[bonestamp2]

> I guess you could say that free speech has limits that are acceptable.

There are already limits to free speech that most people don't complain about. The most frequent example is defamation.

I do like how Canada handles hate speed -- like defamation, it is illegal. There's really no benefit to protecting hate speech. If you argue it is a slippery slope, we're already on a slope with defamation so the benefits of adding hate speech out weight the risks of slipping further.

[whiddershins]

This analysis is completely wrong. Defamation has a fairly clear definition, causes specific damages, and is directed at an individual.

Hate speech is almost the definitive slippery slope, the definition changes in real-time and can easily and always expand.

[bonestamp2]

I supposed I should have mentioned how Canada defines illegal hate speech, because that has a clear definition too. The type of hate speech that is illegal there is hate speech that advocates or incites violence or genocide. That's clear and defines how it is damaging, therefore it's not definitively slippery.

[ttul]

Hate speech is illegal in Canada because it infringes on the right to security of the person - a Charter right. Freedom of speech is also protected, but the expression of one right cannot diminish the protection of another.