I thought this story was something new, until I noticed it was posted in 2008.

I know . . . and it's awkward when "they" is the only
word which will fit -- kinda -- and not fit. -- j
.

Usage of 'man' to mean 'man or woman' has been deprecated in recent decades. Contemporary usage indicates we say 'people', or 'men and women' etc.

and yet Rand herself used "mankind" and "all men"
to represent humankind and everyone -- the classic
universal references. -- j
.

Fixed that for you:
http://www.amazon.com/America-Alone-The-...

Yes, there is one in their Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But unlike our Constitution, anything in the Charter can be overridden simply by inserting a "notwithstanding" clause in a bill.

In my view even US law unduly favors libel plaintiffs. Here's my favorite example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnett_v.....

I would have told Burnett, "Yes, they lied about you. But you haven't shown any actual damages. The court awards you $1. Go home."

I think you have the title of his book wrong. At least searching for it at steynonline.com gives no hits.

I have enjoyed listening to Mark over the years on radio. I don't always agree with him, but accept his right to expose the truth as he see's it and he generally see's it very clearly. When any country, Canada included, clamps a lid on the freedom of speech by establishing parameters as to how, when and where speech can be used, they have started down the slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

We may not agree with what the guy down the street says, but unless he is threatening to burn my house down, I respect his right to say it. If your opinion of our current political administration is different than mine, I won't threaten to cut off your head or pour gas over you and light a match. I will respect your right to feel they way you do while remaining firm in my own personal convictions. We do not need to argue nor fight in order to disagree. Sometimes, disagreements uncover a greater truth than existed before.

The problem with Truth is that some people, to paraphrase a line in a famous movie, "can't handle the truth!". As in that movie, the truth is not always as it seems to be. When Truth comes wrapped in ideological bias or intentional distortion, it is no longer pure Truth. When speech is wrapped in anger and distrust, it may seem that it is now "hate speech", but maybe it's the real Truth trying to be heard. We live in the greatest country on the planet, one that ensure us the freedom to express what we see, feel and believe without fear of retribution. I would not have it any other way.

Yet another freedom the Canadians do not share.

Yes!

That's the problem with liberals and Progressives, the believe that because something makes one feel bad, insecure, ashamed, etc. that what caused those feelings must be bad, therefore hateful and that they cannot tolerate!

Truth be told, Truth when shared can only be an act of love and respect therefore, it is not hate speech or hateful. Grown-ups must learn to deal with the Truth, no matter how ugly or painful it might be. It appears that Liberals, Progressives, Democrats and RINO R's all suffer from the Hatemonger's syndrome.

The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right of people to not be offended. I realize that the statement has a double negative so I suppose we could deduce that, by implication, our Constitution must protect the right to be offended.
Hate speech laws are about mind control. They will come to the USA....some embryonic forms are already in the Federal Register. What's next, Thought Police?
Roberto Rossford

That has some merit.
Australia changed the first line of its national anthem from "Australia's sons let us rejoice" to "Australians all let us rejoice". It has no impact on the metre, and now includes 100% of the citizen population.

Someone is already offended by "O Canada", SaltyDog.
They're talking about changing the line "In all thy sons command".
They're offended by "sons".

If you knew what makes things 'go viral', and how to intentionally create that, there'd be an 8-figure annual salary awaiting you at WPP or Omnicom.

Welcome to the new world order. And I can't stand it.

"Freedom of speech means freedom from interference, suppression, or punitive action by the government -- and nothing else." -- Ayn Rand. I have heard Mark Steyn expound many times and he must be licking his lips waiting for public challenges. He knows his stuff and I am sure he will melt down any challenger in an interview or debate into a grease stain.

Mr. Steyn is as rational a thinker as we have stating the obvious and that is to bad for those who chose to remain stupid.

Always interested in why something "goes viral", I like that the effect has a name.

Liberals always called the truth hate speech. But I think the real aspect is they "HATE SPEECH THAT IS TRUTH"

MSNBC Says Black Cops Charged In Freddie Gray’s Death Are Actually ‘‘White African-Americans’’ This is even a new level of ignorance and race baiting.

Thank You Sir! . if ""hate speech"" is outlawed,
then our 1st amendment is outlawed. -- j
.

Mark is particularly accurate in his aim, from my
experience -- this must be good!!! -- j
.

Only America has been so protective of disconcerting statements, even defending proven lies as permissible if they represent the speaker's opinion. While American speakers or writers of offending statements may discover that they can still be held liable for civil offenses of slander or libel, no government body can prosecute them for the offense as criminal. Pushers of "hate speech" laws have so far failed to collapse the edifice of free speech in this country, but they do seem to be getting closer lately.