Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Spam Cop
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. I'll answer for you: no. You can say "woman" still, you can say "Merry Christmas", and you can say the n-word. You can scream on a street corner that the world is flat as long as you're not causing a riot. People who want to say we are like North Korea now look like complete dolts to me, but that's just me maybe.
  2. Speech may not be free anymore but hyperbole is seeing boom times...
  3. Your language is very vague. 1. Some guest is 'found out to be a criminal 2. Their posts can not/should not be held "liable" 3. Because the site could be changing their posts ? And the last sentence doesn't follow. Look: posts as 'evidence' can be traced through service providers as well as other means, and it doesn't really have anything to do with 'free' speech on the web. What does it mean 'content by guests be held against them' ? If the website alters posts, what of it ? People won't go there I suppose. Whatever the reason - the point stands that they own the content. You seem to be ascribing some strategy by the CBC to delete posts to make your opinion seem clear. I doubt they care about one poster so much. FOI means 'Freedom of Information' and you can file a request. You need to propose something specific. "Ownership" may be an illusion, but it's a clear relationship in law. It is "granted" because people believe that it's a valid relationship, like parenthood or guardianship etc. "Declaring ownership of your own person" is meaningless and you will find out pretty quickly that the state considers itself to have jurisdiction over you. I'm sorry but what you are saying may align with YOUR philosophy or others but it's not legally sound. If you say, in my home, "I hate the leafs" and I decide to kick you out then the police will support me if you refuse to leave. You might not have freedom of speech in my house, you see ? Again, this sounds good as a philosophy... perhaps. But our legal system actually puts all of these ideas into code and they don't align with what you are saying. Why ? I would say it's because of legal tradition, decades of philosophical and legal debate. Imagine the legal system supporting the idea that someone can't be kicked out of your home for expressing an opinion. It would be a difficult change in perception. Well, you're starting to get away from the 'home' analogy and to an area that is closer to the reality of what's in front of us. When television and radio were being developed, the government declared that they owned the airwaves and would grant license to them on behalf of the 'public'. It wasn't actually about owning the air above a country as much as it was about managing the playing field of public discussion. To my mind, Trudeau is thinking this same way and so are you. Right, but the point is that self-management doesn't appear to be working at all. Many people are concerned that foreign actors and disinfo agents are driving the conversation. The problem is that the same voice challenge the 'status quo', which is a good thing. Note that "purposely causing confusion" is indifferent to "Gaslighting" The present online misinformation campaign is permitting a social psychological form of 'gaslighting' that undermines the virtue of 'free speech' in online forums and social media.Intentionally asserting what others' authorized positions are in direct and obvious opposition to the facts is also a form of "slander". Also, "copyright" references are not permitted to be maligned by misreprenting formal works' content. Individual trolls happen, but teams of trolls shouldn't happen naturally unless people don't care about a goal of progressive dialogue. The sports analogy: they want to 'win'... or maybe they want to bother and embattle people for kicks. In any case, it's chatting, fighting and having a laugh... but it's not the kind of discussion that needs to happen for a community to work through questions that are in front of them. It's entertainment.
  4. Well, interesting but given how they manipulate the presentation of information I doubt they could be freed from responsibility of what goes on their site. And I doubt they wouldn't want the ability to censor posts themselves either. You might have a case for a FOI request on moderating policies there, but the CBC owns its site too and wants the same control Facebook has. Malls have no special license to allow people to enter, any more than stores do. So there's no 'public' accommodation. They are private spaces that they open to the public as long as said public follows THEIR rules. So you can't demand to pass out pamphlets to boycott one of the stores of the mall. They will kick you out. The question around mall security is a separate one. What are you talking about ? It has nothing to do with your right to kick someone out of your home for whatever reason you like. Nonetheless, people can moderate their own sites how they like - right or wrong. That's the best way. I agree but I don't have an answer. Well what's your answer ?
  5. 1. Not yet, but he wants to. 2. Yes, but paradoxically they're also prevented from using that power sometimes, if it's against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 3. They're trying to do it.
  6. Maybe if several of us explain it we can get the point across.
  7. 1. No, it's a concept I'm trying to explain to you: public space vs private space. Facebook's site is THEIR private space, just like a mall is and your backyard is. 2. Malls are called "public spaces" but they are not truly public. You can be asked for any reason. If you can find a legal finding that says otherwise, I would be glad to read it. Now Trudeau is calling for exactly what you are saying: government regulation of the internet. Only he wants to restrict the expression within that private space from what is posted today, and you want to expand it. But both you and Trudeau want to regulate private space. Nothing wrong with it, except that philosophically it's not a conservative viewpoint.
  8. 1. What a weird idea. Do I have to allow freedom of speech in my business then too ? How about my home ? How about broadcasters - do they have to allow anyone who demands airtime to broadcast on their dime ? 2. I think you accidentally tripped over the point: we need a truly public cyberspace. We used to have this.
  9. There's that GTA thinking again. Who are you to doubt something a stranger said on the internet, that he was told by somebody ? Such big city arrogance ...
  10. If you do not understand orthogonal conversation flow.. then you may be a GTA.
  11. They only call themselves Christians to keep out Muslims. Yeah, I know it doesn't make sense. My point of view is that the west's character has been eroded by the decline of religion, replaced by the maxim "the customer is always right". Pompous asses, the lot of them.
  12. Well, ok but they added something to it. "Everything old is new again" ... sure ... but credit is due.
  13. 1. OK, but every dog has his day. France overthrew the monarchy. Russia's revolution also changed how the world looked at power. The UK reformed the monarchy relatively peacefully, and China reformed Communism. 2. Trump wants to be Putin and may yet be him.
  14. 1. Do you have Netflix? I highly recommend Babylon Berlin. There are/were people who did better after the war. You sometimes create something through destruction. 2. We're also remnants of the American dream: democracy and a melting pot. Although nobody would say either thing.
  15. I don't lie, ad man in a cowboy hat. Ad men lie. They did a whole TV show about this. I don't ride in Alberta in either sense. It's a beautiful place, wealthy and I have good friends there and from there
  16. Another anti-patriot who refuses to assimilate. Ontario pays 3X what Alberta does. Soon Alberta will be a have-not and we will carry you as well. And you will hear no complaining and nobody from out east saying "they hate us".
  17. 1. I agree, uUnless that "what" is things like health or security. There would still be poor people under a universal income benefit, but they wouldn't lack food, health or security. 2. We REdiscover the value of knowledge, and we understand that democracy doesn't apply to intelligence: some know more than we do. When we lost religion, we lost something called 'Deference'.
  18. I use the legal definition, and of all countries Canada is the most suited to using ONLY a legal definition. There is no idea of someone who is Canadian in their heart AFAIK. Maybe it's an attitude.
  19. You are muddying the already-muddy waters. "Progressive" now means, in broad terms, favouring social change. Socialism/Capitalism/Communism are terms that are abused by all sides now. We all do.
  20. 1. I don't know that it is all that clear. The accusations of Liberal bias I read tend to point out individual in-the-moment events. The other accusations are about editorial and board control, which are more pervasive. 2. The 'alternate view' is that people shouldn't take the vaccine I guess. I have spoken at length with a lot of people against taking the vaccine. Anecdotally they all have major problems that have nothing to do with Covid. I don't know how I could prove that objectively but there it is. 3. We don't know anything about this individual case other than the comment was removed. Again, this means zero to anyone including those who posted it. I wish I could make minor events go viral like the PostMillennial does.
  21. Except you are talking in a bubble. There is no "case" here, and there is no authority that will reverse this or do anything about it. Someone had a comment removed. It's actually a very minor event in the lives of everyone on earth including those directly involved. You see Cougar, sometimes in this world people just don't get what they want. I know it makes you want to pout, but you can thank me for helping you understand things a little better.
  22. Prove to whom? What would be the result if proven?
  23. 1. So ... what is the 'case' ? How exactly does this moderator action get reversed in your mind ? You seem to have the mindset that 'choice' and 'rights' are the same thing. And I have noticed this a problem across the political spectrum. I would suggest we offer people maximum options as long as we take away their right to vote and that might fix it.
  24. 1. And when they say you can't post - you can't. That doesn't make it a "right" it makes it a privilege granted by them. 2. And ? 3. And ? 4. If you say so. There are 1,000,000 other things that could have happened. In any case, there's no case, and certainly not much of a legal case. Get Parliament to make posting on anybody's website a RIGHT if you can - we'll call it "Karen's Law"
  25. 1. Well, they aren't. Are you saying otherwise ? 2. The thing you are missing is that they want people to fight. They have to be told to add fact checks and remove Qanon groups, under threat of government legislation.
  • Create New...