Ex Stephen Harper advisor makes disturbing comments about Child Pornog

[guyser]

The "public" spoke? I seem to recall that within hours of the media coming out with the story he'd been fired by the CBC, dumped by the Wild Rose, and the next day he was 'retired' by his university. I don't remember any great groundswell of indignation from the actual public at large.

Fair enough, but the context of the statement was that it was people (albeit media perhaps) speaking out. It was a point to show TimG that no physical barrier (real or imagined) prevented anyone from speaking out.

IOW, if you yell at me, and I yell back, and then you yell louder,I certainly cannot claim you are violating my free speech rights

[guyser]

How about I don't like what you're saying here and SURPRISE, I'm actually your boss!

You're fired.

Ok, now tie that into free speech violations. On what grounds could I claim such? None that i know of.

I can be fired for posting shite on the net during work hours....not that it;''ll ever happen , but thats a case some could make for employees.

[Argus]

If people really want to see child porn on line it's not hard. In fact, you can probably find it in your local video store. For example, The Lover, is an example of child porn. So is Meet me in Rio. Porky's would be another child porn movie.

All of these movies, and many more, meet the definition of child pornography under Canadian law.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

Ok, now tie that into free speech violations. On what grounds could I claim such? None that i know of.

I can be fired for posting shite on the net during work hours....not that it;''ll ever happen , but thats a case some could make for employees.

But he wasn't posting anything during his work hours. He was surreptitiously taped during a discussion forum and that was posted on line without his permission. His employer, in this case the CBC, immediately fired him, after calling his opinion disgusting, even though nothing he'd said was about them.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Argus

[TimG]

This op captures the hypocrisy of the Canadian media:

All of this amounts to cruel and absurd treatment for Mr. Flanagan. It also shows how fundamentally spineless we Canadian intellectuals and pundits can be. Oh, we talk a good game about being intellectually robust and open-minded. But as soon as someone slips up, we chuck him under the bus to prove our own politically correct bona fides.

We bet the editors at CBC, Policy Options and others all know full well that Tom Flanagan doesn’t actually believe child porn is harmless. These are smart people, after all — people who have read Mr. Flanagan’s work for years, and have met him in person. So why have they excommunicated him? Because they imagine that other people — readers and listeners, and Canadians at large — expect them to do so. These are the same media bien-pensants who tittered when Vic Toews accused enemies of telecommunications regulation of standing “with the child pornographers.” Yet in their reaction to Mr. Flanagan, they are responding to the same bankrupt, binary logic.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/08/flanagans-media-critics-leave-their-spines-at-the-door/

[Argus]

This op captures the hypocrisy of the Canadian media:http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/08/flanagans-media-critics-leave-their-spines-at-the-door/

Actually, I found Conrad Black's comments more interesting since he's someone who has actually met guys in prison for child pornography.

I think it's absurd to take people like that, who are productive members of society who have never harmed anyone, and put them in prison, at about $100k per year, for decades on end.