Why Canada and the U.S. Should Merge

[Ibrahim]

Liar. I said that Levant was cleared and did not object to this. Though his tirade about the Roma was obviously racist, it was not criminally so. ... Liar. I did not state that I thought Steny's article was criminal. Though Steyn is obviously a racist, he was not criminally so.

I am trying to have a reasonably civil discussion with you. If I have misrepresented your views, then it was unintentional and I stand corrected. But I am NOT a "liar."

Alright, a mistake made in haste then. I clearly pointed out that I had no problem with either Levant or Steyn being cleared by the tribunals every time it was brought up previously.

Whites will be a minority of the U.S. population a few decades down the road.

This is what you're really afraid of, isn't it?

That is a disgusting, contemptible, odious and vile remark. I demand a full apology and retraction or I shall never speak to you again.

I don't care what you do. People on this forum have been calling me a terrorist for years because I don't like murdering civilians. You'll get over it.

You started asking whether the laws could be used to protect white Christians, or changed to defend white Christians when the demographic rations changes. To me that's a weird thing to ask since the statutes don't mention any specific group. Unless you thought the Canadian law said "no hate speech, except against white Christians cuz #$@! those guys." All these laws do is stop people from advocating discrimination and violence against specific groups. But apparently some people think that's the sacred cornerstone of a free state. I don't see what use that "right" has except to help beat down minority groups and prevent them from reaching a state of full equality with the waning majority.

[Mr. Perfect]

I don't care what you do. People on this forum have been calling me a terrorist for years because I don't like murdering civilians.

No they haven't. You liked murdering civilians just fine in Libya. If you get to do it you have to let other people do it.

[Mr. Perfect]

Why shouldn't the issue be whether or not people should be hauled in front of tribunals at all.

[Huxley]

I’m not speaking to Ibrahim anymore since he refuses to apologize for his craven smear against me. People who do such things are beyond the pale of civilized discourse and simply must be ignored.

Why shouldn't the issue be whether or not people should be hauled in front of tribunals at all.

For the benefit of the forum at large, I’d like to point out that Mr. P hit the nail on the head here. The issue, as should be perfectly plain to any sentient being, is not whether Maclean’s, Levant etc. were ultimately “cleared” by these Orwellian tribunals. The issue is the existence of such tribunals in the first place, which have the authority to investigate and penalize people for printing rude cartoons and certain types of commentary. To me, the very existence of such tribunals is a monstrous, unlawful affront to human decency and liberty. The fact that Maclean's and Levant were finally “cleared” after being dragged through sham trials does not change the fact that such trials actually happened, and that they could very well have resulted in Maclean's and Levant being penalized and silenced, if the tribunals had so ruled (and as they do in fact rule in many other cases).

When I asked Ibrahim directly whether he approved of these tribunals, he replied in his typically obtuse and puerile way, by dodging the question and pointing out that Steyn and Levant had been “cleared,” as if I didn’t know that and as if it had the slightest relevance to the question at hand. It doesn’t. Later, after I reiterated the question, Ibrahim delivered himself of this remarkable statement: “My preference is that it went through the existing legal system, not set up separate "tribunals." I.e. you end up before a Superior Court Justice, not some panel. But that's a technical issue.”

How many Canadians would agree with Ibrahim that policing speech in this manner is a legitimate function of the courts? I suspect I’d rather not know.

Then again, there are some hopeful signs.

[Doc]

I’m not speaking to Ibrahim anymore since he refuses to apologize for his craven smear against me. People who do such things are beyond the pale of civilized discourse and simply must be ignored.

Why shouldn't the issue be whether or not people should be hauled in front of tribunals at all.

For the benefit of the forum at large, I’d like to point out that Mr. P hit the nail on the head here. The issue, as should be perfectly plain to any sentient being, is not whether Maclean’s, Levant etc. were ultimately “cleared” by these Orwellian tribunals. The issue is the existence of such tribunals in the first place, which have the authority to investigate and penalize people for printing rude cartoons and certain types of commentary. To me, the very existence of such tribunals is a monstrous, unlawful affront to human decency and liberty. The fact that Maclean's and Levant were finally “cleared” after being dragged through sham trials does not change the fact that such trials actually happened, and that they could very well have resulted in Maclean's and Levant being penalized and silenced, if the tribunals had so ruled (and as they do in fact rule in many other cases).

When I asked Ibrahim directly whether he approved of these tribunals, he replied in his typically obtuse and puerile way, by dodging the question and pointing out that Steyn and Levant had been “cleared,” as if I didn’t know that and as if it had the slightest relevance to the question at hand. It doesn’t. Later, after I reiterated the question, Ibrahim delivered himself of this remarkable statement: “My preference is that it went through the existing legal system, not set up separate "tribunals." I.e. you end up before a Superior Court Justice, not some panel. But that's a technical issue.”

How many Canadians would agree with Ibrahim that policing speech in this manner is a legitimate function of the courts? I suspect I’d rather not know.

Then again, there are some hopeful signs.

Indeed.

Hate speech' no longer part of Canada's Human Rights Act
27/06/13 4:15 PM ET
HANDOUTBrian Storseth

A contentious section of Canadian human rights law, long criticized by free-speech advocates as overly restrictive and tantamount to censorship, is gone for good.

A private member’s bill repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the so-called “hate speech provision,” passed in the Senate this week. Its passage means the part of Canadian human rights law that permitted rights complaints to the federal Human Rights Commission for “the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet” will soon be history.

The bill from Alberta Conservative MP Brian Storseth passed in the House of Commons last summer, but needed Senate approval. It has received royal assent and will take effect after a one-year phase-in period.

An “ecstatic” Storseth said the bill, which he says had wide support across ideological lines and diverse religious groups, repeals a “flawed piece of legislation” and he called Canada’s human rights tribunal “a quasi-judicial, secretive body that takes away your natural rights as a Canadian.”

It was a poorly-written piece of legislation in the first place

“(Section 13) had actually stopped being used as a shield, as I think it was intended, to protect civil liberties, and started being used as a sword against Canadians, and it’s because it was a poorly-written piece of legislation in the first place,” he said.

Various human rights lawyers and groups such as the Canadian Bar Association say Section 13 is an important tool in helping to curb hate speech, and that removing it would lead to the proliferation of such speech on the Internet.

But critics of Section 13 said it enabled censorship on the Internet, and are calling its repeal a victory for free speech.

“We’re pleased with the repeal,” said Cara Zwibel, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), who testified before a Senate committee on the topic.

[Typhoon]

US foreign policy should be discussed in which thread?

[monster_gardener]

.


CBC : Snowden document shows Canada set up spy posts for NSA ..
CSEC conducted espionage activities for U.S. in 20 countries, according to top-secret briefing note


Canada should stop this .. why "shoe-shine" America when Doc and Monster badmouth Canada ? ?

.

A top secret document retrieved by American whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals Canada has set up covert spying posts around the world and conducted espionage against trading partners at the request of the U.S. National Security Agency.

The leaked NSA document being reported exclusively by CBC News reveals Canada is involved with the huge American intelligence agency in clandestine surveillance activities in “approximately 20 high-priority countries."

Much of the document contains hyper-sensitive operational details which CBC News has chosen not to make public.

.

Pfui , Doc, Pfui


Go Snowden, Gooooooooooooooooooo


.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Azari.

Monster badmouth Canada ? ?

Canada may be like America without Caffeine but I rather like Canada, sometimes admire it, wish it well, and do NOT want to see Canada merged with UZ...

[Mr. Perfect]

The issue is whether or not you think that hatred, racism, and violent exhortations are part of free speech. You believe that they are. You don't think you are free unless you are allowed to scream that "blacks are subhumans and should be deported or hanged," because that is somehow a crucial right for you.

Its not just Canadians, its most of the developed world. We prefer civilization to the "right" to scream racist abuse at people in public.

(Meltdowns deleted)

The issue here of course is that the ibs of the world will use "hate speech" laws against speech that isn't hate speech, in the same way ibs often conflates issues that have nothing to do with race with racism (most recent example was the anger about the NSA was racist).

[monster_gardener]

The issue is whether or not you think that hatred, racism, and violent exhortations are part of free speech. You believe that they are. You don't think you are free unless you are allowed to scream that "blacks are subhumans and should be deported or hanged," because that is somehow a crucial right for you.

Its not just Canadians, its most of the developed world. We prefer civilization to the "right" to scream racist abuse at people in public.

(Meltdowns deleted)

The issue here of course is that the ibs of the world will use "hate speech" laws against speech that isn't hate speech, in the same way ibs often conflates issues that have nothing to do with race with racism (most recent example was the anger about the NSA was racist).

Thank You VERY MUCH for your Excellent post, Mr. Perfect.

Bingo! +5

The issue here of course is that the ibs of the world will use "hate speech" laws against speech that isn't hate speech,

Making BarRATry oops I mean Barratry legal............

You may win the case but still have had to spend/waste money on the costs of legal representation.........

Barratry (/ˈbærətri/ BA-rə-tree) is a legal term with several meanings. In common law, barratry is the offense committed by people who are “overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation” or who bring “repeated or persistent acts of litigation” for the purposes of profit or harassment.[1] It is a crime in some jurisdictions. If litigation is for the purpose of silencing critics, it is known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). Jurisdictions that otherwise have no barratry laws may have SLAPP laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_%28common_law%29

[Endovelico]

The free expression of ideas of course does not include such things as pornography (not an idea), public nudity...

Why not?

[Simple Minded]

US foreign policy should be discussed in which thread?

Its OK dear..... they're just playin.... they'll come inside when they get either cold or hungry!

[Huxley]

For the benefit of the forum at large, I'm going to juxtapose a few quotes here in what I hope will be an instructive fashion. For clarity and readability, I have had to truncate some of the posts, indicated by the following: [...]
Otherwise I have not edited these posts in any way. Feel free to check pages 2 and 3 of this thread for confirmation.

(1) Thu Dec 12, 2013 7:57 pm

[...]

When I asked Ibrahim directly whether he approved of these tribunals, he replied in his typically obtuse and puerile way,

Liar. I stated that I supported restrictions on violent and racist speech, but said that I would prefer they went through the existing court system and not newly-formed tribunals.

Have you no shame at all?
[...]

This is the full paragraph from which the above quote of me was taken:

(2) Thu Dec 12, 2013 7:41 pm

[...]
When I asked Ibrahim directly whether he approved of these tribunals, he replied in his typically obtuse and puerile way, by dodging the question and pointing out that Steyn and Levant had been “cleared,” as if I didn’t know that and as if it had the slightest relevance to the question at hand. It doesn’t. Later, after I reiterated the question, Ibrahim delivered himself of this remarkable statement: “My preference is that it went through the existing legal system, not set up separate "tribunals." I.e. you end up before a Superior Court Justice, not some panel. But that's a technical issue.”
[...]

Now here are the two exchanges I was referring to in the above paragraph:

First --

(3) Wed Dec 11, 2013 3:02 am

[...]

As for your comment about Steyn and Levant, the matter is quite simple. Are you cool with the existence of Human Rights Tribunals in Canada which have the authority to muzzle writers, publishers, and entertainers who express controversial views? Is this is a practice that you favor?

Steyn and Levant weren't muzzled or censored in any way.

Steyn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_righ ... s_magazine

The Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. [...]

Levant:

On September 5, 2012, Levant broadcast a commentary titled "The Jew vs. the Gypsies" on The Source in which he accused the Romani people as a group of being criminals and said: "These are gypsies, a culture synonymous with swindlers. [...]

Levant has also been involved in a number of private libel actions, which are outside the scope of this discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Levant#Libel_cases


Now to me the matter is very simple: do you think the right to issue racist statements or promote racial discrimination or violence is crucial to a functioning democracy? And if so how do we account for the many developed nations which both restrict hate speech and are freer and better-functioning democracies than the United States?

And second --

(4) Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:08 am

[...]

Steyn and Levant weren't muzzled or censored in any way. ...

Right. Yes. I know. What I asked you was whether you approved of Human Rights Tribunals that have the authority to do so.

My preference is that it went through the existing legal system, not set up separate "tribunals." I.e. you end up before a Superior Court Justice, not some panel. But that's a technical issue. What I assume you're asking is whether or not I think that some speech is potentially criminal, which I do. I don't see what is lost by preventing people from, say, advocating genocide.
[...]

See, guys? This is why it's important to be able to read.

[Huxley]

Our case study continues. I have selectively bolded within the following quotes for emphasis:

(1) Wed Dec 11, 2013 9:40 am

[...]
I've always simply taken it for granted that free speech, the free expression of ideas, no matter how repugnant or offensive, is absolute. It's a natural, God-given right, not to be abridged or infringed by any government for any reason. The free expression of ideas of course does not include such things as pornography (not an idea), public nudity, defamation, etc. Those things can be legitimately abridged (or not, as the case may be) under the law. Free speech also does not include direct incitement to violence, by which I mean explicitly calling for unlawful violence against certain individuals or groups. To be clear, instead of "direct incitement to violence," I should say "any speech that fails the imminent lawless action test." Here I quote the useful 1969 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Brandenburg v. Ohio:

...the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe 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.

That is, I think, an extremely sensible standard, and I'd argue that anything much more restrictive than that is going to have the effect of suffocating legitimate speech and shrinking the boundaries of discourse to a degree that's incompatible with liberty.

So yeah, that means offensive speech, name-calling, disparaging remarks about individuals and groups, rough satire and mockery, crude bigotry, and frank expressions of racism - all are fair game. I don't much care for bigotry and hatred, but that's precisely the point. The thing about free speech is that it includes the freedom to say things we don't like - especially things we don't like.
[...]

(2) Wed Dec 11, 2013 8:07 pm

[...]
I'm freer than you, and you can't stand it because it interferes with your "exceptionalism" mythology, so you're obsessing over the "right" to be a violent racist in public.
[...]

(3) Thu Dec 12, 2013 7:57 pm

[...]
The issue is whether or not you think that hatred, racism, and violent exhortations are part of free speech. You believe that they are. You don't think you are free unless you are allowed to scream that "blacks are subhumans and should be deported or hanged," because that is somehow a crucial right for you.
[...]

All right folks? Further evidence, if any were needed, that when engaging in online debates, the ability to comprehend English prose is an important skill to have.

And this concludes our lesson.

[Huxley]

The free expression of ideas of course does not include such things as pornography (not an idea), public nudity...

Why not?

Endo,

Thank you for taking the trouble to actually read what I wrote.

Well, I suppose it's debatable. In a strictly American context, I understand "freedom of speech" to be the inalienable right to express (in whatever medium) ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a totally unfettered way. I think that's what the American founders had in mind and what most Americans have understood to be the meaning of free speech until quite recently.

In the latter half of the 20th century, the idea somehow took hold that "freedom of speech" actually means the inalienable right to say, display, or in fact do essentially whatever one wants. Thus, downloading pirated music, selling violent pornography, and airing one's genitals in public are all examples of "speech."

Now it seems pretty obvious to me that none of those things can reasonably be considered "speech." But then again, it often turns out that things that seem pretty obvious to me are in fact not obvious to other people, indeed quite the opposite.

In any case, I don't really see how porn and public nudity fall under the category of "inalienable rights." (Again, I'm talking about the U.S. here.) That is not to say they should be banned. Well, public nudity should be, for reasons that really should be obvious. But as for porn, its legality is up for debate. Certain kinds of it may be banned in certain ways or in certain places. Or not, as the case may be. But regardless, porn is in no way essential to the survival of liberty and democracy, and the banning of it, at least in principle, does not jeopardize the republic.

What is not up for debate is the freedom to express ideas, beliefs and opinions in a totally unfettered way. That's the core freedom, along with freedom of religion, and it must be zealously defended against all the fanatics who would take it away.

[Typhoon]

Reads like a selective case of banning for thee, but not for me.

[monster_gardener]

The free expression of ideas of course does not include such things as pornography (not an idea), public nudity...

Why not?

Endo,

Thank you for taking the trouble to actually read what I wrote.

Well, I suppose it's debatable. In a strictly American context, I understand "freedom of speech" to be the inalienable right to express (in whatever medium) ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a totally unfettered way. I think that's what the American founders had in mind and what most Americans have understood to be the meaning of free speech until quite recently.

In the latter half of the 20th century, the idea somehow took hold that "freedom of speech" actually means the inalienable right to say, display, or in fact do essentially whatever one wants. Thus, downloading pirated music, selling violent pornography, and airing one's genitals in public are all examples of "speech."

Now it seems pretty obvious to me that none of those things can reasonably be considered "speech." But then again, it often turns out that things that seem pretty obvious to me are in fact not obvious to other people, indeed quite the opposite.

In any case, I don't really see how porn and public nudity fall under the category of "inalienable rights." (Again, I'm talking about the U.S. here.) That is not to say they should be banned. Well, public nudity should be, for reasons that really should be obvious. But as for porn, its legality is up for debate. Certain kinds of it may be banned in certain ways or in certain places. Or not, as the case may be. But regardless, porn is in no way essential to the survival of liberty and democracy, and the banning of it, at least in principle, does not jeopardize the republic.

What is not up for debate is the freedom to express ideas, beliefs and opinions in a totally unfettered way. That's the core freedom, along with freedom of religion, and it must be zealously defended against all the fanatics who would take it away.

Thank You VERY Much for your post, Huxley.

Well, public nudity should be, for reasons that really should be obvious.

I politely disagree.

IMHO Public Nudity can be a valid & effective & harmless form of political speech.

Canada provides an example of this with the Doukhobors, a Russian immigrant group of religious non-Bolshevik communists who used public nudity to protest Canadian policies against them....

To take his followers away from the corrupting influence of non-Doukhobors and Edinolichniki ('individual owners') Doukhobors, and to find better conditions for agriculture, Verigin, starting in 1908, bought large tracts of land in south-eastern British Columbia. His first purchase was near the US border around Grand Forks. Later, he acquired large tracts of land further east, in the Slocan Valley around Castlegar. Between 1908 and 1912, some 8,000 people moved to these British Columbia lands from Saskatchewan, to continue their communal way of living.[17] In the milder climate of British Columbia, the settlers were able to plant fruit trees, and within a few years became renowned orchardists and producers of fruit preserves.

As the Community Doukhobors left Saskatchewan, the "reserves" there were closed by 1918.

The Sons of Freedom, meanwhile, responded to the Doukhobors conflict with Canadian policy with mass nudity and arson as a means of protesting against materialism, the land seizure by the government, compulsory education in government schools and, later on, Verigin's supposed assassination. This led to many confrontations with the Canadian government and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (continuing into the 1970s).

Warning: Link might be mildly NSFW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doukhobor#British_Columbia

That the Douks of Canada were willing to Hazard * the vicious Canadian mosquitoes in the Summer and the vicious Canadian cold in the winter has my admiration.....

Public Nudity gets attention.......

At least in much of the modern world........

And is better than burning and bombing to get attention...........


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukes_of_Hazzard

[Endovelico]

The free expression of ideas of course does not include such things as pornography (not an idea), public nudity...

Why not?

Endo,

Thank you for taking the trouble to actually read what I wrote.

Well, I suppose it's debatable. In a strictly American context, I understand "freedom of speech" to be the inalienable right to express (in whatever medium) ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a totally unfettered way. I think that's what the American founders had in mind and what most Americans have understood to be the meaning of free speech until quite recently.

In the latter half of the 20th century, the idea somehow took hold that "freedom of speech" actually means the inalienable right to say, display, or in fact do essentially whatever one wants. Thus, downloading pirated music, selling violent pornography, and airing one's genitals in public are all examples of "speech."

Now it seems pretty obvious to me that none of those things can reasonably be considered "speech." But then again, it often turns out that things that seem pretty obvious to me are in fact not obvious to other people, indeed quite the opposite.

In any case, I don't really see how porn and public nudity fall under the category of "inalienable rights." (Again, I'm talking about the U.S. here.) That is not to say they should be banned. Well, public nudity should be, for reasons that really should be obvious. But as for porn, its legality is up for debate. Certain kinds of it may be banned in certain ways or in certain places. Or not, as the case may be. But regardless, porn is in no way essential to the survival of liberty and democracy, and the banning of it, at least in principle, does not jeopardize the republic.

What is not up for debate is the freedom to express ideas, beliefs and opinions in a totally unfettered way. That's the core freedom, along with freedom of religion, and it must be zealously defended against all the fanatics who would take it away.

I found out, by personal experience, that the attraction of pornography wears off pretty quickly, so that not forbidding it may be the quickest way to reduce it to minimum proportions. As to nudity, while I think it may have its place in certain restricted environments, it isn't really offensive anywhere, although it may be misplaced. Also by personal experience I have noticed that after an initial shock, resulting only from our upbringing, it becomes quite indifferent. It may not always be the right choice, from an aesthetic point of view, but it doesn't shock me at all anymore. Forbidding it may not be adequate. But I agree that neither has much to do with freedom of speech...

[Huxley]

Reads like a selective case of banning for thee, but not for me.

Not really. For example, my ideological sympathies notwithstanding, I think Ibrahim should be perfectly free to spout his nonsense from the rooftops, whereas I would most likely object to the sight of a nude Tea Partier.

[Ibrahim]

Reads like a selective case of banning for thee, but not for me.

Not really. For example, my ideological sympathies notwithstanding, I think Ibrahim should be perfectly free to spout his nonsense from the rooftops, whereas I would most likely object to the sight of a nude Tea Partier.

Ah, you're so offended you're not going to reply to my refutation of your argument, but you will insult me by name pointlessly in otherwise content-free posts? How surprising.

"Sorry" I corrected all of your lies while refuting your failed defense of the right to promote racist violence.

[Mr. Perfect]

I think people should celebrate differences in cultures. If some cultures value modesty we should embrace that diversity. If genital culture became universal we would lose that diversity. Embrace diversity.

[Mr. Perfect]

Reads like a selective case of banning for thee, but not for me.

Not really. For example, my ideological sympathies notwithstanding, I think Ibrahim should be perfectly free to spout his nonsense from the rooftops, whereas I would most likely object to the sight of a nude Tea Partier.

Ah, you're so offended you're not going to reply to my refutation of your argument, but you will insult me by name pointlessly in otherwise content-free posts? How surprising.

"Sorry" I corrected all of your lies while refuting your failed defense of the right to promote racist violence.

He refuted you pretty darn good just a few posts up. Tantrums won;t help anything.

[Ibrahim]

For the benefit of the forum at large, I'm going to juxtapose a few quotes here in what I hope will be an instructive fashion.

Huxley is dishonestly re-editing the course of the conversation in a futile attempt to make his arguments look less ridiculous, as well as omitting or ocncealing his blatant falsehoods.

Anyone can read the thread in full to see how the conversation actually transpired. Huxley's self-serving editing serves no honest purpose.

[Ibrahim]

The free expression of ideas of course does not include such things as pornography (not an idea), public nudity...

Why not?

Actually the US Supreme Court has famously upheld the right to publish pornography under the first amendment.

[Doc]

The free expression of ideas of course does not include such things as pornography (not an idea), public nudity...

Why not?

Endo,

Thank you for taking the trouble to actually read what I wrote.

Well, I suppose it's debatable. In a strictly American context, I understand "freedom of speech" to be the inalienable right to express (in whatever medium) ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a totally unfettered way. I think that's what the American founders had in mind and what most Americans have understood to be the meaning of free speech until quite recently.

In the latter half of the 20th century, the idea somehow took hold that "freedom of speech" actually means the inalienable right to say, display, or in fact do essentially whatever one wants. Thus, downloading pirated music, selling violent pornography, and airing one's genitals in public are all examples of "speech."

Now it seems pretty obvious to me that none of those things can reasonably be considered "speech." But then again, it often turns out that things that seem pretty obvious to me are in fact not obvious to other people, indeed quite the opposite.

In any case, I don't really see how porn and public nudity fall under the category of "inalienable rights." (Again, I'm talking about the U.S. here.) That is not to say they should be banned. Well, public nudity should be, for reasons that really should be obvious. But as for porn, its legality is up for debate. Certain kinds of it may be banned in certain ways or in certain places. Or not, as the case may be. But regardless, porn is in no way essential to the survival of liberty and democracy, and the banning of it, at least in principle, does not jeopardize the republic.

What is not up for debate is the freedom to express ideas, beliefs and opinions in a totally unfettered way. That's the core freedom, along with freedom of religion, and it must be zealously defended against all the fanatics who would take it away.

I found out, by personal experience, that the attraction of pornography wears off pretty quickly, so that not forbidding it may be the quickest way to reduce it to minimum proportions. As to nudity, while I think it may have its place in certain restricted environments, it isn't really offensive anywhere, although it may be misplaced. Also by personal experience I have noticed that after an initial shock, resulting only from our upbringing, it becomes quite indifferent. It may not always be the right choice, from an aesthetic point of view, but it doesn't shock me at all anymore. Forbidding it may not be adequate. But I agree that neither has much to do with freedom of speech...

What about Snuff films? Snuff films where the deceased agrees to being snuffed?

[Mr. Perfect]

The free expression of ideas of course does not include such things as pornography (not an idea), public nudity...

Why not?

Actually the US Supreme Court has famously upheld the right to publish pornography under the first amendment.

With restriction. Details.