If I'm taking any side in this debate, it's that the conference organizers should have put more effort into finding speakers from different backgrounds. That said, I feel obligated to step in and defend free speech.
If we didn't have strong protections for free speech, it would have been far simpler to shut down the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, and feminism. Because back then everyone "knew" those things were wrong. <sarcasm>What was the point of even allowing people to spout such dreadful nonsense like letting women and black people vote?</sarcasm>.
Do you not understand that the powers you want to use against people you disagree with can be used against you? I get your point that it hasn't happened in your country yet, but history is rife with examples where suppressed speech eventually leads to atrocities. So yeah, I think "free speech absolutism" is a worthy cause. Do you think you can change the mind of a hateful person by arresting them for talking about what they believe? If you want to combat hatred, maybe you should just speak up.
These are good points. In practice in Canada, nobody seems to be running around criminalizing speech on contemporary issues; we as a society seem to be pretty sure that horribly racist stuff doesn't fall under the category of legitimate opposing views which deserve a platform. Who gains from that? I honestly haven't ever heard a good argument for it apart from the slippery slope.
So when we have Rob Anders, one of our most prominent MPs, stand up in the house and essentially label trans* people wanting to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with as sexual predators, nobody throws him in jail. That's something which could someday be considered hate speech, but likely won't for quite some time. As far as locking up people for "dangerous political views", like we're under some kind of regime or a black-bag spy novel, well that just doesn't happen.
I do understand it could someday be used against me. This is a spectrum, and I come down more on the permissive side than not. With regard to your last point, the very crux of the matter is it is not their viewpoints I aim to change - they are the only ones who can do that. It is the bystander, the person who hears it and sees those ideas are normalized, accepted. It's how hate groups spread. It's not like a bunch of people independently arrive at the conclusion they hate people of a certain race, then organize. It's something that spreads through rhetoric.
I understand what you're saying, which is that nothing bad has happened yet. But the laws you're talking about are relatively new (circa 1985?) and during a period of relative peace, prosperity, and lack of political turmoil. So right now, there's no real incentive to criminalize the opposition. You can't possibly extrapolate that out to mean that this proves the concept works.
Back to one of your earlier points. I think it's obvious who gains from being able to say racist things without fear of arrest: racists do. I don't think anyone else does. But your conceit is to say "Hey, we all think you're wrong. In fact, we think you're so wrong that you can't say what you've been saying anymore." That's what I think is immoral. You can say "We think you're so wrong and we're going to explain exactly why you're wrong" or "We think you're so wrong that we'll reject you socially for your bigoted views" or "I think you're so wrong that I won't hire you". But what right do you have to say "I'm going to throw you in jail because you believe something and then you said it"? Because guess what? You're guilty of the same crime. You believe something (maybe you even have some unpopular beliefs), and you've probably spoken up about them before.
I fail to see how not arresting someone = giving them a platform. I'm all for not publicly funding racist, bigoted people. But why does not criminalizing someone's speech indicate that you endorse what they're saying? Further, if you, as a society, so strongly disagree with hateful speech and don't want anyone to feel like that's a commonly held or accepted view, why don't you just show them that? If there are more of you than there are of them, drown out their voices with your own. Be a model of equality.
Finally, you mention future evolutions of hate speech laws - where exactly do you think they'll land? You mention transphobic people. Do you think hate speech laws should cover that? What else? Where's the line? Would you advocate for speech laws that cover something you believe? What if you're a communist or socialist and everyone thinks that's completely immoral and wrong? Should you be unable to speak up about it?
It's very true I cannot extrapolate out into the future. I suppose it's a value judgment; which do I value more - being able to live in a society (relatively) free of hate speech, or being able to live knowing the government will not someday censor my opinions? I place more value on the former.
A digression: if the government wants to do something, they'll do it. The U.S. constitution didn't stop warrantless wiretapping by the NSA, and if you want to cast the whole Wikileaks thing in the light of free speech they arguably compromised their values there. However, I recognize that the principles of these laws mean a lot, hence this being labelled a digression.
With regard to using my own voice to fight hate speech, I do indeed do that. It's not like these things go straight to the authorities. Here's the problem - their speech is so powerful, so loud. It's so easy to slip into hating people and scapegoating them. What do I tell the person who was rejected from college? "Sorry, guess you aren't up to snuff"? Contrast that with hate groups. They have a whole arsenal lined up on the evils of affirmative action & quotas and how that potential student is the REAL victim of the system. Which is more appealing at face value to the potential student?
On the whole not arresting someone = giving them a platform thing: I previously mentioned the principle of having laws. In Canada people know that there is opposition to racism at an institutional level, and I believe that is very powerful. I also believe that if you have the means to stop an atrocity, and you do not, you are complicit in its execution. This of course is a moral problem for the ages, and given the seemingly high number of objectivists on HN I doubt it's very popular here.
On the evolution of hate speech laws: I fully expect transphobia will be covered under the hate speech laws before long. Where is the line? Not sure. There's a whole bunch of stuff which some people claim lies further along the social justice "axis" (and which has sometimes been mercilessly lampooned[0][1] by the SJ community itself) which I don't really agree with, but... well, who knows in 50 years. I have a great amount of trust in the Canadian government and our judicial system, so I'm sure our judgment will carry us well into the future.
edit: I forgot to address your core point! "I'm going to throw you in jail because you believe something and then you said it." In a vacuum this is of course ridiculous, but we aren't in a vacuum. The simple answer is that hate speech can cause a great deal of harm to society, and I support laws preventing this.
Discussions tend to grow unwieldy as the number of exchanges grow. So I'm going to be a bit brief on some things, and if you feel that I didn't address an important point let me know and I'll circle back to it. Feel free to do the same. Plus it's getting late and i don't expect you'll see this until tomorrow.
Not supporting restrictions on free speech doesn't mean you're only worried about your own ability to voice your opinions. You (and I) both support rights and protections for groups of people that may not impact us directly.
I think surveillance / warrantless wiretapping demonstrates the opposite effect: small, seemingly reasonable extensions of surveillance & a less-than-absolutist view of the importance of the right to privacy are what led to the problem.
I agree with you on the diagnosis of the problem (the ease of hatred, human cognitive biases against outsiders, etc). I still think the solution is education (even state-sponsored anti-racism education is fine by me) and more speech disclaiming the things you disagree with rather than criminalizing it. I think you can demonstrate institutional opposition to racism in other ways that aren't in such direct opposition to the free exchange of ideas.
I agree that transphobia is a problem, but as you might have guessed, I don't think hate speech laws are the right solution. I too am a fan of QC.
You say that hate speech causes great harm to society, and I agree. There are plenty of other things that I think cause great harm to society. People that oppose gay marriage believe that it does great harm to society. Believing that someone else expressing themselves is causing harm doesn't mean we should criminalize the expression of their ideas.
I, too, have great trust in the Canadian government and judicial system (although I'm American). But I don't trust that they are always right. And that's what you're basically claiming when you criminalize speech that you don't agree with. Those laws will never be repealed. Any attempt to do so would just end with any supporters being called racist. You're claiming that you're know 100% that you are right, and are thus making speech contrary to your opinions illegal. As I mentioned before, what if people 50 years ago had the same ideas as you do about the non-absolute nature of free speech? They were probably just as sure that gay marriage is wrong as you are that racism is wrong. But they didn't codify a ban on pro- gay rights speech into law, thank god. Here's another human cognitive bias: we all think we're right, and that we know the right thing to do. But what if we're wrong? That's a question you have to ask yourself. Your system of government has to take that into account.
Finally, I want to take a second to talk about the purpose of free speech. It's not just so that anyone can say whatever the hell they want and damn the consequences! Free speech is there to prevent atrocities. It's there to prevent genocides, wars, oppression, and corruption. Free speech helps to protect democracy. That's why it's so important. That's why I am absolutist in my support of free speech. I agree that there is a moral responsibility to prevent harm if you can. I just think protecting free speech does a better job of it than any restriction ever could.
Whew... too long. The last three paragraphs are my main points.
If we didn't have strong protections for free speech, it would have been far simpler to shut down the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, and feminism. Because back then everyone "knew" those things were wrong. <sarcasm>What was the point of even allowing people to spout such dreadful nonsense like letting women and black people vote?</sarcasm>.
Do you not understand that the powers you want to use against people you disagree with can be used against you? I get your point that it hasn't happened in your country yet, but history is rife with examples where suppressed speech eventually leads to atrocities. So yeah, I think "free speech absolutism" is a worthy cause. Do you think you can change the mind of a hateful person by arresting them for talking about what they believe? If you want to combat hatred, maybe you should just speak up.