first for the sake of argument I'm going to define Freedom Of Speech as any speech that is not Hate Speech. so any speech that don't have the intention to harm. — hachit

Those are two different things though. Hate speech is a specific category of speech that is considered unprotected in some countries but protected in others. This is not necessarily the same as "intention to harm" which sounds closer to the US' "imminent lawless action" standard.

Freedom From Speech is the idea that we have the right to be free from speech that offends the person in question. this idea comes from the far left on the politcal spectrum and is part of there goal of a secular society — hachit

Does anyone on "the left" actually say this or is this just something "the left" is accused of?

Insults are not protected speech in many countries, but I have not heard of any initiative to make "offensive" speech illegal.

Those are two different things though.

I gave that definition for just the sake of argument. In my country you almost need to commit murder before being convicted of hate speech. In realty though I treat it as something that needs no definition because we all know what it is.

Does anyone on "the left" actually say this or is this just something "the left" is accused of?

The frist part of what I said is what people on the left say. They have arguments to back them up as well, most of them I find are doggy.

The second part about a secular society is something that some university professors said on the topic and when you look at this and others evidence it is convincing.w

Insults are not protected speech in many countries, but I have not heard of any initiative to make "offensive" speech illegal.

Right now the movmemt is limited but growing rapidly at least in my country. They cover it up with the words political correctness.

I'm not talking about protecting insults thought. I'm talking about protection of my right to express my opinion on a topic that may be sensitive to some.

Here are some articles that may help with understanding

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5115128/snowflake-generation-meaning-origin-term/

https://globalnews.ca/news/4009843/justin-trudeau-peoplekind-piers-morgan/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9842384/This-Equality-obsession-is-mad-bad-and-very-dangerous.html

And there are plenty more examples.

I gave that definition for just the sake of argument. In my country you almost need to commit murder before being convicted of hate speech. In realty though I treat it as something that needs no definition because we all know what it is. — hachit

If the definition isn't really relevant, it's usually best to use one that is actually commonly used, like from wikipedia.

The frist part of what I said is what people on the left say. They have arguments to back them up as well, most of them I find are doggy. — hachit

And do these "people on the left" have names? Or an article one could read?

Right now the movmemt is limited but growing rapidly at least in my country. They cover it up with the words political correctness. — hachit

So, are they or are they not trying to make "offensive speech" illegal? And what is the definition of "offensive speech" they use?

Here are some articles that may help with understanding

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5115128/snowflake-generation-meaning-origin-term/

https://globalnews.ca/news/4009843/justin-trudeau-peoplekind-piers-morgan/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9842384/This-Equality-obsession-is-mad-bad-and-very-dangerous.html

And there are plenty more examples. — hachit

Those are right-wing opinion pieces that also don't seem to mention either "freedom from speech" or making "offensive speech" illegal. Is it possible that you jumped to conclusions?

Those are right-wing

Yes but everyone has a bias in politics

These articles are probably what your looking for

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925

https://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/the-end-of-religious-liberty-in-canada-1264412.html

The second one is by extension if you didn't get it.

In the US, I doubt the founders anticipated how broadly the first amendment protection of free speech would become. The problem, I reckon, is not legislating against certain kinds of speech - becaue that has already been done - but how to expand those constraints without also curtailng speech that should be protected. The latter 20th century finds the Supreme Curt sympathizing with those offended, but nevertheless telling them in technical legalese to suck it up.

It's not as if people didn't intentionally offend, insult, etc. others, that some didn't advocate controversial socio-political approaches, etc. in the mid to late eighteenth century.

well that is the best I herd on the subject in years, I live in Canada which has a different political landscape.

Re the Canadian law you're referring to:

(a) Long before this bill was introduced, the Canadian criminal code prohibited the promotion of genocide and the public incitement of hatred against groups identifiable by colour, race, religion, and ethnic origin. (Sounds like they basically wanted to make it illegal to try to get a holocaust going against some ethnicity, religion, etc.)

(b) The bill simply proposed adding "sexual orientation" to the above. (So don't start a holocaust against LGBTQ folks, either)

(c) The bill actually added protections for good-faith opinions based on religious texts--which is the exact opposite of what the article you quoted above suggests.

(d) The bill in question was passed into law all the way back in 2004.

While I'm (controversially) not in favor of any speech restrictions whatsoever, this also seems like over-the-top scaremongering, basically. The law has been in effect for almost fifteen years. What are some of the questionable legal cases that have arisen in its wake?

The speech intended to be protected was political speech. Although search the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. I'm pretty sure that most of our US forefathers would have reached for their horsewhips at hearing or seeing some of the things protected now. Of course at the same time they would not have tolerated the encroachments on personal freedom we endure, or anything like Donald Trump.

What are you thinking we do as offensive speech-acts now that weren't done in the 1780s?

What are you thinking we do as offensive speech-acts now that weren't done in the 1780s? — Terrapin Station

Wearing jackets that say "Fuck the Draft" in court. Exhibitions of depravity as art. It's not the rowdiness of free speech in the political arena, it's the continual pressure at the boundaries even where politics isn't. Of course those boundaries can move and should, as necessary. But who defines "necessary"? I wouldn't mind a set of laws that penalized lying to add to laws against libel and slander.

Wearing jackets that say "Fuck the Draft" in court. Exhibitions of depravity as art. — tim wood

Re the first, I'd agree that wasn't done in the 18th century, but whenever I've been in court, there were restrictions on what people were allowed to wear--you'd be booted out for certain things, even in the juror pool room. That's not to say that people haven't worn whatever on some occasions, but has it ever been the case that people could routinely wear whatever they want in court? Aside from that, is clothing typically parsed as speech legally? There are a lot of clothing restrictions and laws in a lot of contexts, and I can't recall those restrictions being challenged as a freedom of speech issue (mainly because if they were, how did they hold up as freedom of speech restrictions)?

The the second, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What sort of art are we talking about re offending anyone via "exhibitions of 'depravity'"?

yes, it was past in 2004 but I didn't know about it and its affects till 2014.

a quote from
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat7.htm

The legislation was strongly opposed by religious conservatives. They warned that Christian pastors, Jewish rabbis, Muslim Imams, or other religious leaders could find themselves in jail if they were to preach that homosexuality is evil or sinful.

now yes the law has its Protections

now looking at this
http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/first-reading

even if not successful it is bad that it is being considered. if successful this will end with any Christian that dose not comply will be in jail. to my knowledge mostly pastors.

as I know your atheist, I know your have different opinion. Christians we told not to support people like the LGBTQ and what they stand for is sinful. Christians have no problem with LGBTQ existence as long as they don't interfere with Christians existence. which it looks like they are starting to.

also in Canada it is becoming easier restrict speech for being offended because people complain to the right people and they give in. which it regulating speech without the court. That is my biggest problem.

the reason C-250 is a problem is it help lay the ground work. your right there is scaremongering, but I like to attack the roots before there's a tree.

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). Immersion (Piss Christ), a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano.