Comments for "What was your intent?" Video at VideoSift.com

By dbot2006

dbot2006 (http://www.videosift.com/member/dbot2006) — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 03:27:44 -0800

More videos here http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=EzraILevant
More info here http://ezralevant.com/

By kulpims

kulpims (http://www.videosift.com/member/kulpims) — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 03:54:13 -0800

great answer!

By Maven

Maven (http://www.videosift.com/member/Maven) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:21:57 -0800

Upvote only cause of the behind-the-scenes view of how human rights investigations are conducted.

By JAPR

JAPR (http://www.videosift.com/member/JAPR) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:48:41 -0800

Wow, what a bitch.

Edit: And indeed, a great answer.

By TheSofaKing

TheSofaKing (http://sofa.videosift.com) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:30:15 -0800

Awesome post. Everyone, Canadians in particular need to watch it, and think long and hard about what it means to have these types of "investigations" going on in a supposed free country. Kudos to any publisher who printed those cartoons, and shame on anyone who refused to out of fear.

By Trancecoach

Trancecoach (http://www.videosift.com/member/Trancecoach) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:18:57 -0800

Oh, this is sweet. And ought be sifted, top 10. A wonderful answer by an articulate and thoughtful man. Perhaps the state attorney was "phishing" for thought crimes or perhaps she is out of her league (simply asking rote questions without conceiving of their implications), but regardless, the simple and straightforward answer that he gave ("My intent was to exercise my freedom.") serves its purpose and need not be elaborated on. He's done so out of annoyance, frustration -- I can understand.

By Sarzy

Sarzy (http://sarzy.videosift.com) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:29:13 -0800

I dunno, I think the way this guy is answering the question, he's taking it a bit far. He's saying, basically, in a free country he has the right to publish whatever he wants and offend whoever he wants, and that he should absolutely never be accountable for that. Well, no... There's such a thing as hate speech (and I'm not saying these cartoons fall under that). If he wanted to, say, publish that the holocaust never happened, or that black people were better off under slavery, he'd be treading into a gray area, even under free speech. He'd have to be accountable for that, and he'd have to have a fairly good reason to publish something like that. He couldn't just say "well, it's a free country, fuck you, I can say what I want."

By fissionchips

fissionchips (http://fissionchips.videosift.com) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:37:49 -0800

A recent Salon article on Levant featured this video.

The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/13/hate_speech_laws/index.html

Ezra Levant is a right-wing Canadian neoconservative who publishes Western Standard, a typical warmongering, pro-Likud journal -- a poor man's Weekly Standard for Canadian neocons.

It's a very lucid look at the unintended consequences of enacting hate speech laws.

By djsunkid

djsunkid (http://djsunkid.videosift.com) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:57:12 -0800

Damn, I had something insightful to add, but then I read what f&c wrote above and have completely forgotten what I was going to say. Hmmmm....

By djsunkid

djsunkid (http://djsunkid.videosift.com) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:07:29 -0800

Ah yes, I remember now! I was going to compliment Mr Levant on an excellent rant! Bloggers take note!

By TheSofaKing

TheSofaKing (http://sofa.videosift.com) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:01:22 -0800

Sarzy

" If he wanted to, say, publish that the holocaust never happened, or that black people were better off under slavery, he'd be treading into a gray area..."

I completely disagree with you, and was going to ramble off a long winded post to argue my point. But why pass up an opportunity to plug one of my own sift's. Especially since he talks specifically about one of your examples.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-on-Freedom-of-Speech

He says it better then I could.

By Maven

Maven (http://www.videosift.com/member/Maven) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:59:17 -0800

Sarzy, you hit the nail on the head, you wrote exactly what I was thinking.

By eric3579

eric3579 (http://eric3579.videosift.com) — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 01:03:33 -0800

Hate crime laws have to go. The idea that you can be thrown in jail for vocalizing your beliefs is insane.

By budzos

budzos (http://www.videosift.com/member/budzos) — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:36:35 -0700

I love when really articulate people get all fired up and let fly with a torrent like that. Good on you sir!

By budzos

budzos (http://www.videosift.com/member/budzos) — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:42:55 -0700

Sarzy, I don't think that's what he's saying at all. He published a cartoon that is open to whatever malicious interpretation the viewing public might bring to it. His objection is to being asked his intent. He's saying that the intent of a publisher is beside the point. I take the inference that what matters is content.

ie; if you publish a lovely story about Strawberry Shortcake and say your intent was to glorify Hitler and deny the holocaust, you have not committed a crime. If you publish a story about how great Hitler was and how the holocaust is a big lie, and then say your intent was to celebrate Strawberry Shortcake, then you may have uttered hate speech... you can take the intent out of those examples and still adequately and fairly judge the legality of the actions taken.