Quote:
Originally Posted by RACooper
Yes. IF said "free speech" is used to violate the rights and freedom of others - just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you have freedom to commit a criminal offence or 'hate crime'. Wilders can easily be demonstrated to have a long history of 'hate crimes' as it specifically relates to immigrants, Muslims, non-Dutch speakers, non-Protestants, etc. - therefore in light of said pattern of conduct and history of attacks and violations of the criminal code of the Netherlands and the EU as it relates to discriminatory and hateful speech and acts I would happily applaud Wilders being tossed in the can (or at least fined)... unfortunately it'd only play into his hands as a "martyr" and "sufferer" for the "truth".
|
While this line of thinking might be how you all roll in Canada, I think I'd prefer to err on the generous freedom of speech side of things like we have in the US.
When speech becomes an act, then we're talking about something different, of course, but even then, I'm not 100% sure hate crime legislation makes sense to me. Does the racial or ethnic motivation really make a brutal murder worse that a brutal murder with no racial motivation? Sometimes it seems worse; other times all brutal murders seem equally as bad.
And Wilders being a jerk doesn't really change what's presented in this film really. Aren't you kind of shifting to ad hominem here? Wilders is a hateful jerk so the claims of the film have no merit kind of thing?
How do you respond to the links made by the film? Do you think the speech and actions he connects are actually just somehow coincidental?
ETA: I don't actually see myself watching the film any time soon. But the descriptions that I read of it seem well within what any society ought to allow, especially if you are linking the words of extremist with their own actions.
Threaded Mode
