Liberals to Create New Regulations for Social Media Platforms

[scribblet]

And so it begin:  and we know 'hate speech' will be defined by liberals which usually refers to anyone disagreeing with a liberal.   
https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/minister-canadian-heritage-mandate-letter
"Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties."

[Michael Hardner]

Quote

Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties. This should include other online harms such as radicalization, incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda.

So you want to ensure ISIS has it's rights protected ?  Well, you are indeed a beacon of freedom then.

I honestly don't give a lark about this, except if it makes trolls cry I will be delighted.  Liars have already said that I want to ban ideas I don't *like* so why the hell not ?  You free speech folks blew it with me when you were irresponsible about speaking up about bad speech: you see that's part of the deal of free speech, the bad speech is supposed to be called out.

You had a nice toy and you didn't play right with it, or rather you gave it to Russian kids to play with and they weaponized information while you did nothing.  You are to blame for this - and I don't mean your type I mean each one of you personally.  
 

In my new role as a lieutenant of the information police I'll be knocking on all your doors shortly !  

[Shady]

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So you want to ensure ISIS has it's rights protected ?  Well, you are indeed a beacon of freedom then.

I honestly don't give a lark about this, except if it makes trolls cry I will be delighted.  Liars have already said that I want to ban ideas I don't *like* so why the hell not ?  You free speech folks blew it with me when you were irresponsible about speaking up about bad speech: you see that's part of the deal of free speech, the bad speech is supposed to be called out.

You had a nice toy and you didn't play right with it, or rather you gave it to Russian kids to play with and they weaponized information while you did nothing.  You are to blame for this - and I don't mean your type I mean each one of you personally.  
 

In my new role as a lieutenant of the information police I'll be knocking on all your doors shortly !  

Free speech isn’t a toy, it’s a right.  It’s kind of scary that there are people in this country with the same view as yours.  “It’s a nice toy but” could be said of anything, even individual freedom.  What a terrible and shortsighted precedent to set.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Shady

[Dougie93]

There's no free speech on social media platforms, it's all private property.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Shady said:

Free speech isn’t a toy, it’s a right.  It’s kind of scary that there are people in this country with the same view as yours.  “It’s a nice toy but” could be said of anything, even individual freedom.  What a terrible and shortsighted precedent to set.

Where do rights come from ?  They are granted by governments.  Governments also take them away pretty easily and pretty regularly.  

I'm being flippant, but read in between the lines to see my point.  Most rights in the west aren't appreciated.  Institutions like laws, courts, and governments need to work constantly to engender the trust of the people. 

Trudeau taking away rights is really only part of a disappointing devolution of the west.

[Moonlight Graham]

10 hours ago, scribblet said:

And so it begin:  and we know 'hate speech' will be defined by liberals which usually refers to anyone disagreeing with a liberal.   
https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/minister-canadian-heritage-mandate-letter
"Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties."

How is the Canadian government going to regulate American social media companies who break Canadian laws? 

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So you want to ensure ISIS has it's rights protected ?  Well, you are indeed a beacon of freedom then.

Everyone, including ISIS members, are guaranteed to have their rights protected.  If you break the law, you'll be charged.  And when you're charged, you still have certain rights of due process etc.

The Canadian government is perfectly entitled to regulate Canadian social media companies and make sure people aren't breaking the law online.  That includes the things mentioned, like threatening violence or terrorism or other illegal speech that isn't protected by law.  Not all speech is legal.  I can't threaten to rape you, even though I think you're sexy Michael.  Just don't mess with legal speech, we need to do everything to defend the expression of offensive but legal opinions and ideas against tyrannical government censorship.  That's why free speech rights exist in the first place.

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Where do rights come from ?  They are granted by governments.  Governments also take them away pretty easily and pretty regularly. 

The history of rights is very interesting, i've studied it.  Western governments used to oppress their people arbitrarily all the time, as in the days when kings and queens ruled.  It was like Iran or China, people would disappear in the night, or held in jail indefinitely without charge, or intimidated by police if you held unpopular opinions about the government or any matter.

The USA was formed as a kingless republic because they hated the english king, he took their rights away, so they invented a system that would prevent any one person or branch of government from having too much power like a king would.  The popular George Washington voluntarily stepped down after 2 terms because he didn't want to have a "reign" like a king.  In England, human rights were created shortly after periods where kings/queens did very bad things and the people rebelled and killed the king or removed them or exiled them and then put in new rules so the next monarch couldn't do the same.

People take their freedoms for granted and let governments make all sorts of laws that restrict their natural-born freedoms. Everyone is born free by the laws of nature until some government makes a law and decides you can't do something and if you do it they'll send men with clubs and guns to your door and if you still resist they'll beat you or shoot you and throw you in a cell until you comply.  That's what a law is, it's force of compliance by threat of violence, so we need to be darn careful whenever we decide to make a law.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 Just don't mess with legal speech, we need to do everything to defend the expression of offensive but legal opinions and ideas against tyrannical government censorship.  That's why free speech rights exist in the first place.

You have also missed the point of my post.  As we see with Trump, laws are not set in stone, mostly clay.  Who would have thought a president could be defended for withholding government funds as he has ?  But I don't want to sideline the discussion with this example.

Free speech is supposed to work because bad speech is supposed to die out.   If that doesn't happen then the problem changes.  Maybe it's not a big problem, or maybe bad speech will just die out but too many people, to my mind, are concerned over rights over responsibilities.  Like welfare, you are entitled to support but you are responsible for getting yourself off the dole.

If you are concerned about the letter of the law, I guess you would be satisfied with a supreme court ruling that says 'falsehoods against groups constitutes hate speech whether or not violence is intoned'.  Or maybe no ?

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 People take their freedoms for granted and let governments make all sorts of laws that restrict their natural-born freedoms. Everyone is born free by the laws of nature until some government makes a law and decides you can't do something and if you do it they'll send men with clubs and guns to your door and if you still resist they'll beat you or shoot you and throw you in a cell until you comply.  That's what a law is, it's force of compliance by threat of violence, so we need to be darn careful whenever we decide to make a law.

Yes, exactly.  We don't need a law telling you to be fair with people in all transactions because the open market, with a few constraints, works.  We kept the government out of internet regulation because we wisely recognized it as an emergent field that needed to mature and sort itself out.

At some point, though, emergent problems present themselves and collective action is needed.  The Conservatives had also signed on to a resolution to examine online propaganda.  It's bad enough that they saw the need, not just the Liberals.

[jacee]

For reference ...

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

Criminal Code of Canada: 

Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression: Legal Boundaries in Canada

Background Paper

https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201825E

The Key Provisions and Case Law Which Define Hate Speech

https://www.lawnow.org/the-key-provisions-and-case-law-which-define-hate-speech/

As the cases below will highlight, section 319(2) of the Criminal Code and human rights legislation (both federal and provincial) prohibiting the promotion of hatred and contempt have been challenged under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. Despite these challenges, the Supreme Court of Canada has continued to hold that limits on expression are justified and in the process have continued to flesh out what is meant by terms such as “hatred”.

Edited December 15, 2019 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You have also missed the point of my post.  As we see with Trump, laws are not set in stone, mostly clay.  Who would have thought a president could be defended for withholding government funds as he has ?  But I don't want to sideline the discussion with this example.

 

But you did anyway...Trump is irresistible that way...even in Canada.

 

Quote

Free speech is supposed to work because bad speech is supposed to die out.   If that doesn't happen then the problem changes.  Maybe it's not a big problem, or maybe bad speech will just die out but too many people, to my mind, are concerned over rights over responsibilities.  Like welfare, you are entitled to support but you are responsible for getting yourself off the dole.

 

No "free speech" in Canada....another conflated American concept, wherein "bad speech" is the most protected of all to fully realize 1st Amendment rights.

"Freedom of expression" can be extinguished in Canada, so that is the framework to work in.

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

In England, human rights were created shortly after periods where kings/queens did very bad things and the people rebelled and killed the king or removed them or exiled them and then put in new rules so the next monarch couldn't do the same.

We still need a few more kicks at this can.

 

Quote

People take their freedoms for granted

And governments take their power for granted

[jacee]

20 hours ago, scribblet said:

And so it begin:  and we know 'hate speech' will be defined by liberals which usually refers to anyone disagreeing with a liberal.   
 

'Hate speech' is defined by law, the Criminal Code and Case Law. (See my post above.)

To suggest that hate speech is defined by politicians is a ridiculous falsehood. 

From your link: 

... a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, 

Edited December 15, 2019 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

1. No "free speech" in Canada....another conflated American concept, wherein "bad speech" is the most protected of all to fully realize 1st Amendment rights.

2. "Freedom of expression" can be extinguished in Canada, so that is the framework to work in.

1. Version 1.0 of any idea is never the best one.

2. Noted.  

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, jacee said:

'Hate speech' is defined by law, the Criminal Code and Case Law. (See my post above.)

To suggest that hate speech is defined by politicians is a ridiculous falsehood. 

 

No - but can it be that hard to imagine the courts saying a false newspaper story saying that refugees are sacrificing animals in hotel rooms was published to foment hatred towards that group ?  (This story happened btw, it's not a "suppose if")

[Michael Hardner]

For that matter - where was the 'good speech' that was supposed to drown out the lies that the Toronto Sun published ?  Where was 'cancel culture' then ?  There was a non-impactful condemnation from the press council and we all continued on our way.

Now when the possibility of legislating against hate propaganda pops up everybody stands up from their armchair.

[Shady]

15 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

There's no free speech on social media platforms, it's all private property.

Yes, but in this case it’s not the private media platform enforcing their own standard, it’s the government.  People are concerned that it won’t be evenly applied, as well as hate speech definitions being completely subjective.

[Shady]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

'Hate speech' is defined by law, the Criminal Code and Case Law. (See my post above.)

To suggest that hate speech is defined by politicians is a ridiculous falsehood. 

From your link: 

... a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, 

Hate speech is subjective.  Regardless, I’m not sure if you know how laws are made, but even criminal code law is written and passed by politicians.  It’s not a falsehood, it’s basic civics and how legislation works.  Sheesh. 

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Shady said:

Yes, but in this case it’s not the private media platform enforcing their own standard, it’s the government.  People are concerned that it won’t be evenly applied, as well as hate speech definitions being completely subjective.

Canada is a monarchy, your right to speech is curtailed by the Queen's Peace, there is no equivalent of the First Amendment in Canada.

[Shady]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada is a monarchy, your right to speech is curtailed by the Queen's Peace, there is no equivalent of the First Amendment in Canada.

Totally agree, we actually don’t have free speech in Canada.  It doesn’t mean we can fight against censorship though.

[Shady]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Where do rights come from ?  They are granted by governments.  Governments also take them away pretty easily and pretty regularly.  

I'm being flippant, but read in between the lines to see my point.  Most rights in the west aren't appreciated.  Institutions like laws, courts, and governments need to work constantly to engender the trust of the people. 

Trudeau taking away rights is really only part of a disappointing devolution of the west.

Agreed.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Shady said:

Totally agree, we actually don’t have free speech in Canada.  It doesn’t mean we can fight against censorship though.

I don't see any path to victory in Canada, the vast majority of Canadians do not support free speech and rather recoil from it as being something only for Americans.

[Shady]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

For that matter - where was the 'good speech' that was supposed to drown out the lies that the Toronto Sun published ?  Where was 'cancel culture' then ?  There was a non-impactful condemnation from the press council and we all continued on our way.

Now when the possibility of legislating against hate propaganda pops up everybody stands up from their armchair.

The problem is that you’re basically advocating for a ministry of truth to let everyone know what is false and what isn’t.  False stories have been published in the press, etc since the invention of the printing press.  That’s why there are libel laws etc.  But we’re not talking about major media like the Toronto Sun, were talking about individual private citizens on a private media platform.

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I honestly don't give a lark about this, except if it makes trolls cry I will be delighted.  Liars have already said that I want to ban ideas I don't *like* so why the hell not ?  You free speech folks blew it with me when you were irresponsible about speaking up about bad speech: you see that's part of the deal of free speech, the bad speech is supposed to be called out.

See the blind hypocrisy here. He calls people liars who said he wanted to ban ideas, then talks about how he wants to ban ideas!

Let that roll around in your mind for a bit.

Only frightened little minds are afraid of dumb ideas.

 

[Shady]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't see any path to victory in Canada, the vast majority of Canadians do not support free speech and rather recoil from it as being something only for Americans.

I agree.  Most have been brainwashed into thinking that any speech that offends them is hate speech.