The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[sixblades]

My point is that this is the only place in the world where it is legal to speak your mind and as long as you aren’t yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, any thing you say is legal. And that it is not the case anywhere else.  Wasn’t implying he should or shouldn’t feel any particular way. Not sure how you would jump to that conclusion. Just read what I said and take it at face value.
If it’s in accurate then I ask you how or why is that the case? I don’t know of anywhere else where you can’t be fined, imprisoned, etc for speaking your mind.
 

Yeah, I can see how what I wrote could look like an attack - not my intention.

I was trying to address the ideas that freedom of speech is unique to the US and that his freedom to express his viewpoint is only possible because he’s in the US. Like the US, most democratic nations legally protect freedom of speech. I hate to cite Wikipedia, but it’s the most succinct list I could quickly find addressing the topic (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country). The big difference we see is the degree to which these countries espouse the value of freedom of speech at their founding as well as the lengths they go to establish and protect a free and independent press, and that’s the big plus the US, but not a unique characteristic.

I was just trying to to say that Individual freedom of expression is more widely protected than we may believe.

[Negatory]

3 hours ago, Guardian said:

An entitlement only afforded to you in the US. Free speech isn’t legal anywhere else in the world.

I guess I’m lucky to be in the US, because it allows me to spout my totally socialist viewpoints unabashedly. Whereas if I was in any other country I would be liable to be arrested or fined immediately.

Obvious sarcasm if not noted.

On another note, did you hear about the Press Freedom Rankings? I hear we are working our way up there, hopefully one day we’ll be as free as all those other first world countries!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index#Rankings_and_scores_by_country

Arbitrary buzzwords about freedom are not helpful, it comes across as thinly veiled threats about how I’m lucky to even get to talk.

[SurelySerious]

6 hours ago, busdriver said:

People follow the law for three reasons:

1. They believe the law is just

2. The are afraid of getting caught

3. It's just not worth it to fight back (minor nuisance)

At the end of the day, the state only has force as a tool to enforce laws.  If you aren't comfortable enforcing a law at gun point, it probably shouldn't be a law.  All the stupid laws only work when everyone agrees that they're good and just.  That requires a common culture of shared values.

 

1 hour ago, brawnie said:

Brother, they are held accountable morally, whether you like it or not. Maybe not in a court of law, but you surely understand that really, when it comes down to it, right and wrong is defined by humanity - not by the US legal system. Maybe it’s too philosophical, but your actions actually are judged not just on legality, just as I’m judging the police not just on legality. E.g. you go cheat on your wife, I’ll judge you for it even though it’s not illegal.

With that being said, I believe the US legal system gets it mostly right, but my point is that when 50 cops resign from the Buffalo police department after cracking open the skull of a senior citizen because they were mad that they got “in trouble,” it’s not illegal. But it’s pathetic. And they are and should be judged for it.

Cheers, friend.

So the common ground of moral fabric generally dictates the laws of the government. Right now one grievance is improper/inappropriate/downright bad policing at various levels (local/state/federal), which aren’t meeting the expectations of many people. I thought at first glance Tim Scott’s (R) policing reform proposal from a few weeks ago looked like a good start, but the (D) wouldn’t even let it be debated from what I understand. So that makes me skeptical that the (D) party takes reform seriously.
 

Brawnie I think it was you who alluded earlier to something along the lines of a UCMJ for police to increase accountability. Since the organizations are so varied I’m not sure that’s practical, however it is currently very difficult to hold police accountable to a high standard against the laws that currently exist due to union arbitration agreements. Even when a policeman commits what would otherwise be a crime in some instances, due to the governmental agreement with the union the court is bound to the arbitration process instead of further legal action. Essentially sweeping things under the rug. 
 

I think reducing the power of these arbitration agreements in disciplinary actions when there is an allegation that amounts to a crime would be a step in the direction of holding people to a higher moral standard. As we in the military are subject to the UCMJ because we have been entrusted to do violence on behalf of the people against enemies in upholding the constitution, hold police truly accountable to existing laws since they are entrusted with using violence to protect and defend the people domestically.  
 

From where I sit, those with the biggest share to lose, if you will, are police unions in this push. Which party has police unions in its pocketbooks, and which party has recently not taken policing reform seriously via holding people accountable? (D). This is admittedly the conspiracy paragraph, but it’s plausible. 

[sixblades]

Maybe it’s not the: “Or that he should feel humbled by these freedoms to turn a blind eye to something he doesn’t agree with?“
But rather understand how these freedoms were established, why they were established and the sacrifices made to have these freedoms. I am no History Scholar by any means but it’s common sense. Cancel cancel culture as many nations have done this to other nations or it has come from within to overtake like a virus for the greater good or bad. Just a means of erasing the past to reset mindset. Destroy monuments, art, flags, books, eradicate nationals/citizens by the millions
Definitely don’t turn a blind eye, hence it’s your freedom to express yourself peacefully however that is defined seems to be the issue. 
Definitely don’t turn a blind eye - both sides have their limits on what is acceptable whatever that may be, but once that “line in the sand” is crossed the outcome hasn’t been good historically. So many opinions, so many answers it’s a match-lite situation.

I think I get where you’re going, but I respectfully disagree with your notion that cancel culture leads to destruction of monuments, art, flags, etc. I can’t fundamentally get behind the idea that a group’s ethical or moral dissent equates to a harmful anti-cultural or ethnic cleansing movement. Cancel culture isn’t Nazi Germany. Cancel culture isn’t the Rwandan Genocide. Cancel culture isn’t The Crusades. Cancel culture is probably an overly misused, faddish approach to raising public awareness to highlight a topic.

I know you’re probably not saying what’s going on now is going to result in something as horrendous as a genocide, but the tough conversations and opposing viewpoints we’re seeing now, that some may consider synonymous with “cancel culture”, could in fact be a crazy idea not so different than women deserving equal rights (Equal Rights Act) or minorities deserving equal rights (Civil Rights Act), and are just difficult to grasp and support in the moment but is common sense in hindsight.

I believe few people exclusively want to destroy monuments, art, flags. Instead they want to have a conversation about why and how we celebrate these symbols and individuals. We don’t celebrate monuments of the kings or queens of England in our public squares so why do we do that for generals of the confederacy? If Milley, Goldfein, and the rest of the Joint Chiefs unsuccessfully tried to execute a coup d’etat next week I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t be celebrating them 50+ years from now with public statues and buildings named after them. However, I wholeheartedly believe we would know about their background, accomplishments, and the history behind the events like everything else in US history. What you don’t hear is people asking for these historical artifacts and heraldry to be removed from museums. I don’t believe people want to rewrite history, they want to address who and what celebrate.

Historical context matters. The US has done some pretty f’d stuff over the years and people recognize that. Our civic and social leaders have supported things in the past that would be distasteful today and people recognize that. But when you decide to celebrate something that was contextually f’d up and/or distasteful both then and now, it’s not hard to understand why people would have issues that.

[Guardian]

I guess I’m lucky to be in the US, because it allows me to spout my totally socialist viewpoints unabashedly. Whereas if I was in any other country I would be liable to be arrested or fined immediately.
Obvious sarcasm if not noted.
On another note, did you hear about the Press Freedom Rankings? I hear we are working our way up there, hopefully one day we’ll be as free as all those other first world countries!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index#Rankings_and_scores_by_country
Arbitrary buzzwords about freedom are not helpful, it comes across as thinly veiled threats about how I’m lucky to even get to talk.

Press freedom rankings are hardly freedom of speech. Nice attempt to deflect by bringing up something that has no value in the discussion we are talking about then playing a sarcasm and victim card. Sorry. That doesn’t work in logical thoughts and civil discourse where your points have to make rationale sense.

[Guardian]

I think I get where you’re going, but I respectfully disagree with your notion that cancel culture leads to destruction of monuments, art, flags, etc. I can’t fundamentally get behind the idea that a group’s ethical or moral dissent equates to a harmful anti-cultural or ethnic cleansing movement. Cancel culture isn’t Nazi Germany. Cancel culture isn’t the Rwandan Genocide. Cancel culture isn’t The Crusades. Cancel culture is probably an overly misused, faddish approach to raising public awareness to highlight a topic.

I know you’re probably not saying what’s going on now is going to result in something as horrendous as a genocide, but the tough conversations and opposing viewpoints we’re seeing now, that some may consider synonymous with “cancel culture”, could in fact be a crazy idea not so different than women deserving equal rights (Equal Rights Act) or minorities deserving equal rights (Civil Rights Act), and are just difficult to grasp and support in the moment but is common sense in hindsight.

I believe few people exclusively want to destroy monuments, art, flags. Instead they want to have a conversation about why and how we celebrate these symbols and individuals. We don’t celebrate monuments of the kings or queens of England in our public squares so why do we do that for generals of the confederacy? If Milley, Goldfein, and the rest of the Joint Chiefs unsuccessfully tried to execute a coup d’etat next week I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t be celebrating them 50+ years from now with public statues and buildings named after them. However, I wholeheartedly believe we would know about their background, accomplishments, and the history behind the events like everything else in US history. What you don’t hear is people asking for these historical artifacts and heraldry to be removed from museums. I don’t believe people want to rewrite history, they want to address who and what celebrate.

Historical context matters. The US has done some pretty f’d stuff over the years and people recognize that. Our civic and social leaders have supported things in the past that would be distasteful today and people recognize that. But when you decide to celebrate something that was contextually f’d up and/or distasteful both then and now, it’s not hard to understand why people would have issues that.

Timing matters. It’s not like these statues are getting torn down at a random time. It is directly related to the riots. And a lot of the statues being brought down are being brought down by people who have no idea what the statue they are tearing down means, who the individual is, or what it means to our history. They are just doing it to do it and cause chaos.

[filthy_liar]

On the bright side...posters in here from both sides of the arguments are typing some well thought out points.  I wish the public in general could engage in rational discourse instead of (to use Griswald's phrase) slinging monkeyshit at each other.

[Negatory]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

Press freedom rankings are hardly freedom of speech. Nice attempt to deflect by bringing up something that has no value in the discussion we are talking about then playing a sarcasm and victim card. Sorry. That doesn’t work in logical thoughts and civil discourse where your points have to make rationale sense.

You aren’t addressing my point because I was being sarcastic? I could have said literally everything I said in this forum in almost every first world nation on this planet and suffered no potential consequences.

Freedom of speech and political opinion is protected in almost every comparable nation to a HUGE extent. The main thing that separates the US is that hate speech and intentionally inflammatory words are also protected here.... which I honestly don’t think I’ve ever taken advantage of. I do not see the benefit of US freedom of speech vs European freedom of speech in nearly all reasonable discourse.

If you can please explain something that I said that would have gotten me in trouble, I would appreciate it (you already implied America is the only place that would let me talk like this). Because there is literally nothing.

Also, the press freedom rankings are not useless or a deflection. They serve the point to prove that just because America has a bill of rights and constitution that says something is free doesn’t mean the societal model automatically makes it happen or matter. I.e. we espouse freedom of the press as one of our societal rights and then do a bad job of it.

Cheers.

[Negatory]

6 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

I think reducing the power of these arbitration agreements in disciplinary actions when there is an allegation that amounts to a crime would be a step in the direction of holding people to a higher moral standard. As we in the military are subject to the UCMJ because we have been entrusted to do violence on behalf of the people against enemies in upholding the constitution, hold police truly accountable to existing laws since they are entrusted with using violence to protect and defend the people domestically.  

 

From where I sit, those with the biggest share to lose, if you will, are police unions in this push. Which party has police unions in its pocketbooks, and which party has recently not taken policing reform seriously via holding people accountable? (D). This is admittedly the conspiracy paragraph, but it’s plausible. 

I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph.
 

The second paragraph, in my opinion, tries to make a non-partisan issue partisan and cast blame. Crime and Punishment and the protection and the over-empowering of the criminal justice system/police in the US is just as much Ronald Reagan’s fault as it is Bill Clinton’s (and those that support them).

[SurelySerious]

18 minutes ago, brawnie said:

I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph.
 

The second paragraph, in my opinion, tries to make a non-partisan issue partisan and cast blame. Crime and Punishment and the protection and the over-empowering of the criminal justice system/police in the US is just as much Ronald Reagan’s fault as it is Bill Clinton’s (and those that support them).

I am trying to figure out why a specific party at a specific time has stopped an attempt to potentially work towards improving the situation. I’m not too worried about Clinton or Reagan, they’re not legislating now. 

[Negatory]

34 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

I am trying to figure out why a specific party at a specific time has stopped an attempt to potentially work towards improving the situation. I’m not too worried about Clinton or Reagan, they’re not legislating now. 

I read about it and I agree. Democrats are shameful in this case.

[FLEA]

10 hours ago, brawnie said:

I guess I’m lucky to be in the US, because it allows me to spout my totally socialist viewpoints unabashedly. Whereas if I was in any other country I would be liable to be arrested or fined immediately.

Obvious sarcasm if not noted.

On another note, did you hear about the Press Freedom Rankings? I hear we are working our way up there, hopefully one day we’ll be as free as all those other first world countries!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index#Rankings_and_scores_by_country

Arbitrary buzzwords about freedom are not helpful, it comes across as thinly veiled threats about how I’m lucky to even get to talk.

Don't buy into those press freedom rankings man. Germany is near the top and it is illegal to criticize political Leadership there. Tell me how that is free press.

To be clear you can criticize policy to some degree in Germany as they do have sometimes healthy political debate but you certainly cannot criticize the personification of an office. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by FLEA

[nsplayr]

9 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

I thought at first glance Tim Scott’s (R) policing reform proposal from a few weeks ago looked like a good start, but the (D) wouldn’t even let it be debated from what I understand. So that makes me skeptical that the (D) party takes reform seriously.

From where I sit, those with the biggest share to lose, if you will, are police unions in this push. Which party has police unions in its pocketbooks, and which party has recently not taken policing reform seriously via holding people accountable? (D). This is admittedly the conspiracy paragraph, but it’s plausible. 

Scott’s bill seemed fine and if McConnell wants to bring it to committee or the floor he can. IMHO the Dem senators aren’t super interested in passing it because they think they will win the WH and Senate in ~3 months and can write and pass a better bill next Feb. Not an uncommon strategy. Meanwhile House Dems have their own police reform bill so I think it’s not accurate to say the party as a whole is unwilling to legislate on this issue just because they didn’t immediately jump on board with the opposing party’s first effort at it. Are House Republicans jumping on board Dem efforts in that chamber? No, they are not. Standard politics that stems from genuine philosophical differences and a desire to get more of what you want.

I agree with you that reforming qualified immunity and potentially moving away from police unions would be a major aspect of policing reform. One thing to note is that police unions are HEAVILY in favor of the GOP, even more so that police officers as a group. If there is one type of union Democrats typically don’t support it would be police unions.

Edited July 23, 2020 by nsplayr

[Guardian]

You aren’t addressing my point because I was being sarcastic? I could have said literally everything I said in this forum in almost every first world nation on this planet and suffered no potential consequences.

Freedom of speech and political opinion is protected in almost every comparable nation to a HUGE extent. The main thing that separates the US is that hate speech and intentionally inflammatory words are also protected here.... which I honestly don’t think I’ve ever taken advantage of. I do not see the benefit of US freedom of speech vs European freedom of speech in nearly all reasonable discourse.

If you can please explain something that I said that would have gotten me in trouble, I would appreciate it (you already implied America is the only place that would let me talk like this). Because there is literally nothing.

Also, the press freedom rankings are not useless or a deflection. They serve the point to prove that just because America has a bill of rights and constitution that says something is free doesn’t mean the societal model automatically makes it happen or matter. I.e. we espouse freedom of the press as one of our societal rights and then do a bad job of it.

Cheers.

I’m not addressing it because I was just specifically telling you that this is the only country in world that has freedom of speech. That was my point. Didn’t say what you were saying gets you arrested somewhere or that it doesn’t. I didn’t have commentary on that.

 

You are branching out into topics or things that don’t deal with the central point of what we are talking about in an effort to defend your point which I’m not sure what is. We are specifically talking about the US being the only place where freedom of speech exists. Focus.

 

I didn’t say that the freedom of the press wasn’t important in general. But That it isn’t important to what we are talking about. And if it is, then you failed to explain how.

 

Again. Focus on the central point or your central point and discuss it. You going to other places hurts your points very much and doesn’t give you the appearance of being a rational, logical, or thoughtful. It does the opposite.

 

Not calling you names or belittling you. Actually trying to have civil discourse. You have to understand how difficult it is to follow you when you start hopping around and bringing up things that don’t apply. And actually never address the central topic or idea. For instance. You said something to the effect of are you sure the us is the only place or implied that you doubted my statement. I responded yes. You haven’t addressed why you think there are other places in the world that do have freedom of speech. You branched out into a poll or report that is subjective and biased that doesn’t have the US at the top of a freedom of the press ranking. To say this is apples and oranges is putting it lightly. You obviously have opinions and enjoy discussing those with others. I would recommend you maybe look into how to focus your thoughts and arguments so that you can have a better and more through discussion. Because we in here obviously by and large disagree with you. But enjoy showing you where you might consider other points. There are classes that might help you or some books I might recommend on how better your organize your thoughts and arguments so you aren’t bouncing around so much and might have a better chance at being persuasive.

 

Let me know if you have questions.

 

 

[nsplayr]

Then here it is directly: other countries have freedom of speech. A few other countries actually have greater personal freedoms, including speech, than the United States, although we rank highly overall.

What is your evidence that there is not free speech in, say, New Zealand? How about Canada?

The USA is great and I love it here but come on, you can’t just throw out a claim like you did with zero evidence. You are correct that Americans consistently rank #1 in terms of cultural acceptance of all speech, including hate speech. But to say there is no “freedom of speech” literally anywhere else is not true. 

No freedom is absolute and if you accept that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater to protect public safety, then you have to admit that there are limits. Defining what acceptable limits are vs which limits might infringe on people’s natural rights to express themselves is up for debate and each country handles that slightly differently as you would expect.

Edited July 23, 2020 by nsplayr

[Negatory]

18 minutes ago, Guardian said:

I’m not addressing it because I was just specifically telling you that this is the only country in world that has freedom of speech. That was my point. Didn’t say what you were saying gets you arrested somewhere or that it doesn’t. I didn’t have commentary on that.

 

You are branching out into topics or things that don’t deal with the central point of what we are talking about in an effort to defend your point which I’m not sure what is. We are specifically talking about the US being the only place where freedom of speech exists. Focus.

 

I didn’t say that the freedom of the press wasn’t important in general. But That it isn’t important to what we are talking about. And if it is, then you failed to explain how.

 

Again. Focus on the central point or your central point and discuss it. You going to other places hurts your points very much and doesn’t give you the appearance of being a rational, logical, or thoughtful. It does the opposite.

 

Not calling you names or belittling you. Actually trying to have civil discourse. You have to understand how difficult it is to follow you when you start hopping around and bringing up things that don’t apply. And actually never address the central topic or idea. For instance. You said something to the effect of are you sure the us is the only place or implied that you doubted my statement. I responded yes. You haven’t addressed why you think there are other places in the world that do have freedom of speech. You branched out into a poll or report that is subjective and biased that doesn’t have the US at the top of a freedom of the press ranking. To say this is apples and oranges is putting it lightly. You obviously have opinions and enjoy discussing those with others. I would recommend you maybe look into how to focus your thoughts and arguments so that you can have a better and more through discussion. Because we in here obviously by and large disagree with you. But enjoy showing you where you might consider other points. There are classes that might help you or some books I might recommend on how better your organize your thoughts and arguments so you aren’t bouncing around so much and might have a better chance at being persuasive.

 

Let me know if you have questions.

 

 

Other countries have freedom of speech. Your argument is that America has the only real freedom of speech because other countries prohibit some things like hate speech.

Well, as you said, you can't say fire in a crowded movie theater, so I guess by your logic, no one has true freedom of speech.

Focus.

[Negatory]

And talking condescendingly to someone about how they should read books and take classes to learn how to focus their thoughts is a typical strategy to belittle and ignore someone's points (an ad hominem attack) when you aren't hitting the substantive parts of the argument. You are now just attacking me, not my argument.

Focus.

[Clark Griswold]

Because that makes sense...

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/23/portland-commissioner-police-are-starting-fires-themselves-justify-attacking-community-members/

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Negatory]

Also, I'll give it to you that you never said explicitly that what I said was only allowable in America. Although I still don't understand why you pointed it out other than to implicitly hint that I wouldn't be able to share my viewpoint unless I was here. Because in reality, what I said was perfectly allowable in the vast majority of countries, which is why your comment was so out of place and received multiple "why you saying this?" responses from not just myself.

Edited July 23, 2020 by brawnie

[Hacker]

27 minutes ago, brawnie said:

you can't say fire in a crowded movie theater,

Actually you *can* do that.

Saying the word is not illegal or prohibited.

[Negatory]

13 minutes ago, Hacker said:

Actually you *can* do that.

Saying the word is not illegal or prohibited.

Am I in a never ending semantics argument? Is this about can vs may? The courts ruled your first amendment rights don’t apply when there is a “clear and present danger.”

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

[sixblades]

Timing matters. It’s not like these statues are getting torn down at a random time. It is directly related to the riots. And a lot of the statues being brought down are being brought down by people who have no idea what the statue they are tearing down means, who the individual is, or what it means to our history. They are just doing it to do it and cause chaos.

I agree that some people don’t know what they’re doing out there as they’re defacing and tearing down some of these statues, and that’s a problem. But the vast majority of protesters aren’t rioters, or looters, or tearing down statues. What difference does timing make when they bring up relevant issues that they want their civic leaders to address? There will always be a vocal minority in every movement that tries to hijack the narrative for their own good or exploits the situation to do things that aren’t representative of the greater ideology.

Our history isn’t going anywhere. We’re still going to know who Stonewall Jackson is and everyone is going to know that Woodrow Wilson was the President. I do believe there’s great value in preserving these statues and art, the same as any other artistic piece, I just don’t think celebrating things that are so contrary to the values we collectively hold makes sense. How many statues do we have of Andrew Jackson, as is that a concern about his historical relevance?

[Guardian]

Then here it is directly: other countries have freedom of speech. A few other countries actually have greater personal freedoms, including speech, than the United States, although we rank highly overall.
What is your evidence that there is not free speech in, say, New Zealand? How about Canada?
The USA is great and I love it here but come on, you can’t just throw out a claim like you did with zero evidence. You are correct that Americans consistently rank #1 in terms of cultural acceptance of all speech, including hate speech. But to say there is no “freedom of speech” literally anywhere else is not true. 
No freedom is absolute and if you accept that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater to protect public safety, then you have to admit that there are limits. Defining what acceptable limits are vs which limits might infringe on people’s natural rights to express themselves is up for debate and each country handles that slightly differently as you would expect.

So you are making a statement that “it’s not true.” And you provide no evidence. And just after you bash me for providing no evidence. That’s odd....

And if I were you I would research freedom of speech infringement a little more. Both on the US being the only place and the fire in a theater argument claim you make above. Both things you argue are wrong. The Supreme Court has also ruled on it. Interesting stuff.

And saying fire in a crowded audience when there is no fire isn’t a freedom of speech issue. Speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

“Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

This means that speech which supports law-breaking or violence is protected unless its purpose is to incite immediate criminal action or violence and it is likely to do so.

Canada has sent I believe over 3000 people to jail for not using proper pronouns or what some ambiguous person in government considers hate speech. That isn’t freedom of speech. Comedians being sent to jail for jokes? Really that’s freedom of speech?

New Zealand has limits in a similar way to Canada on their so called freedom of expression.

Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) – provides that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind. However, s5 of the BORA provides that freedom of speech is subject to limits. The BORA does not have supremacy over other legislation. Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in the BORA may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Hate speech isn’t a thing. It’s just speech. For a country to have freedom of speech there has to be a willingness to offend. There is not a freedom from offense.

Some stuff above was taken from other sources. Look it up if you want. Not claiming the above is all my words.

[Guardian]

Other countries have freedom of speech. Your argument is that America has the only real freedom of speech because other countries prohibit some things like hate speech.
Well, as you said, you can't say fire in a crowded movie theater, so I guess by your logic, no one has true freedom of speech.
Focus.

Research my friend. Yes. US is the only place that has true freedom of speech. Hate speech isn’t a real thing. It’s Marxism and socialism with some capitalism mixed in. Saying it’s against the law to not call someone by their preferred pronoun is wrong and has been the downfall of certain aspects of society. Canada, and the UK are feeling the pain and consequences of stifling freedom of speech.

Research. Nothing I have said is untrue.

[Guardian]

And talking condescendingly to someone about how they should read books and take classes to learn how to focus their thoughts is a typical strategy to belittle and ignore someone's points (an ad hominem attack) when you aren't hitting the substantive parts of the argument. You are now just attacking me, not my argument.
Focus.

Not condescending. Just informing you my friend. Your points have nothing to do with what we are talking about. That is the theme I have retorted throughout. You are making statements now that are false and don’t increase dialogue. They in no way support or defend any of your points and you have reduced to personal attacks you claim I am making. Well, I’m not. But thanks for the laugh.