It's at best short sighted but more likely simply uninformed to think that people with baggy pants, hats on backward and cans of spray paint in their hand can't speak proper English. I'm failing to see how one's fashion sense has a bearing on their diction or grammar. You have some stereotyping issues you might want to consider.
Perhaps the current American model taxes the middle class unfairly, but an income tax would be taxing the poor disproportionally as everybody must spend the a certain amount of money each year on essentials and if you make less, that amount is a larger percentage of your total income. Food costs money, that may or may not be 100% of your income.
Richard Warman, a lawyer who worked as an investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, often filed complaints against "hate speech" sites — complaints that were generally upheld under Canadian speech restrictions.
Paul Fromm, a defender of various Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites, has been publicly condemning Warman for, among other things, being "an enemy of free speech."
Warman sued, claiming that these condemnations are defamatory.
Friday, the Ontario Superior Court held for Warman — chiefly on the grounds that because Warman's claims were accepted by the legal system, they couldn't accurately be called an attack on free speech.
Snippets of the opinion may be found at the legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy.
Eugene Volokh writes:
It seems to me that Fromm was simply expressing opinions that the court disapproved of — that people who try to restrict "hate speech" are "enem[ies] of free speech," that people who are punished for hate speech are "dissidents," that people who for ideological reasons use the law to restrict speech they disagree with are ideologues who want only to deny freedom of speech to those with whom they disagree. Who is an "enemy of free speech" obviously turns on the speaker's view of free speech, and the view that he expects his audience to share, or that he wants to persuade his audience to share. Who deserves to be labeled with the generally positive term "dissident" depends on what dissent the speaker believes to be legitimate and morally proper.
Yet the Canadian justice system not only allows the suppression of certain viewpoints, and excludes them from free speech restrictions. With this case, it also tries to deny critics the right to label the speech they support "free speech," and the dissenters they like "dissidents."
The court is insisting that Canadians' speech not only follows the government-approved ideology on the topic of race, ethnicity, and religion (an ideology that I agree with, but that I don't think should be legally coerced). It is also insisting that Canadians' speech follows the government-approved ideology and terminology on the topic of free speech itself.
Link to Original Source