Liberals face backlash over policy to trace journalists’ sources before publication online

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You mean .... like playing Gordon Lightfoot on the radio ?  Demanding French on all packaging ?  That sort of thing...

Did you forget about the recently passed bill C11 to control the internet using the CRTC which is now working on how they will do it?

[CdnFox]

48 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Wait wait isn’t it conservatives who have been ranting about “anonymous sources” reported in the MSM ?

nope.  Anonymous sources have been around forever. There's a problem when a media outlet makes a substantial claim based on 'anonymous sources' and the source hasn't produced any evidence. Or there's evidence they're wrong but the outlet keeps insisting it's true

For example - recently the cbc claimed Smith's people sent emails to the justice department accordng to an 'anonymous source'.  But - cbc never saw the emails. And when an independant audit showed there WERE no emails cbc didn't back down.

Well in that case it's not even that the source was anonymous that was the problem - it's that the cbc is asserting something is 'most likely true" without any evidence at all. This is similar to their 'the us republicans are funding the convoy' claim that turned out to be false.

On the other thand, global's posting of the CSIS papers proving justin knew about the chinese interference was backed up by documents they'd actually obtained.   So while we don't know the source, we do know the information is accurate.

So complaints have more to do with the proof than the source

48 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

 All those confidential leaks from the Trump administration leading republicans to whine that it ought to be illegal to cite unnamed sources? 

I don't think so - i think it's illegal to leak and that's a different thing

48 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Florida Republicans have a draft bill rigorously now requiring anyone who blogs pr writes abut the governor must register with the governors office and provide sources on demand under penalty of jail?

Yeah - so this is actually canada.....

And here it's the libs doing it.

48 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

There are better ways to fight the right wing fake news outlets, Russian troll farms etc but making the press an enemy of the state the way conservatives have is not the answer 

It's always the answer for justin

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

.  ???

Of course, any system needs improvement, but that improvement has to come from within, 

What improvement are you looking for?

[Dougie93]

CSIS cannot take any action

the role of CSIS is simply to report security intelligence to the Minister of Public Safety

[Dougie93]

16 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

 Private Sector to the rescue! For Uncle Sam!

Americans are only bound to defend & uphold the Declaration of Independence & constitution

attempting to limit speech therein is a violation of our oaths to 1st Amendment

[Dougie93]

Just now, Contrarian said:

I made a long time ago the choice to come to Canada however every time I am in Niagara Falls and look at that American flag, I understand what a powerful symbol the United States is. Please, I don't need the listen to the Orange Order, I grew up differently. When you were doing the tribalism around here, American politicians were the only hope for people like me that had families or/and were directly or indirectly affected by the beast of communism. This is my reasoning for supporting America, not based on tribal emotion, that is yours to keep. 

the only limitation on speech in America is by Brandenberg v. Ohio

imminent incitement to lawlessness

if you don't defend that, then you are not defending American freedom

 

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

There are still reasonable restrictions to protect public safety and order.

no

the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled unanimously

there is no prior restraint on speech in the name of public safety

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

 However, the issue is who gets to determine that line?

the line has already been determined by the Supreme Court of the United States

Brandenburg v. Ohio

the only limit on free speech is imminent incitement to lawlessness

everything else is constitutionally protected free speech

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Information to consider (no need to write 2 consecutive posts, I read it, but doing things in the same time, will answer you anytime as long as you are a civilized man, however, allow me time). 

Supreme Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). 

Can be restricted due to fighting words, which are words that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite.

Caplinsky v. New Hampshire was overturned by the SCOTUS in 1992

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

Man, please do not manipulate, look it up online. The decision is still considered valid law and is cited in current First Amendment cases.

the Justices ruled St.Paul's ordinance as being unconstitutional in 1992

look it up

 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So complaints have more to do with the proof than the source

I doubt it's escaped anyone's notice that it's always the other way around when you start pissing and moaning about something.

[Dougie93]

Just now, Contrarian said:

Anyways, as I said above, it was never overturned, here is a case that has been cited recently, it was limited in 1992, no need to swirl now to make up something that you lost the debate at followed by 20 consecutive posts. 

Matal v. Tam (2017) was a recent case in which even though the decision was favorable THE LAW WAS RECOGNIZED as being valid. Keep it honest, for me is not about winning arguments as in a highschool debate, just keep the quality high find debate and we will be ok. 

Matal v. Tam was overruled unanimously

Edited May 10, 2023 by Dougie93

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Well, for one, would like for CSIS to take a more serious role online, unofficially even, they can do what I do, to combat misinformation and disinformation on all channels. 

The challenge, as always, becomes who gets to decide what represents 'misinformation'. The potential for abuse there is insane.  As we've seen with trudeau, having 'control' over 'misinformation' just leads to the gov't pushing it's own msiniformation.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

No such information that I have, please stop making stuff up, you are a man that can't hold to debate. 

 

In Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. __ (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled 8-0 that a federal law prohibiting trademark names that disparage others was unconstitutional because “speech may not be banned on the grounds that it expresses ideas that offend.”

[Dougie93]

Just now, Contrarian said:

Please focus, focus for the love of Jesus. 

MY ARGUMENT that we were debating is that Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire has not been overturned, and it is still considered valid law. The Supreme Court has cited the decision in recent First Amendment cases, such as Matal v. Tam (2017), which recognized the validity of Chaplinsky's holding that certain types of speech, such as "fighting words," are not protected by the First Amendment. 

"fighting words" are only restricted by Brandenburg v. Ohio therein

imminent incitement to lawlessness

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

"fighting words" are only restricted by Brandenburg v. Ohio therein

imminent incitement to lawlessness

So as long as i can brand someone's speech as being an incitement to lawlessness i can ban it?

[Dougie93]

Just now, CdnFox said:

So as long as i can brand someone's speech as being an incitement to lawlessness i can ban it?

the court will compare it Brandendbrg to decide, when it gets to court

[Dougie93]

Just now, Contrarian said:

Well, I presented my case, you presented yours, and I told you that law is valid in the books, you said it was overturned which is FALSE, the law is still active on the books, and you are correct it was given limitations in 1992. 

the St. Paul ordinance was overturrned

that was the case

the SCOTUS only rules on a case by case basis

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Melius est cum his qui intus sunt, quam cum predationibus exteris.

• Better with those who are inside, than outside predators.

Well not really. both are unacceptable. That's like arguing what kind of gun you want to be shot to death with. (who said that?)

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - franklin.

And a wise man always controls what he can control and then worries about externalities. I can't fix what china intends but I CAN fix what our gov't intends to do about it.

Giving away power to the gov't is always a questionable idea

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Giving away power to the gov't is always a questionable idea

Section 7 of the Charter provides you with right to security of the person

it's not about whether you used a gun or not

only whether the use of that gun was warranted

it's like being a peace officer ; was the use of force justified ?

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

Sorry, you know me, I sometimes take aim for no reason and end up turning everyone against me. Today is a good day, no whisky, just want to confirm that basically you are saying, you are against any type of involvement of CSIS officially or unofficially as a non-political force to influence society if foreign actors run rampant and pollute the environment? 

the government should not be interfering on the internet

if Canadians are free men, then they can decide what they believe or not

if the government decides what we can read or not

that is like the Soviet Union

[Dougie93]

Just now, Contrarian said:

I believe that in certain situations, such as when foreign actors or even domestic trolls that are trying to manipulate and harm our society, it is necessary for organizations like CSIS to play a role in identifying and countering those threats.

that is not the role of CSIS

if CSIS does that, they are in violation of the law

CSIS is only a reporting agency

they cannot take any action to counter anything

they can only report to the Minister of Public Safety

if something has to be countered, that is the is the role of the RMCP

 

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Dougie, thank you for keeping the conversation without insults or consecutive posts. No need for the video. I want to focus on the text. 

Let's see how long you can keep up without the consecutive posts and personal references. 

As to answer your video + text: CSIS has been granted expanded powers in recent years, which include taking measures to disrupt threats to national security before they materialize. This includes identifying and countering foreign and domestic threats to our society, and they have a crucial role.

the Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams still clearly define the roles

between CSIS & the RCMP

for example

let's say you want to talk to drug dealers to know what's going on : that's CSIS

let's say you want to investigate drug dealers to charge them in court : that's the RCMP

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

CSIS has a mandate to gather and analyze intelligence related to national security, which can include identifying and countering threats posed by foreign actors and domestic extremists. In some cases, this may involve working closely with law enforcement agencies such as the RCMP. Therefore, while the INSETs may provide a framework for cooperation between CSIS and the RCMP, it is not accurate to say that CSIS can only gather intelligence and cannot take any action to counter threats.

CSIS & the RCMP can only cooperate if is a national security threat, particularly terrorism

but they cannot cooperate for criminal matters in general

because the intelligence that CSIS gathers is not admissible in court

if it is a national security matter

all CSIS can do is give the RCMP warning that there is a threat

the RCMP still has to go and gather evidence to that in order to present it in court

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

 You want a Justin or a Singh to regulate the internet, instead of competent institutions getting a few qualified people here and there and fighting disinformation the proper way.

What I am getting from this: you want CSIS to work with Internet Service Provides to block troll/darkweb/propaganda sites ?  If not, then what do you mean ?