Does freedom of speech protect FHRITP?

[Finswedeway]

the Free Speech response to harassment is to ignore them. If your happiness depends upon what other people say to you, there is something wrong with you.

There's such a thing as personal accountability, you know?

Therefore, I shall camp outside your door and yell, "Finswedeway performs oral sex on anyone and everyone for $5 a head" all day.

I mean, if your happiness depends upon what other people say to you, there is something wrong with you.

Go ahead. As long as you aren't on private property, I have no right to tell you not to do that.

EDIT:

Yes, generally speaking- you're free to speak. But other people are under no obligation to be receptive to whatever you're saying. If you're making a nuisance of yourself, you can get negative consequences which might include being thrown out the door.

This

[Kanussiya]

Being able to speak is important, that is a fact nobody should deny. What is not important, however, is being allowed to harass people in cold blood. People sticking to their 1st Amendment Rights while they flagrantly abuse them by swearing like a barbarian, only to be shunned by society is like complaining when you have your guns taken away when you shoot up a school.

"Hurrpa durp I have the right to bear arms and to speak." Sure you do, but you do not have the right to viciously discharge them on random people, whether for fun (in which case you have severe mental illness) or for literally no reason.

[Finswedeway]

Being able to speak is important, that is a fact nobody should deny. What is not important, however, is being allowed to harass people in cold blood. People sticking to their 1st Amendment Rights while they flagrantly abuse them by swearing like a barbarian, only to be shunned by society is like complaining when you have your guns taken away when you shoot up a school.

"Hurrpa durp I have the right to bear arms and to speak." Sure you do, but you do not have the right to viciously discharge them on random people, whether for fun (in which case you have severe mental illness) or for literally no reason.

"Golly gee, I sure do love oppression; it prevents people from hurting my feelings!"

Guns can kill and maim. Words cannot.

[Des-Bal]

Without persistence I wouldn't call it harassment.

[Hatterleigh]

As long as it isn't one person or organized group targeting a person, and doing it repeatedly, then yes. Sure, it's a rude thing to say, but the law doesn't protect your feelings.

[MERIZoC]

A provincial court judge in St. John's

We don't have absolute "freedom of speech" here, there are many exceptions. And apparently this isn't among them. There's your answer.

[Kanussiya]

"Golly gee, I sure do love oppression; it prevents people from hurting my feelings!"

Guns can kill and maim. Words cannot.

Either way, it is a pretty big nuisance that people should really stop abusing if they want to be advocates for them.

There is a pretty noticeable line between people (and governments) implementing social sanctions (or laws) to prevent a cacophony of absolutely useless spoken words, and actual oppression. So what flavor will it be for you?
Will it be "oppression" by governments telling you to stop wasting breath by running your mouth on some unpopular opinion of yours, or will it be the people telling you to maybe be less morally inept? Either way, that is totally out of line for people or governments to encourage dignity and mutual respect!

After all, there is literally no difference between people being encouraged to respect other people's boundaries and actual Juche speech and press policies.

[Finswedeway]

"Golly gee, I sure do love oppression; it prevents people from hurting my feelings!"

Guns can kill and maim. Words cannot.

Either way, it is a pretty big nuisance that people should really stop abusing if they want to be advocates for them.

There is a pretty noticeable line between people (and governments) implementing social sanctions (or laws) to prevent a cacophony of absolutely useless spoken words, and actual oppression. So what flavor will it be for you?
Will it be "oppression" by governments telling you to stop wasting breath by running your mouth on some unpopular opinion of yours, or will it be the people telling you to maybe be less morally inept? Either way, that is totally out of line for people or governments to encourage dignity and mutual respect!

After all, there is literally no difference between people being encouraged to respect other people's boundaries and actual Juche speech and press policies.

Encouraged is fine, but forcing people to be subjugated by a government (or really any organization) telling them what they can and can't say does not sit well with me. Let the social consequences of being a dick pay for themselves, rather than imposing government punishment on said dicks.

[Kanussiya]

Encouraged is fine, but forcing people to be subjugated by a government (or really any organization) telling them what they can and can't say does not sit well with me. Let the social consequences of being a dick pay for themselves, rather than imposing government punishment on said dicks.

Actually I do somewhat agree with that logic, but honestly, support and/or cooperation from any organization should only be expected by contract. I would imagine that most organizations will not do business with someone who is generally just a distraction. Wouldn't an organization like a company refusing service to someone like this qualify as "social consequences?"

[Finswedeway]

Encouraged is fine, but forcing people to be subjugated by a government (or really any organization) telling them what they can and can't say does not sit well with me. Let the social consequences of being a dick pay for themselves, rather than imposing government punishment on said dicks.

Actually I do somewhat agree with that logic, but honestly, support and/or cooperation from any organization should only be expected by contract. I would imagine that most organizations will not do business with someone who is generally just a distraction. Wouldn't an organization like a company refusing service to someone like this qualify as "social consequences?"

I suppose if an employee is being a nuisance, it's justified to fire him/her, because the employer makes a voluntary deal with the employee. This would also apply to state employees. But citizens are more comparable to costumers than employees.

[Hakons]

the Free Speech response to harassment is to ignore them. If your happiness depends upon what other people say to you, there is something wrong with you.

There's such a thing as personal accountability, you know?

Therefore, I shall camp outside your door and yell, "Finswedeway performs oral sex on anyone and everyone for $5 a head" all day.

I mean, if your happiness depends upon what other people say to you, there is something wrong with you.

If you're right outside the door, they could kick you off the property. They could also call up their friends to encourage you to leave their neighborhood/appartment.

[Greed and Death]

What exactly was the charge?

Ding! correct line of thought.

[Hakons]

Of course this speech is protected. Obscenities are uncivil, but they're still legal. This is a no brainer.

[Katganistan]

Therefore, I shall camp outside your door and yell, "Finswedeway performs oral sex on anyone and everyone for $5 a head" all day.

I mean, if your happiness depends upon what other people say to you, there is something wrong with you.

If you're right outside the door, they could kick you off the property. They could also call up their friends to encourage you to leave their neighborhood/appartment.

That would be assault.

[Ethel mermania]

What exactly was the charge?

Ding! correct line of thought.

disturbing the peace, acorrding to the article in the op

[The of Japan]

in USA, it should, if it doesn't already. The freedom of speech precisely protects speech that others may not like.

[Finswedeway]

If you're right outside the door, they could kick you off the property. They could also call up their friends to encourage you to leave their neighborhood/appartment.

That would be assault.

I'm not certain, but I'm fairly sure that if someone is trespassing on your property, you are allowed to kick them out, whether or not by force. And if there was someone or a group of people who owned the neighborhood, like if it was a gated community or something, they would be within their rights to force you out.

You're free to say what you want, but you can't just invade people's property.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

"an emotional disturbance does not meet the criteria for a charge of disturbing the peace."

Seems balanced.

[Hakons]

If you're right outside the door, they could kick you off the property. They could also call up their friends to encourage you to leave their neighborhood/appartment.

That would be assault.

You're allowed to force people of your property, and the traditional form of intimidation by gathering your neighbors is both effective and legal. Idealism against freedom of speech, whatever that means, would probably dissolve in the face of five large neighbors that would like you to leave.

[Shofercia]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/justin-penton-heather-gillis-fhitp-fhritp-1.4542901

A provincial court judge in St. John's has ruled it could be illegal to shout a sexist slur at female reporters, but not in the case of what happened to NTV reporter Heather Gillis last year outside the city dump.

It was never a question of whether Justin Penton hurled the words at Gillis while she was interviewing St. John's Mayor Danny Breen at the Robin Hood Bay waste management facility in April 2017. The issue for the judge was whether or not it constituted a crime in that context.

Another FHRITP incident in St. John's, another police complaint filed
Man charged for yelling FHRITP obscenity at NTV journalist
Gillis reported she was "humiliated, embarrassed and disgusted" by the comments. Breen said it made him uncomfortable.

But Judge Colin Flynn ruled an emotional disturbance does not meet the criteria for a charge of disturbing the peace.

"Something more than emotional upset and a momentary interruption in a conversation is needed to constitute the criminal offence," Flynn wrote in his decision.

Penton did not appear in court on Tuesday for the decision.

Last April, Gillis had just finished interviewing Breen, who was a city councillor at the time, and was following up with a few off-camera questions. Penton drove by in his truck and yelled "F--k her in the p---y" on his way into the dump.

So basically, it's getting to the point where the FHRITP meme is resulting in criminal charges in Canada. But not convictions; at least not yet. However, they haven't been left completely off the table; future cases may end in that depending on the context.

This seems like the right balance. We shouldn't create a black check people using this choice of words as a means to utter threats, or an incitement to gang-rape specific targets. But you don't want the government censoring speech over feelings alone either.

You either define trolling as free speech, or you don't. If Nazis can march through Jewish neighborhoods under the guise of free speech, then, in said place, FHRITP shouldn't be an issue.

[Ethel mermania]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/justin-penton-heather-gillis-fhitp-fhritp-1.4542901


So basically, it's getting to the point where the FHRITP meme is resulting in criminal charges in Canada. But not convictions; at least not yet. However, they haven't been left completely off the table; future cases may end in that depending on the context.

This seems like the right balance. We shouldn't create a black check people using this choice of words as a means to utter threats, or an incitement to gang-rape specific targets. But you don't want the government censoring speech over feelings alone either.

You either define trolling as free speech, or you don't. If Nazis can march through Jewish neighborhoods under the guise of free speech, then, in said place, FHRITP shouldn't be an issue.

tbf this is canada not the US. the law is different.

[MGTOWia]

This is the kind of nonsense that occurs in societies that lack the equivalent of the First Amendment. And even in societies where free speech is protected, it is still under relentless attack from agenda-driven judicial dictators and SJW legal terrorists (among others).

Short answer: YES.

[Salus Maior]

..."F--k her in the p---y" on his way into the dump.
So basically, it's getting to the point where the FHRITP meme ...

...So, "fuck her in the pussy" becomes FHRITP.

Uhm.

Why they "R"?

f*ck her right in the P*ssy

[Farnhamia]

...So, "fuck her in the pussy" becomes FHRITP.

Uhm.

Why they "R"?

f*ck her right in the P*ssy

You could leave out the asterisks, it's okay in this context.

[Cekoviu]

in USA, it should, if it doesn't already. The freedom of speech precisely protects speech that others may not like.

This is specifically about Canadian freedom of speech laws.