Freedom of speech

[myata]

There are valid themes for free discussions though and they have and are happening in other societies. Extreme gender-biased attire when in public role that cannot be avoided by public is a valid and real issue. As is the right to blasphemy, in any religion. A society does not gain much by sweeping them under the carpet and pretending they don't exist. It means only that it would be prepared or even know what to do if they are forced by the events. That, as just seen with travel from Wuhan, is hardly a precursor of outstanding or even decent outcome.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1)  I doubt you had any effect.
2) Well, most all of it I would think.
3) You have to go back and read the posts.  I am not going to explain over and over the difference between criticizing Islam and demonizing Muslims.  If you don't know how to do that... I don't know.  If it were me, I would likely shut up until I could get it straight.

If you can show me an example where I demonized anyone, I would be happy to argue that I didn't.  The problem is, I don't think you know the difference between criticizing Islam and demonizing Muslims.  I'm sure you think you do, but that doesn't make it so.

Did you mean what you said in 2) or did you misread the question?

[Guest]

6 hours ago, myata said:

Where the right becomes an entitlement to threats and / or violence against others that right is void. And the freedom of speech goes all ways, it is also to bring out jerks who make people feel threatened to the light, without suppression or intimidation. And it's the responsibility of the society to remain rational and engaged and react to such cases. Otherwise, the path from some hate to group hate to threats and intimidation and ultimately, violence up to crimes against humanity and genocide is well known in history.

Yes, there is no right to threaten and there certainly is no right to commit a violent act.  Those are not up for discussion.

The path to anywhere is not the responsibility of those who only take the first step.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

1. If you can show me an example where I demonized anyone, I would be happy to argue that I didn't. 

2. The problem is, I don't think you know the difference between criticizing Islam and demonizing Muslims. 

3. Did you mean what you said in 2) or did you misread the question?

1. Maybe you didn't, then.  I would take that back, but I do hold people who start talking about 'free speech' in special disdain, if they do it after some nut read some anti-Muslim propaganda and mowed down a beautiful family.

2. Again.  Go back and read.  There were examples given early on.  I'm not going to search for you, I made the point once.

3. I hold people responsible for their actions, yes.  I don't think you criticizing Islam causes people to murder, but I hold people responsible for reckless shitposting that demonizes people.  Again, if you didn't do that I apologize.  
 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Maybe you didn't, then.  I would take that back, but I do hold people who start talking about 'free speech' in special disdain, if they do it after some nut read some anti-Muslim propaganda and mowed down a beautiful family.

2. Again.  Go back and read.  There were examples given early on.  I'm not going to search for you, I made the point once.

3. I hold people responsible for their actions, yes.  I don't think you criticizing Islam causes people to murder, but I hold people responsible for reckless shitposting that demonizes people.  Again, if you didn't do that I apologize.  
 

1) Why yes, so do I.

2) Okay, fair enough.  I must have differed then or I wouldn't bring it up.  No reason to think I would change my mind now.

3) If it's the truth, I don't care.  If it's not, well, it probably wasn't me.  One of the problems is the refusal of some people to accept the truth.  If there's no argument there's no post.  As I've said in the past, it's not the Muslims, it's the hippies.

 

[myata]

15 hours ago, bcsapper said:

The path to anywhere is not the responsibility of those who only take the first step.

Of course, just as said no legislation can guarantee anything if the society is apathetic and disengaged. But steps can be different and it's up for the society to determine the rules, in which context and history are almost always taken into account. And in that context, public expression of indiscriminate hate to a group identified by any factor would be very close and too close to threatening it, to be allowed.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, myata said:

Of course, just as said no legislation can guarantee anything if the society is apathetic and disengaged. But steps can be different and it's up for the society to determine the rules, in which context and history are almost always taken into account. And in that context, public expression of indiscriminate hate to a group identified by any factor would be very close and too close to threatening it, to be allowed.

Well, we've been around this a few laps now.  Probably best to call time.  I disagree with you.  There's nothing wrong with hate, and there's nothing wrong with expressing such.  That's in my opinion.  If it becomes threatening, the law can deal with that.

You have the last word.

[blackbird]

On 6/12/2021 at 8:40 AM, myata said:

At the point of initiating or propagating hatred by any factor; at the point of inciting, explicitly or implicitly violence based on the grounds of hate.

Communists kill their opponents in Communist countries or when they have revolutions simply because their opponents do not agree with them.  Castro did that in Cuba.  Mao did that in China.  Stalin did that in Russia.  Many people persecute and kill Christians around the world simply because of hate or their religion teaches them to hate and kill people who disagree with them.  In many countries in the world, it is a dangerous thing to be converted to Christ and one is not allowed to preach or proselytize others.  Pakistan, Iran, and many other countries are examples of dangerous places where there are laws that carry the death penalty.  Canada and America is are still relatively free, but Canada is drifting toward authoritarianism.

[blackbird]

I can tell you in the area I live, if you do not drive above the speed limit on certain main roads, you actually will face angry people behind you.  I face this all the time because I try to drive at the speed limit.  Some are on the verge of road rage.  I don't think there is anyone in authority one can speak to about this that would listen or care.  We have become a lawless society.

[blackbird]

Microsoft News (MSN) comment section refuses to post completely benign comments that should never be disallowed.  They run it like Communist China would.   On an article on the old growth forest dispute in B.C.,  I simply said "Mother Earth worshipers are worshiping a false god or something similar and they reject it.  Under abortion articles, I tried to state abortion is killing or something similar and it is never permitted.   Freedom of speech is being denied in Canada.  They are already obeying the federal government CRTC and the spirit of bills C10 and C36 that liberals are promising to bring in.  Real Marxist dictatorship.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Microsoft News (MSN) comment section refuses to post completely benign comments that should never be disallowed.  They run it like Communist China would.   On an article on the old growth forest dispute in B.C.,  I simply said "Mother Earth worshipers are worshiping a false god or something similar and they reject it.  Under abortion articles, I tried to state abortion is killing or something similar and it is never permitted.   Freedom of speech is being denied in Canada.  They are already obeying the federal government CRTC and the spirit of bills C10 and C36 that liberals are promising to bring in.  Real Marxist dictatorship.

Businesses, which MSN is, have the freedom to deny service based on their own policies 

"Freedom of Speech" does not exist in Canada; it's Freedom of Expression and relates to what the government cannot limit, not what businesses choose to limit.  This means the government cannot deny you the right to express your religious views, no matter what MSN chooses to do. Freedom of Expression is not even absolute; defamation, for example, is not permitted. 

You can yell at MSN for pulling your posts, but that has nothing to do with Canada - they're an American company, for starters and especially if their servers are in the States, are not subject to Canadian law - even if there was a law to address your issue. 

It's completely ridiculous to compare this to a dictatorship.  There are plenty of places you can express your religious views without any problem. A dictatorship would try to prevent you from expressing yourself anywhere.

 

 

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

Businesses, which MSN is, have the freedom to deny service based on their own policies 

"Freedom of Speech" does not exist in Canada; it's Freedom of Expression and relates to what the government cannot limit, not what businesses choose to limit.  This means the government cannot deny you the right to express your religious views, no matter what MSN chooses to do. Freedom of Expression is not even absolute; defamation, for example, is not permitted. 

You can yell at MSN for pulling your posts, but that has nothing to do with Canada - they're an American company, for starters and especially if their servers are in the States, are not subject to Canadian law - even if there was a law to address your issue. 

It's completely ridiculous to compare this to a dictatorship.  There are plenty of places you can express your religious views without any problem. A dictatorship would try to prevent you from expressing yourself anywhere.

 

 

I have heard similar arguments before.  The fact is MSN is operating in Canada.  It has been proven that internet companies are subject to the laws of the country they are operating in.  Why do you think China imposes laws on Google and other companies that operate in China?   Canada similarly is imposing laws and taxes on companies that operate in Canada even  if they are based in the U.S.  An example is Netflix.  They are subject to Canadian laws even though they operate over the internet.

The argument that the Charter of Rights does not apply to private companies does not make sense either.  I have heard that the Charter only applies to federal government, whatever that is supposed to mean.  It doesn't make sense.  Your argument about freedom of expression versus freedom of speech is irrelevant.  They both have the same meaning when we are talking about expressing views.  Both wordings cover speech.  Nobody is advocating defamation so that is another diversion.  Freedom of expression guaranteed in the Charter does not state it only applies in certain limited circumstances.  It is reasonable to assume freedom of expression applies to public debate and discourse regardless what company runs it.  MSN is clearly violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  However, Microsoft has unlimited access to lawyers and money.  There is no way an individual can fight them and expect to win anything.  It would cost a fortune to even try.  Therefore the Charter is somewhat of an empty document.  If it actually is only limited to certain circumstances and not applicable to private companies, then it is next to a worthless piece of paper.  If it applies theoretically everywhere in Canada, but cannot be enforced or requires a fortune to challenge in the court to get it upheld, then again it is also worthless.  The fact that companies like MSN can enforce extreme censorship in Canada is just more evidence that Canada lacks the fundamental freedoms that it professes to hold.

Edited September 3, 2021 by blackbird

[Aristides]

You are free to say what you want short of advocating violence, however no one is obligated to give you a  platform to do it.

[Infidel Dog]

16 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You are free to say what you want short of advocating violence, however no one is obligated to give you a  platform to do it.

But remember offering a platform doesn't mean you can behave like a publisher. Right, Facebook? Right, Twitter?