Freedom of Speach Long Gone - COVID

[Faramir]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Why would they go to the trouble of doing that?

Well OK conservative statements, or statements that don't fall in line with their writers and editors.

[TreeBeard]

Just now, Faramir said:

Well OK conservative statements, or statements that don't fall in line with their writers and editors.

All of them?

[Faramir]

45 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I'm finding that "factcheckers" most often agree with whomever is funding them.  And the majority of them don't know a fraction about the subject they are supposedly factchecking, compared to the experts being "factchecked".

Biggest scam and right out of 1984.  Like Facebook fact checkers....oh yeah, as long as it aligns with left wing prejudices it's a fact.

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Faramir said:

Biggest scam and right out of 1984.  Like Facebook fact checkers....oh yeah, as long as it aligns with left wing prejudices it's a fact.

Can you give an example?

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Can you give an example?

Oh look, here's Tree Beard JAQ'ing off again. ?

[TreeBeard]

@Goddess

You don’t think providing examples of actual transgressions might help the conversation, rather than simply making broad proclamations?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

I am starting to feel like a teacher in a kidergarten here with many of you.

Except you are talking in a bubble.

There is no "case" here, and there is no authority that will reverse this or do anything about it.  Someone had a comment removed.  It's actually a very minor event in the lives of everyone on earth including those directly involved.

You see Cougar, sometimes in this world people just don't get what they want.  I know it makes you want to pout, but you can thank me for helping you understand things a little better.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Except you are talking in a bubble.

There is no "case" here, and there is no authority that will reverse this or do anything about it.  Someone had a comment removed.  It's actually a very minor event in the lives of everyone on earth including those directly involved.

You see Cougar, sometimes in this world people just don't get what they want.  I know it makes you want to pout, but you can thank me for helping you understand things a little better.

Clearly there is a bias though and the CBC has a lot of influence in people's perceptions. During elections it's all about the media.

By not allowing the alternate view to be clearly heard, makes their message misunderstood. It is easier to get people to reject the other party if they don't understand their issues.

Not that it matters. Consider it a complaint.

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Clearly there is a bias though and the CBC has a lot of influence in people's perceptions. During elections it's all about the media.

2. By not allowing the alternate view to be clearly heard, makes their message misunderstood. It is easier to get people to reject the other party if they don't understand their issues.

3. Not that it matters. Consider it a complaint.

1. I don't know that it is all that clear.   The accusations of Liberal bias I read tend to point out individual in-the-moment events.  The other accusations are about editorial and board control, which are more pervasive.

2. The 'alternate view' is that people shouldn't take the vaccine I guess.  I have spoken at length with a lot of people against taking the vaccine.  Anecdotally they all have major problems that have nothing to do with Covid.  I don't know how I could prove that objectively but there it is.

3. We don't know anything about this individual case other than the comment was removed.  Again, this means zero to anyone including those who posted it.  I wish I could make minor events go viral like the PostMillennial does.
 

[myata]

I would rephrase the question differently. It's not about freedom of speech on someone else's turf, it does not exist as has been already pointed out. It's about the freedom to spend, consume, cut, munch, squeeze, wash hand out, etc your dollars to whomever and for whatever reasons the enlightened ruler has chosen to, without any need to explain, justify prove or follow any rules like for example (in some places) the pledge of objectivity and impartiality and adherence to facts and truth.

Didn't you know it is called "democracy", no?

 

[blackbird]

The prominent NDP MP, Charlie Angus, apparently wants government to force social media to censor all comments deemed to be "extreme".   Wow!   So who will be the judge of what comments are extreme?  NDP, Liberals, and the woke left of course.

A prime example is on the CTV news right at this very moment.  Premier Ford is being sharply criticized and the woke left are demanding he immediately apologize for the comment.   Ford said immigrants who want to come to Canada "to get on the dole" should go somewhere else.  This is an example of what would be deemed as extreme.  Anybody making any similar comment would be shut down and censored if the NDP (and liberals) have their way.

This kind of comment might be deemed to be unacceptable to many of the left woke and liberals in our society and many of these people seemed to have lost sight of what it means to have a free and democratic society.  The Marxist ideology seems to have crept into western society and people no longer understand freedom of speech is not just for people one agrees with;  it is for everyone.  If they want to continue to live in a free society, they must accept comments that they disagree with and not try outlaw them or censor them in the media or internet.  We must respect everyone's right to freedom of speech.  That should be fundamental like breathing the air.

Edited October 19, 2021 by blackbird

[blackbird]

On 10/14/2021 at 2:21 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.

 

 

I gave up on CBC comment sections long ago when I noticed they disable relatively benign comments frequently.  They are an ignorant, radical left, anti-Christian, and liberal-controlled mouthpiece.  They do not respect freedom of speech at all and think they are some kind of guardians of morality when they do not respect even the most basic human rights. 

[PIK]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The prominent NDP MP, Charlie Angus, apparently wants government to force social media to censor all comments deemed to be "extreme".   Wow!   So who will be the judge of what comments are extreme?  NDP, Liberals, and the woke left of course.

A prime example is on the CTV news right at this very moment.  Premier Ford is being sharply criticized and the woke left are demanding he immediately apologize for the comment.   Ford said immigrants who want to come to Canada "to get on the dole" should go somewhere else.  This is an example of what would be deemed as extreme.  Anybody making any similar comment would be shut down and censored if the NDP (and liberals) have their way.

This kind of comment might be deemed to be unacceptable to many of the left woke and liberals in our society and many of these people seemed to have lost sight of what it means to have a free and democratic society.  The Marxist ideology seems to have crept into western society and people no longer understand freedom of speech is not just for people one agrees with;  it is for everyone.  If they want to continue to live in a free society, they must accept comments that they disagree with and not try outlaw them or censor them in the media or internet.  We must respect everyone's right to freedom of speech.  That should be fundamental like breathing the air.

Fords right. And about time he said it. Now he needs to call out the lazy white trash.

[TreeBeard]

47 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I gave up on CBC comment sections long ago when I noticed they disable relatively benign comments frequently.  They are an ignorant, radical left, anti-Christian, and liberal-controlled mouthpiece.  They do not respect freedom of speech at all and think they are some kind of guardians of morality when they do not respect even the most basic human rights. 

You think your right of freedom of speech extends to internet comment boards?   

Edited October 19, 2021 by TreeBeard

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You think your right of freedom of speech extends to internet comment boards?   

Yes.  Any comment board which is open to the public should be required to respect freedom of speech.  What other kind of comment boards are there?  There are no government comment boards.  They are all privately run.  The idea that freedom of speech does not apply to privately owned or run websites is a lie.  If you don't have freedom of speech on privately owned websites that are open to the public to comment on, you don't have freedom of speech.

[TreeBeard]

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Yes.  Any comment board which is open to the public should be required to respect freedom of speech.  What other kind of comment boards are there?  There are no government comment boards.  They are all privately run.  The idea that freedom of speech does not apply to privately owned or run websites is a lie.  If you don't have freedom of speech on privately owned websites that are open to the public to comment on, you don't have freedom of speech.

Why should a private message board (like this one) be forced by the government to allow you to have freedom to say whatever you want?

Isnt it true that freedom of speech rights are about the government not being able to infringe that right but has nothing to say about private entities?

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Why should a private message board (like this one) be forced by the government to allow you to have freedom to say whatever you want?

Isnt it true that freedom of speech rights are about the government not being able to infringe that right but has nothing to say about private entities?

No.  Freedom of speech is not just something between government and private citizens.  Freedom of speech should exist in society between people on forums or in media.  If it doesn't, then you don't really have freedom of speech.

[TreeBeard]

Just now, blackbird said:

No.  Freedom of speech is not just something between government and private citizens.  Freedom of speech should exist in society between people on forums or in media.  If it doesn't, then you don't really have freedom of speech.

Maybe you don’t when it comes to private entities and never have?  If you’re using my platform, agreed to the terms of use, then why should I have to let you say whatever you want?

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1.  Any comment board which is open to the public should be required to respect freedom of speech.  What other kind of comment boards are there? 

2. There are no government comment boards.  They are all privately run.  The idea that freedom of speech does not apply to privately owned or run websites is a lie.  If you don't have freedom of speech on privately owned websites that are open to the public to comment on, you don't have freedom of speech.

1.  What a weird idea.  Do I have to allow freedom of speech in my business then too ?  How about my home ?  How about broadcasters - do they have to allow anyone who demands airtime to broadcast on their dime ?

2. I think you accidentally tripped over the point: we need a truly public cyberspace.  We used to have this.

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Maybe you don’t when it comes to private entities and never have?  If you’re using my platform, agreed to the terms of use, then why should I have to let you say whatever you want?

You have the right according to the Charter of Rights to say whatever you want with certain rare exceptions.

The following is from the government website which describes the Charter of Rights.

"Fundamental freedoms

Everyone in Canada is free to practise any religion or no religion at all. We are also free to express religious beliefs through prayer or by wearing religious clothing for example. However, the Charter also ensures that others also have the right to express their religious beliefs in public.

We’re free to think our own thoughts, speak our minds, listen to views of others and express our opinions in creative ways.  We’re also free to meet with anyone we wish and participate in peaceful demonstrations. This includes the right to protest against a government action or institution.

However, these freedoms are not unlimited. There may be limits on how you express your religious beliefs if your way of doing so would infringe on the rights of others or undermine complex public programs and policies. For example, you may have religious reasons to object having your photo taken for your driver’s license, but this requirement may be linked to a need to stop others from unlawfully using your identity. In addition, the Charter does not protect expression such as hate speech that involves threats of violence or that takes the form of violence."

The rights and freedoms the Charter protects (justice.gc.ca)

The one caution is that this quote is an interpretation or opinion of the Charter and therefore subject to final interpretation by the courts.  The courts have the final say. As for example I noticed this opinion says we have the right to wear religious clothing;  however, this is not an absolute right as demonstrated in bill 21 in Quebec.  Their law deprives people from wearing religious symbols when in certain public sector jobs.

 

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  What a weird idea.  Do I have to allow freedom of speech in my business then too ?  How about my home ?  How about broadcasters - do they have to allow anyone who demands airtime to broadcast on their dime ?

2. I think you accidentally tripped over the point: we need a truly public cyberspace.  We used to have this.

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

[blackbird]

17 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Maybe you don’t when it comes to private entities and never have?  If you’re using my platform, agreed to the terms of use, then why should I have to let you say whatever you want?

The point is if there was no such thing as freedom of speech on privately owned forums, then the Charter would not say we have freedom of speech.  Or the Charter would have an exception to say privately owned forums do not have freedom of speech.  But the Charter is a broad statement that gives everyone freedom of speech within certain prescribed limits.  It is the law of the land.

Edited October 19, 2021 by blackbird

[Yzermandius19]

21 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The point is if there was no such thing as freedom of speech on privately owned forums, then the Charter would not say we have freedom of speech.  Or the Charter would have an exception to say privately owned forums do not have freedom of speech.  But the Charter is a broad statement that gives everyone freedom of speech.

your plan restricts the freedom of speech for privately owned establishments

while pretending to be pro-free speech

freedom of speech does not include forcing people to provide you a platform for your speech

if their speech can be infringed on, then that sets a legal precedent to infringe on your speech

taking away the free speech of those creating private platforms doesn't make your free speech rights any safer

quite the opposite

Edited October 19, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[blackbird]

25 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

your plan restricts the freedom of speech for privately owned establishments

while pretending to be pro-free speech

freedom of speech does not include forcing people to provide you a platform for your speech

if their speech can be infringed on, then that sets a legal precedent to infringe on your speech

taking away the free speech of those creating private platforms doesn't make your free speech rights any safer

quite the opposite

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.  

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Freedom of speech is not just something between government and private citizens. 

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.