Does freedom of speech protect FHRITP?

[Greed and Death]

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.

Isn't that how protesting in front of a politicians house works ?

You might have a defamation claim.

[Greed and Death]

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.

Typically one uses the police to kick someone off their property.

[Avernian Republic]

No. Any and all censorship of the public is bad. A free society relies on the free exchange of ideas in order to function. This censorship sets a dangerous precedent for other speech. It's going to creep in and take it bit by bit as people find something more and more offensive. No. Canada needs a first amendment like America.

[The Parkus Empire]

No. Any and all censorship of the public is bad. A free society relies on the free exchange of ideas in order to function. This censorship sets a dangerous precedent for other speech. It's going to creep in and take it bit by bit as people find something more and more offensive. No. Canada needs a first amendment like America.

Society needs a degree of freedom, but freedom to express dissent should not be used as a pretense to trample on common sense laws every community needs to even function

[Minoa]

Specific words aside, harassing or threatening people is clearly not freedom of speech in my opinion. This is why we have Article 17 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which says:

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

To simplify this, the ECHR doesn't give anyone the right to harass or threaten anyone and then use freedom of expression (Article 10) as an excuse.

[Finswedeway]

Specific words aside, harassing or threatening people is clearly not freedom of speech in my opinion. This is why we have Article 17 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which says:

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

To simplify this, the ECHR doesn't give anyone the right to harass or threaten anyone and then use freedom of expression (Article 10) as an excuse.

That sounds more like the convention is clarifying that no "State, group or person" has the right to "perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms [provided in this document]... or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention."

This isn't covering any speech, it covers acts. More specifically, acts infringing upon freedoms set forth by the convention and acts intended to the further limitation of freedoms set forth by the convention, which sounds all fine and dandy, just not anything related to what you said.

Any speech is freedom of speech. No one has the right to tell you what you can and can't say and enforce that order with authorities and legal action. Sure, catcalls, threats, harassment, they are all stupid, but it's not the State's responsibility to cater to your sensitivities. Take some responsibility for your own health, and only go to the authorities when it is a continuous and repeated targeting of you by one or more people.

[Sovaal]

I mean i don’t think you can actually regulate and control assholish behavior.

[Finswedeway]

f*ck her right in the P*ssy

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

f**k h*r*ght *n th* p***y

this message brought to you by the Ministry of Truth

[Sovaal]

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

f**k h*r*ght *n th* p***y

this message brought to you by the Ministry of Truth

**** *** ***** ** *** *****

[Juristonia]

If she feels "humiliated, embarassed" by just some asshole in a pickup truck, I think it might be a problem with her...

Weird. I would've thought the one with a problem was the asshole in the truck.

[Finswedeway]

f**k h*r*ght *n th* p***y

this message brought to you by the Ministry of Truth

**** *** ***** ** *** *****

w*uldn't want to r*sk h*rting anyone's f**lings!

[Sovaal]

If she feels "humiliated, embarassed" by just some asshole in a pickup truck, I think it might be a problem with her...

Weird. I would've thought the one with a problem was the asshole in the truck.

But does legislation have to be created because of a asshole in a truck?

[Aillyria]

If she feels "humiliated, embarassed" by just some asshole in a pickup truck, I think it might be a problem with her...

Weird. I would've thought the one with a problem was the asshole in the truck.

Or maybe she needs to "woman up" and stop being a crybaby about someone being a big meany?

[L a z y T o w n]

Weird. I would've thought the one with a problem was the asshole in the truck.

Or maybe she needs to "woman up" and stop being a crybaby about someone being a big meany?

but the first rule of team 10 is not to be a meanie head!

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Criminalization of speech that offends is basically a blank check to censorship of all speech.

No, it isn't. Offending speech isn't the same as harassing.

It does actually. First came into idea by people who decided that the king shouldn't behead people with heretical ideas or open insults in front of his court. The freedom of speech is so your insults towards gov/figurehead/any person in the gov in general without fearing repercussions. This does not defend you from your employer or people's opinion of you.

Public figures are not the same as ordinary people. Many countries already have further privacy laws for private citizens vs major public figures. Even then, I'm only arguing that harassing in-person like that shouldn't be allowed.

Do you know what harassment means?

[Kramanica]

Uh, yeah, yes it does.

[Risottia]

This isn't covering any speech, it covers acts.

Pretty sure that speaking is considered an act in European jurisprudence.

[Shofercia]

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.

In Canada? Damn, they should be thrown in jail! Not only did they say FHRITP, but they also didn't apologize after that! The bastards! Even Canadian bomber pilots apologize after obliterating a family or two.

[Finswedeway]

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

In Canada? Damn, they should be thrown in jail! Not only did they say FHRITP, but they also didn't apologize after that! The bastards! Even Canadian bomber pilots apologize after obliterating a family or two.

Sorry for the inconvenience, but I respectfully disagree, eh?

[Risottia]

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

In Canada? Damn, they should be thrown in jail! Not only did they say FHRITP, but they also didn't apologize after that! The bastards! Even Canadian bomber pilots apologize after obliterating a family or two.

How about those who HEARD the guy shout FH(r)ITP? They should apologise, too, for hearing him while he was being inappropriate! It's the Canadian thing to do!

[Ethel mermania]

In Canada? Damn, they should be thrown in jail! Not only did they say FHRITP, but they also didn't apologize after that! The bastards! Even Canadian bomber pilots apologize after obliterating a family or two.

How about those who HEARD the guy shout FH(r)ITP? They should apologise, too, for hearing him while he was being inappropriate! It's the Canadian thing to do!

Exactly, the court should make them apologize, then the court should apologize for making them apologize. After all it is the Canadian way.

[Pope Joan]

If she feels "humiliated, embarassed" by just some asshole in a pickup truck, I think it might be a problem with her...

If the person is not in my physical face at the time, I just use a sort of emotional filter and go on about my business.

In a world full of unpleasant people, you could not have any kind of life otherwise.

[Shofercia]

In Canada? Damn, they should be thrown in jail! Not only did they say FHRITP, but they also didn't apologize after that! The bastards! Even Canadian bomber pilots apologize after obliterating a family or two.

Sorry for the inconvenience, but I respectfully disagree, eh?

Well played sir, well played.

How about those who HEARD the guy shout FH(r)ITP? They should apologise, too, for hearing him while he was being inappropriate! It's the Canadian thing to do!

Exactly, the court should make them apologize, then the court should apologize for making them apologize. After all it is the Canadian way.

And then they must hand out maple leaf syrup to the homeless, free of charge!

[Petrolheadia]

If she feels "humiliated, embarassed" by just some asshole in a pickup truck, I think it might be a problem with her...

Weird. I would've thought the one with a problem was the asshole in the truck.

Assholes will always exist. They're a part of society.

And being able to ignore them is a part of life in society.

[Veleth]

You shouldn't throw someone in prison for saying something. Period.