Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...University enforces offensive-language ban
11.20.2008 10:42am EST
(Kingston, Ontario) Students who make politically incorrect comments at Ontario’s Queen’s University, in Canada, can expect a lecture, whether they’re in or out of class.
The Kingston university has hired student facilitators to step in if they overhear students making homophobic or racial slurs, remarks bashing women or other offensive language.The dean of student affairs at Queen’s says if students are making offensive comments loud enough for others to hear, it’s not a private conversation anymore.
Jason Laker says the facilitators use a respectful, non-confrontational approach.
But Angela Hickman, who edits a campus newspaper, says having such a program could stifle public discussion.
Hate speech which tends to incite physical violence against a targeted group is illegal in Canada. It SHOULD be illegal in the USA. Shouting (or singing) “Kill all faggots” is no difference from shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre. There are actionable LIMITS to “free speech.”
Bud Burgoon-Clark
who thinks loud-mouthed PAGAN FERTILITY CULTS should be TAXED
Gee, Angela, I think most people can have a discussion without using loud offensive language or epithets, especially at a University.The Right are now limited to name-calling because they have no other valid standard to use.
As Bud said, we have hate speech restrictions in Canada and although many wrongly believe they are used frivolously, they are not and this case makes the distinction. Free speech and free thought are a right, but, as with all rights, yours end where my nose begins. That is to say, although you may speak your mind about any given issue, you do not, nor should you, have the right to advocate harm or fear of any person or group of persons. The rule in this case is clear, expectation of privacy and private conversations are protected unless you are in a public place and when loudly stating hateful or harmful positions, your expectation of privacy is nil and thus you would be subject to penalty, whatever they made be.
I am always struck by the shear ignorance of people who believe that they should be allowed to advocate hate without sanction. It’s one thing to have an opinion but really, do you need to make statements along the lines of: “I hate (fill in the blank) and I think they should all be killed” in public. And, be honest that is hate speech and not an opinion. There is a difference and most intelligent people know it.
why can’t Helen Keller drive?
because she’s a woman!!!
Knowing Queens they’re most likely worried should someone say something like “I hate Capitalists.”
Good for Queens U. any comments , articles or public speech directed against ‘us’ is defended by the shrill cry of “free speech” by the religious right. ASny and all ; criticism of them is immediately labelled an attack on free speech ,and their religious beliefs. Their ilk has consistently abused the core concept of ‘freedom of speech’ through the years , with the use of anti-gay lies , slander , defamation and venomous innuendo , it is self evident that if given a half an inch they will take a hundred miles. The only thing , I believe , that might put a crimp in their actions is cascading criticism of their actions and hypocrisy coupled with mountains of litigation to (hopefully) eventually wear them down. Religious beliefs are based on ‘faith’ ; not ‘facts’.WE are FACTS.
I completely disagree with this rule. Jon said that the rule aren’t used frivolously. While that may be true right now, as time goes on people will be more and more people-like and it will be applied frivolously. Even worse it will be applied dangerously.
I assume that in Canada, like here in the U.S., I do have the right not to be harmed. But, at least here, there is no such right to not be offended. Being offended by something is not the same thing as being harmed by it.
If some Christian says, “God finds homosexuality to be a grievous sin which is deserving of Hell, and yet He stands ready to forgive even the repentant homosexual and welcome them into Eternal Life”, I am offended by that. But I am not harmed.
However, if I happen to be in a gravel pit and overhear a zealot quoting Leviticus 20 (where it says, essentially, that gay people should be stoned to death), I would be equally offended, but I may well be in harm’s way as well.
There’s a difference between harm and offense. Either we all have the freedom of speech or none of us have that freedom.
Bud Burgoon-Clark, I think there is a US law that would apply here: obviously offensive abuse or threats are illegal, as is language that tends to incite immediate violence or threatens to disturb the tranquility of citizens of a community. At least in Texas, this law applies when the language occurs in a public place.
I wonder if that texas law, in fact, or in practice, would apply if the victim of the hate speech was gay.
But I agree that there needs to be limits on what can be considered hate speech. And those, especially those in positions of a big audience, with power via religion, should be scrutinized closely for being accessories before the fact when some of their parishioners get involved in hate crimes.
Sorry – you can’t advocate killing the President. Ought to be the same for everyone.
what did the black kid get for christmas…
my bike!