|
OwlFancier posted:You don't need to prosecute people criminally for everything but "being a massive rear end in a top hat in public" is a reasonable thing for there to be police powers to prevent. Such law will only exists for 15 minutes before it becomes infamously associated with police abuse. Who What Now posted:It depends. SedanChair's scenario was vague, and so was my reply. If the scenario is that a gay couple is minding their own business and they are approached by a third party who begins to, very calmly and politely, tell them that their lifestyle is disgusting and sinful, then if the couple asks the third party to stop and/or leave then that third party is obligated to do so or be guilty of harassment. I believe you have a freedom to speak freely, but you do not have the freedom to be heard by an audience against their will. I can just walk around in a blackface halloween costume and get my detractors arrested? awesome! on the left fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Nov 1, 2015 |
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:More importantly why do you keep avoiding my question about the potential political element of calling gay people inhuman? Seems wasteful to start out by saying gay people are inhuman. You'd want to use a media campaign to show them as inhuman monsters, then voice support for the growing mass of people who start voicing the image you've carefully constructed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Narrower (legal) Definition Is truth an absolute defense to this law? Specifically the part about disparagement of a protected individual or group. Canada's law is great because factual statements are disqualified from being considered hate speech. Example: "Orange people are stupid" is hate speech, "Orange people have an average IQ of 84" is not
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 01:39
|
|