it's rare that you can articulate something better than hitchens could.

he's basically right. i would take a more fundamental position of restricting statist authority, because i'm more of an anarchist than he was, but i don't have any disagreement with him.

and, this is the position one would expect from people that call themselves "liberals".

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." - chomsky

my mom didn't tell me much of value when i was a kid, and i don't often cite her for wisdom, but she did tell me this, and i think it's good advice in determining what harm is, in context:

sticks and stones may break my bones,

but words can never hurt me

governments and politicians that seek to police speech need to be fought against and removed from power.

it's a red line they can't cross.

now, that said, free speech is about the limitations of government actions, it doesn't apply to behaviour between private individuals in personal communication, or over any kind of market.

so, when i say that the state has no grounds for interference, that doesn't extend to the behaviour of private individuals, who also maintain freedom of association.

what that means is that if you don't like somebody's facebook posts about the prime minister or "muslims", the proper thing to do is, in fact, fuck off - which could mean deleting them from facebook, not inviting them to parties, generally snubbing them in public, not sending them christmas cards, etc. you don't have an obligation to be nice to them, or associate with them in any way. that's your own right. saying certain things in public over a platform may lead to social consequences, and it's up to the people saying them to weigh that before they do it.

but, it's not the role of government to police speech.

and, that view is at the very crux of our culture and our civilization, and is something worth holding on to and fighting for.

i'm not a strict free speech literalist in the tradition of somebody like chomsky or hitchens, but i'm about as close to it as you can get to it without actually being it, and i do tend to go directly to mill in my arguments.

so, following mill, the only justification for state intervention on the question of speech is to prevent imminent harm. chomsky doesn't even believe in libel; i do believe in it abstractly, but i think the standard needs to be pretty high, and you have to demonstrate a clear financial injury - that is, you have to demonstrate actual harm.

i would reject the competing "offense principle" on it's face, and argue that people promoting it are perpetuating a kind of backwards, statist barbarism.

if you threaten to hurt somebody, that would be creating harm, but the threat has to be actually real. it's not enough to imagine that you might hurt somebody, or abstractly ponder hurting somebody - it has to be clear and actionable.

so, unless there were actual concrete threats to harm somebody, i would consider running one's mouth off about the prime minister or "muslims" on facebook to be protected speech, even if it offends virtually everybody. arresting somebody over this would be a breakdown in the rule of law, and an infringement of constitutionally protected rights. that person deserves compensation.

the police have way too much power right now, and they're using it in ridiculously inappropriate ways that shit all over the rule of law.

and, liberals are cheering it on when they should be pushing back against it.

i do hope, however, that this person seeks proper financial compensation for the trouble that the police are putting them through.

we are developing a serious problem with a police state in this country, and if the legislature won't address it then we will need the courts to.

technically speaking, what i'm doing is public, clearly.

but, a facebook post should actually be considered private conversation, and that's probably the easiest away around this kind of authoritarian bullshit.

it's a shame, because i'd like to see the laws torn down completely. it probably won't be necessary for this case....

if you don't like what i think, then fuck off.

you think you can tell me what i can or can't say in public?

that my expression should be policed by whether or not you find it offensive? that that matters? that i should care?

no. that is backwards. that is barbaric. and, that kind of attitude cannot be tolerated in a free society - that must be struggled against by appeals to freedom of expression, until it is educated out of the most ignorant of the ignorant.

freedom must win this debate, and there can be no compromising on it - the state has no place in the facebook feeds, or blogspot posts, of the nation.

we have some of the most backwards speech laws in the western world, laws that are more reflective of a backwards country like iran, and that has to change.

canada's restrictive and authoritarian speech laws have been an embarrassment to this country for far too long, and it is far past time that they are struck down as unconstitutional.

i, for one, will stand up for freedom in the face of tyranny until i'm struck down in cold blood, as i no doubt will be.

i will not be silenced.

i will stand for what is right.

these kinds of laws have no place in a free society, and i hope that he fights for his rights to freedom of expression and has the laws torn down as unconstitutional.

islam is a system of organized violence, and there are legitimate grounds to speak out against it.

but, i'm actually more concerned about the threats to speech that come from fake liberals like justin trudeau, that align with these authoritarian systems of violence so willingly. this is a threat to democracy that we need to take seriously and we need to defeat through education and appeals to the rule of law under civilized discourse. we cannot be led into religious or authoritarian backwardsness. 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/01/17/man-charged-in-connection-to-online-threats-aimed-at-trudeau-and-muslims.html