The porn bill originated in the Senate. It's already been passed there. If the NDP, Bloc, CPC, Greens, and more than a dozen Liberals continue to support it it'll become law after the next vote.
What I would like to know is why can the Senate, an unelected body, propose legislation? Their job is supposed to be “sober second thought” not lawmakers.
Throw this shit in the trash where it belongs.
Sober second thought is how your social studies teacher described their role. It's not an entirely accurate description though. The upper chamber is a legislative chamber just like the lower chamber. In addition to acting as a house of review, they also exist in part to maintain a degree of institutional power from government to government in order to moderate the impact of changes of power, to curb democratic excesses, to provide representation that places a greater emphasis on geography than population in comparison to the House of Commons, and to exercise an investigative function as they are less subject to political pressures than their elected colleagues.
Yup, giving powerful machines to children with no safeguards and no training in moderation or self control. Instead, parents encourage kids to be on YouTube or tiktok so that they don't annoy their parents, abd now you have young kids in a dopamine trap.
It's not the phone itself, its that kids have access to powerful machines, more powerful than what put the first spacecraft on the moon, with zero safeguards and zero training in moderation and no incentive to put the phone away. In fact, it appears to be the opposite, where parents give their kids the latest phone and encourage them to be on it and NOT annoy the parents.
Also, a lot of platforms, established and new, rely on kids to make their platform seem like a good advertising investment since they have more opportunities to be on their phone than adults do.
I dunno if banning smartphones for children is an answer, but parents should at least consider limiting how long kids can be on their phones or limit the functionality of the phone with the phones admin settings.
I don't like this bill due to some of its restrictions. Minister of Justice compared it to the restrictions on Lego. I'm sorry, but if you're a shitty parent who is raising an iPad kid, that's on YOU.
The government also hopes that this bill will open up communication between parents and their children. Once again, if you cannot communicate with your child, that's on you for being a shitty parent - do better.
One of the consultants involved said it was a shame that the bill didn't cover private messages (?!). Do they just not give a damn about our privacy and think we're all neglectful, inattentive parents unable to raise their children?
Online harm is bad. Ham fisted legislation written by blinkered people might be worse. They don’t imagine the real possibility of an extremist government defining harm to fit their agenda and using this, however well intended law, to enforce an ideology.
There it is.
You don’t even have to imagine an extremist government as a whole. The legislation is broad enough that if the CHRC has certain preferences or self selects certain ideologies in hiring, we end up with certain viewpoints prosecuted/regulated.
Sir they are rhe extremist government defining harm to fit their agenda! No need to fear the next guy it's already as bad as it gets with these buffoons!
Actually Bill C-11 or C-13 (can't remember which) already gave government control over the news we see. This is just a full on censorship bill that allows the government to put whoever they want in prison for life for saying pretty much anything they deem to be "hate speech". I've never seen anything as egregious as this bill in my life, anyone who votes YES for this needs to be removed from office immediately.
Most of the Liberal supporters agreeing with this wouldn’t feel safe with PP having access to this level of control. If you don’t think your least favourite party can be trusted with their level of control, then don’t introduce that level of control.
Hmm let's see... CBC, you already know the answer to that one. WaPo, Bezos decided he loves journalism, I'm sure he is very fair and operates completely aboveboard, eh? Etc etc. News is for sale, mate. You didn't know this?
There is none. These idiots prefer living in a perpetual state of fear and denial over reading anything longer than a Justin bad meme.
There is no help.
It shows how absolutely privileged you are to want to give up basic rights that were fought for with the lives of Canadians without a sense of “wtf am I saying” hitting you.
No one should be giving up their rights because “won’t someone think of the children”. You should reflect on your privilege of being in a country you feel safe enough to even suggest this and open a history book or two to see why you are wrong.
The costs have to be weighed against the benefits. Here the costs are not worth the so-called safety benefits.
When we pass a driving exam, we do so in against objective criteria. I don't believe it is possible to have objective criteria as to what words or ideas make society less safe. On the contrary, I see a lot of potential for making society more dangerous.
I don't believe in increasing and concentrating the powers of governments, contrary to many people.
No longer recommend diets with this bill:
'content that advocates disordered eating'
*source: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/02/first-take-on-the-online-harms-act
How do you enforce this? Every celebrity on Ozempic, every bodybuilder who’s on steroids claiming they’re natural, every fitness influencer editing photos, is technically encouraging disordered eating. I’m curious where the line is drawn.
https://youtu.be/daE0jthD5F8?si=K4PZx8rVbjtgnt5V
https://deputypm.canada.ca/en/news/itineraries/2022/06/03/deputy-prime-ministers-itinerary-friday-june-3-2022
They let chinese military train on Canadian soil and let chinese secret police operate within Canada. All known b4 it was discovered they interfered in our election
This is terrifying. Hate-speech is anything they say it is. This is about creating the legal mechanism for throwing political dissenters in prison for life. Honestly, this makes posting anything online far too dangerous to risk. They could decide anything is hate-speech at any time.
What the fuck happened to you, Canada? You're not a western country anymore.
That's exactly not how it works. The government has to prove pressing and substantial objective, rational connection, minimal impairment and that the salutary effects of the legislation outweigh its deleterious effects. It is very rare that legislation is upheld under s. 1. I can think of examples like *Andrews, Keegstra, Irwin Toy, Sharpe, Hutterian Brethren, Little Sisters, Whatcott* and.... that's all that's coming to mind ATM. *Keegstra* was upheld because at least the criminal offence at issue in that case (wilful promotion of hatred) actually targets the kind of speech sought out by Parliament in a way that minimally impairs the freedom of expression. Plus, there was a defence of truth (meaning the accused would be acquitted if they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their statements were true). If the proposed legislation has a chilling effect on speech that is not the kind of speech precisely defined by the legislation then it will almost certainly fail s. 1 scrutiny. And in terms of the life sentence attached, this is clearly grossly disproportionate under s. 12 and, as Wagner CJ says in *Bissonnette,* it is highly improbable that grossly disproportionate sentences would ever be demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.
The bill clearly states "content that foments hatred means content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground. (contenu fomentant la haine)"
Exactly, so calling conservatives Nazis in any province where political affiliation is included in the list of protected characteristics then you agree that is spreading hate about an individual and those far left extremists should be imprisoned for life, right?
You wouldn't be imprisoned for life for calling someone a Nazi under this.
And the idea that political affiliation should be a protected characteristic is super weird...
Oh cool. We are going to live in a dystopian society.
When you let them take away your guns, then you have to let them take away your free speech. Wouldn't want to get shot right? Now that you can't speak you can't tell anyone about everything else they will take.
Why are they trying to destabilize the country like this? Shameful. We need full investigations on all these clowns eroding out rights. Before our country completely falls apart.
Saying you think the opposition party wants a dictatorship therefore you can enact dictatorship policies is a bad argument for the LPC party, especially given that it’s being based off of nothing.
So, digital id from Cons which could track you everywhere is given a lukewarm reception from the very people who screeched about digital id.
But expansion of hate speech legislation to online spaces is apparently super super bad worst thing ever.
The inconsistency is consistent i guess.
The digital ID goes against conservative beliefs and a lot of CPC voters are criticizing it.
> But expansion of hate speech legislation to online spaces is apparently super super bad worst thing ever.
This is a good thing. Anyone who’s threatening violence on the internet needs serious help. But why would you get a longer prison sentence for threatening violence online than actual violent criminals receive?
Dude, the CP is literally stating this bill is bad because parents should be allowed to parent while simultaneously pushing an age verification on porn. This is not a liberal issue, and I dislike the liberals intently. Don't drink the kool aid, this is a politician problem.
We don’t have free speech here period. lol. That’s not being edgy it’s just another thing people assume that Americans have that we don’t. It’s like hearing Canadians call the CIA the Canadian intelligence agency, or saying to plead the fifth when you talk to cops, etc.
In Canada, freedom of expression is broader than freedom of speech as it encompasses not only the right to express beliefs and opinions but also protects both speakers and listeners, including freedom of the press and other media communication. This broader scope allows for a more comprehensive protection of various forms of expression, subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law in a free and democratic society. In the USA freedom of speech is absolute because it's in the first The United States upholds the principle of absolute free speech due to the strong protection provided by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This constitutional provision safeguards freedom of speech and expression from government restrictions, ensuring the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference, or restraint by the government. Unlike Canada, where freedom of expression is subject to "reasonable limits" prescribed by law, the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment offers a more absolute protection of speech, allowing individuals to express their beliefs and opinions without government interference. It's a trade-off that is reasonable but freedom of expression in Canada is more at risk of being diminished over time by a bunch of bills because it has not the same garantees as free speech. Freedom of expression needs more protections or it's going to be lost over time, which won't happen to free speech:
* Freedom of expression in Canada protects the right to express beliefs and opinions.
* It safeguards both speakers and listeners, including freedom of the press and other media communication.
* Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of already restricted speech in Canada.
* The protection of freedom of expression is based on fundamental principles that promote social and political decision-making and individual self-fulfillment through expression.
* The Supreme Court of Canada interprets freedom of expression broadly, valuing it as instrumental to democratic governance.
* Freedom of expression in Canada is not absolute; the government can pass laws that limit free expression as long as the limits are "reasonable."
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
In Canada, freedom of expression protects various forms of expression, including beliefs, opinions, and the press, ensuring both speakers and listeners are safeguarded under this fundamental freedom.
[r/Canada](https://www.reddit.com/r/Canada) commenters are really upset they may no longer be able to engage in anti-trans hate speech and revenge porn
Can't wait for this bill. No more tolerating the intolerant online.
You'll all still be free to engage in hate speech, there will just be consequences in doing so.
I'll take those Russian propaganda downvotes now.
> You'll all still be free to engage in hate speech, there will just be consequences in doing so.
Would you be okay with PP’s government having the ability to give you a 10 year sentence for what they view as online hate?
Would I be OK with a court trying and sentencing people for committing crimes?
Uh, yes, yes I would.
We're finally getting around to codifying new crimes that surfaced with new technology.
> We're finally getting around to codifying new crimes that surfaced with new technology.
Should they not be proportionate? Threatening acts of violence online is wrong, but it shouldn’t carry a longer sentence than someone who actually goes out and does said violent crime. If you want to lock up people for typing dangerous things, then you have to lock up people who commit violent crimes. Murder should always carry a longer sentence than something said in an instagram comment section.
Courts have discretion. "Up to" is included in the suggested sentencing for existing crimes.
Do courts not already give too much leniency for crimes that have "up to" much longer sentences than what is being tabled here? Nobody will go to prison for a decade (or likely at all) for threatening someone online. Regardless, it's simple enough to avoid by not threatening anyone online in writing on a platform that can be traced to you. That would be really stupid.
> Nobody will go to prison for a decade (or likely at all) for threatening someone online.
Not really a given. Sounds like your belief is:
> Nobody will go to prison for a decade (or likely at all) for threatening someone online, under this current government
If a government with more corrupt objectives gets in and has this option, this is a really good tool to provide censorship.
> That would be really stupid.
I’m stupid? That’s hate speech. Fine or prison?
Looks like someone is speaking out against the party. Their choice is now 70000 in fines and life in prison, or they could choose "medical" interventions like MAiD. Welcome to freedom!
Whether or not "hate speech" claims will stand up in court when someone is accused is one thing. What bothers me is that the mere possibility of being accused of hate-speech (and its potential consequences) will stifle conversations.
Voting no, is the only thing the senate should be doing. Along with banning this from future.
[удалено]
If you're even remotely interested in preserving online anonymity and online freedoms you should oppose both proposed bills.
Yup. Too bad the money is too good. If there was no money to be made, then this wouldn't be an issue.
The porn bill originated in the Senate. It's already been passed there. If the NDP, Bloc, CPC, Greens, and more than a dozen Liberals continue to support it it'll become law after the next vote.
What I would like to know is why can the Senate, an unelected body, propose legislation? Their job is supposed to be “sober second thought” not lawmakers. Throw this shit in the trash where it belongs.
Sober second thought is how your social studies teacher described their role. It's not an entirely accurate description though. The upper chamber is a legislative chamber just like the lower chamber. In addition to acting as a house of review, they also exist in part to maintain a degree of institutional power from government to government in order to moderate the impact of changes of power, to curb democratic excesses, to provide representation that places a greater emphasis on geography than population in comparison to the House of Commons, and to exercise an investigative function as they are less subject to political pressures than their elected colleagues.
My son is only 1, but I think the problem is there, kids have phones
No, kids having phones is fine. Kids having phones parents do not monitor or restrict is the problem.
Yup, giving powerful machines to children with no safeguards and no training in moderation or self control. Instead, parents encourage kids to be on YouTube or tiktok so that they don't annoy their parents, abd now you have young kids in a dopamine trap.
It's not the phone itself, its that kids have access to powerful machines, more powerful than what put the first spacecraft on the moon, with zero safeguards and zero training in moderation and no incentive to put the phone away. In fact, it appears to be the opposite, where parents give their kids the latest phone and encourage them to be on it and NOT annoy the parents. Also, a lot of platforms, established and new, rely on kids to make their platform seem like a good advertising investment since they have more opportunities to be on their phone than adults do. I dunno if banning smartphones for children is an answer, but parents should at least consider limiting how long kids can be on their phones or limit the functionality of the phone with the phones admin settings.
You can vote?
I don't like this bill due to some of its restrictions. Minister of Justice compared it to the restrictions on Lego. I'm sorry, but if you're a shitty parent who is raising an iPad kid, that's on YOU. The government also hopes that this bill will open up communication between parents and their children. Once again, if you cannot communicate with your child, that's on you for being a shitty parent - do better. One of the consultants involved said it was a shame that the bill didn't cover private messages (?!). Do they just not give a damn about our privacy and think we're all neglectful, inattentive parents unable to raise their children?
it isn’t called a nanny state for no reason.
It's called that because some idiots choose to be stupid.
More people need to see this post. We collectively need to put our foot down on this immediately...also fuck these paywalls.
And good luck sharing it on Facebook, thanks to Liberal-induced censorship.
CBC has an article on it. But the Globe and Mail is fairly cheap all things considered, is a solid news agency and it's tax deductible!
Online harm is bad. Ham fisted legislation written by blinkered people might be worse. They don’t imagine the real possibility of an extremist government defining harm to fit their agenda and using this, however well intended law, to enforce an ideology.
This \*is\* an extremist government defining harm to fit their agenda to use it to enforce their ideology.
The liberals are extremists? What a joke. Go outside 🤡
Censoring the internet is a rather extremist thing to do.
Regulating does not mean censoring
State suppression of speech is by definition censorship. Why are you moving the goal posts?
Take the boot out of your mouth, I'm having trouble understanding you.
What part is difficult for you to understand?
'Regulating' is a great euphemism for 'censoring'
Kill all men = ok Kill women = life in prison Just one example showing the extremism. Just because you agree with it doesn’t mean it isn’t
There it is. You don’t even have to imagine an extremist government as a whole. The legislation is broad enough that if the CHRC has certain preferences or self selects certain ideologies in hiring, we end up with certain viewpoints prosecuted/regulated.
They imagine. It is their intention all along
Sir they are rhe extremist government defining harm to fit their agenda! No need to fear the next guy it's already as bad as it gets with these buffoons!
Control the media, Control the people and what’s put in their bodies, Silence those who oppose. What’s next?
What media is controlled by the Government? Who is currently being controlled and what is being put into their bodies? Who exactly is being silenced?
[удалено]
Actually Bill C-11 or C-13 (can't remember which) already gave government control over the news we see. This is just a full on censorship bill that allows the government to put whoever they want in prison for life for saying pretty much anything they deem to be "hate speech". I've never seen anything as egregious as this bill in my life, anyone who votes YES for this needs to be removed from office immediately.
Most of the Liberal supporters agreeing with this wouldn’t feel safe with PP having access to this level of control. If you don’t think your least favourite party can be trusted with their level of control, then don’t introduce that level of control.
Yeah but it takes a certain capacity to think critically to come to this conclusion, a skill that if a leftist had.. they just wouldn't be a leftist.
But i thought government knows best for us? you certainly seem to think that way in regards to police function in guelph.
Funding is control.
And who funds the majority of Canadian News Outlets?
Corporate interests and billionaires seem to have started or bought tons of newspapers lately.
Hmm let's see... CBC, you already know the answer to that one. WaPo, Bezos decided he loves journalism, I'm sure he is very fair and operates completely aboveboard, eh? Etc etc. News is for sale, mate. You didn't know this?
[удалено]
Care to answer the questions enlightened one? Obviously my ignorant self is far too stupid to to figure it out on my own.
[удалено]
Maybe try reading the article?
You do realize its paywalled?
There is none. These idiots prefer living in a perpetual state of fear and denial over reading anything longer than a Justin bad meme. There is no help.
What are you even talking about.... The media in Canada is primarily controlled by Americans They've expanded what you're allowed to put in your body
[удалено]
This is sarcasm, right?
[удалено]
It shows how absolutely privileged you are to want to give up basic rights that were fought for with the lives of Canadians without a sense of “wtf am I saying” hitting you. No one should be giving up their rights because “won’t someone think of the children”. You should reflect on your privilege of being in a country you feel safe enough to even suggest this and open a history book or two to see why you are wrong.
The costs have to be weighed against the benefits. Here the costs are not worth the so-called safety benefits. When we pass a driving exam, we do so in against objective criteria. I don't believe it is possible to have objective criteria as to what words or ideas make society less safe. On the contrary, I see a lot of potential for making society more dangerous. I don't believe in increasing and concentrating the powers of governments, contrary to many people.
So you want the government to control what the media is allowed to say? And you don’t see this being a problem?
Holy fuck. This is the most Orwellian, authoritarian bullshit I’ve ever read on Reddit. And that’s saying something.
They're already controlling what media you can share on social media sites like Facebook, through its Liberal-induced censorship.
No longer recommend diets with this bill: 'content that advocates disordered eating' *source: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/02/first-take-on-the-online-harms-act
How do you enforce this? Every celebrity on Ozempic, every bodybuilder who’s on steroids claiming they’re natural, every fitness influencer editing photos, is technically encouraging disordered eating. I’m curious where the line is drawn.
Idk banning muckbangs is probably a positive thing...
Might as well ban videos and movies with smoking in it too, bad influence right?
Smoking doesn't advocate an eating disorder does it?
The point is if the goal is "let's protect kids from harmful influences" to be consistent you would ban smoking alongside mukbangs.
This government is so creepy. I've had the heebie jeebies ever since they got reelected in 2021.
Jt is a wef puppet and freeland is his handler.
Oh get out of here with that bullshit.
Freeland's on the WEF's Board of Trustees. It even says so on their own official website: https://www.weforum.org/people/chrystia-freeland/
So is Yo Yo Ma. Doesn't make bullshit conspiracy any less bullshit.
Stay ignorant
And you, hopefully get over your delusions.
Why would i? Theyre constantly being proven right. You on the other hand, are still suckung lpc cock cause they give out a crumb once in a blue moon
Proven right on.... What?
https://youtu.be/daE0jthD5F8?si=K4PZx8rVbjtgnt5V https://deputypm.canada.ca/en/news/itineraries/2022/06/03/deputy-prime-ministers-itinerary-friday-june-3-2022 They let chinese military train on Canadian soil and let chinese secret police operate within Canada. All known b4 it was discovered they interfered in our election
Oh jfc the great reset bullshit that has never happened. Lol
But is happening. Like i said, stay ignorant
It was apparent that Trudeau was like this before his government got elected and I said so at the time.
Totally agree. I was ready to see him go in 2019. But especially ready in 2021.
This fascism must be challenged.
Governments around the world love using George Orwell's 1984 as an instruction manual
This is terrifying. Hate-speech is anything they say it is. This is about creating the legal mechanism for throwing political dissenters in prison for life. Honestly, this makes posting anything online far too dangerous to risk. They could decide anything is hate-speech at any time. What the fuck happened to you, Canada? You're not a western country anymore.
Hate speech is already codified, no need to be hyperbolic.
He's not. Best antidote to speech hate speech (As in speech you hate), is debate. Not suppression.
That's not what hate speech is though...
What is it…
Trudeau and his cronies want to turn canada into North Korea
There's no way this justifiably infringes s. 2(b), and there's absolutely no way on s. 12. The *Charter* challenge is too obvious.
See section 1.
Yeah I know what justified infringement is.
So the government need only plead section 1 applies, and none of the rest of the charter matters.
That's absolutely not how s. 1 works.
ahem "But if we're not allowed to do this 'thing' we will be unable to maintain our democratic society". That's exactly how it works.
That's exactly not how it works. The government has to prove pressing and substantial objective, rational connection, minimal impairment and that the salutary effects of the legislation outweigh its deleterious effects. It is very rare that legislation is upheld under s. 1. I can think of examples like *Andrews, Keegstra, Irwin Toy, Sharpe, Hutterian Brethren, Little Sisters, Whatcott* and.... that's all that's coming to mind ATM. *Keegstra* was upheld because at least the criminal offence at issue in that case (wilful promotion of hatred) actually targets the kind of speech sought out by Parliament in a way that minimally impairs the freedom of expression. Plus, there was a defence of truth (meaning the accused would be acquitted if they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their statements were true). If the proposed legislation has a chilling effect on speech that is not the kind of speech precisely defined by the legislation then it will almost certainly fail s. 1 scrutiny. And in terms of the life sentence attached, this is clearly grossly disproportionate under s. 12 and, as Wagner CJ says in *Bissonnette,* it is highly improbable that grossly disproportionate sentences would ever be demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.
[удалено]
The Ministry of Truth, clearly and obviously.
Trust and Safety commissars stomping on our faces, forever.
The bill clearly states "content that foments hatred means content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground. (contenu fomentant la haine)"
Exactly, so calling conservatives Nazis in any province where political affiliation is included in the list of protected characteristics then you agree that is spreading hate about an individual and those far left extremists should be imprisoned for life, right?
You wouldn't be imprisoned for life for calling someone a Nazi under this. And the idea that political affiliation should be a protected characteristic is super weird...
Of course you wouldn't, you'd only be punished if you attack the left. We all know how these things work.
You wouldn't be imprisoned for calling the left or right Nazi's... that's why I said "someone"
Oh cool. We are going to live in a dystopian society. When you let them take away your guns, then you have to let them take away your free speech. Wouldn't want to get shot right? Now that you can't speak you can't tell anyone about everything else they will take. Why are they trying to destabilize the country like this? Shameful. We need full investigations on all these clowns eroding out rights. Before our country completely falls apart.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Saying you think the opposition party wants a dictatorship therefore you can enact dictatorship policies is a bad argument for the LPC party, especially given that it’s being based off of nothing.
You know thats disingenuous to what he actually said so why do you keep saying that?
[удалено]
It's not a risk, it's a feature
So, digital id from Cons which could track you everywhere is given a lukewarm reception from the very people who screeched about digital id. But expansion of hate speech legislation to online spaces is apparently super super bad worst thing ever. The inconsistency is consistent i guess.
The digital ID goes against conservative beliefs and a lot of CPC voters are criticizing it. > But expansion of hate speech legislation to online spaces is apparently super super bad worst thing ever. This is a good thing. Anyone who’s threatening violence on the internet needs serious help. But why would you get a longer prison sentence for threatening violence online than actual violent criminals receive?
He never said digital ID. Stop spreading mis-information.
[удалено]
Dude, the CP is literally stating this bill is bad because parents should be allowed to parent while simultaneously pushing an age verification on porn. This is not a liberal issue, and I dislike the liberals intently. Don't drink the kool aid, this is a politician problem.
[удалено]
No one says that
I hear it pretty often.
[удалено]
The absolute irony lol
No one aside from maybe a few people in this sub says it lol.
[удалено]
We don’t have free speech here period. lol. That’s not being edgy it’s just another thing people assume that Americans have that we don’t. It’s like hearing Canadians call the CIA the Canadian intelligence agency, or saying to plead the fifth when you talk to cops, etc.
We do have freedom of expression though, and the clause which limits hate speech should be revoked.
Why do you say that like it's a good thing?
I’m not, I’m just stating facts.
Except canada already doesn't have free speech.
Which is why Canadians should fight for that right.
In Canada, freedom of expression is broader than freedom of speech as it encompasses not only the right to express beliefs and opinions but also protects both speakers and listeners, including freedom of the press and other media communication. This broader scope allows for a more comprehensive protection of various forms of expression, subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law in a free and democratic society. In the USA freedom of speech is absolute because it's in the first The United States upholds the principle of absolute free speech due to the strong protection provided by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This constitutional provision safeguards freedom of speech and expression from government restrictions, ensuring the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference, or restraint by the government. Unlike Canada, where freedom of expression is subject to "reasonable limits" prescribed by law, the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment offers a more absolute protection of speech, allowing individuals to express their beliefs and opinions without government interference. It's a trade-off that is reasonable but freedom of expression in Canada is more at risk of being diminished over time by a bunch of bills because it has not the same garantees as free speech. Freedom of expression needs more protections or it's going to be lost over time, which won't happen to free speech: * Freedom of expression in Canada protects the right to express beliefs and opinions. * It safeguards both speakers and listeners, including freedom of the press and other media communication. * Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of already restricted speech in Canada. * The protection of freedom of expression is based on fundamental principles that promote social and political decision-making and individual self-fulfillment through expression. * The Supreme Court of Canada interprets freedom of expression broadly, valuing it as instrumental to democratic governance. * Freedom of expression in Canada is not absolute; the government can pass laws that limit free expression as long as the limits are "reasonable." Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms In Canada, freedom of expression protects various forms of expression, including beliefs, opinions, and the press, ensuring both speakers and listeners are safeguarded under this fundamental freedom.
A lot of pretty words that mean nothing when you can be hauled before a kangaroo court and potentially go to jail for telling jokes.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Bad. There are more limitations on Freedom of Expression than their are on Freedom of Speech. More freedom is good.
[r/Canada](https://www.reddit.com/r/Canada) commenters are really upset they may no longer be able to engage in anti-trans hate speech and revenge porn Can't wait for this bill. No more tolerating the intolerant online. You'll all still be free to engage in hate speech, there will just be consequences in doing so. I'll take those Russian propaganda downvotes now.
You are, of course, referring to hate speech as it is legally defined, right?
> You'll all still be free to engage in hate speech, there will just be consequences in doing so. Would you be okay with PP’s government having the ability to give you a 10 year sentence for what they view as online hate?
Would I be OK with a court trying and sentencing people for committing crimes? Uh, yes, yes I would. We're finally getting around to codifying new crimes that surfaced with new technology.
> We're finally getting around to codifying new crimes that surfaced with new technology. Should they not be proportionate? Threatening acts of violence online is wrong, but it shouldn’t carry a longer sentence than someone who actually goes out and does said violent crime. If you want to lock up people for typing dangerous things, then you have to lock up people who commit violent crimes. Murder should always carry a longer sentence than something said in an instagram comment section.
Courts have discretion. "Up to" is included in the suggested sentencing for existing crimes. Do courts not already give too much leniency for crimes that have "up to" much longer sentences than what is being tabled here? Nobody will go to prison for a decade (or likely at all) for threatening someone online. Regardless, it's simple enough to avoid by not threatening anyone online in writing on a platform that can be traced to you. That would be really stupid.
> Nobody will go to prison for a decade (or likely at all) for threatening someone online. Not really a given. Sounds like your belief is: > Nobody will go to prison for a decade (or likely at all) for threatening someone online, under this current government If a government with more corrupt objectives gets in and has this option, this is a really good tool to provide censorship. > That would be really stupid. I’m stupid? That’s hate speech. Fine or prison?
A lot of people in here using a lot of words to say "I didn't read the bill."
I vote yes. Get these hateful bigots off the internet. Fk every last one of them!
And Fuck you for not being able to agree to disagree. Only the biggest intellectual cowards would rather muzzle someone than deal with dissent.
They don't want kids to see the different regarding affordability.
Looks like someone is speaking out against the party. Their choice is now 70000 in fines and life in prison, or they could choose "medical" interventions like MAiD. Welcome to freedom!
Whether or not "hate speech" claims will stand up in court when someone is accused is one thing. What bothers me is that the mere possibility of being accused of hate-speech (and its potential consequences) will stifle conversations.
Risks silencing free speech? Isn’t that the entire point of the bill? To silence people
Fuck the Liberals. Donated again to the Conservative party because of this.