Kirk Cameron must be stopped

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

While I believe some of Cameron's tactics are over the top and guerilla-esque, he has ever right to put forth his point of view, just as Dawkins or other athiests have every right to put forth their point of view.

It is a slippery slope when you begin to talk about stopping someone from speaking out about what they believe. If you advocate stopping Cameron, then how would you feel if Dawkins was stopped from distributing the Bible with his own preface to it?

Right or wrong, freedom of speech should be supported, even if you disagree with the message. The only time it should be restricted is if it is inciting hate.

I may disagree with your opinion, but I would always support your right to express it.

That's an excellent point to discuss with peter12, but in the real world saying whatever you want can be destructive and as a society we do put limits on freedom of speech. I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater to cite an obvious example. Kirk Cameron, regardless of his naivity and belief, should be c0ck-blocked when he tries to preach his stupidity.

[Azure]

Yelling fire in a crowded theater that would probably result in people getting hurt, physically, is equal to giving people the right to preach their garbage?

Really?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Sliver

That's an excellent point to discuss with peter12, but in the real world saying whatever you want can be destructive and as a society we do put limits on freedom of speech. I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater to cite an obvious example. Kirk Cameron, regardless of his naivity and belief, should be c0ck-blocked when he tries to preach his stupidity.

So we place limits on free speech when it induces actual physical harm. It's totalitarian to censor someone just for speaking out on what they believe.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yelling fire in a crowded theater that would probably result in people getting hurt, physically, is equal to giving people the right to preach their garbage?

Really?

It's an example of how we don't have complete freedom to say whatever we want. I also can't hold a lecture on how to make IEDs and I can't preach hateful speech based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

My point was we don't have freedom of speech right now anyway, and inhibiting morons from preaching stupidity is not a far cry from what we do now anyway. You didn't get that?

Really?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by peter12

So we place limits on free speech when it induces actual physical harm. It's totalitarian to censor someone just for speaking out on what they believe.

Picketing outside and African Canadian's house with the "N" word written on a sign doesn't induce physical harm but I'm not allowed to do that.

[Azure]

Religious preaching is not hate speech, well, at least not in this case.

Where does it end? We all disagree on religious doctrine. Even amongst religious folks there are disagreements. How do you decide which to ban, and which to allow?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Sliver

It's an example of how we don't have complete freedom to say whatever we want. I also can't hold a lecture on how to make IEDs and I can't preach hateful speech based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

My point was we don't have freedom of speech right now anyway, and inhibiting morons from preaching stupidity is not a far cry from what we do now anyway. You didn't get that?

Really?

Yes, it is a very far cry away. Legally speaking, Canada's criminal code prevents hate speech only in extreme circumstances, ie. inducing harm, teaching it in the classroom as fact etc... The latter example is highly controversial even after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against James Keegstra.

We live in a democracy and we should accept the full spectrum of ideas, even if we don't like some of them. Just because I disagree with someone or think they are stupid, doesn't give me the right to drag them up before some committee and have them silenced.

Otherwise you are just another Joseph McCarthey or Stalin.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Picketing outside and African Canadian's house with the "N" word written on a sign doesn't induce physical harm but I'm not allowed to do that.

Actually, you might be allowed to do that. Let me check.

The Criminal Code disallows the public expression of hate, although that is not well defined. I think that your sign would have to include some massive historical fallacy or a threat.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yes, it is a very far cry away. Legally speaking, Canada's criminal code prevents hate speech only in extreme circumstances, ie. inducing harm, teaching it in the classroom as fact etc... The latter example is highly controversial even after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against James Keegstra.

We live in a democracy and we should accept the full spectrum of ideas, even if we don't like some of them. Just because I disagree with someone or think they are stupid, doesn't give me the right to drag them up before some committee and have them silenced.

Otherwise you are just another Joseph McCarthey or Stalin.

I never said they should be dragged in front of a committee and silenced. I carefully chose the words c0ck-blocked and inhibited. Those are fairly vague terms.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by peter12

Actually, you might be allowed to do that. Let me check.

The Criminal Code disallows the public expression of hate, although that is not well defined. I think that your sign would have to include some massive historical fallacy or a threat.

I highly doubt you're correct on this.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I highly doubt you're correct on this.

Google Criminal Code of Canada, sections 318 and 319.

[Sliver]

No thank you. It's the interpretation of the law and precedent that matters more than what I can read online.

Honestly though, I do appreciate that you took the time to look that up. (that might sound sarcastic but I'm being sincere)

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Sliver

No thank you. It's the interpretation of the law and precedent that matters more than what I can read online.

Honestly though, I do appreciate that you took the time to look that up. (that might sound sarcastic but I'm being sincere)

The only real court precedent is Keegsta v. Canada and looking at Chief Justice MacLachlin's inconsistency with free speech matters, the interpretation of hate law in Canada is rather vague.

[cyclone3483]

Originally Posted by Sliver

That's an excellent point to discuss with peter12, but in the real world saying whatever you want can be destructive and as a society we do put limits on freedom of speech. I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater to cite an obvious example. Kirk Cameron, regardless of his naivity and belief, should be c0ck-blocked when he tries to preach his stupidity.

I WOULD discuss it with peter12, but he uses too many big words.

Cameron isn't yelling, "fire!"

He's yelling, "think!"

What he wants people to think about is what is right in his mind and those that support him, wrong in the minds of those that oppose him. Whether his ideas are right or wrong, it is not wrong to bring the ideas to the public.

If it were, this forum would be a great deal of blank space.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

He and those other whacko's do nothing other than hurt people who actually believe in the Bible.

Of course evolution exists. Darwin didnt say humans came from pond scum, he said that living species adapt to their environment. THAT IS TRUE.

He said that populations adapt to their environment via descent with modification through natural selection. He also said that all life on earth has a common ancestor. He didn't say humans came from pond scum, but he did say that humans and pond scum share a common ancestor.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

He said that populations adapt to their environment via descent with modification through natural selection. He also said that all life on earth has a common ancestor. He didn't say humans came from pond scum, but he did say that humans and pond scum share a common ancestor.

Silence!

How dare you question....uhhh, nevermind.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

I WOULD discuss it with peter12, but he uses too many big words.

Cameron isn't yelling, "fire!"

He's yelling, "think!"

What he wants people to think about is what is right in his mind and those that support him, wrong in the minds of those that oppose him. Whether his ideas are right or wrong, it is not wrong to bring the ideas to the public.

If it were, this forum would be a great deal of blank space.

Or even "don't think!" Really, if he wants to pay for advertising that position, it's completely his freedom and business to do so.

[cyclone3483]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Picketing outside and African Canadian's house with the "N" word written on a sign doesn't induce physical harm but I'm not allowed to do that.

Actually I think this would induce physical harm...the picketer would likely be physically harmed

[Sliver]

Well I'm surprised you guys think it's so harmless to spread baseless lies. It's very counter-productive for society to be blase about the dissemination of misinformation. I think those with facts should push back on stupidity and lies. It is possible for whole groups of people to be wrong (eg Nazis) and allowing untruths to be told is wrong in and of itself, let alone the damage it can cause in extreme cases.

Look at the town hall meetings in the States from a few weeks ago. Stupidity, lies and misinformation are leading to chaotic and dangerous situations in the USA, not to mention the damage to people's lives that will be caused if the States doesn't begin to reform their sub-par medical system. The only thing holding progress back is the outspoken "free speech" of dopes and the inability of the truth to contain lies.

I don't know how lies should be contained, but to deny the harm they cause is naive.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Well I'm surprised you guys think it's so harmless to spread baseless lies. It's very counter-productive for society to be blase about the dissemination of misinformation. I think those with facts should push back on stupidity and lies. It is possible for whole groups of people to be wrong (eg Nazis) and allowing untruths to be told is wrong in and of itself, let alone the damage it can cause in extreme cases.

Look at the town hall meetings in the States from a few weeks ago. Stupidity, lies and misinformation are leading to chaotic and dangerous situations in the USA, not to mention the damage to people's lives that will be caused if the States doesn't begin to reform their sub-par medical system. The only thing holding progress back is the outspoken "free speech" of dopes and the inability of the truth to contain lies.

I don't know how lies should be contained, but to deny the harm they cause is naive.

So what is your solution? Fascism?