Hello Darkness! The Official Blog of Helen Keller

Folks,

This particular entry is sort of a tie between two different categories, but is being presented in one category since I'm trying to have at least a shred of integrity about the process.

XEROX XEROX XEROX



There can be no better example of doin' a little cuttin' 'n pastin' than grainfedprairieboy and his misadventures in trying to articulate the death of free speech in Canada.

First, a word on plagiarism. It's easily caught folks. If all of a sudden a dumb goof pukes out a better-than-average pile, chances are, he didn't write it. Where this topic blurs into the Google U category is that it's usually done for the same reasons. That reason being, of course, the dreaded flop-sweat of blowing an argument. So, off to the internet we go to reach for some handy bolster just to top up an argument.

And then we get this:

[quote="grainfedprairieboy"]In 1984, teacher James Keegstra, was charged with denying the Holocaust. His lawyer, argued that section 319 (2) of the Criminal Code is an infringement of his Charter Rights of freedom of expression, but the Supreme Court ruled that it was a justified infringement.[/quote]

From this:

[quote="Wikipedia.org"]In 1984, James Keegstra, a Canadian high-school teacher, was charged with denying the Holocaust and making anti-Semitic claims in his classroom as part of the course material. Keegstra and his lawyer, Doug Christie, argued that the section of the Criminal Code (now section 319{2}), is an infringement of the Charter of Rights (section 9{b}). The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it was decided that the law he was convicted under did infringe on his freedom of expression, but it was a justified infringement. Keegstra was convicted, and fired from his job.[/quote]

Uh-oh. But, grainfedprairieboy shook his little glue bottle, noticed he had a couple of drips and drabs left in it! Fuck it, let's head on back to wikipedia.org to steal this:

[quote="grainfedprairieboy"]In 1985, Ernest Zundel was tried and convicted under a "false news" law and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment by an Ontario court for publishing material denying the Holocaust. (Please note the false news law was overturned in 1992 when the Supreme Court of Canada declared it unconstitutional.[/quote]

COMMENT CORNER OFFICIAL COMMENT: I love that he's telling ME the state of the law! Classic!

Anyhoo, from the same holocaust denial entry comes:

[quote="Wikipedia.org"]Former Canadian resident Ernst Zündel operated a small-press publishing house called Samisdat Publishing, which published and distributed Holocaust-denial material such as Did Six Million Really Die? by Richard Harwood (a/k/a Richard Verrall - a British neo-Nazi leader). In 1985, he was tried and convicted under a "false news" law and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment by an Ontario court for "disseminating and publishing material denying the Holocaust." Zündel gained considerable notoriety after this conviction, and a number of free-speech activists stepped forward to defend his right to publish his opinion. His conviction was overturned in 1992 when the Supreme Court of Canada declared the "false news" law unconstitutional.[/quote]

You'll see a glaring error in the last part of his cut 'n paste, thus highlighting his astounding ignorance and arrogance. He switches the acquital of Zundel by the SCC in 1992 to the "overturning" of the law (does he mean repeal?). As of 2006, S.181 of the CC still is on the books. However, the case of R v. Zundel pretty much makes it a moot point to prosecute somebody for committing the crime. Ah well, maybe grainfed will at least xerox that last bit for free into his signature or something.

Now, there are lots of people on here who bandy about the term "Free Speech" as though it were licence to say whatever fool fucking thing pops into their empty head regardless of the consequences. It isn't. When Erasmus and Voltaire argued for people's rights to speech, or Milton defending the freedom of the press, they were defending the right of the expression of an idea. Galileo getting hauled into court for proposing the helio-centric model of the solar system is a prime example in addition to Darwin's Origin of Species.

Ultimately, the point of the concept is to protect unpopular ideas from being trodden and silenced by an unsympathetic majority. It's a protection against mobocracy.

Oliver Wendall Holmes wrote in Schenck v. the United States: and

For those that don't know the context, Schenck was convicted of thwarting the efforts of the US government's draft for World War I under the Espionage Act. The strict wording of Holmes' test has since been abandoned.

This becomes a definition of what free speech isn't. Free speech isn't about being able to stand on a street corner and denounce people as pedophiles without a lick of truth. It doesn't stand in the way of libel. It doesn't act as a defense to perjury, obstructing justice or inciting hate. What is taken as a fantastic concept is perniciously used instead to create undue division, strife and ugliness in society.

Still, that's one man's take on free speech. Grainfedprairieboy's take on free speech is that all speech is free for him to take. Enjoy the award you slack-jawed son-of-a-hussie bastich!