High court: Does father's pain trump free speech?

[Hurkyl]

This of course begs the question of what does it mean for a statement made in good faith to publicly incite hatred?

Maybe you just need a definition of good faith?

A google search reveals several variations on the same theme. This one from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/good+faith:

Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. It derives from the translation of the Latin term bona fide, and courts use the two terms interchangeably.​

 

[Dale]

"Good faith" is a pretty common term in contract law, but I don't know enough law to figure out how it would apply to free speech.

 

[Evo]

Amnesty International fully supports Canada's bill c250

http://www.amnesty.ca/resource_centre/Bill_C250.pdf

Clarification of "good faith" verbiage.

The bill also expanded one of the defences available to persons charged with the incitement of hatred, allowing for the expression of good-faith opinions based on religious texts, in addition to the preexisting defence allowing the good-faith expression of opinions on religious subjects.

3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250_(37th_Canadian_Parliament,_2nd_Session)#Criminal_Code_text

 

[JaredJames]

This is a good article concerning the UK:

http://www.civilrightsmovement.co.uk/right-freedom-speech.html

Note the following section:

Responsibility and Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech and expression are not absolute rights; this means that there are exceptions to these fundamental rights. For example publishing material or making comments that are specifically designed to incite racial hatred can be deemed to be a hate crime. Anyone who is found committing this offence can be charged in a criminal court. Many people argue that publishing a person’s opinion, even if it is offensive to others, is a right. However, if the material is intended to bring harm against others then that is an abuse of the victim’s other civil and human rights.

 

[Gokul43201]

Forget about publishing material that can incite racial hatred. You can go to jail (in the UK) for publishing material that is obscene or likely to "corrupt" the average person. Don't have time to source that right now, but I think the relevant law comes from the Obscene Materials Act (approximate name), or somesuch.

Also, if I recall correctly, the UK is bound by freedom of expression protections that come from its signing on to the European Human Rights Convention (also possibly an approximate title), but I'm not sure how exactly that fits in with its own laws.

 

[mugaliens]

Forget about publishing material that can incite racial hatred. You can go to jail (in the UK) for publishing material that is obscene or likely to "corrupt" the average person.

Oh my gosh! Is the UK still recognizing racial anything?

Folks, Frank Sinatra, Tony Curtis, Natalie Wood, and Leora Dana first (I think) visited this on the silver screen more than 52 years ago! I watched it tonight! Great flick.

I think it's time to uplug from the very old mentality and realign with what began more than half a century ago (two centuries ago, if you include written literature).

If you can't, fine, but we'll leave you in the dust.

In you can, please stop referencing race issues entirely. It's long been proven most race issues are 99% skin and hair color, as well as hair type and facial features, and less than 0.03% genes, and as a mutt, I'm banking on the genes.

Yes, I'm a mutt! A teency amount of American Indian, tons of Scottish, Irish, English, and Dutch (that's "Holland" as per countless of my namesake still living in that land and no other).

Come one, people - I can put on airs with the best of them, but when it comes right down to it, I'm much like the rest of our world - a mix.

To be perfectly honest, since about 30,000 years ago, we're all a mix, just different shades of whatever. If that's what we're fighting over, then those of us fighting need to find a very dark, tight, and smelly place to vent their rage, as I, for one, am sick of i.

We seem to be able to work things out here, so why not on the international front? I understand idealisms rule galore, but isn't that why we spend billions on state department folks to work through this stuff (and no, I'm not "asininely inane with respect to "how the system works.")

Italy reminded me of little. Southern Switzerland reminded me of all that I remembered of Italy, including the rotating bells used as a ringer. Well-built houses, good people, airplanes flying around Lake Como, beautiful lakes... I suspect some of the folks I recall from my earliest days simply moved North.

Seriously want to know what's more hardy, genetically speaking? Turns out the age-old practice of trading the chieftan's daughter to the winning warrior of the neighboring tribe is what combined both the best of the best in terms of winning warriors, along with diversivication of the gene pool.

Thoroughbreds? Hey! Great for dogs! But does anyone have ANY idea of the great lengths dog shows go through to make sure that the undesirable genetically inbread characteristics of thoroughbreds aren't passed down to the next generation? They're inspected at each dog show, and if there's the slightest hint of the common abnormalities, they're not allowed to breed. Yes, finally, vets and geneticists are working hand in hand to both preserve the breeds (none of which have been around longer than 500 years) while eliminating the genetic abmormalities of genetic inbreeding.

So, back to the OP.

 

[mugaliens]

I'm sorry, Evo, but this sounds like a wonderful opportunity towards wiping out a third of our nation's (ok, the US) lawfully-established and Constitutional basis for existence.

It "sounds" terrific! So does snake oil. So have 88% of the not very good revolutions to the powers that be which have allowed those revolutions to happen to the detriment and death of their citizens.

I see full-well the religious exemption in the text, Evo. I've you'd please take at the forum's history, however, you'd see I posed a much more scathing review of racision, and I'd extend that to religion on the same basis.

I in no way, manner, shape, or intent desire to throw any baby out with the bathwater. We're in this for the long haul, folks. Far too many deep-seated systems of belief based on religion, politics, science, ideology, etc.

Even in the CA law which Evo posted, I see serious grounds for contention and violation of human rights, regardless of how carefully it might have been couched in the original.

In the words of Richard Dawson (sound of a buzzer).

What I find flabbershasting is that today's college students routinely come up with FAR better proposals for how to conduct our nation's affairs. Perhaps armed with all of our crap, they're far better suited for figuring a way around it? Perhaps we simply ought to let them?

Ah, trust! There's an idea!

Sheesh...

 

[Proton Soup]

Amnesty International fully supports Canada's bill c250

http://www.amnesty.ca/resource_centre/Bill_C250.pdf

Clarification of "good faith" verbiage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250_(37th_Canadian_Parliament,_2nd_Session)#Criminal_Code_text

what about RAHOWA and the Creativity Movement?