Jump to content

Freedom of Speach Long Gone - COVID


cougar

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The definition of Freedom of Speech has to do with government not interfering with citizens expressing their views (except in some limited cases - such as inciting people to violence.)

Private entities have no obligation to let you say anything you want while on their premises or using their services.

For example, if I came into your Church - which is open to the public if it is like most Churches -  and began telling everyone that there was no God, it was all a hoax, you or your pastor would have every right to toss me out; freedom of speech doesn't mean I can say anything I want anywhere I want.

I agree with you about going into a church or private group settings or private associations.  I disagree when it is a public forum open to anyone to join and where political debate is ostensibly welcomed.  Then the Charter of Rights applies.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2021 at 11:06 AM, dialamah said:

1.  Nope.  Just like a restaurant can refuse service to someone based on what they are wearing (or not wearing), or their behavior, so too can public sites decide who shall or shall not join or post.  The right to enter a restaurant or post on a public website is actually a privilege granted by the owner and not an unassailable right.

2.  I don't know what the poster said after the first line, or how it differed from the previous post, but the trend is for public sites to delete content/people who post misinformation.  Opinion among readers and other posters may vary on what constitutes misinformation, but the site owner has the right to decide that.

3.  Doesn't matter.

4.  All media does that to some degree, whether it's left wing, right wing or centrist.

The CBC and MSN have guidelines but constantly delete or ban comments that have nothing to do with their guidelines.  They just ban comments if they don't like the view point.  This is a violation of the Charter of Rights.  If it clearly said in the Guidelines you can't say such and such, ok then they could delete it because that was part of the agreement.  But since the guidelines are usually very general and clearly do not specify what you can or cannot say, they are often over bearing in deleting or blocking comments.  Now if you are a liberal or lefty, you will probably agree with them banning comments you disagree with.  That is how the lefty mind works.  Such forums are a waste of time.  

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I agree with you about going into a church or private group settings or private associations.  I disagree when it is a public forum open to anyone to join and where political debate is ostensibly welcomed.  Then the Charter of Rights applies.  

What if it is only open to join for those who agree to the terms of use that you checked off when you signed up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

What if it is only open to join for those who agree to the terms of use that you checked off when you signed up?

As I said, the terms of use often are just general statements, but are being abused by CBC and MSN News when they ban comments right and left that have nothing really to do with the terms of use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, blackbird said:

As I said, the terms of use often are just general statements, but are being abused by CBC and MSN News when they ban comments right and left that have nothing really to do with the terms of use.

How is it being abused if it’s their terms?  Why do you think you can post whatever you want on their site?  
 

When has a court ever ruled that a citizen has free speech rights on a comment board?

Do you think it’s possible that you don’t understand what freedom of speech rights actually pertain to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

1. I never said in a business or in your home, etc.  You are projecting again. 

2. We are talking about public forums where opinions are welcomed and expressed.  There are restrictions against such things as advocating violence or illegality.  There is no freedom of speech for such things.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

So tell me if social media forums are private space that nobody has any rights except the owner to control, how does government (Trudeau) have the right to censor what goes on it?  Does government have more rights to determine what one says than private citizens?

In other words, do you somehow believe government has the right to censor private citizens comments?

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. So tell me if social media forums are private space that nobody has any rights except the owner to control, how does government (Trudeau) have the right to censor what goes on it? 

2. Does government have more rights to determine what one says than private citizens?

3. In other words, do you somehow believe government has the right to censor private citizens comments?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2021 at 4:41 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Case?

What case?

You don't actually have a right to post on a website.

Part of the problem is hysterical people who confuse rights with options.

You don't have a right to go into a McDonald's but if you follow whatever rules they lay down, you have the option.

I gave an extensive argument for why PRIVATE websites acting like PUBLIC venues  have to not censor freely. IF and only IF the site does not have to be accountable to abuses on the Internet, the site's private choice to censor material cannot be permitted protection by governments because they have the capacity to dox or malign a guest's reputation and presentation. That is, if you have the power to edit or remove content, then SHOULD, say, some evidence be asked of a site regarding terrorism or other criminal behavior, such sites as a whole cannot be trusted because they COULD be intensionally mispresenting the suspected guest. 

On the other hand, the above example in the OP looks like an improvement in that they have not 'moderated' (censored out) the person's free speech like they were doing before. I had complained to and about the CBC's moderation because when they declared censoring all content for certain declared abuses, the public could not verify this as true nor false. The CBC is not a private network because its function was to permit expression of people in Canada a venue to be heard fairly. The sites may be private, but since the CBC represents the people's voice, any censoring by the site itself hides ANY liability where the public cannot view the contentious material being censured and/or censored. 

Therefore, they should never censor the CBC sites and not permit the private site being paid for this to be allowed to do this either because it defeats the meaning of CBC as the Canadian people's forum.

When I initially argued this, it was on another site who censored or edited material of a particular set of threads. I argued why MALLS, being private properties are actually granted PUBLIC acceptance for their licencing to permit people on their property. These are not private countries and so have to respect the laws and rights of the guests using their space in the country the mall exists in or it should not be permitted public access. This makes sense for what I just argued above. If a mall's security is permitted to be trusted accusations of potetial abuses, like theft, by holding some violator and being able to be 'trusted' to have local police take on the charges, without a means to assure the abuse is not merely being targetted on the guest, they HAVE to be liable to special limits of their ownership rights or have such 'rights' themselves be removed. The law defines 'ownership' and these belong to the people. 

Note that even one's private home does not permit ABSOLUTE censoring of guests because the public defines what 'ownership' means and it cannot mean that the home owner can have an absolute power to say, kill anyone in their domain. 

The CBC example above is now fairer if it stopped censorship but opted to censure by giving open public notice of the comment.

I just finished a long debate on another forum in which the anonymous person I was arguing with begun to out-and-out lie: He was clearly denying obvious facts regarding the actual support of Evolutionary scientists concensus. [He asserts boldly that no scientist believes that man coevolved with all other animals. Therefore he was clearly SPAMMING because their was no way one can even use logic when the premises that are clearly presented to him are PRETENDED as not being seen. As such, he was maligning the sources that I directly linked and misrepresented the literal authors that I know by implying that I must be insane (gaslighting) for thinking the obvious facts. This would be like me stating that your sites representative name is NOT Michael Hardner in direct and obvious evidence against it.

Worse, when you source out to a site that others may not look at, this type of abuse deliberately acts to insult and malign other people's actual views by technical slander. Given the person I was arguing with was also anonymous, there was no means to hold his lies accountable. This is where censure and censorship is called for by the site's moderators without violation of a person's free speech. 

I had been arguing on this site earlier with a similar person's intentional denials. While I think it is reasonable to permit it to some degree given some people may have real psychological issues which affects their perspective, if you can show that the person is reasonable in some arguments but then strictly denies obvious witnessed facts being presented (not merely the interpretation of it), such persons maintaining the behavior act as intentional spreaders of misinformation and is precisely what threatens the credibility of all forums or social media on the internet. 

The interference from foreigners also has to be noticed, regardless of which political or religious views one has. Countries like China and North Korea ARE doing what they can to create an atmosphere of complete and utter chaos and distrust when by specifying people target forums and social media this way. They also APPEAR to be on one side but are just as likely attempting to discredit the sensibility of the political or religous sides they SEEM to be reprenting.

As such, we need to permit free speech but hold those accountable when speaking that they are not intentionally being deceptive in apparent PUBLIC forums, regardless of its private ownership. This affects us all and so we need to stand up even against those who appear to be doing this or we risk losing our freedoms. China and North Korea, as merely two example enemy states, ARE going to succeed by these tactics. 

We have to speak openly against our 'friends' when they use these tactics as well or we set an escalating precedence that will defeat our own side's SINCERE opinions and arguments. 

Edited by Scott Mayers
Bad grammar, spelling, etc. (hard to notice in plain text)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I gave an extensive argument for why PRIVATE websites acting like PUBLIC venues  have to not censor freely. IF and only IF the site does not have to be accountable to abuses on the Internet, the site's private choice to censor material cannot be permitted protection by governments because they have the capacity to dox or malign a guest's reputation and presentation. That is, if you have the power to edit or remove content, then SHOULD, say, some evidence be asked of a site regarding terrorism or other criminal behavior, such sites as a whole cannot be trusted because they COULD be intensionally mispresenting the suspected guest. 

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.

22 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

On the other hand, the above example in the OP looks like an improvement in that they have not 'moderated' (censored out) the person's free speech like they were doing before. I had complained to and about the CBC's moderation because when they declared censoring all content for certain declared abuses, the public could not verify this as true nor false. The CBC is not a private network because its function was to permit expression of people in Canada a venue to be heard fairly. The sites may be private, but since the CBC represents the people's voice, any censoring by the site itself hides ANY liability where the public cannot view the contentious material being censured and/or censored. 

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.

22 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

When I initially argued this, it was on another site who censored or edited material of a particular set of threads. I argued why MALLS, being private properties are actually granted PUBLIC acceptance for their licencing to permit people on their property. These are not private countries and so have to respect the laws and rights of the guests using their space in the country the mall exists in or it should not be permitted public access. This makes sense for what I just argued above. If a mall's security is permitted to be trusted accusations of potetial abuses, like theft, by holding some violator and being able to be 'trusted' to have local police take on the charges, without a means to assure the abuse is not merely being targetted on the guest, they HAVE to be liable to special limits of their ownership rights or have such 'rights' themselves be removed. The law defines 'ownership' and these belong to the people. 

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.

22 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Note that even one's private home does not permit ABSOLUTE censoring of guests because the public defines what 'ownership' means and it cannot mean that the home owner can have an absolute power to say, kill anyone in their domain. 

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.

22 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

The CBC example above is now fairer if it stopped censorship but opted to censure by giving open public notice of the comment.

I just finished a long debate on another forum in which the anonymous person I was arguing with begun to out-and-out lie: He was clearly denying obvious facts regarding the actual support of Evolutionary scientists concensus. [He asserts boldly that no scientist believes that man coevolved with all other animals. Therefore he was clearly SPAMMING because their was no way one can even use logic when the premises that are clearly presented to him are PRETENDED as not being seen. As such, he was maligning the sources that I directly linked and misrepresented the literal authors that I know by implying that I must be insane (gaslighting) for thinking the obvious facts. This would be like me stating that your sites representative name is NOT Michael Hardner in direct and obvious evidence against it.

Worse, when you source out to a site that others may not look at, this type of abuse deliberately acts to insult and malign other people's actual views by technical slander. Given the person I was arguing with was also anonymous, there was no means to hold his lies accountable. This is where censure and censorship is called for by the site's moderators without violation of a person's free speech. 

I had been arguing on this site earlier with a similar person's intentional denials. While I think it is reasonable to permit it to some degree given some people may have real psychological issues which affects their perspective, if you can show that the person is reasonable in some arguments but then strictly denies obvious witnessed facts being presented (not merely the interpretation of it), such persons maintaining the behavior act as intentional spreaders of misinformation and is precisely what threatens the credibility of all forums or social media on the internet. 

Nonetheless, people can moderate their own sites how they like - right or wrong.  That's the best way.

22 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

The interference from foreigners also has to be noticed, regardless of which political or religious views one has. Countries like China and North Korea ARE doing what they can to create an atmosphere of complete and utter chaos and distrust when by specifying people target forums and social media this way. They also APPEAR to be on one side but are just as likely attempting to discredit the sensibility of the political or religous sides they SEEM to be reprenting.

I agree but I don't have an answer.

22 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

As such, we need to permit free speech but hold those accountable when speaking that they are not intentionally being deceptive in apparent PUBLIC forums, regardless of its private ownership. This affects us all and so we need to stand up even against those who appear to be doing this or we risk losing our freedoms. China and North Korea, as merely two example enemy states, ARE going to succeed by these tactics. 

We have to speak openly against our 'friends' when they use these tactics as well or we set an escalating precedence that will defeat our own side's SINCERE opinions and arguments. 

Well what's your answer ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
4 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I gave an extensive argument for why PRIVATE websites acting like PUBLIC venues  have to not censor freely. IF and only IF the site does not have to be accountable to abuses on the Internet, the site's private choice to censor material cannot be permitted protection by governments because they have the capacity to dox or malign a guest's reputation and presentation. That is, if you have the power to edit or remove content, then SHOULD, say, some evidence be asked of a site regarding terrorism or other criminal behavior, such sites as a whole cannot be trusted because they COULD be intensionally mispresenting the suspected guest. 

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.

I am saying that if a site is able to moderate by censoring or editing, then should some guest be found out to be a criminal or terrorist, the accused persons posts can not (or should not) be held liable because it is reasonably possible that the site themselves could be misrepresenting the accused. Why would the nature of one's privilege to own a public forum justify them to be granted superior faith for any possible evidence of abuse by their guests? 

If the content is only noted, as Facebook did with Trump initially (and what CBC appears to have adopted by the OP's example), this DOES maintain the site's credibility should content by guests be held against them. I know that if I was a lawyer for such an accused, I'd use the right of private owners' ability to alter content as reasonable doubt about anything claimed to have been said by the defendent. 

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

If you use acronyms or text with me, please spell it out. I don't know what "FOI" stands for. But in context I understand. So....

The CBC did NOT initially own the site when I initially complained directly to its president a few years ago. In fact, when I did present a distinct argument to them in email, they did NOT own the site and even had the private site they were renting do the moderation themselves. They were also unaccountable for being able to keep those censors hidden anonymously. 

I also argued, again directly to CBC, when they deleted all guest content regarding Indigeneous issues, that by doing so, the public no longer has proof of the asserted abuses. As such, I urged them to not censor and gave them even particular incidents where I had commented on some stories that the censors would arbitrarily pass on some of my posts while not others on the same topic. The selecting out of some of my material made it appear that the consensus was against my position because what got passed were in favor of some political contrasting view. This represents a form of misrepresentation by HOW the content is presented (even though what passed was itself not edited.) My submissions were not the least abusive but it was clear that I was being presented in a way that misrepreseted what I meant and I could not 'correct' any possible misrepresetation. 

IF the CBC now owns its site, my contributing arguments likely helped. I find adding notices of misinformation or abuses as was done with Trump's misinformation notices on Facebook prior to being banned was fine. CBC appears to be doing that above and it may not thus be abusive because they leave the liability of the words the guests say and so CAN be held accountable. 

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

That depends. IF the entity is a business that depends upon guests (and this includes the separate stores being leased), then they should not be allowed to violate the people they have specific LICENCE by the society that gives them such privilege. "Ownership" is an illusion and never absolute, contrary to the minds of one who has such potential absolute power. It is GRANTED as their 'own' by the society. Otherwise I can simply declare ownership of my own person with priority with the same declaration of absolute power to behave any way I feel free to. 

The 'license' doesn't have to be formal either where it is implicit. Most societies have abused the rights of its citizens by merely being able to have the fortune of power to keep government running in their favor. And regardless of declared rules, the laws that apply to people in public spaces generally owned by the people collectively still has to apply.   And why...

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
4 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Note that even one's private home does not permit ABSOLUTE censoring of guests because the public defines what 'ownership' means and it cannot mean that the home owner can have an absolute power to say, kill anyone in their domain. 

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.

...I said this quote. Just because someone has a privilege to 'own' a home privately does not grant them absolute power over the minimal 'ownership' of the country's laws made by the people's government that defines the rights of all people and who DEFINE what 'ownership' means. 

Remember, I am not religious and cannot think that some invisible part of Nature (like one's God) suffices to grant Special powers of absolute privilege and who interpret "ownership" as meaning their own standards of belief rather than a negotiated convention among all people. What is universal about what it means to 'OWN' is our bodies and a right to at least do what is least necessary to survive. Yet even contrary to this most agreeable idea by many, some of the same people who believe in unlimited ownership rights tend to be the same who demand other people's bodies should be 'owned' by them too. [If one is born without inheritance (including 'heritage' privilges where applicable), these people are 'enslaved' by those who own the ground beneath their feet, for instance. ]

The point is that "ownership" is a privilege, not a 'right'. No one has a 'right' to rape or kill someone who 'tresspasses' upon their private homes and is what I meant by including private homes as requiring some 'public' common respect fo the laws we create. Thus, malls, regardless of being classed as 'private property', cannot permit them to bias the public they REQUIRE for their business advantages. Otherwise, society should have every 'right' to prevent the public from entering those places effectively closing down their businesses.

That is, given the non-private PUBLICLY owned property, society too has 'ownership' rights that should needs to be equally respected.

"Ownerships" are limited privileges defined by the society and requires the owner be responsible by some minimal social standards and duties. Otherwise the least 'right' to one's body is all that Nature guarantees. 

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Nonetheless, people can moderate their own sites how they like - right or wrong.  That's the best way.

Sure. But that is an opinion regarding your beliefs about the meaning of what "ownership" means. But note that given the privilege granted to some to 'own' our media (by which I include things like access roads or the very air we breathe, not just communication), when such 'ownership' privilege is ubiquitously  the ones getting to set the rules of moderation, they have the means to RULE over those without power unequally and absolutely.

There is NO means of people to 'own' a piece of the Internet (and thus access to free speech) without literally having their own servers today. Even companies leasing websites are 'moderated' with unfair privilege. Thus, the society who owns the right to make laws that define "ownership" requires having the same 'right' to censor/moderate the sites where they act as virtual conspiracies among the collection of media owners. 

To me there is no ideal about moderation. But to me, the public has priority over those particular entities that allow in the public: if the sites want PUBLIC protection rights by the society that grants its privilge to 'own' exclusively, they need to respect the people they let in on their property.

As for one's private home, this KIND of 'ownership' is NOT PUBLIC in the same way but at least has to obide to respecting certain minimal human rights that each individual has by default by nature.

 

As to the 'answer' to what we can do? This, ...what we are doing right now! I believe that intellectual dialect among guests, members, and owners of forums can go a long way to 'moderate' ourselves without a need for censorship when logic is encouraged and we respect the facts we use as inputs to our arguments.  I fear that the escalating use of those opting to use specific power tactics of the Internet troll are becoming more predominantly effective in isolating us all just as a single terrorist suffices to affectively destroy the faith in whole communities . Understanding cannot begin if we don't stand up against our own peers when they use things like lying as an acceptable means to compete in arguments. 

Here is what I posted to just such a person in a thread earlier today on another forum when he wouldn't stop asserting it as factual that evolutionists universally do not believe humans coevolved with all the other animals. He is apparently altering his content as I just noticed now but it is due to me clarifying HOW he is abusing the fair means to argue where this below was just my last post of clarity. He is not an idiot and can argue well where it suits him and so he is not merely having some mental issue. 

However, this is an example of his last post:

Quote

My point has never been to be unkind to you, and the only issue I have is with the monkey-to-man theory, which, as you already know, is a proven fraud. 

I think most people CAN reason regardless of how unfair they may be acting. So this is an example of the 'what' we can do in practice. (also see my arguments here in the last week or so). But how can you compete with his continuous abuse?

 

Internet Toll definition:

In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.), a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses,[2] or manipulating others' perception. This is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or manipulating a political process. Even so, Internet trolling can also be defined as purposefully causing confusion or harm to other users online, for no reason at all.[3]

References by the numbers above:
1. "Definition of troll". Collins English Dictionary. Retrieved 17 September 2012.
2."Definition of: trolling". PCMAG.COM. Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc. 2009. Retrieved 24 March 2009.
3. Buckels, E.E.; Trapnell, P.D.; Paulhus, D.L. (2014). "Trolls Just Want to Have Fun: (520722015-006)".


Note that "purposely causing confusion" is indifferent to "Gaslighting"

Gaslighting is a form of emotional abuse that’s seen in abusive relationships. It’s the act of manipulating a person by forcing them to question their thoughts, memories, and the events occurring around them. A victim of gaslighting can be pushed so far that they question their own sanity.
...
Gaslighting, whether intentional or not, is a form of manipulation. Gaslighting can happen in many types of relationships, including those with bosses, friends, and parents. But one of the most devastating forms of gaslighting is when it occurs in a relationship between a couple.

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.

 

Edited by Scott Mayers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2021 at 5:21 AM, cougar said:

Now look at the post below and explain to me how the poster named Alice Barton broke CBC rules in order to have her content disabled?

I believe Alice has an excellent case against CBC.

 

 

CBC-Censorship.jpg

 

Nothing that deserves it to be disabled. 

Get used to rights being taken away.  It isn't  happening only in Canada.  We're seeing the end of days for democracy.

Edited by betsy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2021 at 1:10 AM, Scott Mayers said:

I am saying that if a site is able to moderate by censoring or editing, then should some guest be found out to be a criminal or terrorist, the accused persons posts can not (or should not) be held liable because it is reasonably possible that the site themselves could be misrepresenting the accused. Why would the nature of one's privilege to own a public forum justify them to be granted superior faith for any possible evidence of abuse by their guests? 

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.

On 10/20/2021 at 1:10 AM, Scott Mayers said:

If the content is only noted, as Facebook did with Trump initially (and what CBC appears to have adopted by the OP's example), this DOES maintain the site's credibility should content by guests be held against them. I know that if I was a lawyer for such an accused, I'd use the right of private owners' ability to alter content as reasonable doubt about anything claimed to have been said by the defendent. 

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.

On 10/20/2021 at 1:10 AM, Scott Mayers said:

If you use acronyms or text with me, please spell it out. I don't know what "FOI" stands for. But in context I understand. So....

The CBC did NOT initially own the site when I initially complained directly to its president a few years ago. In fact, when I did present a distinct argument to them in email, they did NOT own the site and even had the private site they were renting do the moderation themselves. They were also unaccountable for being able to keep those censors hidden anonymously. 

Whatever the reason - the point stands that  they own the content.

On 10/20/2021 at 1:10 AM, Scott Mayers said:

I also argued, again directly to CBC, when they deleted all guest content regarding Indigeneous issues, that by doing so, the public no longer has proof of the asserted abuses. As such, I urged them to not censor and gave them even particular incidents where I had commented on some stories that the censors would arbitrarily pass on some of my posts while not others on the same topic. The selecting out of some of my material made it appear that the consensus was against my position because what got passed were in favor of some political contrasting view. This represents a form of misrepresentation by HOW the content is presented (even though what passed was itself not edited.) My submissions were not the least abusive but it was clear that I was being presented in a way that misrepreseted what I meant and I could not 'correct' any possible misrepresetation. 

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.

On 10/20/2021 at 1:10 AM, Scott Mayers said:

 

That depends. IF the entity is a business that depends upon guests (and this includes the separate stores being leased), then they should not be allowed to violate the people they have specific LICENCE by the society that gives them such privilege. "Ownership" is an illusion and never absolute, contrary to the minds of one who has such potential absolute power. It is GRANTED as their 'own' by the society. Otherwise I can simply declare ownership of my own person with priority with the same declaration of absolute power to behave any way I feel free to. 

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.

On 10/20/2021 at 1:10 AM, Scott Mayers said:

The 'license' doesn't have to be formal either where it is implicit. Most societies have abused the rights of its citizens by merely being able to have the fortune of power to keep government running in their favor. And regardless of declared rules, the laws that apply to people in public spaces generally owned by the people collectively still has to apply.   And why...

...I said this quote. Just because someone has a privilege to 'own' a home privately does not grant them absolute power over the minimal 'ownership' of the country's laws made by the people's government that defines the rights of all people and who DEFINE what 'ownership' means. 

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 ?

On 10/20/2021 at 1:10 AM, Scott Mayers said:

Remember, I am not religious and cannot think that some invisible part of Nature (like one's God) suffices to grant Special powers of absolute privilege and who interpret "ownership" as meaning their own standards of belief rather than a negotiated convention among all people. What is universal about what it means to 'OWN' is our bodies and a right to at least do what is least necessary to survive. Yet even contrary to this most agreeable idea by many, some of the same people who believe in unlimited ownership rights tend to be the same who demand other people's bodies should be 'owned' by them too. [If one is born without inheritance (including 'heritage' privilges where applicable), these people are 'enslaved' by those who own the ground beneath their feet, for instance. ]

The point is that "ownership" is a privilege, not a 'right'. No one has a 'right' to rape or kill someone who 'tresspasses' upon their private homes and is what I meant by including private homes as requiring some 'public' common respect fo the laws we create. Thus, malls, regardless of being classed as 'private property', cannot permit them to bias the public they REQUIRE for their business advantages. Otherwise, society should have every 'right' to prevent the public from entering those places effectively closing down their businesses.

That is, given the non-private PUBLICLY owned property, society too has 'ownership' rights that should needs to be equally respected.

"Ownerships" are limited privileges defined by the society and requires the owner be responsible by some minimal social standards and duties. Otherwise the least 'right' to one's body is all that Nature guarantees. 

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.

 

On 10/20/2021 at 1:10 AM, Scott Mayers said:

Sure. But that is an opinion regarding your beliefs about the meaning of what "ownership" means. But note that given the privilege granted to some to 'own' our media (by which I include things like access roads or the very air we breathe, not just communication), when such 'ownership' privilege is ubiquitously  the ones getting to set the rules of moderation, they have the means to RULE over those without power unequally and absolutely.

There is NO means of people to 'own' a piece of the Internet (and thus access to free speech) without literally having their own servers today. Even companies leasing websites are 'moderated' with unfair privilege. Thus, the society who owns the right to make laws that define "ownership" requires having the same 'right' to censor/moderate the sites where they act as virtual conspiracies among the collection of media owners. 

To me there is no ideal about moderation. But to me, the public has priority over those particular entities that allow in the public: if the sites want PUBLIC protection rights by the society that grants its privilge to 'own' exclusively, they need to respect the people they let in on their property.

As for one's private home, this KIND of 'ownership' is NOT PUBLIC in the same way but at least has to obide to respecting certain minimal human rights that each individual has by default by nature.

 

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.

On 10/20/2021 at 1:10 AM, Scott Mayers said:

 

As to the 'answer' to what we can do? This, ...what we are doing right now! I believe that intellectual dialect among guests, members, and owners of forums can go a long way to 'moderate' ourselves without a need for censorship when logic is encouraged and we respect the facts we use as inputs to our arguments.  I fear that the escalating use of those opting to use specific power tactics of the Internet troll are becoming more predominantly effective in isolating us all just as a single terrorist suffices to affectively destroy the faith in whole communities . Understanding cannot begin if we don't stand up against our own peers when they use things like lying as an acceptable means to compete in arguments. 

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.

 

On 10/20/2021 at 1:10 AM, Scott Mayers said:

Here is what I posted to just such a person in a thread earlier today on another forum when he wouldn't stop asserting it as factual that evolutionists universally do not believe humans coevolved with all the other animals. He is apparently altering his content as I just noticed now but it is due to me clarifying HOW he is abusing the fair means to argue where this below was just my last post of clarity. He is not an idiot and can argue well where it suits him and so he is not merely having some mental issue. 

However, this is an example of his last post:

I think most people CAN reason regardless of how unfair they may be acting. So this is an example of the 'what' we can do in practice. (also see my arguments here in the last week or so). But how can you compete with his continuous abuse?

 

Internet Toll definition:

In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.), a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses,[2] or manipulating others' perception. This is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or manipulating a political process. Even so, Internet trolling can also be defined as purposefully causing confusion or harm to other users online, for no reason at all.[3]

References by the numbers above:
1. "Definition of troll". Collins English Dictionary. Retrieved 17 September 2012.
2."Definition of: trolling". PCMAG.COM. Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc. 2009. Retrieved 24 March 2009.
3. Buckels, E.E.; Trapnell, P.D.; Paulhus, D.L. (2014). "Trolls Just Want to Have Fun: (520722015-006)".


Note that "purposely causing confusion" is indifferent to "Gaslighting"

Gaslighting is a form of emotional abuse that’s seen in abusive relationships. It’s the act of manipulating a person by forcing them to question their thoughts, memories, and the events occurring around them. A victim of gaslighting can be pushed so far that they question their own sanity.
...
Gaslighting, whether intentional or not, is a form of manipulation. Gaslighting can happen in many types of relationships, including those with bosses, friends, and parents. But one of the most devastating forms of gaslighting is when it occurs in a relationship between a couple.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2021 at 2:59 PM, blackbird said:

I am not sure what you are saying there.  I said private platforms which are open to the public such as these forums must respect the Charter of Rights.  If you want to start your own forum and you open it to the public to participate on, you still have to follow the Charter of Rights.  Basically that is all I'm saying.  But if you have a private organization such as a religious group and you restrict it to people who agree to a certain statement of beliefs, then you could control what is said in your group.  But that is different than a forum that is open to the public and invites political debate and discussion from anyone who joins.   MSN News and CBC continually violate the Charter of Rights in my opinion.  

it is their organization

just because they allow the public to comment

doesn't mean they don't have the right to curate the content posted on it

free speech doesn't guarantee you the right to post whatever you want on someone else's platform

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

which isn't us

we are not the state

or it's government

it also is not just an abstract concept

Elizabeth Windsor is The Crown

"In today's constitutional monarchy, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Canada's Head of State. She is the personal embodiment of the Crown in Canada.

In Canada’s system of government, the power to govern is vested in the Crown but is entrusted to the government to exercise on behalf and in the interest of the people."

By constitutional convention, the representative of the Crown does whatever we tell them to do.  The Crown has no power by constitution, just reserve powers, to act on our behalf.

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

"In today's constitutional monarchy, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Canada's Head of State. She is the personal embodiment of the Crown in Canada.

In Canada’s system of government, the power to govern is vested in the Crown but is entrusted to the government to exercise on behalf and in the interest of the people."

By constitutional convention, the representative of the Crown does whatever we tell them to do.  The Crown has no power by constitution, just reserve powers, to act on our behalf.

false

The Crown has the power

it can choose to act on "our" behalf or not

same with the government

who serves on behalf of the Crown

 

we are not The Crown

we are not the government

we are not the state

this ain't a republic and never has been

Canada is not America

you are confusing the two

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"IT is their board," isn't a justifiable reason for a NEWS MEDIA outlet to be practicing censorship - which of all people/org,  should know the importance of FREEDOM OF SPEECH!  DUH?

The last one you'd expect to be doing this kind of thing is one who represents JOURNALISM!

 

Why is it important?

Freedom of expression is a universal human right. It is not the prerogative of the politician. Nor is it the privilege of the journalist. In their day-to-day work, journalists are simply exercising every citizen’s right to free speech.

A free press is fundamental to a democratic society. It seeks out and circulates news, information, ideas, comment and opinion and holds those in authority to account. The press provides the platform for a multiplicity of voices to be heard. At national, regional and local level, it is the public’s watchdog, activist and guardian as well as educator, entertainer and contemporary chronicler.

http://www.newsmediauk.org/Current-Topics/Press-Freedom

 

 

Their forum is supposed to be meant for opinions!  They should be prepared to accept opinions that they don't agree with.

 

Censorship is defined as suppressing or removing anything deemed objectionable. A common, everyday example can be found on the radio or television, where potentially offensive words are “bleeped” out. More controversial is censorship at a political or religious level. If you’ve ever been banned from reading a book in school, or watched a “clean” version of a movie on an airplane, you’ve experienced censorship.

https://open.lib.umn.edu/mediaandculture/chapter/15-4-censorship-and-freedom-of-speech/

 

 

There's nothing objectionable in what was deleted!

 

Some of the responses here reflect how far gone our society is in their indifference to rights that are being chipped away.....or, perhaps they hadn't really sat down to reflect on it!

 

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, betsy said:

"IT is their board," isn't a justifiable reason for a NEWS MEDIA outlet to be practicing censorship - which of all people/org,  should know the importance of FREEDOM OF SPEECH!  DUH?

The last one you'd expect to be doing this kind of thing is one who represents JOURNALISM!

 

Why is it important?

Freedom of expression is a universal human right. It is not the prerogative of the politician. Nor is it the privilege of the journalist. In their day-to-day work, journalists are simply exercising every citizen’s right to free speech.

A free press is fundamental to a democratic society. It seeks out and circulates news, information, ideas, comment and opinion and holds those in authority to account. The press provides the platform for a multiplicity of voices to be heard. At national, regional and local level, it is the public’s watchdog, activist and guardian as well as educator, entertainer and contemporary chronicler.

http://www.newsmediauk.org/Current-Topics/Press-Freedom

 

 

Their forum is supposed to be meant for opinions!  They should be prepared to accept opinions that they don't agree with.

 

Censorship is defined as suppressing or removing anything deemed objectionable. A common, everyday example can be found on the radio or television, where potentially offensive words are “bleeped” out. More controversial is censorship at a political or religious level. If you’ve ever been banned from reading a book in school, or watched a “clean” version of a movie on an airplane, you’ve experienced censorship.

https://open.lib.umn.edu/mediaandculture/chapter/15-4-censorship-and-freedom-of-speech/

 

 

There's nothing objectionable in what was deleted!

 

Some of the responses here reflect how far gone our society is in their indifference to rights that are being chipped away.....or, perhaps they hadn't really sat down to reflect on it!

 

they are within their rights to do so

whether they should do it

is another matter entirely

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...