Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (39935)	4/17/2004 8:49:41 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793743

Did you really need a separate law to cover that? Killing people or putting them in situations where they are bound to die wasn't illegal before this law? (a) killing members of the group; or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (39935)	4/17/2004 9:06:22 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793743

It seems to be a reasonable limitation on speech. The law may read to be harmless, but that is not the way it is enforced. Canada has already got one Christian in on a felony bust for saying that he felt homosexuality was immoral. It's a "slippery slope," that restricts speech. We are stomping it out here in Academia, but Canada is applying it to the entire population. "Hate speech" is a way to apply censorship. You have to stop it whenever it rears it's head. Canada just doesn't have the intellectual or economic freedom we have. It is much easier there to restrict it.