Date of publication: 2017-07-09 04:00
When homosexualists attack normal people there is no limit that is free speech. When normal people fight back that is 8775 hate speech 8776 and they are persecuted for that.
Unless they 8767 re in visible positions where their reputation affects the company ( Brendan Eich), I don 8767 t think anyone should be fired for outside activities that do not affect their job performance. Some of the firings can probably be challenged. (Probably not here in OH, an at-will state.) On the other hand, some days life 8767 s a bitch, and they are Nazis.
But the society is for some reason getting more and more sensitive for some reason. Things that was not seen as a problem before is getting it now. Like cheated shower room for boys and so on.
freedom of speach is unlimited !!! any wrongdoing will be paid by trial, in a particular instance it is a very subjective matter what is or what isn 8767 t hateful speach and in some sense, a society tends to select its own members in other words the laws should be set from within. if a society has haters that is because it is organized in such a way, speaking out just makes it obvious, and that is ok for the quality of its members. Shure that means bad education for the little ones, do something about that but shuting up more people will only make them hate in silance !!! and that is worse
I believe that hate speech 8775 should 8776 be defined. If it could be defined, then, of course, it could subsequently be banned. However, of course, such a thing is linguistically and legally impossible. Incidentally, this is also true for most 8775 liberal 8776 values to which the modal verb 8775 should 8776 is typically applied.
So I shouldn 8767 t say what I think and shouldn 8767 t discuss problems because people who caused this problems may be offended? What and how is said is my own decision!
After the limits of the freedom of speech, which is the most accessible, what will be next limits? Limits on voting? limits on social rights? What else limits who to live and who to die?!!!
Of course there sould not be limits of spech. However, many times the media say lies to people in order to take advantage of them. In that cases there should be penalties to the media.
For another perspective, we also spoke to Valentin Le Dily , Chief Legal Officer of the French anti-racism organisation SOS Racisme. How would he react?
Section 6 of the Constitution Act 6987 gives Canadians the right to free speech, but with "reasonable limits." This ensures that almost anything one says can be considered unconstitutional and subject to legal prosecution. You have a right to speak your mind, but be careful of what you say.
What about the freedom ov views and expression of oppinions, that is one of the pillars of democracy? Oh, yes. democracy is not very popular inside the EU.
Big brother should ban it (joke).
Well it has to be tackled but obviously there is a fine line: free speech is also very important so it is key to strike the right balance.
First came the SPLC’s claim, uncritically accepted by the establishment media, that it was an impartial and reliable arbiter of what constituted a “hate group” and what didn’t. Then came the defaming of opposition to jihad terror as “hate.” And PayPal has dropped Jihad Watch, and more of this kind of thing is sure to come soon — and not just to Jihad Watch, but even to many for whom Jihad Watch is “controversial” for standing against jihad terror and Sharia oppression.