Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

CorsiHockeyLeague · 06-30-2020, 06:38 PM

There's a huge difference between "excusing hate speech" and not wanting there to be a law making it a criminal offense. During the last leadership race, Michael Chong was the left-most candidate to lead the CPC, and was for the most part considered a centrist (by some, a LPC candidate in disguise). He favoured a repeal of that law. So I don't think you can cast someone who shares that view as some sort of extremist.

And the difference between hate speech and child porn should be pretty obvious. At best, the analogue to hate speech would be speech that promotes child porn - not the act of creating or distributing it. EDIT: A second read suggests you did get this distinction - and I think it's actually legal to do this. That is, discuss abusing children on the internet. I am not 100% sure, but I'm not aware of that being illegal, anyway. Doesn't mean youtube has to allow it, of course.

I would also note that, in Canada, the creation of and distribution of child pornography is in fact protected speech. It is simply one of the cases in which the Supreme Court has ruled that public interest in preventing harm to children outweighs the importance of being able to engage in that particular type of speech. They came to the same conclusion with hate speech. It's not completely out of the question to think the Supreme Court was right in one of those cases, and wrong in the other.

06-30-2020, 06:38 PM	#1674
CorsiHockeyLeague Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2015 Exp:	There's a huge difference between "excusing hate speech" and not wanting there to be a law making it a criminal offense. During the last leadership race, Michael Chong was the left-most candidate to lead the CPC, and was for the most part considered a centrist (by some, a LPC candidate in disguise). He favoured a repeal of that law. So I don't think you can cast someone who shares that view as some sort of extremist. And the difference between hate speech and child porn should be pretty obvious. At best, the analogue to hate speech would be speech that promotes child porn - not the act of creating or distributing it. EDIT: A second read suggests you did get this distinction - and I think it's actually legal to do this. That is, discuss abusing children on the internet. I am not 100% sure, but I'm not aware of that being illegal, anyway. Doesn't mean youtube has to allow it, of course. I would also note that, in Canada, the creation of and distribution of child pornography is in fact protected speech. It is simply one of the cases in which the Supreme Court has ruled that public interest in preventing harm to children outweighs the importance of being able to engage in that particular type of speech. They came to the same conclusion with hate speech. It's not completely out of the question to think the Supreme Court was right in one of those cases, and wrong in the other. __________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 06-30-2020 at 06:43 PM.