How Do We Define "Extreme"?

Should Bill Whatcott be required to pay $17,500 to four individuals who were offended by the flyers he distributed?
...
In a Regina courtroom last Friday, the lawyer for the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission repeatedly asserted that the content of the flyers was "extreme" and "hateful." She also admitted citizens opposed to teaching school children about homosexuality do have the right to speak out and can even use "strong" language to do so, but not "extreme" or "hateful" language. She spoke as though the difference between "strong" and "extreme" is obvious; as though Canadians are unanimous in where they draw the line. But as this court case and others demonstrate, Canadians draw the line in many different places. Which begs the question: why should the government take sides in public policy debates by prosecuting those who advocate politically incorrect views? As long as the expression is peaceful, why not let Canadians listen to all views (even "extreme" ones) and make up their own minds on matters of politics, religion and morality?
...
Since most Canadians can't afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves against human rights prosecutions, and since most citizens are not capable of handling the stress of a prosecution that can drag on for years, and since most people would be horrified to see themselves publicly branded as "bigoted" or "hateful" by the process, people do what appears wise under the circumstances: they censor their own speech. Any subject that might involve race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or religion (eg. immigration, same-sex marriage, Islamist terrorism) is now clouded by the spirit of fear because saying something "discriminatory" may well land you in hot water with human rights commissions.

More >>>

John Carpay's article is titled - "Politicians, not courts, at fault for assault on free speech". I would say - both are at fault. Yes, the politicians are responsible for refusing to repeal the oppressive "human rights" laws, let alone - for passing them in the first place. But what about the activist judges which continuously uphold the quasi-judiciary tribunal's decisions and dismiss any constitutional challenges against them? Sure they didn't pass those laws and they didn't appoint the committee members. But they could have ruled the gag laws and freedom-snatching committees unconstitutional long ago. If they wanted, of course.