Defending free speech by preventing free speech? Isn’t that rather like Fucking to protect Virginity??
Defending Free Speech by Preventing Free Speech is like Fucking to protect Virginity.
Arse: Double post. Can an admin please remove this one?
A seventh year human rights student, a SEVENTH YEAR! How long do these courses go on for?
But sure by tearing the wall down is denying liberty of free speech for others? I am really struggling to see the mans logic here.
Really disappointing. He’s got massive insecurity issues if he thinks all free speech is purely for the basis of discrimination and hate. Hopefully he won’t be such a douche the next time.
Free Speech should NEVER include the right to incite to hatred.
according to the report there was no incitement to hatred on the wall.. and i am sorry but free speech means free speech for all .
In Canada, there is not the concept of “Free Speech” as it is (mis)understood in the United States.
The American concept of “Free Speech” is a red herring used in any hateful argument in the U.S. They always use it as a defense after having spewed some particularly vile utterance : “my constitutional right to free speech”.
However, the American constitution does NOT give every individual the absolute right to free speech. It specifies only that the GOVERNMENT shall not make any laws that abrogate or impede the expression of citizens’ free speech. This was meant as a safeguard against limiting dissenting voices in political discourse.
In other words, any American can say what he wants… and any other American can tell him to the shut the fu** up, or even fire him, for his speech. The 1st amendment, despite idiotic decisions by certain judges, does not protect absolutely.
In Canada, one can be arrested for hate speech.
In Canada the concept is: you have freedom to say what you want, within limits that respect the rights and dignity of others.
In other words, freedom coupled with responsibility.
Canada – The United States…. two VERY very different countries. We may share a continent, but we sure as hell are a different people.
Actually, one can’t be arrested solely for hate speech. One could have been taken to the Human Rights Tribunal, but that’s not necessarily true as of 2012 as there were changes made to that structure.
Overzealousness is not a good thing. Neither is denying rights to others, regardless of their views. In Canada, everyone is protected under the Charter, and everyone is able to live their lives freely and legally. This man does not speak for me.
Sounds like he’s unbalanced.
“not every opinion is valid, nor deserving of expression”.
But who decides?
Canada has such a good record on Gay rights and it sounds like there was more positivity than negativity.
A free speech wall in Tower Hamlets? Now that’s another matter.
Maybe he should visit PN instead:- he would receive a warm welcome from the assortedl PC police who patrol these forums.
You love it, you grumpy old fart.
There’s no such thing as free speech. Just carefully controlled speech – the rules of which depend on the society that you live in.
For example, in the West, a fashion designer cannot not say anti-semitic remarks without loosing everything. But a pope can say anti-gay remarks and be applauded.
What a little idiot. If there was any specific hate speech on there then he should have raised that. But to go all Mr High and Mighty and tear down what everyone else contributed to, that’s just arrogant. He doesn’t do himself any favours.
He managed to make himself sound as if he’s indulged in a temper tantrum. Well, actually he did. Silly twit.
Free speech is a difficult one. For a bit of clarity, I think when someones free speech causes considerable suffering to someone else, then censorship of some kind I think is acceptable. The right of free speech should never include the right to harm or threaten. I dont know if this particular case warranted such action mind you
Who gets to decide what counts as hate speech again?
Anyone who is hurt or harrassed by another’s ignorance and bullying.
People are guaranteed freedom of speech in the USA, but they sometimes tend to forget that people are not guaranteed an audience. Forcing students to put up with the sort of anonymous posting one might associate with Youtube comments in the hallways and lecture rooms of their school may very well create a hostile learning environment for some minorities.
The irony of course, that with his actions to limit the speech of anyone who doesn’t agree with him, this guy has actually increased the determination of others to speak out.
As an alumni of Carleton that is familiar with the antics of Arun Smith, I want to repeat something that this article did very well to highlight. Mr. Smith does not speak for the gay community. He did not consult the community when he unilaterally decided this wall was homophobic. He also didn’t consult the community when he took actions that many of us condemn. I just hate that every other media story doesn’t point out that this isn’t a “gays vs freedom of speech” issue, it’s Arun Smith vs the concept of freedom of speech.
I hope that is clear.
It is completely antagonistic. I’m not surprised someone ripped it down. Good on em!
This is not helpful. He would have a point if the wall had been riddled with anti-gay comments but that was obviously not the case. Ironically, he recorded a YouTube video last February for the Carleton University Students’ Association, where he expressed his desire for safe places where “every voice is empowered” and where “every student’s voice is heard.” Talk about cognitive dissonance. He really comes across as a self-righteous little jerk.
In the end, all that he has accomplished with his misguided action is giving fodder to the anti-gay brigade.
Mr. Smith is just a thug. The wall had pro-gay comments on it, and Students for Liberty support gay rights vocally. This perpetual student is seeking attention for himself. He is more a rodeo clown than an activist.
Pathetic, juvenile little Stalinist.