Free speech in Canada.

[featfan]

Canadian law prohibits the wilful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups. A conviction carries a possible two-year sentence.

Oh Man, alot of us on Castanet forums are hooped.
There is a definite massive disagreement (hate) on both sides here.
And each is an identifiable group.
Yes, I love stirring the pot.

[Rider59]

Canadian law prohibits the wilful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups. A conviction carries a possible two-year sentence.

Oh Man, alot of us on Castanet forums are hooped.
There is a definite massive disagreement (hate) on both sides here.
And each is an identifiable group.
Yes, I love stirring the pot.

The problem is in the definition of hate. Disliking, disagreeing and not liking is not hate as much as some would like us to belief.

[JagXKR]

Canadian law prohibits the wilful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups. A conviction carries a possible two-year sentence.

Are the NDP an identifiable group? If so, then I may be doing time. I HATE them.
Spread the word.

[The Green Barbarian]

[sobrohusfat]

[crookedmember]

Speech is free in Canada.

With the important perk that some right-wing person with an AR-15 can't shoot you dead with impunity if he doesn't like your speech.

Be happy you live in a nation that is still safe and sane.

[spooker]

You can say whatever you want ... just be ready for the consequences ...

[The Green Barbarian]

Speech is free in Canada.

With the important perk that some right-wing person with an AR-15 can't shoot you dead with impunity if he doesn't like your speech.

What country allows "right wing people with an AR-15" to shoot people dead if they don't like your speech? This doesn't make any sense.

Be happy you live in a nation that is still safe and sane.

It's relatively safe (for the most part) but sane is a stretch, given who is running our country right now.

[fluffy]

You can say whatever you want ... just be ready for the consequences ...

Exactly. "Freedom of speech" does not come with immunity to consequences. You are still bound by the law when it comes to spreading lies and hatred.

Just to add a thought here, does "freedom of speech" mean freedom from basic courtesy and respect ? Not for me. My "ignore" list is full of people who are incapable of expressing themselves with any sense of decorum. Now that's not to say that they don't have a right to speak, but I am under no obligation to listen to them.

[The Green Barbarian]

Exactly. "Freedom of speech" does not come with immunity to consequences. You are still bound by the law when it comes to spreading lies and hatred.

Exactly, and when I see some of the lies and hatred directed at Jews and Israel it makes me wonder how fine that line truly is.

That being said, I don't like see people screaming "HATE SPEECH" at everything they don't agree with. You can disagree with the actions of people without being someone who is "spreading hate". Canada went through a dark period awhile ago when "hate crime" was being prosecuted using Section 13. Thankfully that section was struck down as certain "serial complainers" were using that act to make big bucks extorting settlements from people who hadn't done anything wrong.

Just to add a thought here, does "freedom of speech" mean freedom from basic courtesy and respect ? Not for me. My "ignore" list is full of people who are incapable of expressing themselves with any sense of decorum. Now that's not to say that they don't have a right to speak, but I am under no obligation to listen to them.

That's a good point. Perhaps I should start using this as well, as there are a lot of Leftists here who have zero courtesy or respect for anything, other than spreading disinformation.

[hobbyguy]

Free speech, the freedom of expression.

With all freedoms, they are earned, they come with responsibilities - not the least of which is "just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should".

All democracies, which is where you find freedom of expression, are struggling with emergence of manipulated social media.

The anonymity of expression on social media is a difficult concept for societal boundaries of freedom of expression to deal with. On the one hand, that anonymity promotes more expression, and on the other it allows for negative practices like trolling, harassment etc. to proliferate.

I see governments struggling to deal with the likes of Facebook. Facebook publishes a lot of stuff for a lot of people. Yup, it is an avenue of expression for many people. Facebook has arguably NOT been a responsible player, allowing short term profit to undermine democracy, and to knowingly undermine the well being of many people. It is not Facebook alone that has chased down this path by any means, but they are the most visible.

The essential question that Facebook and its ilk have not addressed is the difference between moderation and censorship. Society in a democracy and its governance structure are largely moderation of consensus. Our democratic society builds the social capital that builds communities, and builds the country.

Our laws emerge from that consensus. We as citizens have not yet come to consensus on the likes of Facebook largely because the social media phenomenon is relatively new. As we find our way to consensus on the downsides, it is inevitable that we will write a social contract (laws) that structure the likes Facebook.

There are a number of things that need to be dealt with. "Do I own my data, or is Facebook free to take it from me and sell it to profit themselves?". "Should Facebook be allowed to deliberately silo my access to points of view?". "If I run a Facebook page or YouTube channel, am I a publisher/broadcaster?"

Arguably, if I make money off a Youtube channel or Facebook page, then I am a publisher/broadcaster. IF so, then the rules that have been painstakingly applied to broadcasting and publishing ought to apply - as those rules have not been a negative for free expression.

IF the governemnt took my information, and sold it, we would be up in arms. Why aren't we up in arms because Facebook does that?

We, that means all of us, need to come to grips with such questions. Otherwise we risk "1984" dystopia.

[Brass Monkey]

That's a good point. Perhaps I should start using this as well, as there are a lot of Leftists here who have zero courtesy or respect for anything, other than spreading disinformation.

You still haven’t provided an article or report for the children who were starved by railroad blockades.

You made a heinous allegation and you know it was false, yet you still post it. Is that not spreading disinformation?

[Merry]

It’s interesting that, after listening to a lecture about “free speech”, the first question was from someone who had questions about giving a public platform to someone with an opposing world view.

We all claim to believe in the right to free speech, UNTIL confronted with someone espousing views we strongly disagree with and/or find offensive. Because the reality is people often feel threatened by viewpoints that don’t match their own, whether they be political or religious, or about something else entirely.

These days we hear a lot about the need to control “misinformation” and “fake news”, but who decides what falls into either of those two categories, and what is simply information we disagree with, or don’t want others to hear?

We also hear a lot about the need to censor “hate” speech, but again, who decides what is “hate” and what is simply a different world view?

A good example of this was when, early on in the Pandemic, many folks were calling for tighter border restrictions to try to limit the spread of the virus. A tactic that most Governments eventually employed BUT, when the idea was first suggested, many of those who later came to support it screamed “racism” (which is a form of hate), as a means of squelching the idea (and the freedom of speech of those who were advocating it).

There are many examples of people using accusations of hate to silence opinions they disagree with. And there are also many examples of people advocating censorship in order to “protect” the rest of us from “fake news” and “misinformation”. But, interestingly, they only worry about “misinformation” that spreads ideas that are in opposition to their own. Frequently they have no problem with “misinformation” that is in line with their personal world view.

The bottom line is that once we allow censorship to limit our freedom of expression, we are at the mercy of the views held by the censors. Because it is only the expression of views that echo their own that will ultimately be allowed to be publicly expressed.

Freedom of expression means allowing the freedom to express views most people disagree with, and may even find offensive. If we are to truly be free, we must beware the “tyranny of the majority”.

[Merry]

Speech is free in Canada.

Are you sure about that?

Do we have the right to say what we really think, or merely the right to say what the majority of us think?

For example, if someone believes that allowing unfettered access across borders to folks claiming asylum is not a practical solution to a genuine humanitarian problem, do they have the freedom to say so without being accused of “hate” speech?

Ditto if someone speaks out about how the so called “hereditary chiefs” of a particular First Nation are blocking economic development, in defiance of the wishes of the majority of their people. How can it be wrong to question how a handful of self appointed activists are dictating the future of the majority of that particular First Nation? Yet, in this twisted, upside down, world of ours, that is what is happening. Anyone who speaks out against what those hereditary chiefs are doing to their own people, is branded “racist”. With the result that many remain silent about what they perceive to be an injustice.

I could give lots of other examples, but I know that all it will do is derail the conversation into discussions about the merit or otherwise of the particular examples I choose, instead of the overall point I am trying to make. Which is that we sometimes only have the freedom to state ideas that are in line with current societal “groupthink”. Woe betide anyone who bucks the trend.

[The Green Barbarian]

You still haven’t provided an article or report for the children who were starved by railroad blockades.

Children who were "starved" - what are you babbling about now? Once again with the stupid lies. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that blocking trucking and trains carrying food isn't going to hurt people. It takes a special kind of evil to even contemplate blocking supplies to children and families, to make some kind of point. This is just plain evil, and to blockade anything in this country is just plain wrong. So very wrong, and so very evil.

You made a heinous allegation

It's not "heinous" to claim that blocking food that's destined for children and families is wrong. It is "heinous", and evil too, to block food going to children. We all get it, those that participated in such disgusting and evil behavior now feel guilty for doing it, as they should. It was wrong, and disgusting.

and you know it was false,

It wasn't "false", and it's heinous and evil to lie like this. Why do it?

yet you still post it. Is that not spreading disinformation?

What's spreading disinformation in this case is hurting women and children by denying them supply of essential foodstuffs, and claiming some kind of morale high ground. Those engaging in such evil behavior need to cease and desist immediately. You do not have the moral high ground here. You are hurting people. That is wrong. Why this needs to be explained to the half-wits here just defies even basic logic. Just so freaking dumb!!! Stop spreading disinformation, it's disgusting.