<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Canada&#8217;s hate speech law	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/06/canadas-hate-speech-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/06/canadas-hate-speech-law/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 16:28:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: David Wilson		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/06/canadas-hate-speech-law/comment-page-1/#comment-3201</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Wilson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:15:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3567#comment-3201</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I must congratulate whoever coined the term &quot;hate speech.&quot; By creating a separate category from &quot;free speech,&quot; there is now carte blanche to go after whatever speech you don&#039;t like by calling it &quot;hate.&quot; And this distinction, I believe, is recognized by no less than the Supreme Court (in dicta if not as precedent). Meanwhile, those who don&#039;t recognize the distinction as legitimate are left in the dust. Note how this is one way in which the left consistently beats the right - by creating heretofore unknown categories, names and definitions. &quot;Racism,&quot; &quot;sexism,&quot; &quot;injustice,&quot; etc. all tower over what few coinages the right makes.

Take this blog. What the lawyers go after is &quot;unfairness,&quot; &quot;greed,&quot; &quot;negligence,&quot; and so on. What do their critics go after? &quot;Lawsuits out of control&quot; or &quot;an inefficient system.&quot; Just doesn&#039;t ring as loud.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I must congratulate whoever coined the term &#8220;hate speech.&#8221; By creating a separate category from &#8220;free speech,&#8221; there is now carte blanche to go after whatever speech you don&#8217;t like by calling it &#8220;hate.&#8221; And this distinction, I believe, is recognized by no less than the Supreme Court (in dicta if not as precedent). Meanwhile, those who don&#8217;t recognize the distinction as legitimate are left in the dust. Note how this is one way in which the left consistently beats the right &#8211; by creating heretofore unknown categories, names and definitions. &#8220;Racism,&#8221; &#8220;sexism,&#8221; &#8220;injustice,&#8221; etc. all tower over what few coinages the right makes.</p>
<p>Take this blog. What the lawyers go after is &#8220;unfairness,&#8221; &#8220;greed,&#8221; &#8220;negligence,&#8221; and so on. What do their critics go after? &#8220;Lawsuits out of control&#8221; or &#8220;an inefficient system.&#8221; Just doesn&#8217;t ring as loud.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Deoxy		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/06/canadas-hate-speech-law/comment-page-1/#comment-3200</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deoxy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:03:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3567#comment-3200</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Rgarding that quote - EXACTLY.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rgarding that quote &#8211; EXACTLY.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
