Freedom of Speach Long Gone - COVID

[Cannucklehead]

Did anyone notice that speech is misspelled in the title? 

I'm assuming it was intentional.

[TreeBeard]

9 hours ago, betsy said:

The kind of "sanitation" that these journalists does to freedom of expression,  is very much like the media propaganda machine of CHINA.....or, any Communist countries!

 

Democracy is dying! 

 

Could you start your own message board in Canada and allow for total freedom?

[betsy]

45 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Could you start your own message board in Canada and allow for total freedom?

The point is going over your head.   Bye.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Could you start your own message board in Canada and allow for total freedom?

Speech may not be free anymore but hyperbole is seeing boom times...

[TreeBeard]

40 minutes ago, betsy said:

The point is going over your head.   Bye.

I’ll answer for you, since you’re dodging  

Yes you could start your own message board, media outlet, whatever and allow total freedom for people to express anything they wish. 
 

Is that allowed in China?

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Is that allowed in China?

I'll answer for you: no.

You can say "woman" still, you can say "Merry Christmas", and you can say the n-word.  You can scream on a street corner that the world is flat as long as you're not causing a riot.

People who want to say we are like North Korea now look like complete dolts to me, but that's just me maybe.

[OftenWrong]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'll answer for you: no.

Concise, succinct. A good answer. 

Even better is when the poster asks and answers their own question, as demonstrated in betsy’s technique-

“Socratic learning paradigm”  

[Yzermandius19]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You can say "woman" still

not if you call the wrong person woman

then it's "hate speech"

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

not if you call the wrong person woman

then it's "hate speech"

Is calling someone the n-word "hate speech" ?  Or is it just an insult.

If some random person calls you a hater do you believe it ?  How sensitive are you exactly ?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

not if you call the wrong person woman

then it's "hate speech"

So are we talking about common morality here or legality ?  

 

[TreeBeard]

5 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

not if you call the wrong person woman

then it's "hate speech"

Hate speech is a legal term in Canada.  Can you show us any case law where mis-gendering someone was considered hate speech?  They don’t even need to be found guilty…. Can you even show where anyone was prosecuted for that?

Edited October 22, 2021 by TreeBeard

[Yzermandius19]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So are we talking about common morality here or legality ? 

legality

Jordan Peterson was right

compelled speech is a thing in Canada

better use the right pronouns

or get fined $30,000

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

9 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Hate speech is a legal term in Canada.  Can you show us any case law where mis-gendering someone was considered hate speech?  They don’t even need to be found guilty…. Can you even show where anyone was prosecuted for that?

$30,000 fines for misgendering

and you have to force yourself and your employees to undergo diversity, equity and inclusion training

Canada doesn't have free speech

it does have compelled speech though

Edited October 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

How sensitive are you exactly ?

more like, how sensitive are they/them?

better not offend the alphabet mafia

lest you get slapped with a five digit fine

Edited October 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

legality

Jordan Peterson was right

compelled speech is a thing in Canada

better use the right pronouns

or get fined $30,000

 

Well, I caught that the presenter immediately got confused between what Peterson said within the first minute... Did you? Do you understand the difference between misgendering and compelled speech? The presenter didn't..

 

This is one of the problems with using a video to explain something rather than just citing a news article and adding your own commentary..

[Yzermandius19]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, I caught that the presenter immediately got confused between what Peterson said within the first minute... Did you? Do you understand the difference between misgendering and compelled speech? The presenter didn't..

 

This is one of the problems with using a video to explain something rather than just citing a news article and adding your own commentary..

compelled pronoun usage is a form of compelled speech

if you don't use the right pronouns, aka misgendering, you get fined

you are making a distinction without a difference

the commentator is citing an article and adding commentary

cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug

Edited October 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

compelled pronoun usage is a form of compelled speech

if you don't use the right pronouns, aka misgendering, you get fined

you are making a distinction without a difference

the commentator is citing an article and adding commentary

cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug

Peterson was speaking about a specific form of government mandated speech, and in the video they show him explaining it.

[Queenmandy85]

I wonder how Ms.Peterson would feel if the stiletto shoe was on the other foot?

[cougar]

On 10/21/2021 at 4:12 AM, Cannucklehead said:

Did anyone notice that speech is misspelled in the title? 

I'm assuming it was intentional.

It was not.  I regularly misspell this word for some reason.  I guess I think about peaches when I write it.

[Scott Mayers]

On 10/20/2021 at 1:11 PM, Michael Hardner said:

On 10/19/2021 at 11:10 PM, 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.

Vague? I expend a lot of depth in my posts. I'm not sure how you read into language but I think I'm clear even if it may be formal. 

For your

1. I give the example of a legal potential case whereby the law may require using information of someone's online posts in forums as evidence. I am asserting that IF a site opts to censor for ANY reason, they are automatically responsible for content should a user appear to say something potentially criminal. This is an example case. The same can be said about whether one wants to reference content they themselves author. But the example of the potential criminal speaking out, such as one who might write a "manifesto" prior to some act of terrorism, this nullifies the content's ownership is the site has the power to alter content. And so....

2. This raises reasonable doubt as to the liability of the guests content to an accused. This is a logical argument regarding the legalities. Should the actual law favor or disfavor supposed content is moot. Our laws CAN be intolerant democratically. And if...

3. The site's abilility to censor content is equivalent in meaning they CAN be the one's creating the actual posts through editing. 

That last sentense again is asserting an opinion regarding the concept of "ownership" as perceived in the minds of the people, not the law. The law can be intolerant and unfair. Bu why should people expect to abide by laws that themselves represent a lack of equal respect of its citizens uniformly? As such, I am asserting that the very concept of 'ownership' is arrogantly presumptuous and not a divinely pre-ordained 'right' that should permit one to have ABSOLUTE power over those invited as 'guests', ...especially for business entities that rely on the guest for their own benefit. And given the people's governments ARE what defines meaning into what is "ownership", you cannot impose a self-serving right over people as though you are a god. 

And no, posts do NOT have universal tracing of content, especially of 'secured' sites [https:]. They can potentially trace THAT someone was there but not the content in question. As such, the content is as reasonably questionable to guests content if the site permits the power to alter the content. 

I'll break this up into simple responses.

[Michael Hardner]

Here are some different things:

Hate speech 

Compelled speech

Harrassment

Insults

... The legal status of these types of communication in society was not changed  by the arrival of specialized pronouns for trans people.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Scott Mayers]

On 10/20/2021 at 1:11 PM, Michael Hardner said:

If the website alters posts, what of it ?  People won't go there I suppose.

You miss the point: all sites are only 'owned' officially if one cannot afford their own server and the cost of public access. It is also expected of public forums (online or in places like malls) in particular to maintain respect of guests or they should not be permitted licencing, such as the securing of sites that helps legitimize them. 

 

On 10/20/2021 at 1:11 PM, Michael Hardner said:

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 ?

This is trivial. I was arguing against the extreme beliefs implicit in many 'owners' that their domain is ABSOLUTE. That is, you still cannot kill someone in your home, for instance. And, if what is said in your home is material evidence as spoken by a guest, while you may be able to kick me out, you cannot have superior authority of trust about what was actually said of them. 

Furthermore, if one doesn't 'own' the home they are guests in, you still do not have absolute power to kick someone out who lives there, if you want to get legal. Also, the law in a fair society happens to respect 'rentals' as temporal 'ownership', which should hint to you my meaning. "Ownership" is an illusion created by the society and is only as meaningful as the society defines its limitations. There is no such thing as absolute ownership of property because there are no actual gods that can secure such power. People do. 

The same goes for public forums, which I include anything 'public' that people have open access to in law. 

On 10/20/2021 at 1:11 PM, Michael Hardner said:

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.

The 'home' analogy was only an extension regarding the point about the often interpreted meaning of 'ownership' by many to be a 'right' to something absolute over its domain when I'm arguing that it is an illusive concept created by the people.

I am not sure what you were getting at beyond this. I believe that that any medium "owned" by specific people itself is able to have the indirect power over those the medium surrounds. For instance, if your house is on a block surrounded by privately "owned" roads, this in effect 'owns' the people of the house it surrounds regardless of the actual formal means that gives ownership such an illusion. As such, I am not for private rights to media but for ALL people equally.

Note that the places like Iraq were abused by the world this way given they are virtually land locked. This was their actual reason for attempting to take over Kuwait with reason, contrary to the assumption that they were merely acting to steal property. Kuwait was founded intentionally to profit off of the oil that passes through their borders, a demonstration of how ill our Western ideals of a 'right' to own media represents. 

But here we have media privileged to special humans to 'own' and this if anybody has a concern why media itself is questionable, they have to also non-hypocritically address what 'ownership' privileges they too are permitted exclusive power over, including how much any one person can own. 

Note that almost all problems politically are rooted in this kind of dicrepancy. For instance, when Jews settled (resettled) in Palestine, they perceived a form of 'absolute ownership' to any property they claimed, whether by relative 'legitimacy' of trade or not. They interpreted what they 'own' defines their "nation". Imagine if an owner here were to declare themselves just such absolulte 'right'; it would enable them to interpret their private claims as non-Canadian sovereignty and thus their 'own Nation'. [I am digressing, I realize but I'm entertaining these points as it relates to many political contentious issues.]

 

I'll close this post as your response but if I missed a question reask me. I think I've made my point and so will stop. In summary, I think freedom of speech requires actual limits to the degree of power over media 'ownership' allowed to private citizens. As for public power that Trudeau represents, his is a kind of belief in 'ownership' of authority by special interests based upon historical conservation of the founders' passed on inheritance. So I'm also against his ideas of imposing culture as though the power of his representation grants him unique means to displace others' rights or privileges unequally. 

This was the post of yours that I initally responded to:

On 10/19/2021 at 6:32 PM, Scott Mayers said:

  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.

So we agree there is a confusion about 'rights' and 'options' ('privilege' is my term). But I argued that we have a 'right' to media or other public spaces that regardless of ulterior 'rights' of the owner, they too have to recognize that ownership is merely a "privilege" and that allowing access most exclusively for public access should require similar respect for all the above reasons. Ownership is not an absolute but is defined by the very public that needs respect or they too should be further limited any 'right' granted by the public that encapulates the private property.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

You miss the point: all sites are only 'owned' officially if one cannot afford their own server and the cost of public access. It is also expected of public forums (online or in places like malls) in particular to maintain respect of guests or they should not be permitted licencing, such as the securing of sites that helps legitimize them. 

So if you can afford your own server then you don't own your site ?  

You keep talking about 'licensing' but there is, as far as I can tell, no such specific licensing for public places aside from fire code compliance and so on and no licensing of public access websites.

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

 

This is trivial. I was arguing against the extreme beliefs implicit in many 'owners' that their domain is ABSOLUTE. That is, you still cannot kill someone in your home, for instance. And, if what is said in your home is material evidence as spoken by a guest, while you may be able to kick me out, you cannot have superior authority of trust about what was actually said of them. 

Ok, maybe it's trivial but it establishes the conceptual limit of ownership of domain vs. right to speech.

"Superior authority of trust" - whatever this is, it's immaterial to the discussion at hand.

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

Furthermore, if one doesn't 'own' the home they are guests in, you still do not have absolute power to kick someone out who lives there, if you want to get legal.

We could get into the legal weeds about whether a landlord vs tenants' rights to kick people out of a home have eminence but... that has no bearing on the discussion of free speech online that I can see.

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

Also, the law in a fair society happens to respect 'rentals' as temporal 'ownership', which should hint to you my meaning. "Ownership" is an illusion created by the society and is only as meaningful as the society defines its limitations. There is no such thing as absolute ownership of property because there are no actual gods that can secure such power. People do. 

The same goes for public forums, which I include anything 'public' that people have open access to in law. 

The 'home' analogy was only an extension regarding the point about the often interpreted meaning of 'ownership' by many to be a 'right' to something absolute over its domain when I'm arguing that it is an illusive concept created by the people.

I am not sure what you were getting at beyond this. I believe that that any medium "owned" by specific people itself is able to have the indirect power over those the medium surrounds. For instance, if your house is on a block surrounded by privately "owned" roads, this in effect 'owns' the people of the house it surrounds regardless of the actual formal means that gives ownership such an illusion. As such, I am not for private rights to media but for ALL people equally.

You said "I believe".  Well, you may believe it but do you have any examples where the law & the courts believe it ?  Because I'm unable to navigate your logic here, I would love to hear some examples where the courts specifically overruled a private site from censoring a post or determining what they wanted posted on the site.

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

Note that the places like Iraq were abused by the world this way given they are virtually land locked. This was their actual reason for attempting to take over Kuwait with reason, contrary to the assumption that they were merely acting to steal property. Kuwait was founded intentionally to profit off of the oil that passes through their borders, a demonstration of how ill our Western ideals of a 'right' to own media represents. 

But here we have media privileged to special humans to 'own' and this if anybody has a concern why media itself is questionable, they have to also non-hypocritically address what 'ownership' privileges they too are permitted exclusive power over, including how much any one person can own. 

Note that almost all problems politically are rooted in this kind of dicrepancy. For instance, when Jews settled (resettled) in Palestine, they perceived a form of 'absolute ownership' to any property they claimed, whether by relative 'legitimacy' of trade or not. They interpreted what they 'own' defines their "nation". Imagine if an owner here were to declare themselves just such absolulte 'right'; it would enable them to interpret their private claims as non-Canadian sovereignty and thus their 'own Nation'. [I am digressing, I realize but I'm entertaining these points as it relates to many political contentious issues.]

Ok, well I would say that solving small problems is easier than huge ones.

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

 

I'll close this post as your response but if I missed a question reask me. I think I've made my point and so will stop. In summary, I think freedom of speech requires actual limits to the degree of power over media 'ownership' allowed to private citizens. As for public power that Trudeau represents, his is a kind of belief in 'ownership' of authority by special interests based upon historical conservation of the founders' passed on inheritance. So I'm also against his ideas of imposing culture as though the power of his representation grants him unique means to displace others' rights or privileges unequally. 

Ok, I accept it.  It sounds like you support restricting or defining the rights of the website owners and admin, but not in the same we Trudeau wants to.

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

This was the post of yours that I initally responded to:

So we agree there is a confusion about 'rights' and 'options' ('privilege' is my term). But I argued that we have a 'right' to media or other public spaces that regardless of ulterior 'rights' of the owner, they too have to recognize that ownership is merely a "privilege" and that allowing access most exclusively for public access should require similar respect for all the above reasons. Ownership is not an absolute but is defined by the very public that needs respect or they too should be further limited any 'right' granted by the public that encapulates the private property.

My idea that a truly public communication channel could solve this problem including the 'free speech' issue.

[Yzermandius19]

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Peterson was speaking about a specific form of government mandated speech, and in the video they show him explaining it.

in the video they are discussing a related news story that proved him right about the compelled speech in Bill C-16

just admit you were wrong about the lack of government compelled speech regarding pronoun usage

you should also knock off the lame deflections and semantical obfuscations

Edited October 24, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. in the video they are discussing a related news story that proved him right about the compelled speech in Bill C-16

2. just admit you were wrong about the lack of government compelled speech regarding pronoun usage

3. you should also knock off the lame deflections and semantical obfuscations

1. I think we're talking past each other.  What Jordan called "compelled speech" means the government forces you to utter words.  It doesn't mean the government prevents you from using words, or classifies certain words as harassment.  Being prevented from misgendering is not compelled speech, any more than preventing someone to use the n-word is compelled speech.

I supported Peterson's contention that compelled speech would be an overreach of government power but it wasn't explicitly included in the legislation and hasn't been an issue.  From what I have read it isn't likely to be implied either.

2. Since we have gone around this a few times and you haven't differentiated between what happened and what Jordan himself defines as 'compelled speech', I stand by my understanding.

3. I discuss things with intellectual honesty.  If you doubt me then you shouldn't engage with me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 2:48 Peterson defines 'compelled speech' as clearly as needed.

"Requires Canadians to utter a particular form of address"

So his concern was that C16 would legally require me to call you "he/she/xie" or whatever you insist on.   It's not the same as the government, courts, or HRC classifying 'misgendering' as harassment which is what the BC case was about.

Indeed, if you called someone "she" against their wishes, whatever their orientation was then that would be a case for workplace harassment.  But the video makers fall down by using unspecific language:I got this from the first 30 seconds of the video when they said he was predicting that the government was 'criminalizing the use of the wrong pronoun'.  

See 2:48 of this video where Peterson uses specific and exact wording for what compelled speech means.