On the use of violence against those peacefully expressing views with which one disagrees.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Up until now, but things may need to change in the near future. Fake news has become an ever more important issue, with some countries passing laws to ban to criminalize it. I don't know to what extent these laws go. In the U.S., many states have enacted laws against bullying and harassment, including cyber-bullying. 

 

And such laws have already run afoul of the courts.....example...from liberal New York State:

 

Quote

The state’s highest court on Tuesday struck down an Albany County law that criminalized cyberbullying, crimping government efforts to crack down on electronic harassment.

In a 5-2 ruling, the Court of Appeals ruled that the local law was “overbroad” and trampled free-speech rights of online tormentors.

https://nypost.com/2014/07/01/cyberbullies-get-first-amendment-protection-from-court/

 

In the United States, even full up hate speech of the most egregious variety is fully protected expression....even online.   Platforms can regulate such speech as private enterprises, but the government cannot suppress such speech unless actions are linked to words/symbols.

Fake news may be illegal in Canada, but it is 100% protected speech in the United States, absent libel or slander.

Edited August 20, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[Yzermandius19]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

And such laws have already run afoul of the courts.....example...from liberal New York State:

 

 

In the United States, even full up hate speech of the most egregious variety is fully protected expression....even online.   Platforms can regulate such speech as private enterprises, but the government cannot suppress such speech unless actions are linked to words/symbols.

Fake news may be illegal in Canada, but it is 100% protected speech in the United States.

Fake News may be illegal in Canada, yet Canada is still inundated by it. It is selectively enforced against those who aren't part of the Elite Consensus, while they can publish as much fake news as they want, while getting taxpayer subsidies to fund the production of said fake news.

Yet another reason these anti-free speech bans are so foolish.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

37 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

At 6-3 the Gorsuch Court will be overthrowing all sorts of garbage, speech and guns have been secured, but if they don't have to rely on Roberts,  I think the conservatives will be activist in overthrowing decades of activism.   The rule of the New Dealers is finally coming to an end.

Took long enough, was quite the run of the joint that they had.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

11 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Took long enough, was quite the run they had of the joint.

All based on the myth of the New Deal, which was ineffective in the face of Hawley-Smoot, the New Dealers should really be called the Second World Warriors, or the World War Two-lers.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Dougie93

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Abortion shouldn't a federal issue anyway, 10th amendment says that's an issue that should be left to the states.

Bring on the shrieking, Roe v. Wade is a garbage decision. Not that I care that much one way or the other, 6-3 is more useful when it comes to other issues, triggering lefties on abortion is simply icing on the cake.

I'd definitely go to the barricades for abortion rights.  No-one who believes in any kind of freedom would stand by and watch a women be forced go through a pregnancy against her wishes.

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'd definitely go to the barricades for abortion rights.  No-one who believes in any kind of freedom would stand by and watch a women be forced go through a pregnancy against her wishes.

Move to a state that doesn't do that then, there will be plenty to choose from. Trying to force your opinion on states who don't support your opinion ain't freedom bro.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I'd definitely go to the barricades for abortion rights.  No-one who believes in any kind of freedom would stand by and watch a women be forced go through a pregnancy against her wishes.

There's no abortion rights in Canada, there's just no law, so it's more of a limbo which no party has taken a run at since the old law was overthrown.

[Guest]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Move to a state that doesn't do that then, there will be plenty to choose from. Trying to force your opinion on states who don't support your opinion ain't freedom bro.

States who try to force their opinion on women can kiss my arse!

[Guest]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

There's no abortion rights in Canada, there's just no law, so it's more of a limbo which no party has taken a run at since the old law was overthrown.

Suits me.

[Yzermandius19]

Just now, bcsapper said:

States who try to force their opinion on women can kiss my arse!

They won't but you are welcome to ask them to.

[Dougie93]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Suits me.

Unless there is a right wing backlash against the elite consensus at some point and then they pass a law against it again.

[OftenWrong]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

And such laws have already run afoul of the courts.....example...from liberal New York State:

In the United States, even full up hate speech of the most egregious variety is fully protected expression....even online.   Platforms can regulate such speech as private enterprises, but the government cannot suppress such speech unless actions are linked to words/symbols.

Fake news may be illegal in Canada, but it is 100% protected speech in the United States, absent libel or slander.

Love the reference to the "free-speech rights of online tormenters"! I'm not sure this is on topic anymore, and don't remember how we got here. But none of this means I support squashing free speech, just pointing out where the battle lines are drawn. In the case of state laws, I assume people vote for these things, and that means there's a certain level of support for restricting speech on certain issues. These hot-button issues will sway back and forth through successive governments and over time, until people feel it is finally settled. Sometimes, it is never settled!

I think the fake news problem could get bad enough that it needs to be curtailed. For example if rogue states are funding fake news to cause some kind of disruption. The "New Media" (internet) poses new social challenges and I don't think we fully appreciate the control it has over us.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Unless there is a right wing backlash against the elite consensus at some point and then they pass a law against it again.

No elite.  Basic freedoms are not elitist.

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

No elite.  Basic freedoms are not elitist.

Consequence free sex is not a basic freedom, it's a hedonistic delusion.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

Love the reference to the "free-speech rights of online tormenters"! ....

I think the fake news problem could get bad enough that it needs to be curtailed.

 

The issues are one and the same...doesn't matter if state actors are involved.

The U.S. is not going to make an exception for social media and fake news.

Freedom is not a problem...it is a feature.

 

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No elite.  Basic freedoms are not elitist.

That's true, the elite in Canada are against you having basic freedoms, that's why they stuck the poison pills in the Charter to make it useless, since they can make things up as they go, hence why they have been able to take away your basic speech freedoms so easily, and they are just getting started.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Consequence free sex is not a basic freedom, it's a hedonistic delusion.

Bollocks.

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Bollocks.

You can claim bollocks all you want, wanting to have sex free of consequences, including pregnancy, is not a proper justification for abortion.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

Your basic freedoms in Canada only exist if they comport with the ideology of the Liberal Party of Canada.

If you seek the protection of the law from the rule of the mob, lo and behold you will find out that the "Charter of Rights & Freedoms" is actually the Charter of Liberal Activist Prescriptions

[Yzermandius19]

With rights come responsibilities, problem with lefties is they want all the rights and none of the responsibilities, to the point that they even confuse the desire to not take responsibility for their actions as a right. An infantile mentality, if ever there was one.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

With rights come responsibilities, problem with lefties is they want all the rights and none of the responsibilities, and even confuse the desire to not take responsibility for their actions as a right.

I'd say the bigger problem with lefties is that they don't want anyone to have individual rights against the rule of a mob of leftist torches & pitchforks.

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

I'd say the bigger problem with lefties is that they don't want anyone to have individual rights against the rule of a mob of leftist torches & pitchforks.

True, there are of course many problems with lefties. Their love of democracy over freedom is a big one.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

True, there are of course many problems with lefties.

Until there is a massive financial crisis in which the wealthy blame the lefties, and then you get fascism.  Lefty problem solved.  New fascist problem to deal with.

 

[Hal 9000]

Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[Yzermandius19]

17 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Ben Franklin knows, but the Eskimo Communists are of course oblivious.