New Canadian 'online harms' bill to make online hate punishable up to life in prison

[+OverSword]

5 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

There has been a global surge of online hate campaigns targeting 2SLGBTQIA+ communities, often with life-threatening consequences. Why should individuals in these communities not be protected or allowed to seek recourse?

Show me where someone has been convicted of a hate crime in which someone's else's post was deemed the motive.  It's just a scare tactic, similar to "we are doing it to protect the children", bringing up something people will be sensitive to in order to scare them into signing away liberties and rights with a smile on their face.  This will protect nobody but will inhibit ability to speak plainly and clearly as subjects are tip toed around the more expansive what constitutes hate becomes.

Edited March 8 by OverSword

[Kittens Are Jerks]

1 hour ago, simplybill said:

When the personal insults begin, it’s an indication that the discussion has ended.
By the way, I’ve never read 1984. 

That comment was general in nature and I stand by it. It was not attack on you personally.

[Antigonos]

1 hour ago, simplybill said:

the discussion has ended.

By the way, I’ve never read 1984. 

Kitten already ended the discussion well before before the perceived insult.

You should read it. Much better than Animal Farm.

Edited March 8 by Antigonos

[Kittens Are Jerks]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Show me where someone has been convicted of a hate crime in which someone's else's post was deemed the motive.  It's just a scare tactic, similar to "we are doing it to protect the children", bringing up something people will be sensitive to in order to scare them into signing away liberties and rights with a smile on their face.  This will protect nobody but will inhibit ability to speak plainly and clearly as subjects are tip toed around the more expansive what constitutes hate becomes.

Oh gee, it never occurred to me that limited speech restrictions would inhibit a person's ability to spew violent hatred speak 'plainly and clearly.'

As for whether or not online hate (and harassment) culture contributes to a degradation of the safety of people, here are a couple of articles I had bookmarked to read later. You'll find a plethora of information on the subject and how such a culture has harmed women, children, ethnic, and other minority groups should you want to do more research on your own.

https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/new-human-rights-campaign-foundation-report-online-hate-real-world-violence-are-inextricably-linked

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/how-online-hate-speech-is-fueling-real-life-violence/

I'm also providing you with the following (somewhat dated) article outlining a few significant Canadian hate speech cases. It will give you an idea of how our Supreme Court handles such cases.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/when-is-it-hate-speech-7-significant-canadian-cases-1.1036731

[+OverSword]

25 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Oh gee, it never occurred to me that limited speech restrictions would inhibit a person's ability to spew violent hatred speak 'plainly and clearly.'

As for whether or not online hate (and harassment) culture contributes to a degradation of the safety of people, here are a couple of articles I had bookmarked to read later. You'll find a plethora of information on the subject and how such a culture has harmed women, children, ethnic, and other minority groups should you want to do more research on your own.

https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/new-human-rights-campaign-foundation-report-online-hate-real-world-violence-are-inextricably-linked

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/how-online-hate-speech-is-fueling-real-life-violence/

I'm also providing you with the following (somewhat dated) article outlining a few significant Canadian hate speech cases. It will give you an idea of how our Supreme Court handles such cases.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/when-is-it-hate-speech-7-significant-canadian-cases-1.1036731

You live in a fascist nightmare  JK, pretty done with this subject.  IMO Surrendering free speech rights for perceived safety is a mistake and will actually only function to stifle speech but won't make anyone more safe, as well as be used as a political weapon.

Edited March 8 by OverSword

[Kittens Are Jerks]

12 minutes ago, OverSword said:

You live in a fascist nightmare  JK, pretty done with this subject.  IMO Surrendering free speech rights for perceived safety is a mistake and will actually only function to stifle speech but won't make anyone more safe, as well as be used as a political weapon.

So glad you're done with this. You were wearing me out lol.

[+OverSword]

Just now, Kittens Are Jerks said:

So glad you're done with this. You were wearing me out lol.

This is the second time I've been done with it so........😅

[Kittens Are Jerks]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

This is the second time I've been done with it so........😅

Yeah I noticed. I even let some of your previous comments go unaddressed mistakenly believing that you would be a man of your word. Won't be making that mistake again. 🤣

[psyche101]

On 3/9/2024 at 1:54 AM, OverSword said:

There is.

No there's not.

For all your bluster and carry on, both places are more free and safer than America. If you lot pulled your head in and stopped beating your chest for five minutes you would be able to recognise it.

You are enabling criminal behaviour with your ideology. You are a greater threat to your country than these laws could ever be trumped up to be. Your ideology puts the average person at higher risk and offers advantage to criminal behaviour. 

If your head wasn't so far up your own butt you would recognise the disadvantages to your belief system and the real would immediate threats it elevates. 

[godnodog]

On 2/27/2024 at 8:17 PM, OverSword said:

.  The left love to say language is violence.  It is not.

Not a lefty, but language is indeed one of the tool for violence, Europe's history is filled with chapters, it is the precursor and "perpetuater(?)" of much  physical violence. Take the Inquisition, fascism, nazism, others.

Having wrote this I do agree that these laws are  controversial and often quite tricky to implement/exercise, the interpretation of the writing law will diverge from law enforcement officers to officer, from judge to judge, from jury peer to peer (where applicable).

For example, how many of us have seen the "there is no racism against white people" argument tweeted by some fringe woke people? How is this not encitment to hate? The migrants are bringing diseases and will create crimes waves (etc) argument, xait look at my country, we are in the top 5 safest countries in the workd, low imigration rates, and a  right wing party is making this a flag for today's elections for parliament, even though there has repeatedly shown no significant increase in crimes, and no significant of crimes committed by migrans, THOUGH ut was recorded an increase in crimes committed against migrants.

So yea words can be violenc.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

1 hour ago, godnodog said:

Having wrote this I do agree that these laws are  controversial and often quite tricky to implement/exercise, the interpretation of the writing law will diverge from law enforcement officers to officer, from judge to judge, from jury peer to peer (where applicable).

The problem we've had in Canada has not been one of interpretation and implementation, as our courts have been pretty consistent. The problem is with the drafting of the actual legislation itself. Emphasis is being placed on creating legislation that is targeted, not broad; that is well-defined and not too open to interpretation; and, that respects our rights rights and freedoms, whilst at the same time ensuring the safety of citizens. This has been a work in progress (and still is) for a long time now.

But what irks me most when it comes to some of the criticism against this proposed new legislation, are the many who have no problem with it insofar as children are concerned, but balk at the idea of it protecting other groups, such as women, ethnic and religious groups, the 2SLGBTQIA+ and other communities. Why is curbing certain freedom of speech rights acceptable for one group and not another? Whilst other groups may not be as vulnerable as children are, they are still vulnerable.

[+OverSword]

On 3/9/2024 at 7:58 PM, psyche101 said:

both places are more free and safer than America.

Unless you want to express something offensive.  So not.

 

[+OverSword]

On 3/10/2024 at 1:10 AM, godnodog said:

Not a lefty, but language is indeed one of the tool for violence, Europe's history is filled with chapters, it is the precursor and "perpetuater(?)" of much  physical violence. Take the Inquisition, fascism, nazism, others.

Having wrote this I do agree that these laws are  controversial and often quite tricky to implement/exercise, the interpretation of the writing law will diverge from law enforcement officers to officer, from judge to judge, from jury peer to peer (where applicable).

For example, how many of us have seen the "there is no racism against white people" argument tweeted by some fringe woke people? How is this not encitment to hate? The migrants are bringing diseases and will create crimes waves (etc) argument, xait look at my country, we are in the top 5 safest countries in the workd, low imigration rates, and a  right wing party is making this a flag for today's elections for parliament, even though there has repeatedly shown no significant increase in crimes, and no significant of crimes committed by migrans, THOUGH ut was recorded an increase in crimes committed against migrants.

So yea words can be violenc.

I disagree.  Language is not violence.  Many things including language, gestures, looking at someone in what they think is the wrong way, etc. can incite violence.  Factually only violence is violence.

[psyche101]

9 hours ago, OverSword said:

Unless you want to express something offensive.  So not.

 

That's not freedom. Why do you think that?

That's removing the community freedom. Again, benefits to bad people. What the value is in that is be a true unexplained mystery. 

[psyche101]

9 hours ago, OverSword said:

I disagree.  Language is not violence.  Many things including language, gestures, looking at someone in what they think is the wrong way, etc. can incite violence.  Factually only violence is violence.

Language and Violence

Summary
Theorizations of language and violence have a long history of coarticulation. Those theorizing violence have looked to language to make sense of it, and scholars of language have recognized a violence inherent in its structure and use. Anthropologists have used ethnography to explore differing experiences of violence, with a focus on everyday violence. Such work has uncovered the ways in which language can facilitate, justify, construct, normalize, and resist experiences of violence. Linguistic anthropologists, in particular, have articulated the discursive nature of structural violence, speech acts as forms of violence, and language policies and forms of language classification as violent practices.

[+OverSword]

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's not freedom. Why do you think that?

That's removing the community freedom. Again, benefits to bad people. What the value is in that is be a true unexplained mystery. 

I think infringement on free speech is more dangerous than most other actions that can be taken by government. You don’t have to agree.

[+OverSword]

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Language and Violence

Summary
Theorizations of language and violence have a long history of coarticulation. Those theorizing violence have looked to language to make sense of it, and scholars of language have recognized a violence inherent in its structure and use. Anthropologists have used ethnography to explore differing experiences of violence, with a focus on everyday violence. Such work has uncovered the ways in which language can facilitate, justify, construct, normalize, and resist experiences of violence. Linguistic anthropologists, in particular, have articulated the discursive nature of structural violence, speech acts as forms of violence, and language policies and forms of language classification as violent practices.

I don’t care. Punch!! Did you feel that? No. You know why? Because it’s words. Earlier I made a short list of a whole bunch things that could incite violence. Most are legal. Don’t be so afraid of words. 

Edited March 12 by OverSword

[psyche101]

10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I think infringement on free speech is more dangerous than most other actions that can be taken by government. You don’t have to agree.

It's not just me I think you would find significant opposition to your protection of criminals, fanatics and other major threats to a society. 

It's a really messed up philosophy. Protect the bad at the expense of the good. I can't fathom why anyone would think that's a good idea. 

[psyche101]

20 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I don’t care. Punch!! Did you feel that? No. You know why? Because it’s words. 

Here are just two words that prove you wrong.

Adriana Kuch.

Many felt the result of the words that drove a child to suicide. You may not care. That doesn't make you correct. It just makes you a little less human. 

[Dejarma]

UM is the only place I indulge in social media.. It wouldn't bother me if this place didn't exist- I don't need it.

Remove it all, or at least make a world wide law that one has to be over a certain age to indulge.

Managed it with alcohol consumption/ smoking/ driving etc. Why not social media?

A smart phone should be that: just a phone. One can still contact & talk to who you want.

Children will have a phone to chat with family & friends/ for emergencies......

Be honest, do you REALLY need it? Could you do without it? Just out of interest 😉

[psyche101]

16 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

UM is the only place I indulge in social media.. It wouldn't bother me if this place didn't exist- I don't need it.

Remove it all, or at least make a world wide law that one has to be over a certain age to indulge.

Managed it with alcohol consumption/ smoking/ driving etc. Why not social media?

A smart phone should be that: just a phone. One can still contact & talk to who you want.

Children will have a phone to chat with family & friends/ for emergencies......

Be honest, do you REALLY need it? Could you do without it? Just out of interest 😉

No more than we need television dishwashers cars music etc.

Nobody will die if these things were all dropped tomorrow. 

They are all things that make life easier and more convenient. 

[Dejarma]

13 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No more than we need television dishwashers cars music etc.

Nobody will die if these things were all dropped tomorrow. 

They are all things that make life easier and more convenient. 

well we could go on forever like that:

electricity/ the wheel/ steps - keep all the above... i'm talking specifically online/ social media here, as in the thread topic

Edited March 12 by Dejarma

[psyche101]

10 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

well we could go on forever like that:

electricity/ the wheel/ steps - keep all the above... i'm talking specifically online/ social media here, as in the thread topic

I suppose what I'm trying to say is we don't actually need any of them. We are accustomed to things we don't need that makes life convenient. 

[Dejarma]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

I suppose what I'm trying to say is we don't actually need any of them. We are accustomed to things we don't need that makes life convenient. 

I know what you're saying, I get it but you're not specifically answering the question- no worries, leave it 

Peace...

Dej.

[+OverSword]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Here are just two words that prove you wrong.

Adriana Kuch.

Many felt the result of the words that drove a child to suicide. You may not care. That doesn't make you correct. It just makes you a little less human. 

You are conflating vax conspiracies with bullying. You always reach for extremes and try to use the death of children as an emotional lever so nothing new. 🥱