Timeline for Did Canada "mandate the content of voluntary speech"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 25, 2023 at 18:19 | comment | added | Evan Carroll | But that's only coerced speech if there is 1 not-X rather than infinite not-X's. He could replace all pronouns with "the kind person" and satisfy all requirements of not-harassing people. | |
| Dec 31, 2021 at 8:04 | answer | added | Studebaker | timeline score: -1 | |
| Dec 26, 2018 at 15:02 | answer | added | LangLаngС | timeline score: 16 | |
| Dec 24, 2018 at 9:11 | comment | added | LangLаngС | @MichaelK Not? He might: "Peterson stated that the refusal to use a person’s preferred pronoun would be a form of hate speech: ‘That’s why I made the video. I said that we were in danger of placing the refusal to use certain kinds of language into the same category as Holocaust denial.’" [src: TVO](<tvo.org/video/programs/the-agenda-with-steve- paikin/genders-rights-and-freedom-of-speech>.) | |
| Dec 24, 2018 at 7:34 | comment | added | user22865 | What does mandate the content of voluntary speech mean anyway? | |
| Dec 24, 2018 at 4:32 | comment | added | njzk2 | @LangLangC in this case, it's not about free speech, it's about discrimination. Discriminating someone verbally is not excercising your free speech, it's discriminating people. If you look (not even too) closely, there are a ton of things that you can say and then be prosecuted for having said them. | |
| Dec 23, 2018 at 4:06 | history | edited | Oddthinking♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 22, 2018 at 16:33 | comment | added | user32299 | @LangLangC That is not what Peterson meant. | |
| Dec 22, 2018 at 15:50 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 28, 2018 at 3:05 | |||||
| Dec 22, 2018 at 15:31 | comment | added | user11643 | @lang I think I agree. Perhaps we should vote to close. | |
| Dec 22, 2018 at 12:12 | comment | added | LangLаngС | Totally free speech = holocaust denial is allowed to utter. As wrong as HD is. If we don't like HD, we restrict free speech, aka "the content is mandated" to not be that! -> This is not really a claim about facts but an interpretation issue of language, politics and law. How can that be on-topic here? | |
| Dec 22, 2018 at 2:34 | comment | added | user541686 | Peterson's Senate hearing: youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo | |
| Dec 22, 2018 at 0:16 | vote | accept | Evan Carroll | ||
| Dec 22, 2018 at 0:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSkeptic/status/1076266132309528576 | ||
| Dec 21, 2018 at 16:00 | comment | added | god of llamas | Just an idea but could this question possibly be a better fit for the law stackexchange? | |
| Dec 21, 2018 at 14:14 | answer | added | Leon | timeline score: 29 | |
| Dec 21, 2018 at 10:05 | history | edited | user32299 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 78 characters in body; edited title
|
| Dec 21, 2018 at 10:00 | answer | added | user32299 | timeline score: 102 | |
| Dec 21, 2018 at 9:27 | history | asked | Evan Carroll | CC BY-SA 4.0 |