I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally.
There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others.
I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. You can also be charged criminally for direct threats of physical harm.
Your speech is not free in an absolute sense anywhere; your speech is free as defined by law in your jurisdiction.
Before you talk further on a topic you don't understand I'd suggest actually reading our constitution and not repeating what has been told to you by other Americans on the Internet.
> I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment.
Since the threshold for libel in the US is higher than at common law specifically because of First Amendment restrictions, “despite the existence of” would be more accurate than “regardless of”.
(This is a minor correction; your broader point is valid.)
>>>I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally.
Pretty sure I clearly stated this fact in my comments, further at no point did I say the US could define free speech globally, in fact in this discussion it is Canada not the US attempting the define speech globally.
I was asking if Canada feels it can define Free Speech in the US, and how that would be a violation of our constitution because we have higher protections for free speech than Canada. So clearly I understand Canada is a different nation.
>>>There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others.
This is actually false. If you believe that you completely misunderstand the history and purpose of the the US Constitution, and how that differs from the Charter of Rights in Canada.
The US Constitution is not a complete enumeration of rights, in fact if you read the Federalist Papers you will see a concern that the Bill of rights would lead to some people misunderstanding the purpose of the Bill of Rights, leading them to believe it was complete enumeration of rights when that was never the intention of the Founders. The US Constitution is a document that grants government power, any power not expressly granted to the government in the Constitution is a power forbidden to the federal government and is reserved for the States and the People. In contrast the Canada system of government where the government starts from a position of total power and the Charter of Rights removes some power from the government, this is a critical difference in how our governments are structured. The Charter of Rights in Canada is the total enumeration of rights for Canadian Citizens. This is the opposite approach of the US Constitution.
>>>I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. You can also be charged criminally for direct threats of physical harm.
US History it riddled with bad court rulings, some of these are what you are referring to. Yes at some points in history the Supreme Court has been derelict in their support of Free Speech as required by the Constitution. True-threat jurisprudence remains a muddled mess. That however does not invalidate my statements, far from it. In recent years the Supreme Court has been rolling back many of these Terrible Terrible rulings of the past, restoring Free Speech to its proper constitutional level.
On the topic of civil liability, I do not find awarding damages for libel to be a form of censorship, Rights come with responsibility, so you are free to libel or slander or defame, but if you cause that person actual articulable damages then you will be responsible for those damages, that is not censorship. It should be pointed out that generally speaking in order for this happen in the US you have to be making false statements of fact that you knew to be false at the time you made them... Making true factual statements is a absolute defense, a protection not found in some other nations, however I am not sure if Canada has such a defense.
>>>Before you talk further on a topic you don't understand I'd suggest actually reading our constitution and not repeating what has been told to you by other Americans on the Internet.
I understand the topic of US Constitution very well, I will admit to be less knowledgeable on Canadian law, however I have seen enough news stories, and actual cases to reach the conclusion that the US has better protections for Free Speech than Canada Does.
Your prohibition on "hate Speech" which seems to be expanding to even include calling someone the incorrect pronoun, or the fining of Comedians, and the arresting of Americans for “smuggling hate speech” on their iPad the is pretty much proof positive that Canada has lower free speech protections than the US.
Googling the phrase “smuggling hate speech on their iPad" came up with a host of links, as does the phrase "hate Speech calling someone the incorrect pronoun" (specifically wrt Canada’s Federal Bill C-16), and the fining of comedians and speakers in Canada has been covered ad nauseam in many forums, including this very thread.
He was refused and detained at the border and not criminally charged. He has no right to enter Canada and can be turned away for any reason, but right-wing extremism is as good as any. There any many first hand accounts of Canadians trying to cross into the US for the inauguration and being rejected because their political views.
The thing about 'misgendering' now being a crime is an absurd farce. The law amends the criminal code so that gender identity is protected from discrimination in the same way as birth gender, race, age and other traits with the same penalties applying. Again, did you read bill C-16 or read a blog post about it?
What do you think happens in Canada if someone says a joke in poor taste? The Canadian stasi/krypteia hops out of a van and whisks them away in the middle of the night for re-education?
I'm glad that you enjoy the political and social climate as much as you do, but we're fine over here. If you want to visit I suggest you show respect and tolerance or you may find Canadians aren't always friendly.
[270] I also find that, when Ms. Dawson was referred-to with male pronouns in the report of the occurrence on June 18, 2010, it amounted to discrimination on the basis of sex. Notwithstanding that her legal name was Jeffrey, she advised the officers that she was a transsexual female and was not treated as such.
I suppose C-16 will now allow this to be called discrimination on the basis of gender, not sex. Whatever.
I wonder if it's a hate crime in Canada to claim that the problem of misgendering is not a crime and "an absurd farce". Be careful what you post :)
I am careful about what I post. You just put words in my mouth. The idea that referring to someone as the wrong pronoun accidentally could become illegal is absurd. Try to guess the gender of the next baby you see roll past in a stroller.
Also that quote is about police misconduct, not criminal charges.
I am I fact a Canadian citizen, not sure why you’d assume otherwise.
Also, I fail to see how providing a few links as context for the GPs last paragraph as the P requested should elicit such a rude and threatening response from you.
You really flipped the script, eh? Marching down a city street saying you hate an entire religion is threatening. I said intolerance won't make you many friends here, which I'm sure you've discovered.
So if I oppose all Religion, if I believe All Religion is a threat to the safety, security, and mental health of people. If I believe indoctrinating children into any religion to be a form of child abuse. And I wish to give a talk, or wish to write a book on said subject, you believe I should be barred from speaking or publishing said book in Canada as "hate speech"
It's not that binary here. You seem to believe that the law should be binary on the subject, but you have to realize that the circumstances where it would be applied may not be interpreted so.
In this circumstance I think it would come down to tone, and perceived intent. If you were to march with hateful picket signs screaming obscenities in front of a church on Sunday you might be asked to leave by the police for reasons besides hate speech.
First, you'll likely be confronted by people passing by who think you're being an asshole.
If you were renting a hall, or holding a speech at a university about your researched theories on why we should change something in our society or petitioning government and other social groups, you wouldn't have a problem (except maybe personal. Fundamentalist/Evangelist groups can get as bad here as in the US)
That's a humanist viewpoint you've described in this comment and I agree to an extent (some people truly benefit from religion and I won't judge them if they don't judge me). But many others see religious people (often of specific religions) as the enemy and not as fellow human beings oppressed by their own beliefs.
There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others.
I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. You can also be charged criminally for direct threats of physical harm.
Your speech is not free in an absolute sense anywhere; your speech is free as defined by law in your jurisdiction.
Before you talk further on a topic you don't understand I'd suggest actually reading our constitution and not repeating what has been told to you by other Americans on the Internet.