...what in the hell are you thinking?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080120.wcomment0121/BNStory/National/home

...what in the hell are you thinking?


that's the problem, they aren't.

complaining that someone is violating your rights by telling the truth is nothing short of bizarre:@@:

I read this article at another site and it made me really sad for my Canadian friends. I find it difficult to understand how Canadians can allow this to happen without massive protests. First the military budget was cut to the bone (partly because Canada depends on the U.S. to protect it) and now they are just rolling over while they are being subjected to thought police.

What do our Canadian posters think about this?

This is where we're headed too if we don't watch out...

that's the problem, they aren't.

complaining that someone is violating your rights by telling the truth is nothing short of bizarre:@@:

makes me think about Dan Rather... bizarre indeed..;)

This is where we're headed too if we don't watch out...

You beat me to that one. We'd probably already be there if not for that pesky Constitution. We'll figure out a way around it, though.

Puts me in mind of the textbooks and other schoolbooks that have been re-written in order to remove the "offensive" language that might tread upon someone's tender sensibilities. What horseshit.

makes me think about Dan Rather... bizarre indeed..;)
Dan just got caught being sloppy with his fact checking.

Puts me in mind of the textbooks and other schoolbooks that have been re-written in order to remove the "offensive" language that might tread upon someone's tender sensibilities. What horseshit.
Eh, not the same. I don't think they should have racist words in text books either, just because I don't want my kids thinking that those words are ok.

(Also, if a textbook hasn't been revised in 50 years then there are definitely other things wrong with it - unless it's a math textbook or something, but then why would it have offensive language in it?)

DarkFantasy,

I have, in the past, served on many textbook adoption committees, sometimes as a member and sometimes as chairman. I have also been in charge of ordering hundreds of textbooks in both science and history for one of the largest school districts in New York State. s347fan (Walrus) is right when he talks about revising textbooks for social, not factual reasons. We, as a committee, used to pore over texts from five or so publishers checking to see how many times females, blacks, Asians, handicapped people,Hispanics, etc. were seen in illustrations. We checked for any language that might be vaguely bothersome to some particular group or another. Before being adopted a text book had to be shown to be politically correct.

...what in the hell are you thinking?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080120.wcomment0121/BNStory/National/home

Awwww, the poor little conservative "activist" got a talking to... he is sooo put upon... :rolleyes:

How old is Canada, anyway?

Anybody know?
I mean, exactly how old is Canada?

:confused:

Awwww, the poor little conservative "activist" got a talking to... he is sooo put upon... :rolleyes:

Oh, so you are FOR freedom of speech if they share your political viewpoint, and AGAINST freedom of speech if you are opposed to the message?

Maybe you can be a U.S. "Human Rights Officer"? It's a power that I'm sure wouldn't go to your head. :rolleyes:

How old is Canada, anyway?

Anybody know?
I mean, exactly how old is Canada?

:confused:
they finally became fully independent in 1982 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Act_1982).

Thanks, Mike.

I asked a straight-up question, and you provided a straight-up answer.
I appreciate it, sir.
;)

Thanks, Mike.

I asked a straight-up question, and you provided a straight-up answer.
I appreciate it, sir.
;)
think nothing of it, sir...before i looked it up, i was thinking 1867.

England.... not to be left out...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7204635.stm

The digital book, re-telling the classic fairy tale [The Three Little Pigs], was rejected by judges who warned that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

The judges also attacked Three Little Cowboy Builders for offending builders.

What crap. I'm so sick of this stuff. There is no law that prevents people from being offended. When are we going to stop having to walk on egghsells to protect some people's ridiculously inflated sense of offense?

Tell you what. I'm offended by all the assholes on the planet who are so easily offended. Who can I sue?

:rant:

People who might be offended by, The Three Little Pigs, are catered to but people who might be offended by, Heather Has Two Mommies, are lambasted as unreasonable bigots.

People who might be offended by, The Three Little Pigs, are catered to but people who might be offended by, Heather Has Two Mommies, are lambasted as unreasonable bigots.
Hardly. I think they're both patently unreasonable.

Oh, so you are FOR freedom of speech if they share your political viewpoint, and AGAINST freedom of speech if you are opposed to the message?


1. It's not in America.
2. Nobody stopped him from saying anything, you big drama-queen. :rolleyes:

1. It's not in America.

No shit, Dick Tracy.

Notice the title of the thread.

2. Nobody stopped him from saying anything, you big drama-queen. :rolleyes:

LOL!

This is like Pete Rose calling Dale Murphy a "cheater".

Thanks for the morning laugh!

No shit, Dick Tracy.

Notice the title of the thread.

You are the one crying and whining about "free speech" for non-Americans outside of America.

:rolleyes:



Thanks for the morning laugh!

I should be thanking you.

:thumbs:

You are the one crying and whining about "free speech" for non-Americans outside of America.

Where, other than in your warped imagination, do I "cry and whine" about free speech?

It's one thing for someone to twist words... quite another to make them up on the fly.

Besides... whining and crying are your forte, not mine.

Where, other than in your warped imagination, do I "cry and whine" about free speech?

This whole thread is one big whine. :rolleyes:

This whole thread is one big whine. :rolleyes:

By that leap of logic, so is all of allforums.net

Dan just got caught being sloppy with his fact checking.
Yup.. bad source but the context of the story was as reported..

In making his case, Rather will certainly establish beyond reasonable doubt that George W. Bush never completed his required service in the Texas Air National Guard. Moreover, Rather’s suit will seek to demonstrate that the documents used in his “60 Minutes II” piece were not inauthentic and that he and his producers acted responsibly in presenting them and the information they contained — and that that information is true (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/27/4160/). Indeed, no credible source has refuted the essential facts of the story.;)

Yup.. bad source but the context of the story was as reported..

In making his case, Rather will certainly establish beyond reasonable doubt that George W. Bush never completed his required service in the Texas Air National Guard. Moreover, Rather’s suit will seek to demonstrate that the documents used in his “60 Minutes II” piece were not inauthentic and that he and his producers acted responsibly in presenting them and the information they contained — and that that information is true (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/27/4160/). Indeed, no credible source has refuted the essential facts of the story.;)
that goes back to the burden of proof being on the accuser.

i can go on, night & day, about Shrilary being a bigger skirt chaser than Bill. until ~I~ prove it, it should be treated for what it is-a rumor.

OldPhart,

Welcome to the frustrating world of people who try to have a serious discussion with dharmabum.

2. Nobody stopped him from saying anything, you big drama-queen. :rolleyes:

True. But don't you think having a government representative drop by for a little chat might tend to put a damper on future speech along those lines?

True. But don't you think having a government representative drop by for a little chat might tend to put a damper on future speech along those lines?

As long as the government representative is just giving their opinion and not doing something to actually prohibit him from saying it, then no I do not.

I don't think the "conservative activist" guy will be slowed down by that at all.

As long as the government representative is just giving their opinion and not doing something to actually prohibit him from saying it, then no I do not.

I don't think the "conservative activist" guy will be slowed down by that at all.

Governments don't just send representatives over to chat with your to see how it's hanging. I can't imagine you'd be real thrilled if someone from the FBI stopped by your house to ask why you're so mean to W all the time.

Of course the key is we have a Constitution that gives you that right. Canada has legislation making his comments borderline illegal.

As long as the government representative is just giving their opinion and not doing something to actually prohibit him from saying it, then no I do not.

I don't think the "conservative activist" guy will be slowed down by that at all.

Oh?

"I was there because I was compelled to be there by the government, and if I answered Officer McGovern's political questions unsatisfactorily, the government could fine me thousands of dollars and order me to publicly apologize for holding the wrong views.

I told her that the complaint process itself was a punishment. Even if I was eventually acquitted, I would still lose — hundreds of hours, and tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills. That's not an accident, that's one of the tools of these commissions. Every journalist in the country has been taught a lesson: Censor yourself now, or be put through a costly wringer. I said all this and then Officer McGovern replied, "You're entitled to your opinions, that's for sure."


I would imagine the threat of such action by any government would be a serious damper on free speech. Wouldn't you?

[i]"I was there because I was compelled to be there by the government, and if I answered Officer McGovern's political questions unsatisfactorily, the government could fine me thousands of dollars and order me to publicly apologize for holding the wrong views.


But they did not do those things to him.


I would imagine the threat of such action by any government would be a serious damper on free speech. Wouldn't you?

That quote is not the government threatening him, it is him saying what he fears the government might do and that last sentence doesn't make it sound like the government official was agreeing with him.

Canada's law is not the same as the United States. Their Charter of Rights has a "limitations clause" and a "nowwithstanding clause" that allow the government to justify certain infringements of their citizens' rights.

Originally Posted by dharmabum
As long as the government representative is just giving their opinion and not doing something to actually prohibit him from saying it, then no I do not.


Oh?

[i]"I was there because I was compelled to be there by the government, and if I answered Officer McGovern's political questions unsatisfactorily, the government could fine me thousands of dollars and order me to publicly apologize for holding the wrong views.

Could I interject here that one individual citizen's opinion is something quite different that what a large public newspaper decides to publish for many thousands of people to see and read, especially when that something is highly defamatory toward one particular minority group..........????

Could I interject here that one individual citizen's opinion is something quite different that what a large public newspaper decides to publish for many thousands of people to see and read, especially when that something is highly defamatory toward one particular minority group..........????
...who pay to read it.

it's not just one voice being stiffled, it's those many thousands right to read it.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
Could I interject here that one individual citizen's opinion is something quite different that what a large public newspaper decides to publish for many thousands of people to see and read, especially when that something is highly defamatory toward one particular minority group..........????

...who pay to read it.

it's not just one voice being stiffled, it's those many thousands right to read it.

You are promulgating a falsehood. You are suggesting, in no uncertain terms, that Levant was somehow prohibited or prevented from publishing the inflammatory material in question.

From everything I have read concerning the situation, no one's voice was stifled.

The cartoons in question were published.

While any type of legal action may be an annoyance, the fact that Mr. Levant was freely allowed to publish the article provides the proof that he was not "censored".

You are promulgating a falsehood. You are suggesting, in no uncertain terms, that Levant was somehow prohibited or prevented from publishing the inflammatory material in question.

From everything I have read concerning the situation, no one's voice was stifled.

The cartoons in question were published.

While any type of legal action may be an annoyance, the fact that Mr. Levant was freely allowed to publish the article provides the proof that he was not "censored".
you're missing the point. the state is attempting to censor ideas by being a nuisance. that is pointed out quite clearly in the original link.

you're missing the point. the state is attempting to censor ideas by being a nuisance. that is pointed out quite clearly in the original link.

Actually the state did not censor him at all and was acting within the legal boundaries of Canadian law.

While any type of legal action may be an annoyance, the fact that Mr. Levant was freely allowed to publish the article provides the proof that he was not "censored".

You are right, and there wasn't even any legal action.
The "conservative activist", Levant, was merely complaining about what he feared they might do.

You are right, and there wasn't even any legal action.
The "conservative activist", Levant, was merely complaining about what he feared they might do.

Any proponent of free speech should complain about what "... they might do ...". I suspect anyone posting here would be outraged if a government flunky was to visit them to talk about what they are writing.

OK, so there wasn't legal action & the cartoons were published. That doesn't really change the story much at all.

Any proponent of free speech should complain about what "... they might do ...".

"Free Speech" means different things in different countries.


I suspect anyone posting here would be outraged if a government flunky was to visit them to talk about what they are writing.

I certainly would, but then again, I live in America.
The fellow in the story does not.


OK, so there wasn't legal action & the cartoons were published. That doesn't really change the story much at all.

It certainly changes the degree of outrage one feels when one considers the reality of the situation.

You are right, and there wasn't even any legal action.

Do you think the author had any legal representation with him when he was "interviewed" by the government representative? If so, who do you think was billed for the representation?

Isn't the interview itself "legal action"?


The "conservative activist", Levant, was merely complaining about what he feared they might do.

Why do you keep mentioning that Mr. Levant is a "conservative"? Even if it's true, what possible relevance does it have to the discussion?

Actually the state did not censor him at all and was acting within the legal boundaries of Canadian law.

They did both. That's the whole point of this thread. The Canadian government may indeed have been acting within the law, but that just means the law sucks.

"Free Speech" means different things in different countries.

Obviously. You seem to be of two minds here dharma. You seem fine with the fact that this law is on the books in Canada, yet such a law would be an outrage in this country.

If you're ok with free speech being stifled in Canada, why bother with this thread?

Compared to what happened to Valerie Wilson in this country, I just can't summon a whole lot of outrage at this story.

If they had actually done something to the guy to somehow stifle his free speech, or taken some kind of reprisal against him, then I would probably be a little more outraged.

Pardon me for being a little more concerned about what is happening in my own backyard at the moment.

It seems Drama is either unable or unwilling to follow the discussion and is carrying on a discussion of his own on some topic only tangentally related to that the thread is dealing with.

It doesn't matter that the government chose to not punish a citizen for the thoughts behind his speech. The important thing is that the government COULD HAVE PUNISHED HIM FOR HIS THOUGHTS had it so wished.

Free speech is a cornerstone of individual freedom and to say its defense is unimportant because it happened somewhere else or so what, even though they could punish him for his thoughts they didn't misses the entire point.

Drama is such an ideological leftist that he cannot bring himself to defend the rights of a conservative even if those rights should be universal. How sad.

It seems Drama is either unable or unwilling to follow the discussion and is carrying on a discussion of his own on some topic only tangentally related to that the thread is dealing with.

It doesn't matter that the government chose to not punish a citizen for the thoughts behind his speech. The important thing is that the government COULD HAVE PUNISHED HIM FOR HIS THOUGHTS had it so wished.

Free speech is a cornerstone of individual freedom and to say its defense is unimportant because it happened somewhere else or so what, even though they could punish him for his thoughts they didn't misses the entire point.

Drama is such an ideological leftist that he cannot bring himself to defend the rights of a conservative even if those rights should be universal. How sad.
who says he's a conservative? he could be one of FT's loony toon friends for all we know. left & right isn't the issue, right & wrong are.

who says he's a conservative? he could be one of FT's loony toon friends for all we know. left & right isn't the issue, right & wrong are.

To you, me and most people, maybe, but to Drama it is all about which end of the political spectrum a person is found on.

The funny thing about trying to eliminate offensive speech from public discourse is:

the offenders still say the same things and much worse among themselves.

Free speech allows all ideas to get some sun. As much as it pains me to hear what my detractors think of me, I want to know exactly what's being said.

Textbooks, billboards, outside signage, clothing, and other public communiques should use PC language because all elements of society are forced to interract with them.

The content of magazines, broadcast media, signage inside private establishments and other messages that you have to go out of your way to absorb should be at the discression of the property owner or media outlet and you get to vote by patronizing/visiting or not.

The government giving the magazine a hard time discourages free speech, especially if it costs the magazine money in any way.

How old is Canada, anyway?

Anybody know?
I mean, exactly how old is Canada?

:confused:
Canada as a self-governing country on July 1, 1867

...what in the hell are you thinking?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080120.wcomment0121/BNStory/National/home

That's Alberta

I haven't been reading much these day's even the local papers. This thread is alarming and I'm going to start asking tomorrow who else has heard about it because this sort of stuff is crazy.