I’m a Canadian, so the only hate speech laws that I care about are the ones for my country.
No I do not think intentional misgendering should be considered hate speech (in the legal sense)
I would absolutely fire an employee of mine for doing it though, even if I found out they did it outside of a work context.
Just because something isn’t illegal doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be consequences for it.
A) This thread is 8 months old, what the hell are you doing going through stuff this old. Get a life.
B) If you do it intentionally, knowing that they don’t want it, you’re a bad person. It’s not hate speech though based on the legal description in Canada. Just like I can call you a thin-skinned small-dicked asshole and it’s not hate speech.
Start your own community to replace the one you don’t like the mods of, keep the content fresh to attract people to yours instead.
It’s actually 50.5% female in the US. Not that it really changes your point much.
Generally when you commit a crime, you get convicted, complete your sentence, and then you get all of your rights back unless you’re deemed a risk to the public in which case you may have additional restrictions on your freedom.
Not everyone re-offends. In fact, for many types of crimes, the recidivism rate is fairly low. Your assumption that this person is going to put women at risk is short sighted, especially given the fact that a person is FAR more likely to be sexually assaulted by their own romantic partner than a random person.
The problem with banning someone from any sort of employment where they have contact with the other gender, is that that essentially prevents them from working in any capacity. There are no industries with only a single gender across the entire organization. If they hired only men, it would be considered discriminatory and they could be sued.
It also doesn’t in any way reflect the fact that this person will encounter women everywhere, from the grocery store to the gas station. Work is hardly the only place where people encounter others.
Mode is easily be screwed up by data distribution, it’s used for almost nothing.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 45, 98, 100, 100
Mode = 100 Mean = 39.8 Median = 45
Mean is used because it handles most data-sets well, it just gets screwed up a lot when there are big outliers. That’s when we use Median instead.
For example we use Median a lot for household incomes, there’s a lot of data points, but there are some ridiculously wealthy people and some people that make absolutely nothing. Mode doesn’t really work in this situation, because it would likely just be 0.
Frozen, but…
Who cares? Everything important would be dead. Photosynthesizing plants require CO2 to live.
Not every thing covered by a right is exercising that right, Intention and circumstances matter.
Correct, if the government would have let you have and use the gun anyway, you are not exercising your 2a right.
Exercise requires pushing limits. You aren’t exercising by lifting your spoon to your mouth.
It really is a matter of opinion since International Law isn’t really law… they’re more like guidelines.
There’s no enforcement mechanism. A whole bunch of countries never bothered to sign or ratify it. The US specifically is not a party to the statue that created the International Criminal Court and has plans to attack it and extract people if their citizens ever get caught up in it’s processes.
They aren’t exercising their right to free speech unless the US government would like them not to say it but is restricted from preventing them.
If the government doesn’t care, it’s just called talking.
You’re wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with 1a. The legal right to free speech has nothing to do with other individuals, or other governments.
This has nothing to do with “free speech” and people need to stop misusing that concept. Free speech only protects you from the government impairing your speech, not other people or even businesses.
For example, If a mall decided to say “you’re not allowed to say bad things about China on our property” they could eject you from their property if you did say something bad about China. You don’t have the right to free speech on their property. Just like websites can ban you from saying specific things on their sites as well.
This is about threatening other people, you’re not allowed to do that for any reason, speech or otherwise. That’s why this asshat’s conviction is for cyberstalking and threat charges.
Go read a history book. The French revolution is a good place to start, but these kinds of things have happened hundreds of times in history.
The corporations and wealthy people won’t change by themselves, only large groups of people can overthrow these types of centralized power systems.
Surgery has risks, magic in this case does not.
This article wants the UK and US governments to uphold international law in Gaza.
That’s what I was pointing out is not a real thing.
“uphold international law”
There’s no requirement for other countries step in to prevent other countries from doing things in international law.
If that was the case, the US would have been required to invade China, India, Most of Africa, and even itself…
Why do people think International law is some sort of policing of other nations?
No.
Also it wouldn’t matter to day to day life because time is based on your frame of reference, and you’d be inside the frame of reference so it would feel exactly the same to you.
Iran’s government is the western definition of evil.
Celebrating deaths of dictators and war criminals is not a new phenomenon.