest of the world knowing what a piece of shit he is), but I don't think he could be prosecuted over any of it. How it could get him into trouble is if he ever actually committed a crime against a Jewish person, or a woman, or what have you. If he did that and has a long published history of saying that he hates Jews, I'd imagine that could be used to enhance any existing charge as a hate crime.
In the US there are a few limited classes of unprotected speech/expression that apply to individuals:
1) Subversive Activity. The speech must advocate for and likely incite imminent lawless action. "Hey everyone in the crowd, lets kill that person!"
2) Fighting Words. Words uttered from one person to another in a face to face setting that are likely to cause a response of violence. "Hey, I'm going to kill you myself, motherfucker!"
3) True Threats. A serious statement of intent to commit unlawful violence. "Hey, I'm going to harm you badly!"
4) Obscenity. Utterances/Publication subject to the three part Miller test: 1) Does the average person think this thing encourages an excessive interest in a sexual matter? 2) Does it depict or describe, in an offensive way, sexual conduct? 3) Does the work lack seriously literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?
5) Child Pornography. Duh.
So, that said, the only class of unprotected speech in play is probably item 4, obscenity. That's generally meant to distinguish gratuitous pornography from other 'useful' forms of sexually focused material. In practice obscenity laws are pretty much dead now that everything is available online to anyone.
Generally, in America, the free market is the mechanism by which unpalatable speech is supposed to be dealt with. If you have a stupid white power opinion or a repulsive racist mindset cloaked in Black Lives Matter garb most people will not take you seriously. Unfortunately with the rise of social media and the joy of being offended by everything you come in contact with, these ideas manage to rise to the top more than they should. Charlottesville could've just been a bunch of angry and sad white dudes shouting into the night, but, thanks to the counter-protesters and the unemployed outraged it became a national story and the White Power turds were given a global platform. But I digress.
To answer your question, no, this kind of thing would not happen in America and stand up to judicial scrutiny. Writing in a newspaper does not incite imminent violence, etc.
Hmm. Interesting. And different responses.
I'm not a lawyer, yet. But I am a law student that did study constitutional law this semester and we spent 4 weeks covering Freedom of Speech including this specific issue.
You don't have to believe me. Just if we're going to put credentials on the table I think mine stack up pretty handily against the opposing submissions in this case on this issue.
I'm open to compelling opposing viewpoints if there are any.
No reason to doubt you, I meant in terms of OPINIONS from Americans. When I shared it with several American friends on facebook they all pretty much said "yeah fuck this guy he can rot in jail, he's said enough to incite violence, etc etc."
Not a lawyer nor law student, actually I hate laws, even God's, but anyway, I'm in agreement with the law student.
Canada is just not as free to say stupid things as America!
I don't doubt that's the populist response at all. It's just not backed by precedent in the legal system. My 'opinion' is probably too technical for your query, keep it as an outlier if you want. I only responded because Keith took up the mantle of speaking to the "American standard" and then spoke mostly subjectively. He's not wrong, in fact his awareness is very high, I just wanted to put out the precedential standard out there because the conversation seemed to be going in a way that was taking a lot for granted in terms of what is punishable.
On a personal side from the Libertarian perspective I still don't put someone in jail because they say horrible awful things in print. Sticks and Stones n'at, you can't have the government jailing people for bad opinions or thought-crime. No thanks.