I made a long post and it got deleted when I clicked "post".  :blownose:

Actually there was already case law on that from the early 1800's.  A prisoner did the same thing (minus the phone of course) to another prisoner in jail.

I wasn't aware. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

@raphjd:

Those same things are illegal in Europe/Canada.  So it's not really a big deal.

I wasn't claiming whether or not it was a big deal; I was refuting your claim that US did not have restrictions on free speech like the rest of the west.

@raphjd:

Several EU countries ban holocaust denial.

Several EU countries and Canada ban racist speech.

Could you explain the problem with these ones? I'm not saying there isn't one mind you, I'd just like to know more about your views regarding this.

@raphjd:

Several EU countries and Canada ban criticism of Islam.

Regarding Canada, no they didn't. Bill M-103 states that the government should combat Islamophobia, systematic racism, and religious discrimination (towards any and all religions). The bill doesn't ban criticism of any religion, though I can see how it would be interpreted that way.

For example, it is okay to address and speak out about the religion. It is not okay, however, to, for instance, discriminate against someone in the workplace, classroom, etc. due to their race and/or religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Could it lead to limiting freedom of speech and even bringing in Sharia law? Possibly, but that hasn't happened due to this bill.

As for the EU countries, I don't know which ones you are referring to. Any specific sources, etc. would be very helpful.

@raphjd:

The UK's libel/slander laws are guilty until proven innocent.

I agree that being found guilty until proven innocent is a serious issue.

@raphjd:

Causing offense is a criminal act in most of the EU, and probably Canada.

I would like to know more, like the specific bills regarding this and which EU countries made offense a criminal act.

@raphjd:

Canada criminalizes speech that misgenders a person, even if the person doesn't present as that gender.  It also forces people to use made up words (pronouns) as chosen by the individual.

The purpose of C-16 is to make it illegal to deny someone a job or discriminate against them in the workplace based on the gender they identify with or outwardly express, as well as protect transgender and gender non-binary peoples from being a targeted group in an act of genocide. I severly doubt you're going to be punished if you misgender someone by accident. If, however, you purposely misgender the person as a way to harass, discriminate, etc. that would be a different story. Also, the bill doesn't criminalize misgendering someone. Violating C-16 is illegal, but you wouldn't go to jail. Therefore, misgendering is not being criminalized. Here's a great resource for understanding the bill better.

http://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-correct/

Several EU countries ban holocaust denial.

Several EU countries and Canada ban criticism of islam.

The UK's libel/slander laws are guilty until proven innocent.

Causing offense is a criminal act in most of the EU, and probably Canada.

Canada criminalizes speech that misgenders a person, even if the person doesn't present as that gender.  It also forces people to use made up words (pronouns) as chosen by the individual.

Several EU countries and Canada ban racist speech.

The list is seemingly never ending of banned speech.

@raphjd:

Only the US has freedom of speech.  The rest of the west has all kinds of bans and restrictions on speech.

The US has restrictions as well.

• A juvenile court in Massachusetts ruled that it is illegal to repeatedly encouraging someone to commit suicide.

Actually there was already case law on that from the early 1800's.  A prisoner did the same thing (minus the phone of course) to another prisoner in jail.

Only the US has freedom of speech.   The rest of the west has all kinds of bans and restrictions on speech.

The US has restrictions as well.

• A juvenile court in Massachusetts ruled that it is illegal to repeatedly encouraging someone to commit suicide.

Certain false statements are unprotected.

• False statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.

• Knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished.

• Negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.

• Some implicit statements of fact—those that may just have a "false factual connotation"—still could fall under this exception.

• It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely. However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed.

• Miller Test: Speech is unprotected if (1) "the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the [subject or work in question], taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" and (2) "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, contemporary community standards, sexual conduct defined by the applicable state law" and (3) "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

Secondly, it is irrelevant whether any part of the speech meets the Miller test; if it is classified under the child pornography exception at all, it becomes unprotected.

• Threats of violence that are directed at a person or group of persons that has the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected. However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes. Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected. However, sometimes even political speech can be a threat, and thus becomes unprotected.

You are absolutely correct, SCOTUS has always upheld freedom of speech, even when the speech is considered a threatening opinion or hate speech.  It is a ruling against liberals because it is liberals who are trying to eliminate and curtail freedom of speech - in the U.S. as well as Europe.  I can cite many examples if you are interested.

Only the US has freedom of speech.  The rest of the west has all kinds of bans and restrictions on speech.

I support free speech, but I'm not sure whether individuals/groups should be able to trademark slurs which are covered under freedom of speech.  Therefore, I have cognitive dissonance.

FTFY.

The Supreme Court has always applied the First Amendment to all speech, even that which others consider biased, prejudiced, or hateful.  It is also the basis for the legality of flag-burning, neo-nazi demonstrations and other forms of radicalism.  Not sure why the Trademark office tried to regulate "objectionable" phrases.  I would hardly call this decision a defeat for liberals.

You are absolutely correct, SCOTUS has always upheld freedom of speech, even when the speech is considered a threatening opinion or hate speech.  It is a ruling against liberals because it is liberals who are trying to eliminate and curtail freedom of speech - in the U.S. as well as Europe.  I can cite many examples if you are interested.

The Supreme Court doesn't vote "against" a political party.  That's not their job and not what happened here.

It's liberals that insist that we ban speech that might offend.

@raphjd:

MATAL, INTERIM DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE v. TAM, (2017) No. 15-1293

See more at:   http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/15-1293.html#sthash.mHieS4Eb.dpuf

In a unanimous vote, the US Supreme Court ruled against liberals when it comes to free speech.

"Offensive" logos (trademarks) are protected under free speech.

While this case had nothing to do DIRECTLY with Dick Gregory's autobiography NIGGER, if the case had gone the other way, the book would either be banned or forced to recall them and change the name/cover.

Hate speech is protected speech.

If they outlawed the "n-word" it would put all the rap and hip-hop artists out of business, as well as most black comedians.

This case was not about banning words, it was whether or not the government could allow certain worlds to be trademarked.

MATAL, INTERIM DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE v. TAM, (2017) No. 15-1293

See more at:   http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/15-1293.html#sthash.mHieS4Eb.dpuf

In a unanimous vote, the US Supreme Court ruled against liberals when it comes to free speech.

"Offensive" logos (trademarks) are protected under free speech.

While this case had nothing to do DIRECTLY with Dick Gregory's autobiography NIGGER, if the case had gone the other way, the book would either be banned or forced to recall them and change the name/cover.

Hate speech is protected speech.

If they outlawed the "n-word" it would put all the rap and hip-hop artists out of business, as well as most black comedians.