Why the freedom of speech side is losing the debate, Micheal Vonn, Part 2
Top Comments
Video Responses
All Comments (9)
-
OH And who would have guessed the comments would be censored! Fucking typical! You wouldn't know the meaning or importance free speech, if it jumped up and bit you on the ass.
-
Freedom of speech IS an absolute.
-
George Galloway is a member of the britich parliament, he is on the terrorist list in Canada because he is voiced his openion in Israel. so, are you defending free speech or free insulting?
-
Wow. The limits to freedom of speech should be, and are, libelous statements, defamation, and incitement to violence. Isn't that reasonable? We don't need to squash publication of opinion, or upend the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, or the right to face your accuser.
-
i am an absolutist. i think a nazi parade can march through a jewish neighbourhood, or orangemen through a catholic one. if they feel threatened they should go inside and lock the door. if the nazi's commit a real crime, vadalism, violence murder etc. then they are to be charged under the criminal code. to write something that says kill group X is not illegal, acting on it with the knowledge your commiting a crime is.
-
RACIAL SLURS AND HARASSMENT AND RACIAL JOKES {ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION}
WHAT IS RACIAL HARASSMENT?
iii) displays cartoons or pictures degrading members of a particular racial group or religion;
There is no such thing as,some muslims may,others possibly could tolerate publishing Danish caricatures.
It is against the LAW in all Muslim countries to print,make statue or any form to depict Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w). Copy/IP right "Restriction on depiction of prophet Muhammad(S.A.W)
-
She seemed reasonable until her speech turned silly at 1:30.
If the speaker wants a non-bullshit sensibility, why does she 1) almost pretend as if there are not already criminal laws in Canada against fomenting violence and gay bashing; 2) talk as if anyone has actually proved, in "court", that the gay bashing alleged took place and was in any way connected to the article. The HR tribunal accepted this assertion without it needing to be proved; that's the problem, surely. Victimary emotionalism conquers all in postmodern politics.
covenantking 3 years ago 6