The Coulter episode

Originally Posted by Blondin

When I first read this I wasn't sure if he was referring to Houle, the authors of the hate-speech legislation or a bit of both. Still, it is disingenuous to say that Houle's letter was not a kind of veiled threat - "if we determine that you are promoting hatred you may be charged with a crime". Trying to make this sound like a bit of friendly advice would be spin.

I may have missed the quote you are referring to but I do not see it in his letter. What he wrote (according to the post) was:

"You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind."

If you are suggesting the Francois Houle recognized Coulter's propensity to provoke using language that would fit our Hate speech laws then I agree this is most likely the case. I suspect he was covering his arse - if she had spoken (as was expected) and provoked Hate speech charges (viable ones) then people would ask why he didn't warn her, other groups would ask why he had her come up knowing her history etc. I really think that's what this was. No where in his letter do I see him doing anything wrong - his is simply accurately stating the intent of the law (again, most likely to cover his butt).

Originally Posted by Blondin

I understand perfectly what the intended purpose is of hate-speech laws and I admit that so far they have not been abused in any great fashion (except perhaps by people like Francois Houle). I worry about what kind of precedent we set when we design legal mechanisms for penalizing or criminalizing ideas based on something as subjective as hatred. There are far too many people who might not draw the same distinctions between hatred and criticism or satire or blasphemy or offense that you or I might.

On this we can certainly agree. I also agree we need to remain vigilant to ensure the intent is not abused. Again it is not criminalizing ideas but the hate portion is subjective and that is a concern I share. Either approach is not going to be perfect - I can see why you have your stance and mine is not far off.

Oh, Blondin, thanks for the link to Ed Brayton! Just looked at "Teabonics Lessons" and ROTFL.

Soooooo,

I have been looking into this and though I have not changed my stance (yet). I certainly can see the dangers. I can understand the argument that the constraints we attempt to place (for good reason) can and likely will be abused to prevent freedom of speech.

Anywho - I will continue to look at this but I appreciate the discussion as it has prompted me to look at this in more detail.