Just STFU, already.

[MomentsofSanity]

I'm still waiting for you to expound on this.

What is "hate speech" and how does it differ from "political speech"?
Who defines "hate" in this case?
Who determines what is to be considered "hate" in this case?

How can hate speech not be a subset of political speech?

Freedom of speech is the right to express political speech in public. Political speech labeled by the government as "hate speech" too.

If hate speech is banned, you don't have free speech. You have government-approved speech. Which of course is not in need of protection to begin with.

One is intended to express opinion. The other to incite action. In Canada you can express any opinion. I can say whatever I want about anything based on my opinion. I can't go around saying blacks should be hanged, Jews should be exterminated etc... even if you want to argue those are also opinions.

The threshold in Canada to successfully prosecute hate speech is extremely high. Nearly impossible. But it does exist.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opin...laws+muzzle+freedom+speech/7050212/story.html

In Canada, hate propaganda laws have an extremely high legal threshold for successful investigation or prosecution.

First, the key for the courts is the weighing of evidence regarding the motive or intent of the accused, which has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The language, logic and descriptors utilized to express the message of hate needs to be extremely virulent, malicious, wicked, repugnant and dangerous, in the eyes of the court. The message and purpose needs to be obvious and have no societal value except to propagate hate, and it must be public.

Are you free to say anything? No. You aren't free to say anything in the US either. All speech is limited in some way. To say its supressed is nonsense.

Edit: i should add I don't agree with it in its entirety, but I also don't agree with the characterization that was presented here. Thread derailment in my part done.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I wonder what MofS has to say about the muslim speech about killing Jews? I bet that is OK.

Really. And what can you point to from me that would ever give the impression I would support something of that nature, other than your ignorance?

 

[dali71]

Bullshit. I didn't start 99 percent of those threads.

it's true, you didn't start 99% of those threads

you started 100% of them.

LOL, he's started 38 threads so far this month...

 

[a777pilot]

Really. And what can you point to from me that would ever give the impression I would support something of that nature, other than your ignorance?

I'm not sying YOU would support it. But you give the impression of being the duty expert on Canada Free Speech laws.

Well, is it allowed in the new non-Free Speech Canada.

 

[MrMuppet]

One is intended to express opinion. The other to incite action. In Canada you can express any opinion. I can say whatever I want about anything based on my opinion. I can't go around saying blacks should be hanged, Jews should be exterminated etc... even if you want to argue those are also opinions.

The threshold in Canada to successfully prosecute hate speech is extremely high. Nearly impossible. But it does exist.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opin...laws+muzzle+freedom+speech/7050212/story.html

"Incite action", what is that supposed to mean?

So, essentially, I'm allowed to say "I think taxes are too high", but I'm not allowed to say "I think taxes should be lowered"? WTF?

I'm sorry to break it to you, but, no, you don't have free speech in Canada.

Btw, that quote from that article ("hate needs to be extremely virulent, malicious, wicked, repugnant and dangerous, in the eyes of the court") was an extremely pretentious way of saying: if we don't like it, you're not allowed to say it.

Are you free to say anything? No. You aren't free to say anything in the US either.

The first amendment has been repealed? Wouldn't surprise me tbh.

Btw, freedom of speech was never about being free to say anything (such as threats), but rather to protect the right to present political speech (even controversial) in public.

All speech is limited in some way. To say its supressed is nonsense.

To say something "limited" is "supressed" would be nonsense? LOL. And we have a winner of The Double Speak of the Week.

 

[techs]

it's true, you didn't start 99% of those threads

you started 100% of them.

Just keeping the thread alive to my report hits the mods.

 

[a777pilot]

Just keeping the thread alive to my report hits the mods.

Mommy, Mommy, those kids are mean. Make them stop.

 

[techs]

Mommy, Mommy, those kids are mean. Make them stop.

In 12 years I have reported 2 threads. One was in OT.

Here are screenshots of the front page within minutes of your b.s.

 

[nageov3t]

Just keeping the thread alive to my report hits the mods.

that wasn't meant to be a call-out, just an example of excessiveness from the last election cycle.

 

[jman19]

In 12 years I have reported 2 threads. One was in OT.

Here are screenshots of the front page within minutes of your b.s.

Um, could be wrong here but didn't Loki just post a screen shot of search results? He didn't claim all of the posts on the front page were from you...

 

[dali71]

Um, could be wrong here but didn't Loki just post a screen shot of search results? He didn't claim all of the posts on the front page were from you...

Even better than that, they were screen shots of search results from back when this forum was still on FuseTalk. Why am I not surprised that techs was too dumb to notice that? :biggrin:

 

[jman19]

Even better than that, they were screen shots of search results from back when this forum was still on FuseTalk. Why am I not surprised that techs was too dumb to notice that? :biggrin:

Bwahaha I'm not surprised, though you would think that someone who spends so much time on this forum would realize that.

The bigger the hack the bigger the fool.

 

[a777pilot]

Hey, where did this thread start? Are we off course yet?

LOL!

 

[Infohawk]

I disagree.

there is a point when it becomes excessive, especially when it comes down to spamming the forums with irrelevent topics that all more or less amount to "I hate (the other guy)." start a blog for that shit, or confine the whining to one thread imho

Yeah, there's been a decline in thread quality lately. It's also interesting that in the past my understanding is that certain people have been punished for posting too many new threads so it will be interesting what will happen with the new case.

 

[zsdersw]

Yeah, there's been a decline in thread quality lately. It's also interesting that in the past my understanding is that certain people have been punished for posting too many new threads so it will be interesting what will happen with the new case.

If there's a valid reason for such punishment beyond the whining about "Oh, you're making too many about Romney" or "too many about Obama" I wouldn't have a problem with it.. but some posters, regulars of P&N, don't seem to get that:

A.) this is a political forum
B.) it's an election year, and
C.) they don't have to read any thread they have a problem with

... so they whine and complain, stupidly, that there are too many threads that are anti-Romney, anti-Obama, anti-Democrats, or anti-Republicans.

 

[boomerang]

Yes, it is an election year and yes, there are a lot of threads about Romney, Ryan, Obama, Democrats, and Republicans.

I've seen far too many posts in these threads where people say something to the effect of "why don't you stop making so many threads about X".

TOO F*CKING BAD. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ THE THREAD, DON'T READ THE THREAD.

This is P&N... if you want to read about other stuff look in one of the other forums on Anandtech.

Just thought I'd point out the obvious to people who should know better than to feign annoyance at political threads when they regularly participate in political threads.

Change it to don't reply to the thread and we're in agreement. Starve the beast.

 

[dali71]

Just keeping the thread alive to my report hits the mods.

So, have the mods got back to you yet? :biggrin:

 

[cybrsage]

Yes, it is an election year and yes, there are a lot of threads about Romney, Ryan, Obama, Democrats, and Republicans.

I've seen far too many posts in these threads where people say something to the effect of "why don't you stop making so many threads about X".

TOO F*CKING BAD. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ THE THREAD, DON'T READ THE THREAD.

This is P&N... if you want to read about other stuff look in one of the other forums on Anandtech.

Just thought I'd point out the obvious to people who should know better than to feign annoyance at political threads when they regularly participate in political threads.

The mods have made it known that making more than one thread about a topic means the second thread should be closed.

 

[cybrsage]

Just keeping the thread alive to my report hits the mods.

The thread does not have to be alive to have the mods take action. The post in question still has to exist, but no one has to have replied to it. Basically, if someone self moderates, they are fine with it.

 

[cybrsage]

Knowing how all of you just love links, vice doing your own work, I edited my post and added a link from a Liberal Boston Newspaper.

LOL!

To be fair to them, I always require the person making the claim to support their own claim. Libs love to make claims and then cry when told to support their claim, saying I have to support their claim for them or I am dumb (or some other pejorative).

The requirement to support a claim is always on the person making the claim. You did right in supporting you claim.

 

[soccerballtux]

I can sum up this thread with
person a). I agree with this rant because I am opposed to Romney and support Obama and think the world should be forced to deal with tech's incessant complaining,
person b). I disagree with this rant because I am opposed to Obama and support Romney and think Techs is being annoying, and
person c). I disagree with this rant because I think both should shut up

Personally I fall into person Cb category. Mostly C, but a bit a b, and I convince myself my irritation arising as person b is actually because I am person C so that I can feel more morally justified in telling OP's rainbow to stop shining and Tech to stop filling P&N with repetitive material.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

"Incite action", what is that supposed to mean?

So, essentially, I'm allowed to say "I think taxes are too high", but I'm not allowed to say "I think taxes should be lowered"? WTF?

I'm sorry to break it to you, but, no, you don't have free speech in Canada.

Btw, that quote from that article ("hate needs to be extremely virulent, malicious, wicked, repugnant and dangerous, in the eyes of the court") was an extremely pretentious way of saying: if we don't like it, you're not allowed to say it.


The first amendment has been repealed? Wouldn't surprise me tbh.

Btw, freedom of speech was never about being free to say anything (such as threats), but rather to protect the right to present political speech (even controversial) in public.


To say something "limited" is "supressed" would be nonsense? LOL. And we have a winner of The Double Speak of the Week.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States

Exactly. So how does Canada's law differ?

 

[zsdersw]

The mods have made it known that making more than one thread about a topic means the second thread should be closed.

Two threads about the same specific event or news story, yes, result in one of them being closed. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the complaints that there are too many threads that are critical of one candidate or political party, even when all of those threads are not identical in the sense that they're referring to the same story or same event.

 

[cybrsage]

Two threads about the same specific event or news story, yes, result in one of them being closed. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the complaints that there are too many threads that are critical of one candidate or political party, even when all of those threads are not identical in the sense that they're referring to the same story or same event.

Two threads talking about the same event, but in different ways, still result in the second one being closed - according to the mods. As proof, there was one thread which held political partisan bickering about the Mars Rover and I created one specific to detail the timeline of its landing, which was completely news related, but it was closed because there was already a political partisan bickering thread created.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2262175&highlight=mars+rover

It is fine to report the duplicate threads as they should be closed.

 

[wayliff]

To be fair to them, I always require the person making the claim to support their own claim. Libs love to make claims and then cry when told to support their claim, saying I have to support their claim for them or I am dumb (or some other pejorative).

Sorry to poop on your party but conservatives are equally guilty if not more of providing little to no facts to support a view.

If I have to support this comment then please just watch Fox & Friends.

Stop acting like the police everywhere...
You're by far one of the most annoying members here...derailing every thread when possible.