Computer Science Canada

Censorship
Author:  chrispminis [ Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Censorship
Hmm, Im hoping to start a debate here, it will help with my English Speech and it was inspired by the conflict of those comics portraying Mohammad.

Do you think censorship should be practiced in Canada and to what degree?
How far does the freedom of speech, expression, opinion go?
Should it be unlimited?

Ill start with a pro censorship argument.

We don't want dangerous literature such as "How to make a Car Bomb for Dummies" since we don't want dummies with car bombs in Canada.
Author:  md [ Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Censorship
chrispminis wrote:
We don't want dangerous literature such as "How to make a Car Bomb for Dummies" since we don't want dummies with car bombs in Canada.


I disagree, dumbies with car bombs usually end up killing themselves. Sure they might take out a few other people too, but if you consider how many people there are, and how many of them are not quite up to the challenge of life, the chances of him taking out anyone important is small. Whereas the chances of him taking out himself only (and making hte gene pool a better place) are quite good.

Sure that may seem calous (and it might even be); but there is no way you are going to keep people who want to make bombs from making bombs. The knoledge is out there, people can find it. And you know what? Becuase you are telling people that they can't make bombs they are actually more likely to try just to smite you. So really in the end a few dumb people blowing themselves up because the info was easy to find is a small price to pay.
Author:  Dan [ Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:50 am ]
Post subject: 
I think this debate was dune to death in the other topic but here are my views:

There allready is a level of censorship in canada, right now it is mostly if not all about hate speah. Since we blive in humman rights here in canada it means that we can not discrimate agisted peoleop based on race, relgion, disblity, sex (incuding homosexual and others), ect. This means equality before and under the law as well as procection when it comes to the work place and education. Ie. you can not fire some one based on the above and most acomidate there needs (for disbliyts) the same for education. Behond this it also extecents to censorship in that orgastions or peoleop can not promot hate agsited a gourp metioed above and that orgastions (esptaly public comapnys) can not say things that whould be predguised to there empolys/members in gorups above.

I think this is a good thing since if we say no censoreship at all it could lead to greater discrimation agisted peoleop to the point where humman rights are thrown out the door.

As for materals that could be dangores like how to make a bomb, i do not think they should be restrected but the atack of making them should be. This is difrencent then predugsital materals since it's statments do not hurt or effect any one.

In a perficked world unlimited free speach whould be great but this is hardly a perfick world and there are lots of peoleop that whould abuse and twist it. Witch is why we have hate laws and humman rights charters.
Author:  bugzpodder [ Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
actually there are some sort of a law against stuff like making bombs.
Author:  chrispminis [ Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Why be allowed to learn how to make a bomb, but then not allowed to make one? People will be tempted to exercise their knowledge, and if they couldn't learn how to make bombs, they wouldnt make bombs. I think such literature is banned in Canada. And what about censorship of sexual ideas. Should such
sexual ideas be withheld from younger children? Many books are banned at schools because they contain sexual themes. Even stuff as innocent as N is for nudists in Naples (or something like that). To stuff thats less innocent, such as extremely explicit descriptions of hardcore sex. Where do we draw the line. And what about censorship of profanity? Are swear words really that bad?

@Cornflake : lol eugenist? I didn't mean that they were dummies, just making a point about a book which could teach a normal person how to make a bomb.

Dont forget this is about censorship, not bombs and dummies Smile
Author:  Martin [ Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm all for Bombs for Dummies, and at the same time I'm against people making bombs.

It's the idea. I don't like being told what I'm not allowed to know. Using the bomb example, making a bomb is already easy enough. Molotov cocktails for example can be made by anyone with no prior knowledge of the subject, and their construction is depicted in countless movies. Yet I've never seen an actual one be used.

EDIT: Censored? You have to be kidding me. CompSci's censor is rediculous.
Author:  Dan [ Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Martin wrote:

EDIT: Censored? You have to be kidding me. CompSci's censor is rediculous.


Going to be fixed, or moded in v3 so the user can pick if the censor is on or it will just be allways off.

To chrispminis: by that logic learning any materal arts from should be banned, learning toxicogly shoudl be banned, FPS should be banned, and so on. As i side above i do not think we should ban the knogle but the atack.
Author:  md [ Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
chrispminis wrote:
Why be allowed to learn how to make a bomb, but then not allowed to make one? People will be tempted to exercise their knowledge, and if they couldn't learn how to make bombs, they wouldnt make bombs. I think such literature is banned in Canada. And what about censorship of sexual ideas. Should such
sexual ideas be withheld from younger children? Many books are banned at schools because they contain sexual themes. Even stuff as innocent as N is for nudists in Naples (or something like that). To stuff thats less innocent, such as extremely explicit descriptions of hardcore sex. Where do we draw the line. And what about censorship of profanity? Are swear words really that bad?

Currently in Canada information on bomb making is not censored, or if it is it's so poorly done it doesn't matter. With the internet really nothing is censored unless you live in certain countries anyways; the information is available. But let's use another example then bomb making; let's take sex and sexuality. I do not know what the current state is when it comes to trying to censor books about sex in school, but I think it's reasonable to assume they do try to keep sex out of school until at least high school (even then, I doubt there is much available).

Now, the usual argument for keping books about sex out of schools is that teaching kids about sex encourages them to have sex. And of course having sex is evil (it's the devil!). This isn't nessessarily true; many studies have shown that kids exposed to more information about sex and it's risks and consequences are less likely to have sex, but it's the reason given. Now, ignoring all the studies and things you may know now let's think about this from a kids perspective. See there is this thing called "sex". But you aren't allowed to talk about it with grownups. You're friends talk about it though and adults do it, and it's apparently a cool thing to do. Does that not make you curious and want to say... do it? Certainly there is some age stuff involved too; and until a certain point kids just don't care. But at 13 or 14 (and hte age of consent in Canada is 14 btw) not having information other then that it is forbidden is a prime reason for having sex. Stick it to the man (proverbially)!

Obviously there are limits to this as in everything; you don't want to be teaching 14 year olds about BSDM. However keeping things like "N is for Nudist" (theoretical example) which are mostly tame from students is like saying "Sex is the forbidden fruit. Do not have it". Look what happens in the bible.

Swearing is exactly the same. If you tell someone, especially a kid, that they are not allowed to know or do something they will do their best to do it. Just to show that they are not under your control. A much better strategy is to let them learn about whatever they want, but then tell them what you think and why; and what others think and why. Why is the key here. Give people points of view and the reasosn behind then and let them make their own choices and you'll find that they are much more likely to do the right thing.

If you've seen the Matrix you'll understand. People like being able to choose. They will fight to be able to choose. So let them choose and get on with life.

chrispminis wrote:
@Cornflake : lol eugenist? I didn't mean that they were dummies, just making a point about a book which could teach a normal person how to make a bomb.

Dont forget this is about censorship, not bombs and dummies Smile

I'm not a eugenist persay... I'm not for killing dumb people. Mostly because even dumb people can have smart children. No, I'm more of a darwinist. Dumb people are dumb. If they kill themselves or otherwise prevent their genes from being passed on then that is natural selection. I'm of the opinion that child-proof containers and saftey labels are evil. Oh, and bring back bee-bee guns for kids... It's amazing how well those work.
Author:  Justin_ [ Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Cornflake wrote:
I disagree, dumbies with car bombs usually end up killing themselves. Sure they might take out a few other people too, but if you consider how many people there are, and how many of them are not quite up to the challenge of life, the chances of him taking out anyone important is small. Whereas the chances of him taking out himself only (and making hte gene pool a better place) are quite good.


LOL! So by important people do you mean yourself? And about the gene pool thing, are you suggesting stupid people have stupid genes that get passed on? So basically are you suggesting Hitler's doctrine is true?
Author:  md [ Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
WAY off topic but I gotta defend myself...

Justin_ wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
I disagree, dumbies with car bombs usually end up killing themselves. Sure they might take out a few other people too, but if you consider how many people there are, and how many of them are not quite up to the challenge of life, the chances of him taking out anyone important is small. Whereas the chances of him taking out himself only (and making hte gene pool a better place) are quite good.


LOL! So by important people do you mean yourself? And about the gene pool thing, are you suggesting stupid people have stupid genes that get passed on? So basically are you suggesting Hitler's doctrine is true?


Of course I am important! Other people who I know I would also include under hte title of "important", beyond that it is really a judgement call. People who think that what I am saying is the same as what hitler said are not important, as they are wrong. Being wrong isn't nessessarily bad but when it's over something that should be known, and which is so easy to look up I really doesn't help your case.

I'm not going to say that there is a "stupid" gene, because that just seems well stupid. But I would argue that someone who looks down the barrel of a gun and pulls the trigger so that they can watch the bullet come out are probably going to have less successful genes then someone who doesn't. I know it's a concept that many people find hard to take in, but humans are no different then other animals; the weak die and the strong don't. In our modern world unfortunately the week are helped along significantly, and so natural selection doesn't get a chance to work. We are causing ourselves to stagnate (evolutionly).

The obious problem with my theory is that it involves finding people wiht weak genes. I however don't beleive such people need to be actively sought out. I figure that the best way to tell is someone would have died doing something dumb is to let them do whatever they want. They die, then they were an unfortunate side effect of evolution. People who make bombs and blow themselves up are arguably not the kind of people you want reproducing. It's natural selection at work.

Hitler did something completely different. He actively sought out specific groups whom he deemed to be inferior and killed them. His basis for inferiority was really a personal choice too, and he killed a good many people who would have contributed positively to society. Really you could argue he did the opposite of what I am sugesting because the people he did not kill (himself and his cronies) are the people who I would argue were the most deserving to be killed.

See the important part of what I believe is that it requires no intervention except the realization that when someone blows themself up making a bomb it is not tragic; it's simply evolution at work.
Author:  Justin_ [ Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
And how would you feel if a dummy who read: "car bombs for dummies", which he happily read during his wait at his doctors office, because a magazine called: "Everything you need to know about explosives" was published and sitting on a table in front of him, killed the woman you loved along with your little children?

Unless you don't have feelings for other human beings, it is safe to say your argument is ignorant to your own needs. Why take the chance? Why not ensure that you and your loved ones are safe by not allowing people to do whatever they want.

Anyway, I don't believe in taking chances. God help this world if something happens to the woman I love because of people's ignorance.
Author:  md [ Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
Justin_ wrote:
And how would you feel if a dummy who read: "car bombs for dummies", which he happily read during his wait at his doctors office, because a magazine called: "Everything you need to know about explosives" was published and sitting on a table in front of him, killed the woman you loved along with your little children?

Unless you don't have feelings for other human beings, it is safe to say your argument is ignorant to your own needs. Why take the chance? Why not ensure that you and your loved ones are safe by not allowing people to do whatever they want.


You seem to totally be missing key issues here. Try reading and thinking and responding to what I am saying instead of twisting and turning it into soemthing else.

To counter your "argument" about my not caring... lets see... people who want to make bombs will do so. You can't keep people from doing things they genuinely want to do, they will find a way. If you try to keep information from someone and tell them they aren't allowed to do something people are more likely (significantly) to actually go out and try just to show that you are wrong. So censoring is really just an encouragement for people to do what you don't want them to do.

So if I don't censor them I am not encouraging them and thus I may not be hindering the small percent of hte population that would be making bombs anyways, but I'm not encouraging others to do so. Whoa! I'm like, making things safer for the people I love! Shocking!

I feel I must also point out that just because information isn't censored does not mean that everyone will write books about it and those books will be everywhere. To say it does is just scare mongering.

Justin_ wrote:
Anyway, I don't believe in taking chances. God help this world if something happens to the woman I love because of people's ignorance.
Good for you. That's neither here nor there in this conversation and I'm pretty sure most people would say the same thing. Do try and stay on topic.
Author:  Justin_ [ Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well I noticed that you're always right Cornflake, but the fact is I disagree with you and moreover I find much of your argument is flawed due to its inherent absolutist point of view.

There is so much grey in this world that must be embraced, this issue is just one example. You say that censorship does the opposite of what it intends to do, but you're wrong, in most cases censorship does a lot to prevent people from following the wrong paths in life. Of course your entitled to believe otherwise.

There is no doubt in my mind that the majority should not rule. And since I've never mentioned that I am very much like you in a lot of ways perhaps I'll do so now: I think most people are morons. I think democracy is flawed because the majority of people are morons and thus the decision of the majority will be a moronic one; hence Canada. I think that censorship is one of the many things which need to be done in this country in order to protect the good and decent people which inhabit it. If the fools want to go kill eachother I do not have a problem with this, it is as you said natural that the fools die. However, with the institution of munitions it has become undeniably artificial to believe that the intelligent or the strong supercede the weak and the dumb. Any fool can grab a weapon and kill a stronger, smarter person. Thus is the need to place many censorships on the population which in my oppinion is virtually infested with fools.

In a world of smart people there would be no need for censorship of any kind. So there, I said it. And by saying it I've proved myself to be just as egotistical and sophomoric as my Cornflake counterpart. But these are nevertheless my contentions.
Author:  rizzix [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:23 am ]
Post subject: 
You know there are smart people that are pretty darn foolish. What you need here is wisdom, not necessarily intelligence.
Author:  Boo-chan [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:53 am ]
Post subject: 
The problem with censorship is that someone has to decide what knowledge should be forbidden, but then they can't know that knowledge because its forbidden. So you basically end up having to decide which people should be allowed to posess the knowledge and which ones shouldn't. Censoring bomb making instructionals is rather difficult to understand... anybody with a car can easily kill as many people as the average bomb does, but no one is suggesting that we ban cars.

Justin_ wrote:
You say that censorship does the opposite of what it intends to do, but you're wrong, in most cases censorship does a lot to prevent people from following the wrong paths in life.

This is possible but that is a bit of a value judgement. Censoring democracy probably lowers the number of people who try to bring it about in authoritarian countries, but is democracy necessary the wrong path. You seem to be only supporting "good" censorship... but deciding whether censorship is good or not is a rather anthropomorphic process.

Justin_ wrote:
I think democracy is flawed because the majority of people are morons and thus the decision of the majority will be a moronic one; hence Canada. I think that censorship is one of the many things which need to be done in this country in order to protect the good and decent people which inhabit it.
"The true judge of the intelligence of a person is how much he agrees with you." but just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're wrong. I agree that the majority of people are morons, but the people I consider morons would probably be tangential to the ones that you would choose. I'm rather confused why you only want to protect the "good and decent people"... this seems to imply that you don't care what happens to the rest of the people. If that is the case then deciding who the "good and decent people" are could be rather difficult.

However, I fundamentally disagree with the idea of protecting people from themselves. I think the threat of bombs is rather overplayed. So what if a couple hundred people get blown up every year, the only real effect is that it lessens the problem of overpopulation. But taking steps such as censorship to prevent the bombings is what motivates people to do such things, other than the psychological benefits that is. Censorship will do much more harm to the country as a whole than random bombings could hope to.

Justin_ wrote:
Unless you don't have feelings for other human beings, it is safe to say your argument is ignorant to your own needs. Why take the chance? Why not ensure that you and your loved ones are safe by not allowing people to do whatever they want.
This seems to be a logical argument but I don't think you have thought this through all the way. It is far more likely that your loved ones will be killed in a car accident then by a bomb, at least if you live in Canada. So your argument would imply that we shouldn't allow people to drive. Your merely rewording the ancient argument that "if it saves just one life its worth it". Which does have a bit of a point if you value life more than anything else, but for those of us who think that there are things far more important than life itself your argument doesn't make any sense.

Maybe the best way to consider the problem with censorship is to first list the things you think should be censored. Then think of someone who disagrees with you politically/religiously and list the things they would want to censor. I'm pretty sure that there will be a few differences between the two lists. The important point is that their reasons for wanting to censor the things they listed is just as valid to them as your reasons to censor the things you listed are to you.
Author:  chrispminis [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
@Cornflake, I disagree with only two of your ideas. One is that evolution in humans in stagnant. Evolution is never stagnant until it is balanced to a point where anything entering that deviates from the balance is penalized so it can never be succesful. One of the largest strategies inherited by life on Earth is exploitation. If you don't have to be strong to survive why be strong? There are many people who exploit other people including the morons who are helped out. That doesn't necessarily mean their inferior, because somehow they manage to get along as well, which is the point. We aren't stagnating evolution, we are merely encouraging the exploiter strategy. "Males" for example used to exploit "females" by using their resources to reproduce (since their were those who were completely self sufficient and then those who exploited them), until "females" turned around an exploited the males by forcing them to compete in order to earn the reward of reproduction.

The second idea I disagree with is that censorship is useless and just encourages people. This, I believe is quite a childish view, since most people are not as rebellious as you make them out to be. Most do not rebel every chance they get, and many, such as I accept some things, and realized they are probably for our benefit (not without forethought). Conformity is important in society.

@Boo-Chan
I agree with you that the flaw of censorship, is who decides what to censor, and on what basis. Many of the screening in the past has been carried through by those who were ignorant of the subject themselves. But we can change that.

I disagree with your car analogy. Its not a good example simply because cars cant be compared to bombs. Cars do good, as well as hurting people. They increase our efficiency, and are convenient personal transport. Meanwhile bombs fulfill none of these functions since their function is to inflict damage, on people, or buildings, or other targets. Cars were not meant to hurt people, although people use them too, and most people with cars dont hurt people. Meanwhile, most people with bombs, tend to inflict damage to themselves or others.
Author:  md [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
chrispminis wrote:
@Cornflake, ... <deletia>

Perhaps, I'll stick with my idea though. The weak amy be able to survive, but only because the strong help. Not that that is nessessarily bad though. I may or may not be arguing a side more extreme then I believe.

chrispminis wrote:
The second idea I disagree with is that censorship is useless and just encourages people. This, I believe is quite a childish view, since most people are not as rebellious as you make them out to be. Most do not rebel every chance they get, and many, such as I accept some things, and realized they are probably for our benefit (not without forethought). Conformity is important in society.

Here however you are clearly wrong. While most people are not rebellious certainly there is a certain percentage that is. Of the people who would be making bombs if the information is not censored I would argue that many would still be trying if it was. On the other hand out of all those people who would not be making bombs a certain percentage would be turned towards it just to rebel. Perhaps not many, but a few. For instance if you tried to say I wasn't allowed to have information about bomb making I would probably go out and get it just to show that I could and you couldn't stop me. I might not build such a bomb, but others might. As it is I know if I wanted to I could get the information so I have no incentive to go try.

There are other factors too. Let's say we censor any and all information on Bomb making right now. Unfortunately a significant proportion of society knows how to make bombs, and whats worse everyone knows that it can be done. How do you keep those people from telling others? And since people already know it's possible to make bombs how are you going to keep people from trying? The only real way to do so is to persecute those who know how; and those who try. But this only gets people angry at you and makes them work harder to stay underground. Oh, and since they are angry they are more likly to want to build bombs to kill you. Gee... that back fired.

Sure I might be exagerating a bit, but that's kinda the point. You must always take the worst case into consideration.

chrispminis wrote:

I disagree with your car analogy. Its not a good example simply because cars cant be compared to bombs. Cars do good, as well as hurting people. They increase our efficiency, and are convenient personal transport. Meanwhile bombs fulfill none of these functions since their function is to inflict damage, on people, or buildings, or other targets. Cars were not meant to hurt people, although people use them too, and most people with cars dont hurt people. Meanwhile, most people with bombs, tend to inflict damage to themselves or others.


Bombs can be used for mining. In fact they are required sometimes. The majority of bombs used today are actually used for the purposes of mining. Strange, that's not hurting anyone... Nothing is as clear cut as it seems. Wink
Author:  chrispminis [ Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Lol. nice call on the bomb and mining thing. But you know what I mean when I say hoe to make bombs. I mean the kind where you distill bleach and create mustard gas, the homemade kind that isn't used for dynamiting mines.

Also on the subject of censorship, I don't tell you you cant learn how to make bombs. You'd never know that such books weren't allowed. Chances are you'd never question, or wonder. Hmmm, you know what? How cool would it be if I knew how to make a car bomb? And even if you did, the fact that its censored discourages it a lot. It means one has to go through extra effort to obtain the necessary information. And most people (meaning me) would be stopped at that point anyways. Without censorship, the extremists who would be making bombs when there was censorship, would still be making bombs, but worse, there might be recreational reading of bomb making, and it makes it seem so lax. Almost acceptable to make bombs, since what else are you going to do with the knowledge of how to make bombs, but make bombs. Although I suppose you could let the knowledge rot in the baack of your head, which isn't typical of someone like me, which i think is most people.
Author:  Martin [ Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Google search for the Anarchist's Cookbook. The information is out there and very obtainable.

I still don't make bombs.
Author:  md [ Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:12 am ]
Post subject: 
chrispminis wrote:
Also on the subject of censorship, I don't tell you you cant learn how to make bombs. You'd never know that such books weren't allowed. Chances are you'd never question, or wonder. Hmmm, you know what? How cool would it be if I knew how to make a car bomb? And even if you did, the fact that its censored discourages it a lot. It means one has to go through extra effort to obtain the necessary information. And most people (meaning me) would be stopped at that point anyways. Without censorship, the extremists who would be making bombs when there was censorship, would still be making bombs, but worse, there might be recreational reading of bomb making, and it makes it seem so lax. Almost acceptable to make bombs, since what else are you going to do with the knowledge of how to make bombs, but make bombs. Although I suppose you could let the knowledge rot in the baack of your head, which isn't typical of someone like me, which i think is most people.


The information is already out there. People know; you can't just take that information away, something censors seem to always forget. Once one or two people know something is possible then the censorship no longer can be effective.

Just because something is not censored does not make it acceptable. You know how to kill people (everyone does), and yet killing someone else is definitely not acceptable. Knowing something does not mean you must do it. It simply means that you know more information and thus can better use it to help make decisions. Certainly decisions in which knowing how to make a bomb helps are few and far between; but the point stands.

You claim that the majority of people would make a bomb if they knew how. And yet the majority of people know how to do many things that they have never done. I would argue that you are the minority; one of those who are likely to blow themselves up when building a home made bomb.
Author:  codemage [ Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:14 am ]
Post subject: 
Although I don't think the bomb issue is really relevant to Canada, per se, I have two issues with letting would-be terrorists blow themselves up:

1 - We read frequently about middle-eastern bombs that malfuntion or go off prematurely. Quite often this incompetence spills over and kills bystanders. The argument can never limit itself to a clear-cut issue of bomb-builders only killing themselves.

2 - The vast majority of accidents with explosives don't result in death. The resultant maiming is a drain on the public system. As a society, we try to avoid self-inflicted harm, not only for moral reasons, but because the costs incurred are a deficit to the rest of us. One (for the purpose of argument) could state that smoking is also a great way to chlorinate the shallow end of the gene pool - but the government is slowly realizing that there is a medical-cost burden that this places on the whole of society.

For your interest/information: (back to the initial topic)
Countries where it is a serious federal offence to promote Naziism or anti-semitism through media propaganda, literature or discussion:

Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Israel
Lithuania
Poland
Slovakia
Switzerland
Author:  Boo-chan [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:17 am ]
Post subject: 
The whole bomb making issue isn't relevant to Canada, I think it was chosen as an example since it seems to be taken as a given that not letting people build bombs is a good thing. That is one of the dangers of censorship. The first things that are censored are the ones that seem reasonable to censor, but once the idea of censorship is generally accepted then it naturally spreads.

The one problem with defending the freedom of expression is that sometimes you need to defend the right for people to say things that you find abhorrent. While I think that anyone who denies the fact that the Holocaust happened is a nutjob throwing people in jail for doing so is just as bad. Given the histories of the countries that have the laws against promoting Naziism or anti-semitism it is easy to see why those laws are in place. However, the laws are indefensible since they basically simplify down to the idea that if you promote certain ideas you will be thrown in jail. You might as well go ahead and set up reeducation camps for people as well since once you throw out the basic idea of freedom of expression then there is no reason not to go all the way.

A more relevant topic for Canada would probably be hate crimes. The sections of the Canadian Criminal Code that are applicable are Sections 318-320.1 Like most legal documents it is rather difficult to decipher, particularly since I couldn't find a definition for "breach of peace" in reference to Canadian law, from context I think it is ment to represent violent crimes but that's just my impression. However, the use of the term does worry me a bit since it stems from English law where "breach of peace" is not itself a criminal offense. I also wish they would state what they ment by "incites hatred" since you could interpret it anywhere from "inciting genocide" to "promoting dislike of". As well, "promoting genocide" could mean anything from saying "we should kill all ..." to merely expressing the opinion that you dislike a certain group. Another problem is that it states that a religious belief is a reasonable defense to any charge, so religious people can incite genocide all they want(since you can read anything you want into a religious text if you try hard enough) but atheists seem to be out of luck in this regard; which I perceive as a bit of an inequality. Plus since religion is used as one of the definitions of an "identifiable group" it promotes religious belief as more important than others, you can say that we should kill all atheists,conservatives etc without worrying about commiting "hate crimes" but as soon as you mention a religion the law comes into effect... a rather flawed approach I think. Finally, sexual orientation can mean anything from heterosexual, homosexual(probably its intended meanings) plus any other sexual orientation that you can think of... which raises interesting problems since certain sexual orientations are routinely vilified in this country.

Notwithstanding the flaws in how the law is written, the basic idea is that you can't say certain things. Now defending someone's right to call for the death of a certain group is rather difficult but the principle is the same as it is in any freedom of speech case. Once you start defining things you can and can't say the process is inherently based on the beliefs of the ones doing the defining. For example, the people who wrote this law believed that committing genocide was a bad thing, which most people would agree with, but it is still rather debatable.
Author:  Justin_ [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't understand why everyone thinks people deserve freedom of speech. It seems to me a weapon, or a platform rather, for irresponsible extremists to gather support and destroy democracy using its own virtues - like freedom of speech.

Since I'm of the oppinion most people are morons I prefer a plutocracy that understands the need for strict rules and strict punishments. Censorship would just be the opening maneuver to making a well behaved society that stems from themes like compassion rather than hate. Censorship all the way! The more the better!
Author:  1of42 [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
Interesting viewpoint Justin... the flaw with it is that those soceities in which irresponsible extremists are most powerful have historically been autocracies and other such government forms where power is centrally situated.

As for your thought that a plutocracy would be best, I find it in opposition to an earlier argument in which you attacked the wealth that Bill Gates has accumulated... Which is funny, given that a plutocracy "is the political control of the state by an oligarchy of the wealthy".

:


You can syndicate this boards posts using the file backend.php or view the topic map using sitemap.php.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy