SJW's in Toronto turn violent

[Endus]

Yup. It goes against the spirit of the idea (it isn't so much as expressing themselves, rather stopping others from doing so), but it is free speech.

You need to take the good with the bad. It is difficult at times, but that is what it is.

Though, I need to say it, Endus you would be singing a different tune if the ideologies were switched.

Go on, find me a time when I've condemned anyone on the right for speaking, rather than the content of their speech.

[Yarathir]

It was some pretty mild shoving/crowd motion, and that's it. It's still not applaudable, but condemning it as "violent" is pretty silly.

You know why it was? Because whatever xir was was pushed and kept away by a crowd. It's still physical assault, which is not a form of free speech no matter how you slice it. You trying to pass it off as such is so typical of you.

[Tradewind]

More "group B wants to express their own speech in response to speech they dislike", which is freedom of speech.

Chanting "Shame" and attacking people who have different opinions. Such expression.

The best part is the comments in the video too. The kid who took the stage at 2:14 posted his experiences at the event.

I spoke at this event (2:13) and the BLM people called me coon and nigger in the audience as I spoke. In fact, a BLM girl came up to me and said to me, "When they start calling you nigger (referring to my white friends betraying me, apparently), then you'll understand."...... The only people who threw racial slurs around this entire event was them. They were ones telling us we were the "oppressors," even though, WE were standing up for EVERYONE's right of political protest, freedom of expression and speech.... God, these people are idiots.

[Endus]

You know why it was? Because whatever xir was was pushed and kept away by a crowd. It's still physical assault, which is not a form of free speech no matter how you slice it. You trying to pass it off as such is so typical of you.

I'm not trying to "pass it off" as anything. That kind of behaviour isn't the kind of thing that gets charges pressed. It's not good, but it's not "violence", either.

- - - Updated - - -

Chanting "Shame" and attacking people who have different opinions. Such expression.

Free speech rights aren't about everyone's speech being equally justified or informed.

It would also cover someone chanting "BANANAPHONE" over a megaphone, even though that's even more pointless. You don't defend free speech by trying to restrict the speech of those you disagree with.

[Yarathir]

I'm not trying to "pass it off" as anything. That kind of behaviour isn't the kind of thing that gets charges pressed. It's not good, but it's not "violence", either.

And it's also not free speech, which you tried to say it was.

[Darkrulerxxx]

I'm not trying to "pass it off" as anything. That kind of behaviour isn't the kind of thing that gets charges pressed. It's not good, but it's not "violence", either.

- - - Updated - - -



Free speech rights aren't about everyone's speech being equally justified or informed.

It would also cover someone chanting "BANANAPHONE" over a megaphone, even though that's even more pointless. You don't defend free speech by trying to restrict the speech of those you disagree with.

not too sure about canadian law but US law defines violence as "the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force"...i'd say intimidation by shoving would be considered violence.

[Endus]

And it's also not free speech, which you tried to say it was.

When did I say the pushing was "free speech"?

- - - Updated - - -

not too sure about canadian law but US law defines violence as "the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force"...i'd say intimidation by shoving would be considered violence.

Yes, but a crowd surging like that isn't the kind of thing that would ever see charges filed, particularly when nobody actually got hurt in any way.

[Kraenen]

I'd expect anyone to have some nuance in them to realize free speech as a moral, practical value and philosophical concept isn't only hindered by government interference.

[sarahtasher]

Oh noes, something never been seen before here : people complaining that SJW complaints are against ''frudom of spach', which, we all know, means you can send pictures of genitals with death threats, but not say mean things about the guru of the month.

[Yarathir]

When did I say the pushing was "free speech"?

What was seen it that video was that person physically assaulting another, being held away, the police showing up and one of them lying about not seeing anything. And this is what you had to say it was:

More "group B wants to express their own speech in response to speech they dislike", which is freedom of speech.

[Tradewind]

Free speech rights aren't about everyone's speech being equally justified or informed.

It would also cover someone chanting "BANANAPHONE" over a megaphone, even though that's even more pointless. You don't defend free speech by trying to restrict the speech of those you disagree with.

Bolded for emphasis. Since that's exactly what this horde of freakish troglodytes were trying to do to Mr Peterson.

I was mocking their methods, not suggesting they needed to be restricted. Wouldn't make sense, their actions and stupidity to more damage to their "cause" than shutting them up could ever achieve. I say let the circus continue, it's entertaining.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh noes, something never been seen before here : people complaining that SJW complaints are against ''frudom of spach', which, we all know, means you can send pictures of genitals with death threats, but not say mean things about the guru of the month.

Confirmed sarahtasher post, 99.96% certainty. Literally nothing in this post is relevant to the discussion or even remotely interesting.

[Darkrulerxxx]

When did I say the pushing was "free speech"?

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, but a crowd surging like that isn't the kind of thing that would ever see charges filed, particularly when nobody actually got hurt in any way.

sure it probably wouldn't be cause for the police officer to arrest them for it but since we were talking about the other side turning "violent", their intentions are not for expressing their side of free speech because at the moment, it wouldn't be considered free speech.

[Endus]

I'd expect anyone to have some nuance in them to realize free speech as a moral, practical value and philosophical concept isn't only hindered by government interference.

This argument keeps cropping up, but it fundamentally ignores what freedom of speech is. You're trying to create a valuation of certain kinds of speech to justify attacking other kinds of speech you deem have lesser value. That's not a stance that supports free speech. That's an assault of free speech.

You cannot argue that the rights of the protestors should be infringed to protect the same rights of those giving their speech. Not and claim to be protecting free speech as a value.

Shouting at people you disagree with is free speech. It does not in any way silence those you're shouting at.

[GennGreymane]

Id say any physical assault is violent, wouldn't you? Would you slap or push your woman and tell the officer that wasn't violent?

I know its Toranto, but heres why I am not concerend. No signs of injury, which at least in the US matters a lot.

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article120.htm#p120.00

S 120.00 Assault in the third degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:
1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes
such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another
person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

Assault in the second degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when:
1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he
causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes
such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a deadly
weapon or a dangerous instrument; or
* 3. With intent to prevent a peace officer, a police officer,
prosecutor as defined in subdivision thirty-one of section 1.20 of the
criminal procedure law, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse,
sanitation enforcement agent, New York city sanitation worker, a
firefighter, including a firefighter acting as a paramedic or emergency
medical technician administering first aid in the course of performance
of duty as such firefighter, an emergency medical service paramedic or
emergency medical service technician, or medical or related personnel in
a hospital emergency department, a city marshal, a school crossing guard
appointed pursuant to section two hundred eight-a of the general
municipal law, a traffic enforcement officer or traffic enforcement
agent, from performing a lawful duty, by means including releasing or
failing to control an animal under circumstances evincing the actor's
intent that the animal obstruct the lawful activity of such peace
officer, police officer, prosecutor as defined in subdivision thirty-one
of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law, registered nurse,
licensed practical nurse, sanitation enforcement agent, New York city
sanitation worker, firefighter, paramedic, technician, city marshal,
school crossing guard appointed pursuant to section two hundred eight-a
of the general municipal law, traffic enforcement officer or traffic
enforcement agent, he or she causes physical injury to such peace
officer, police officer, prosecutor as defined in subdivision thirty-one
of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law, registered nurse,
licensed practical nurse, sanitation enforcement agent, New York city
sanitation worker, firefighter, paramedic, technician or medical or
related personnel in a hospital emergency department, city marshal,
school crossing guard, traffic enforcement officer or traffic
enforcement agent; or

120.10 Assault in the first degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the first degree when:
1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he
causes such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a
deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or
2. With intent to disfigure another person seriously and permanently,
or to destroy, amputate or disable permanently a member or organ of his
body, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or
3. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,
he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to
another person, and thereby causes serious physical injury to another
person; or
4. In the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempted
commission of a felony or of immediate flight therefrom, he, or another
participant if there be any, causes serious physical injury to a person
other than one of the participants.
Assault in the first degree is a class B felony.

In this scenario its hard to show assault by NY standards
(this was a quick look up and in no way should be taken as actual legal advise)

[Pebrocks The Warlock]

Oh noes, something never been seen before here : people complaining that SJW complaints are against ''frudom of spach', which, we all know, means you can send pictures of genitals with death threats, but not say mean things about the guru of the month.

What are you trying to say here? You're not making much sense.

[sarahtasher]

Bolded for emphasis. Since that's exactly what this horde of freakish troglodytes were trying to do to Mr Peterson.

I was mocking their methods, not suggesting they needed to be restricted. Wouldn't make sense, their actions and stupidity to more damage to their "cause" than shutting them up could ever achieve. I say let the circus continue, it's entertaining.

- - - Updated - - -



Confirmed sarahtasher post, 99.96% certainty. Literally nothing in this post is relevant to the discussion or even remotely interesting.

The typical ''my freedom of speech is infringed by people telling me my views sucks hardcore'' ?

[Endus]

What was seen it that video was that person physically assaulting another, being held away, the police showing up and one of them lying about not seeing anything. And this is what you had to say it was:

The pushing was a small part of the video. So basically, you assumed something, and were wrong.

Bolded for emphasis. Since that's exactly what this horde of freakish troglodytes were trying to do to Mr Peterson.

Expressing yourself in protest is not attempting to silence those you're protesting.

This is what I mean; you folks seem to have this idea that "freedom of speech" means you have a right to a platform to express yourself without opposition or outcry. That's not the case. That's a position that necessarily restricts freedom of speech, it doesn't defend it.

Freedom of speech is not protected by declaring that one person has the sole right to speak and everyone else has to shut up.

[sarahtasher]

What are you trying to say here? You're not making much sense.

You really not see anything wrong with the (hourly thread about) SJW are against the freedom of speech, they disagree with me and should shut up

[Dextroden]

Yeah. Pushing isn't particularly violent, but it's still violence. Unless, someone wants to argue why shoving protesters around isn't bad or violent.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I am not going to rank people on craziness - but things like that are just unnecessary. People should be allowed to voice their opinion; and while what the protestors do falls under that as well, it's in a very uncivilized manner.

Well yeah, thing is it's been going on for awhile but I doubt this forum will acknowledge it, they tend to think it's not a big deal and ignorable.