Ok. Canadian Criminal Code, Bill C-250, 319 (2): Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Pretty sure Timothy McVeigh wasn't Muslim so either Coulter is ignorant, which she pretends to be, or is intentionally promoting hatred of Muslims, which she is.
I get the statute, but my question remains. Who decides that someone is promoting hatred? Other questions come to mind as well. Aren't the protesters promoting hatred toward Coulter? I mean, look at your own words as well, though those are in private conversation... What about speaking about government or politicians?
Naturally the debate about what is and isn't legal is ongoing and heated as it would be in any Westernized nation. The CHRT (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal) is tasked with dealing with accusations of discrimination though several provinces have their own commissions or tribunals, including the HRC (Commission) which mostly deals with employment issues. As with any Western free speech laws the debate over what is and isn't acceptable is largely dealt with on a case-by-case basis in HRC hearings. The HRC has been roundly criticized for being easily swayed in favour of the accuser and can serve like an appeals court if the case is dismissed by a proper court such as the SCOC. In some cases the Attorney-General can also weigh in. The HRC has also been criticized for allowing too much and giving voice to hate speakers like Nazis. Section 13 of the CHRC (HR charter -- hate speech) has also been criticized as being too broad and difficult to enforce. There is currently a movement to scrap it or amend it to deal strictly with realistic threats and incitement of violence.
I think most of her work is crap, but I don't at all think she's an idiot. She has written at least one scholarly book, reviewed by a terrific and smart fellow in his own right, William F. Buckley Jr. here: http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1200/article_detail.asp
Two sayings by two of our most famous legal minds (Supreme Court Justices): "One man's obscenity is another man's art" -- Justice William Brennan "I know pornography when I see it" -- Justice Potter Stewart The common thing between these sayings and our discussion is that we've tried to have laws against pornography, and those are very much in conflict with the concept of free speech. The second quote is particularly relevant because I don't think we (in the USA) want anyone to judge what kind of speech is permissible - especially govt. officials. In particular, the whole idea of being able to speak truth to power, or even assail (verbal assault) political officials is regarded as downright sacred. On the other hand, another Justice (Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.) wrote: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." The thing here is that one would have to shout fire in the theater and there would have to be actual injury before the speech would be considered in a court. See Brandenberg v. Ohio. My own considered opinion is that in a free country you have to put up with allowing hate speech, but if you are opposed to that speech, you fight it with your own speech. Of course there are other kinds of speech that include Libel and Slander that are civil (not criminal) offenses. In other words, you can be sued for spreading falsehoods that are damaging to someone. But in the case of public figures (along the lines of S2's own rules), the level of proof is much higher - the whole idea of chilling effect on free speech being considered. Chilling effect being "that guy is so rich he can bury me with the best lawyers in court" or "if I speak out against the govt. they'll put me in jail one way or another."
I think she exaggerates overly so, and she's tough to watch and listen to. Her book on McCarthy was rather spot on, in the details, and also relevant to this discussion. If it were not for free speech, he would not have been confronted by numerous people during his years in the senate. Though historical documents have proven he was actually right - just not particularly right in how he prosecuted his cases. In other words, he claimed the govt. was infiltrated by soviet spies, and soviet documents from that era that were released after the USSR fell showed the govt. was indeed infiltrated by soviet spies. For years, when I was growing up, and before those documents were made public, I was told how Richard Nixon was horribly evil for prosecuting the case against Alger Hiss (soviet docs showed Hiss was guilty of it all). The Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was romanticized by hollywood and writers as innocent victims, when those soviet docs showed that they had indeed passed information about the Atomic Bomb to the soviets. Etc. As well, both John and Robert Kennedy were huge fans of McCarthy, RFK even served as counsel for McCarthy's Senate committee, and McCarthy was made godfather of RFK's first child. JFK did not vote to censure McCarthy (he was absent, but would not have voted for it). The rest of her books? meh. EDIT: FWIW, the whole Human Rights Tribunal thing stinks of McCarthy's subcommittee. But I think you were hinting at that in your previous post.
No, her books and comments don't just exhibit exaggeration but outright lies. She's also been caught plagiarizing.
And it's odd that I look for what people claim she's lied about and they tend to be rants about other things. However, I did find this one: http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/03/ann_coulter_the.html LIE: "With all the subtlety of a Mack truck, Safire called Gibson's movie a version of 'the medieval passion play, preserved in pre-Hitler Germany at Oberammergau, a source of the hatred of all Jews as Christ killers.' (Certainly every Aryan Nation skinhead murderer I've ever met was also a devoted theater buff and 'passion play' aficionado.)" FACT: Despite Coulter's glaring admission that she associates with "aryan skinhead murderers", she also has a big nose and a long, giraffe neck. With her ratty blonde hair and piercing blue eyes, she looks like a poster girl for the Master Race. In fact, reading her columns reminds me eerily of Mein Kampf. I bet she writes her racist rants in a cellar lined with Nazi flags and iron swastikas. LIE: "Referring to the passion play as 'pre-Hitler' is a slightly fancier version of every adolescent's favorite argument: You're like Hitler!" FACT: Ann's a lying whore skank. Everything she says is a lie, because she's a lying liar who only knows hate and anger. Did I mention she has ratty hair and cottage cheese thighs? (hrmmm.... a few years later, Gibson was arrested for drunk driving and his anti-semitic racist remarks caused quite a stir Feel free to propose something you feel she's lied about. Like I said, I'm not at all a fan of hers, and I'm certainly open to whatever evidence you might provide.
You don't have to go back even a week to catch her saying "all terrorists are Muslims" which isn't an exaggeration but a knowing lie.
Sorry, but I don't see that even a handful of similar paragraphs across hundreds of articles means she's a plagarist. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/7/11290/58796 Ann Coulter plagiarism charges overblown by kos Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 08:29:00 AM PDT TPM Muckracker has an itemized list of Ann Coulter's supposed plagiarism, and sorry to say, there's not much there. Coulter is a lot of things, but it doesn't look like plagiarism is one of them. Update: Josh Marshall: To me personally, some of the examples/accusations seem strained -- simply similar statements of the same basic facts. And sometimes there are only so many ways to describe one set of facts. In other cases the similarities of the wording strike me as hard to see as a coincidence. Especially when there seem to be multiple instances of similarities in the same column coming from the same source. What these examples show is that Coulter is a lazy writer who rips off other people's research, but stealing someone else's arguments isn't "plagiarism". It's just being a lazy, unimaginative writer.
Yeah, you posted that twice now. The guy that comes to her defence also happens to accuse her of "ripping off other people's research".
As you know I work at a university which is a hypersensitive environment for plagiarizing. The Kos writer seems to be using a narrow definition of what plagiarism is in order to expose, I dunno, a witch hunt or something regarding Coulter. Plagiarism doesn't depend on copy-paste verbatim. It is as simple as the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work (dictionary.com).
