I was thinking the same thing.

Did you see the thread (here was it yesterday?) about HR 347...

BAD NEWS! it passed.

Yeah. We've been getting quite a few unconstitutional laws since 2001.

Yeah - that doesn't stoop me from being pissed at Obama - he should KNOW better - what the??!!!!
ALmost enough to not vote for him (I think the tea partiers have an issue here with teeth) but I don't like the alternatives.

I am upset big time

There never has been free speech in Canada as far as I know.  People cannot disrupt Her Majesty's peace in inciting riots, hate crimes etc.  

As for this HR 347 bill.  Somewhat explained here http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/how...otest-bill
"The original statute, unchanged by H.R. 347,made certain conduct with respect to these restricted areas a crime, including simple trespass, actions in or near the restricted area that would "disrupt the orderly conduct of Government," and blocking the entrance or exit to the restricted area."  

So why do people have to protest in public buildings etc when they have the right to contact their government representative's office by mail, phone, email, or appointment in person?   They can also vote.   Ask just about anyone who is at a protest if they vote or contacted their government rep and they will tell you that they did not.  

How really effective are protests anyway?  They are not.  I used to work near a government parliament building.  Every day there was a protest about a different cause.  It was just annoying.  Each group thought that they would be noticed, get press coverage etc.  Only violence was noticed by the media and just turned most good citizen off the cause.  

No one is telling people that they cannot meet other people for church meetings - it is just that they cannot do it in certain places.  They want to have 50 people for a bible study then they can go to a church or rent a hotel hall or movie theatre.  Churches are businesses and you would have an issue with some running a business illegally on your residential street and having people coming there in droves.

We have free speech in Canada.
Riot, hate crime etc are crime. They are not allowed because they are crime.

Riots and hate crimes are crimes in the US, too. There are people who try to say that hate crime legislation compromises free speech, but my understanding is that committing a hate crime involves committing something that would otherwise be considered a crime.

If it'd be a crime anyway, is there a reason to distiinguish 'hate' from any other sort, particularly? Presumably, it wouldn't be a crime for them to express their opinions? According to at least 2 posters from the states in another thread, about a group they call a 'hate' one, 'freedom of speech' applies to them. Presumably, as I said, it'd have to apply to Autsqueaks, too, then? There I was thinking that it'd long ago been settled that freedom of speech didn't cover spewing hate but there we are.

A hate crime is a violent crime committed against someone for the reason that the victim belongs to a particular minority group. The reason that's treated as a more serious crime is because the crime isn't specifically directed toward one individual, so much as that minority in general. Proving that something is a hate crime isn't easy, so a person can't be convicted just for expressing their opinion.

Ah, I see. Although where they'd see the line between the racist, presumably, still being entitled to their opinion & what they'd call inciting to riot or whatever is a mystery. Some of the time, at least, it's fairly obvious it's a 'hate' crime. But, for Asperger's & Autism, it's a lot trickier, in general, since it's 'invisible'. Meanwhile, did you know, there's people here to insist a 'hate' group still has the right to express their opinions, in public/

There's people like that here, too. The thing that makes me laugh is that there have been some hate groups claiming that people not wanting them in their area is bigotry.

This post was last modified: 03-11-2012 09:10 PM by d_olson27.

Here meant in this forum, I've not met anybody arguing that offline. They'd obviously dispute the 'hate' bit, if possible! I didn't think freedom of speech was supposed to cover people spewing 'hate', being the relatively simple point. What on earth are they on?

Gotcha. I have seen that from time to time.

Of course, people have the right to believe what they believe, as long as they don't spout off bigotry here.

Well, supporting the rights of those they called a hate group to spout their stuff (nobody can stop any person having any opinion at all but that's hardly the point) is, at best, a very strange position to take. If not, arguably, supporting the group rather than fighting against it! I thought that debate had been settled some time ago, tbh. Not to derail this thread, sorry!

Just one more to explain my position. I can't really take any action based on what someone thinks or believes. I can only take action based on what they post. That's where I'm coming from.