“2 a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights”

In a country guaranteeing freedom of expression in its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is it allowable for the citizens to discuss public policy questions such as the following?

1. Is it sensible to continue subsidizing about 1 million aboriginals at an annual cost of $10 billion dollars in public funds with little apparent benefit? Are there more effective ways to spend the money?

2. Given that some would claim that the above questions are inherently intolerant, is it allowable to discuss what, if anything, makes them intolerant? Assuming the politically-correct crowd would at least allow this second discussion, is it not likely that, in the course of that discussion, all of the same discussion points — as would have been addressed in the debate about the first questions — would be raised?

Bottom line: When it comes to public policy — how our elected representatives spend our money, there should be few, if any, limits on the scope of the discussion.

Emphatically not. I would defend you if you wished to describe why she disgusts you, or why her actions were deplorable, vulgar, etc. I would continue that defense (although I might not agree with it) even if others thought that you were offensive or your arguments were in bad taste. Similarly, I would defend their right to advance their views.

In simple terms, if you find speech offensive you or in bad taste you have a perfect right to ignore it and/or avoid it.

Put sugar in her tank? Have you seen the size of the gun she used to take down the deer? Kate is more than capable of defending herself against vandals and that, Peter, is exactly what you would be.

“Not quite - you have every right to complain”

No, it isn’t quite that simple. I don’t just want to complain, I want to promote the notion that such speech is socially (not legally) unacceptable. I want people to ostracize Kate and her pals for their indecency and vulgarity. As I understand it, the libertarian position is that the state should not be regulating speech or a lot of other things. I agree. But many decent libertarians I have argued with emphasize the importance of “social sanctions” to police comminity cohesion, although it is never clear to me whether they mean the hatemongers should be blackballed at the country club or pummelled in the local park. But, tell me, if the state should keep totally out of this, will you defend me if I put sugar in Kate’s motorcycle tank?

Examples??

I don’t see it so much as retaliatory pissing in the garden as trying to prove that someone visits a whorehouse - you have to go there, too.

Well, the free speech frontier before that was the Old West. Government made no effort to regulate speech, but you were liable to get shot if you said the wrong thing. No anonymous blogging names and some very strong market forces at play. Ah, but you libertarians just ain’t as tough as you used to be.

It also, I think, has much to do letting ideology go so far as to take critical judgment right out of the reality of everyday life. But anyway, what I am hearing from defenders of this stuff is not just that government shouldn’t police what they say (I agree), but it is also protected speech citizen-to-citizen and nobody has the right to complain because it is all being said in the cause of fighting tyranny–nobody here but us Patrick Henrys. Nonsense. That’s like chanting: “Down with the Whore of Babylon!” outside the cathedral during confirmation class and then priding oneself on standing up for freedom of religion.

Now, if you want to make special rules for the Internet on the basis that it is some kind of special enchanted kingdom for the anonymously cantankerous, maybe. But take a look at what is said (and how it is said) many times over in a typical week at SDA about Muslims, Natives and a few others, usually anonymously. Do you believe we should all be free to chant that kind of stuff in public parks and hockey arenas without interference from public or private sources? You want police protection for that? Freedom medals?

Dcardno: I’m trying, but it’s still coming across as “He pissed in my garden, so I snuck in after dark and pissed twice as much in his”. Yuck, yuck.

Those Montreal fans didn’t behave decently in the first place though, so I’m not sure how Ottawa fans’ retroactive decency proves anything.

And it IS the dynamic of blogs and the internet, which is exactly the point. When I’m blogging I’m no longer in Canada, I’m on the web, the last free speech frontier.