The worst thing about censorship is [REDACTED] because it leads to [REDACTED] and [REDACTED].

@jebremocampo9194

2 жыл бұрын

Nice

@stevenscott2136

2 жыл бұрын

That is not the way to write a good SCP. 😀

@bludeuce3855

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevenscott2136 well some of us dont know how to use the blank object thats used to black out certain words like the site that contained SCP-1504

@rugrat1235

2 жыл бұрын

😉😁

@GoblinKoboldGaming

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevenscott2136 Was not expecting to see an SCP reference in a Reason TV video. Made my day XD

The idea of making emotions and beliefs illegal is horrid. The idea of making expression of attitudes illegal is horrid (and common in Europe, Canada, N Zealand, Australia)

@matbroomfield

2 жыл бұрын

It's not the beliefs that are illegal, it's expressing them to the disadvantage of other people who have done nothing wrong. For instance "All white people should be killed" or "all men should be castrated." These are not mere expressions of (ignorant) opinions - these are calls to arms.

@jakegarrett8109

2 жыл бұрын

@@matbroomfield That's a pretty dark slope, what if that call to arms is "lets protest". What if I say all rapists should be executed because I don't want to pay to feed a rapist when innocent people are starving? What if I say lazy people should work (implication is that they wouldn't get their communist payout and either "work or starve"). You basically can't say anything then, go ahead, make a statement you THINK is not offensive, and I'll do a political twisting narrative to the point you look worse than Adolf. Next, lets say we elect another Adolf (implying we haven't, or that Turd-o isn't), what if they say hate against politicians is not allowed? Is that not specifically the point so that we can complain about the issues of government lest we resort to the final option? Is that not entirely its point?

@AnyVideo999

2 жыл бұрын

@@matbroomfield Threats must be targeted and personal to be taken as actionable speech in my opinion. Sweeping claims with no clear plan or ability to carry out, such as an American proclaiming "glass of juice", should not be considered a threat.

@matbroomfield

2 жыл бұрын

@@AnyVideo999 Not at all. If I say "It's about time black Americans started murdering white police" I'm inciting violence despite the generality. If I instead say, "The police deserve to die," I'm no less targeting them because I use passive aggressive language. I'm sure you've heard the term "stochastic terrorism." If the term BKP is then substituted, or commonly understood euphemisms such as "It's time the ghetto helped the police to sleep", that is still a call to action. Repeatedly planting the seed, or using dog whistles is absolutely a threat.

@alexjones7845

2 жыл бұрын

@@matbroomfield There are already very specific and narrow legal definitions for 'incitement' and the degree to which incitement is protected speech in the US is determined by the imminent lawless action test introduced by the 1969 Supreme Court decision in the case Brandenburg v. Ohio. The court ruled that incitement of events in the indefinite future was protected, but encouragement of "imminent" illegal acts was not protected. This "view reflects longstanding law and is shared by the Federalist Society, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education." All of your example quotes about murdering white police, white people, castration would be protected speech under the first amendment in the US and would not be incitement because none are specific enough to rise to the level of incitement. I just don't see it as useful to society to throw all of the people making those statement in jail. Not a society I want to live in. I assume everyone here has overlapping goals of everyone working together or getting alone without violence. The knowledge I have of human nature is that the more you try to repress or control people and silence them the more you create resentment across groups and the tendency for increased violence. Just seems like open dialog where people learn more about others different from themselves is the best way to move forward.

Hateful speech, ideas, images are disturbing, but should not be banned by law. "Hate crimes" are another foolish attempt to address the motivation of the perpetrator. Law should focus on the harm done or attempted, not on the mindset of the person doing the bad act.

@bjd15664

2 жыл бұрын

But, the definition of "hateful" is very narrow, and targets specific gender and race, yes I'm using the singular, while letting those who don't fit into that narrow definition spew hatefulness unfettered because they're outside of their own racist and hetero-phobic mindset.

@SilencerNate

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for bringing this up on crimes. I was going to say the same.

@Stevarooni

2 жыл бұрын

Intent makes a difference...running someone over with your car because a bee got in and you were getting stung and this distracted is one thing, but having a death's-head grin while you intentionally steer toward an innocent child is another. But yes, whether you're killing someone because they're a child, a minority race, a religious individual, or just because you want to feel murder in your life...that doesn't matter. Murder is wrong.

@a.williams1945

2 жыл бұрын

Well said. The whole notion of "hate crime" and "hate speech" is very disturbing and I feel can lead to nothing but bad things for everyone

@StewPidassole

2 жыл бұрын

Disagree. Accidentally hitting someone with your car should be charged differently than willfully hitting someone with your car.

The people in power change and it's they who decide what constitutes hate speech. In other words, your decision to ban "hate speech" can come back to bite you.

@kingofthorns203

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly! It's an arbitrary, fanciful concept

@ForbiddenFollyFollower

2 жыл бұрын

Except politics always keep getting more left.

@brent4073

2 жыл бұрын

Hate crimes are slowly becoming hate speech laws. In the Ahmaud Arbery case they looked up racist FB posts from years prior to prove it was 'hate' related. They were guilty of trying to arrest a man and Arbery ended up dying as a result, the 'hate crime' charge wasn't even needed since they were already clearly in the wrong and had proof that he had trespassed (reason why they pursued him).

@thirdplanet4471

2 жыл бұрын

Like what happened to vaush

@afriedrich1452

8 ай бұрын

Such a law would require all Bibles and Qurans to be burned as hate speech.

If something can't be stated, it can't be debunked.

The thing about Hate Speech is that it's not about hateful speech, it's about giving the government the power to regulate and decide what their people can say. That's it. It's all about power.

@mathisr.44

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly. I'm more concerned about the government restricting speech and the free expression of ideas than I am about people saying hateful things.

@trevorbirkbeck4011

2 жыл бұрын

Well I'm trying to charge Trudeau with hate speech.

@TheNoblot

11 ай бұрын

the government decides what is hate speech and decides who has spoken with hate speech intentions even if the words are no violent irrelevant to violence laws of social media control are here to keep you as a sheep and those laws are the sheep dogs that keep every sheep in line

The iron law of prohibition also applies to speech: as speech is regulated more intensely, the potency of prohibited speech increases.

@slynthehedgehog8061

2 ай бұрын

If you can't behave in public, you were badly raised.

If you give the government the power to ban "hate speech" or whatever, then there's no incentive for them to stop there. Our feelings getting hurt is the price to pay for being able to say whatever we want.

@stevenrozo

5 ай бұрын

Well said

*HATE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH*

@rozzgrey801

3 ай бұрын

Hate speech is political coercion disguised as justice. Hate speech is political control.

I prefer it when bigots (of all stripes) speak their mind. Makes it easier to know who to avoid being around. Don't want to rent me an apartment because I'm bisexual? Put up a sign on your office door saying so. Don't want to do business with me because I'm Christian or because I'm white? Say it out loud. You're not somebody I want to give my hard-earned dollars to. Don't want to hire me because I'm a woman? Say so in your want ad. You're not somebody I want to profit from my labor. So shout it out, loud and clear. I don't want you to suffer because of your views; I just want to know who to avoid associating with.

@ForbiddenFollyFollower

2 жыл бұрын

If there was real freedom of association in America segregation would just come back.

Ignore "hate" speech or engage with it critically. Banning it(if "it" can be defined) will only cause death in the end because it all comes at the cost of a government with a gun in your face in the end.

@slynthehedgehog8061

2 ай бұрын

You mean the electric chair ? I thought they switched to lethal injections... Either way the metaphorical gun is already in your face.

It reminds me of a great quote whom I cant recall who said it off the top of my head. "Freedom of speech protects the ideas we abhor, for without it we would lose the ideas we cherish"

Ask anybody from former communist run countries. All those countries had laws about "verbal crimes".

@matbroomfield

2 жыл бұрын

America has laws against verbal crimes ALWAYS has. Even if you removed hate speech, it still would. How do YOU draw the line?

@agrameroldoctane_66

2 жыл бұрын

@@matbroomfield all defamation and similar laws are about targeting specific subject with false accusations/informations that need to be proven false in court.

@bh7622

2 жыл бұрын

@@matbroomfield You do understand the difference between calling someone a name that might hurt their feelings and saying something publicly that could hurt their ability to make money?

@matbroomfield

2 жыл бұрын

@@agrameroldoctane_66 We're not talking about defamation. And entire racial or gender demographic does not have the standing or finances to due defamers in court, nor would it be viable to do so.

@matbroomfield

2 жыл бұрын

@@bh7622 What does their ability to make money or feelings have to do with anything? I am talking about speech which endangers or harms groups of people by creating a negative narrative about some part of their existence.

Criminalizing (and even stigmatizing) speech ends up prohibiting the possibility of ever talking about controversial (be they important) subjects. A person being offended by speech, doesn't validate censorship, due to the nature of offence, it being subjective. Censorship has, and always will be enforced by the cultural- or ruling elite. *Hate speech is free speech.*

Hate speech is just another way of saying I don't like what your opinion

@matbroomfield

2 жыл бұрын

Utter nonsense. Hate speech is speech designed to generate hatred towards a particular community of people. It's far more than simple disagreement of opinion.

@derekisthematrix

2 жыл бұрын

@@matbroomfield and here lies the problem with "hate speech". It is impossible to define it. What you think is hateful may carry absolutely no malice to others. It's a slippery slope of censorship and control.

@LexRuger718

2 жыл бұрын

@@derekisthematrix Any reasonable person knows exactly what hate speech consists of.

@jebremocampo9194

2 жыл бұрын

@@LexRuger718 really? Ok, then. Is saying that there are only 2 genders hate speech? Edit: how about saying Taiwan is a country, ukraine should self govern, abortion is (wrong or right)? When even basic facts come under the ire of people, how on earth can you actually gaurantee that my definition of hate speech is really hate speech? Wanna know what hate speech is? Your speech is hate speech. At least to someone in the world

@edgarbm6407

2 жыл бұрын

@@jebremocampo9194 💯

If I hate most governments and say so is that hate speech?

@shrimuyopa8117

2 жыл бұрын

Apparently it is the worst form of hate speech. 🙃

@noblephoenix6151

2 жыл бұрын

No it's sedition. We made a different word for it, so it's different and worse than normal hate speech against non government plebs.

@jeremykraenzlein5975

2 жыл бұрын

"If I hate most governments and say so is that hate speech?". Yes, if the government hates you and says so.

@auntywoke3640

2 жыл бұрын

@@noblephoenix6151 sedition does sound bad

When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say. Also, forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest so the more Gov cracks down on an idea the more people are interested in it that otherwise wouldn't want anything to do with it.

Not enough of the new adults were taught about 'The Friends of Voltaire' authored by Steven Tallentyre aka Evalyn Hall in 1906. Her famous quotes should be an epiphany and golden rule for any people of a democratic nation to live by. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

I've been waiting SO LONG for someone to write precisely THIS book, that I was starting to think I'd eventually have to do it myself.

It's OK to hate things. It's not OK to act upon them. Think of all the countless tweets that went out saying the most vile things possible about Donald Trump. If you had hate speech laws, all of those people would be silenced. I think in general, you have emotional problems if you truly hate something or someone but I don't want it to be illegal. If you make hate speech laws only around say race, you just send those people underground where they can't be confronted and opposed. Fight speech with speech.

@jeremykraenzlein5975

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, good point. So many people spent so much time and energy calling Trump a fascist. If Trump actually were a fascist, these people would have faced legal troubles, similar to the angry school board parents who the current administration labels as domestic terrorists. The fact that so many people called Trump a fascist without fear proves that Trump is NOT a fascist.

'That's not hate speech, Michael.' 'Well /I/ hated it!' The Office satire hits hard.

Hate is human .Speech is human .You can't stop it with laws . Speech is not violence no matter how unpleasant it may seem to different people .

I am OFFENDED that people are OFFENDED. Can we have a law to protect me?

When you tear out a man’s tongue you aren’t proving him a liar but proving the world you fear what he might say

Politically correct speech doesn't need protection. Offensive speech needs protection, because popular opinions change over time. What is politically offensive today, could be mainstream next year.

Wow who would have thought freedom is better!

@matbroomfield

2 жыл бұрын

Really? You think that this is simply about freedom? What about the freedom of the people vilified and murdered because of YOUR expression of freedom?

@claycopopo

2 жыл бұрын

@@matbroomfield They have a right to be offended ... I have a right not to care .... Just like you don't care if your speach offends me! Regarding the people who were murdered, there's already laws prohibiting that!

@matbroomfield

2 жыл бұрын

@@claycopopo This is not about the right to offend people. Obviously murdering people is illegal - but so is incitement to murder, and that's where hate speech and dog whistling comes in. What if you live in the Pakistan, and I keep on using a public platfor to say "Americans are evil and should be dead." I didn't literally call for your murder, but that could EASILY be the result. Surely you can appreciate that words have power?

@ElitePraetorianGuard

2 жыл бұрын

@@matbroomfield And in your example a shift in political power could put in place a regime in the USA that bans criticism, using hate speech laws that people advocated for, of US foreign policy that directly fuels Pakistani hatred of Americans. After all you may be spreading anti-American "hate". The door swings both ways. When you give censors power, who decides what constitutes hate speech? Your goal may be to protect marginalized groups of today, whose to say that those will be the marginalized groups of tomorrow? Imagine a world were we never got to hear MLK's I have a dream speech because it would've been "hatred" towards whites based on ideology at the time.

@matbroomfield

2 жыл бұрын

@@ElitePraetorianGuard You're correct, it's a narrow path to tread, like the prohibition of religion in US politics, yet the founders dared to tread that path. And yes, it is abused regularly, but they were absolutely correct to try. The laws need to be sculpted in such a way that there is a delineation between debate and incitement to hatred.

If you are at peace within, nothing anyone says will cause you to feel hatred. If you're internally conflicted, "hate speech" will bring that up. People should be allowed to say what they want.

The eagerness to shut down speech people disagree with shows a failure to hold to a principle of reciprocity. Anyone who's surprised when laws they've made get used against them by the people they dislike is too much of a spring lamb to take seriously.

I'm an ACLU liberal Democrat and I LOVED this. Many thanks to our Libertarian friends at Reason. A threat to free speech somewhere is a threat to free speech everywhere.

We used to teach kids that “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never harm me” but now people want to silence anyone they disagree with. Most “hate speech” is exaggerated anyway. Get a thicker skin. Free speech shouldn’t have a cost.

What is hate speech? Who decides what hate speech is?

Freedom of speech protects unpopular ideas. Popular ideas don't need help being protected.

@bludeuce3855

2 жыл бұрын

and the umpopulor ideas and the people the hte speesh laws claim to protect the transgdners and gays make them most hated and death marked

Whats crazy is they keep changeing the meaning of words.They keep people confused!

Hate speech is not a thing, and never has been

Some very good points, made succinctly and effectively. But this did leave out a crucial argument. Promoting the ban of so-called hate speech, by legal or less formal means is insulting to those the bans would purport to protect. It directly implies that certain people require protection from speech, and without such bans, cannot and possibly should not stand up for themselves. It is far better to leave these freedoms in tact, and help those who are spoken against in hurtful ways to stand up for themselves in ways that are productive and persuasive. Whether that is through humor, casual discussion, public demonstration, or any other peaceful means.

@TwinFalls88

7 ай бұрын

Well said

yes, free speech is critically important; Canada, the UK, and Australia have all but abandoned it. The First Amendment cannot exist without the Second.

@ForbiddenFollyFollower

2 жыл бұрын

What do you seriously think the future will be?

@nogreatreset8506

Жыл бұрын

Canada has free speech, unless you want the freedom to start violence with your words (words can lead to violence depending on who you deal with) or threaten genocide, then yes that speech is restricted and for good reason. America actually also has restrictions on speech which include active threats and speech that hurts people for example yelling bomb in an airport and starting a panic which can result in injury or death.

@watchdealer11

Жыл бұрын

@@nogreatreset8506 🤣🤣🤣🤣 good one. You're very funny

@nogreatreset8506

Жыл бұрын

@@watchdealer11 my friend I know the saying sticks and stones can break my bones but words should never hurt me but the truth is there are lots of snowflakes in todays world that can literally turn violent and harm you for speech. There are folks who are also prone to panic an act irrational which can lead to dangerous outcomes. So that's why there are certain restrictions on speech, an obviously threats have always been a criminal act/against the law.

_"Hate speech is not freedom of speech, insulting others is not freedom of speech._ _And I'm the one who chooses what is hate speech and what isn't, I'm the one who chooses who you can insult and who you can't."_

Everything can be hate speech in the eyes of someone else.

The people who push these laws are opposed to human freedom. The goal of many of them is not just to criminalize speech they don't like, but to criminalize thoughts also. They would love a world built like 1984 as long as they were in charge.

I was raised in the sticks and stones era. People now are pathetic whimps or control freaks

Banning speech for safety is like being deaf on a battle field.

I HATE THE ATTACK ON BIOLOGICAL REALITY

People believe that governments are a kind of "older brother" who will protect them. But what if in 10 yrs we have a government that is radical and right-wing and brutal? Do we really want this government to say what we can and cannot say? Never give a government more power than necessary and never forget that the rulers will change over the years.

when you remove the ability to talk all you are left with is "you wanna fight about it?"

All polls really show us about free speech in America is that people think it's important until they consider what it actually entails. Americans love free speech, provided everyone is nice and uncontroversial at all times.

It's almost like every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Non offensive speech needs no protection.

I wish people didn't need this explained, but they do. This should be obvious. Clearly, it is not.

All banning things does in general is force the most fringe ideals to fester in the darkness and take root. The only option is open debate where ideas are challenged. People don’t want to admit or they don’t realize that the work will never be finished and vigilance is forever necessary. Society will never ever reach the infomercial ideals of “set it and forget it”.

Hate is subjective

I will emphasize that even if (or I would say ESPECIALLY IF) those laws DON'T backfire, they are still terrible. If they don't backfire, in our current culture, it just means they're badly accounted.

Thank You Reason ! 🇺🇸 PROTECT* 1st Amendment, Free Speech ! 👏 Eloquently presented. Speech is the best way to counter speech. Not through prosecution & other punitive measures

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a conviction for hate crime in a UK court of law requires neither material evidence nor burden of proof. A successful prosecution for "hate crime" simply requires that somebody/anybody makes an accusation that a "hate crime" has been committed. And that is considered good enough for conviction. Or someone makes a "complaint" about something which has been said or written. The "complaint" is sufficient for investigation, arrest, prosecution and conviction. So if a complete stranger, passing-by on the other side of the street, hears someone express an opinion and considers that a "hate crime" has been committed, then that is sufficient for a guilty verdict and potential custodial sentence. At what point can it be legally proven that "extreme dislike" ends and "hate" begins ? Because there is no such thing - to my knowledge - as "extreme dislike crime". Can it really be that one can be jailed for expressing an opinion in Britain in 2024 ? I suppose that if Julian Assange can be imprisoned indefinitely for committing no crime at all, then anything is possible. "Britain. A country in which everything is policed. Except crime". Mark Steyn

Would you prefer to know who the racist is?Would you like to be able to debate? Or would you prefer to not know and be dumbed down?

@mr.gigagod9736

11 ай бұрын

Everyone has the right to an opinion, end of story.

These laws are just a form of unlawful political control, so anyone accused or charged with 'hate speech' can claim that they are political prisoners, being falsely charged for purely political reasons for their political views. This would fundamentally undermine the law's basis in legal terms, it's an abuse of law for political ends so is not just and is anti human rights.

It’s too late. It’s already happened here in the U.S…

Can people please stop saying "off-ten"? It's not a word.

Freedom is the Greater Good. Peaceful resistance and non-compliance to restore Human Rights and Civil Liberties. Western Liberal Democracies have had Charter Rights for over 800 years and this is a sacrosanct agreement between elected officials and the people.

If offensive speech is banned how will we know who the idiots are?

Since 2019 The Canadian Disinformation Network has been addressing issues revolving around the dissemination of extremist ideologies, disinformation and hate speech. Their objective is to develop tools that collect, store and visualize the undermining of democratic political processes online. Given that ideologies, scientific knowledge and social norms may all be subject to change in relatively short periods of time, it is entirely possible that their own efforts may contribute to the undermining of democratic action, whether unintentional or not.

@johnnypoker46

Жыл бұрын

Who propagates more disinformation than the political parties during an election campaign?

The law of unintended consequences.

Thank you!

I got an ad from this

Love this video !

Can’t be a hate speech if I love saying it

I may hate what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it. - paraphrased from somebody or other

Just based on my own experience, I don't remember my High School civics class ever really going into detail on why free speech is important - it sounds like a good idea so we just kind of gloss over the reason that it's enshrined in the Constitution. I think that lack of critical analysis leads to people coming up with their own idea of what free speech ought to mean, which left to their own devices people decide it means the government can't stop someone from being critical of the government, but anything else is fair game for regulation.

@nerdicusdorkum2923

2 жыл бұрын

Sounds like a good project ala the communism grade sharing. Where everyone got an F at the end because there was no incentive to work hard when it will be taken away and make everyone equally a failure anyway. Maybe have the teacher implement a bunch of draconical rules on what is allowed to be discussed for a month, and dock a percentage point off of your grade for every infraction. Infractions of course being whenever the hell the teacher decides you have said anything he deems offensive.

Government dose not want these laws for you and me but for the power they get from these laws.

i love how reason shows how it affects everyone

There is no such thing as "hate speech", just as there is no such thing as a " hate crime".

Dark days ahead for Europe

Spot on and well said ; ) sad thing is those people busted by their own law still would not try to repeal it... how do we get thru to that? From what I have seen the theocratic police state is not going to back down no matter what.

Video is PERFECT.

they backfire because I hate a lot of bs and yet it still exists!

The 1st has limitations, incitement for instance. There is a grey area, but some can’t deal with complexity.

It’d be nice if you get flagged that they tell you what you posted that was “wrong”. 🙄

This is what you see happening today.

Amen!

Yep!

Who is the one that determines what is hate speech completely open ended law , tyrannical? !!!

That 60% figure is frightening.

The history of juris prudence has always made the distinction between thought and criminal behavior. The foundation of current "hate speech" legislation is built on the sand of an ever whimsical anthropology, where identity is assigned by cultural fashion. And because we've lost the transcendence of human worth and value, disagreement with my beliefs becomes a disavowing of my essential humanity.

This is what they want bro. Break into groups and let them fight lol

In short: Fuck censorship

@mathisr.44

2 жыл бұрын

I agree

If you know history, you know where this is going.

I'm exasperated with contempt at the over-promotions, & at the villainising of speech of 'folk'.

@francisjo3

2 жыл бұрын

"Folx" 😉

Well if it is always backfiring I am all for it. Censor fcking everything. Dont stop your enemy if he is making a mistake

The beauty of choice.

No such thing as hate speech.. that idea is totally crazy. We are all adults and can make it own choices. Don't need laws for everything

Yeah. KZread ain't much better in labelling opinions as hate speech. Besides.... definition of the word hate means a strong dislike. "We" and indeed "I" have the right in expressing this. Stop dictating. That was my Mothers job.

Hate speech, Hate crime, Hate anything is stupid, hatred isn't illegal. crimes to send a message are still crimes and preventing them is still the same job. I disagree with hate crime hate speech hate anything. not as a thing but as an exception in law. it's a nickel jerking.

"Hate speech" will always mean any speech that the people in power hate.

@mr.gigagod9736

11 ай бұрын

"hate speech" is just an excuse for leftist to shut down opinions they disagree with

Prohibition does not work. Alcohol, drugs, guns or words. I guess all the Proponents of these laws never had children. Go ahead tell them no cuz I said so & find out

Hateful speech can be wrong but you should have the right to be as hateful as you damn well want. People shouldn’t be racist but they have or in the case of some countries should have the right to be racist.

All laws that make crimes against any group more (or less illegal) that any other group create justice inequality. Any law that creates justice inequality should not be enacted and repealed if if already made into law.

already backfiring in Scotland 😂

Because “hate speech” is a narrative, not an actual thing. Slander, libel, defamation, and overt threats are objective grievances; hurt feelings, offence taking, and/or “challenges to one’s humanity” are not.

It amazes me that videos about this have to be created. It should be painfully obvious that authoritarianism is not the way. It seems it still is not...

I'd have to read the book but ECtHR Article 17 already prosecutes without looking into veracity (Usual Holocaust denial) Article 10 ways freedom of speech with other values by looking into the veracity of the issue that has been brought up. To say this is new to Europe is sounds a bit far fetched, Gasson law in France, Faurisson Affair, Germany and multiple Neo-Nazi related Holocaust Denial case law, Irving Trials and much more already went and passed within Europe. This is a battleground already lost for free-speech fans and a battleground won for Argument from democracy supporters. How you feel about it probably reflects more about your personal values but to say Europe is changing is a misstatement, it was lost a long time ago.

Canada?