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

[psyche101]

23 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Exactly what was said? 

He claimed the refugees and government minister were IS agents, and said to castrate and deport the minister involved. 

This resulted in heavy online abuse and public abuse. 

[Kittens Are Jerks]

15 hours ago, OverSword said:

Incredible how delicate some people from our cousin countries are when it's their nations under the spotlight.  They are too delicate to be Americans as they don't seem equipped to take the heat.

Incredible how delicate some people south of the 49th are when their freedom fetish is under the spotlight. They are too delicate to be Canadians as they don't seem equipped to handle the fact that freedom is not absolute. They extol their right to free speech, whilst selfishly failing to understand that even this fundamental freedom needs to be curbed to protect against those whose speech incites violence.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

On 3/12/2024 at 5:33 AM, itsnotoutthere said:

 

Oh hey, look who brought a faulty analogy to a gun fight.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

12 hours ago, glorybebe said:

Well, it depends on who you talk to.  There are a lot of my fellow Canadians who are concerned.   You look at one bill being passed, it may look beneficial, but, put a few together and i wonder what the end goal is.  

The end goal is to prevent online platforms from becoming a cesspool of racists, perverts, hate mongers and agitators. Safeguards are essential in order to ensure the safety of individuals both online and off, and if that means placing limitations on certain kinds of speech, so be it.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

10 hours ago, OverSword said:

There is the crime.  Arrest them and send them to court.

You;re suggesting then that those who instigate should get off Scott free, whilst those who do the deed, should not.

Hate to break this to you, but your criminal courts would disagree.

[itsnotoutthere]

27 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Oh hey, look who brought a faulty analogy to a gun fight.

Oh hey...look who didn't watch or understand the video.

Edited March 13 by itsnotoutthere

[Kittens Are Jerks]

7 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Oh hey...look who didn't watch or understand the video.

What was there to understand? The video is deliberately far fetched and misleading. The suggestion that the Canadian government is hypocritical in that it defends the right to free speech, whilst at the same time proposing 'Orwellian' legislation not unlike that of China's, is a tad over the top don't you think?

[itsnotoutthere]

3 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

What was there to understand? The video is deliberately far fetched and misleading. The suggestion that the Canadian government is hypocritical in that it defends the right to free speech, whilst at the same time proposing 'Orwellian' legislation not unlike that of China's, is a tad over the top don't you think?

No I don't. What he did to the Truckers was a testament to that. Stopping people accessing their bank accounts, you think that's reasonable government interference?  Actually you probably do. Strange how the left used to be all about fighting for the rights of the working classes against a faceless authoritarian government, seems like they've done a complete 180 in the last few years, now they fall in line with every utterance from government.

Edited March 13 by itsnotoutthere

[+OverSword]

9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

He claimed the refugees and government minister were IS agents, and said to castrate and deport the minister involved. 

This resulted in heavy online abuse and public abuse. 

Big deal.

[+OverSword]

4 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

You;re suggesting then that those who instigate should get off Scott free, whilst those who do the deed, should not.

Hate to break this to you, but your criminal courts would disagree.

You can be arrested for incitement but not until something happens. 

[Kittens Are Jerks]

41 minutes ago, OverSword said:

You can be arrested for incitement but not until something happens. 

The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites imminent violence or lawlessness. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969). Such speech is considered an inchoate offence, meaning no actual harm has to be done for the incitement to be deemed criminal.

 

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites imminent violence or lawlessness. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969). Such speech is considered an inchoate offence, meaning no actual harm has to be done for the incitement to be deemed criminal.

 

And then what constitutes incitement is exactly spelled out and already illegal, no need for further legislation banning current legal speech.  Prove with data that bullying or disparaging language frequently causes violence and I could be swayed, but no such data exists because the instances are few and far between.  Not worth compromising speech over at this point. 

[psyche101]

8 hours ago, OverSword said:

Big deal.

Yeah right. You think it's normal behaviour do you? 

Why do you wish to protect the antagonisers and punish the victims? 

Libertarian ideology is detrimental to society in general. It's a good thing it's a minority group regarded as unrealistic. 

 

[+OverSword]

18 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Yeah right. You think it's normal behaviour do you? 

Why do you wish to protect the antagonisers and punish the victims? 

Libertarian ideology is detrimental to society in general. It's a good thing it's a minority group regarded as unrealistic. 

 

Yeah, the current dominant political parties are soooo much better 😵

[psyche101]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Yeah, the current dominant political parties are soooo much better 😵

Yes, far better, way better with morals and ethics. Better for the community as a whole and more free. There's no doubt about that whatsoever. 

Libertarian ideology would give the most power to the worst people. There's no scenario where that turns out well. 

Thankfully it will remain a minority as long as people give a crap about having to live with each other. I'm glad to know that sensible people will always be your biggest roadblock. 

All I can see is people must want to do the wrong thing if they want such to be normalised. 

You get all huffy if someone suggests you are bigoted in some instances. And yet you want to give nasty people the right to abuse others. Seems contradictory. 

[Kittens Are Jerks]

10 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

No I don't. What he did to the Truckers was a testament to that. Stopping people accessing their bank accounts, you think that's reasonable government interference?  Actually you probably do. Strange how the left used to be all about fighting for the rights of the working classes against a faceless authoritarian government, seems like they've done a complete 180 in the last few years, now they fall in line with every utterance from government.

Protest rights are not absolute. Whilst the convoy protesters had the right to free expression and peaceful assembly, that right did not include illegally occupying and holding a city under siege. Nor did it include the right to blockade international borders and disrupt trade. Not only was public safety of Canadians under threat, our national economic security was significantly impacted as well. Both Ontario and Quebec declared states of emergency.

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms strikes a balance between individual freedoms and collective interests. In other words, our rights are subject to reasonable limits so that they do not override the constitutional freedoms of others. And there is no question that the convoy infringed on the rights of many Canadians. Having said that, was invoking the Emergencies Act unreasonable? A judge recently found that it was. So there's your answer.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

12 hours ago, OverSword said:

And then what constitutes incitement is exactly spelled out and already illegal, no need for further legislation banning current legal speech.  Prove with data that bullying or disparaging language frequently causes violence and I could be swayed, but no such data exists because the instances are few and far between. 

What do you mean no need for further legislation banning current legal speech? Have you lost sight of what the proposed legislation is about? Current legal speech is still legal. It is not being compromised more so than it already is.

As for data regarding the link between hateful rhetoric and violence, the lack of it is not necessarily indicative of instances that are few and far between. Social media platforms are a relatively recent phenomenon, and whilst data on hate crime trends is collected, a central deficiency of all criminal justice statistics is that a proportion of incidents are never reported to police, making it difficult to gauge the full scope of the problem.

Not that it matters as it's already been established that the propagation of hate speech contributes directly to the rise of violent extremist groups and a dramatic increase in hate crimes. We even have historical precedents showing the connection — the Holocaust, for example.

Some US examples of hate crimes influenced by social media.

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

A UK study on the connection between online hate speech and violence:

https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/1702622-increase-in-online-hate-speech-leads-to-more-crimes-against-minorities

 

11 hours ago, OverSword said:

Not worth compromising speech over at this point. 

Freedom of speech is not the sacred cow you think it is.

[+OverSword]

11 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Freedom of speech is not the sacred cow you think it is.

I have to completely and without reserve disagree with you.  It is the single most important right, and the limitation or removal of it is the key tool for oppression.

Quote

What do you mean no need for further legislation banning current legal speech? Have you lost sight of what the proposed legislation is about? Current legal speech is still legal. It is not being compromised more so than it already is.

That's obviously not true or else there is no need or point to this Bill.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

On 3/14/2024 at 11:36 AM, OverSword said:

I have to completely and without reserve disagree with you.  It is the single most important right, and the limitation or removal of it is the key tool for oppression.

And yet, many restrictions to free speech are accepted by society. Why? Because reasonable people understand that one right cannot take precedence over another, that a balance between individual freedoms and collective interests is essential. All individuals have the right to life, liberty and security, and when certain speech endangers those rights then it's time to put the brakes on it. An argument that such action is a precursor to oppression will not wash.

[+OverSword]

6 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

And yet, many restrictions to free speech are accepted by society. Why? Because reasonable people understand that one right cannot take precedence over another, that a balance between individual freedoms and collective interests is essential. All individuals have the right to life, liberty and security, and when certain speech endangers those rights then it's time to put the brakes on it. An argument that such action is a precursor to oppression will not wash.

All we need are the statistics that prove language you fear actually is an impediment to those liberties. Statistically unlikely so you are a victim of fear. 

[+OverSword]

@Doc Socks Junior you laugh so you must have the statistics showing that random persons posts on the internet are an impediment to people’s rights and liberties or that they cause  statistically significant harm. If this is an issue that truly needs to be addressed those numbers must be available. 

[Doc Socks Junior]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

@Doc Socks Junior you laugh so you must have the statistics showing that random persons posts on the internet are an impediment to people’s rights and liberties or that they cause  statistically significant harm. If this is an issue that truly needs to be addressed those numbers must be available. 

You don't read through Kittens posts very thoroughly, do you?

I mean, I know the answer to that, so that's a rhetorical question, but I'm hopefully cluing you in, too.

[+OverSword]

8 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

You don't read through Kittens posts very thoroughly, do you?

I mean, I know the answer to that, so that's a rhetorical question, but I'm hopefully cluing you in, too.

So no statistics proving the danger thus this legislation is needless drawing a line between fear monger if and feel good. 

[Doc Socks Junior]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

So no statistics proving the danger thus this legislation is needless drawing a line between fear monger if and feel good. 

Looks like you still didn't read them very thoroughly. Keep trying.

[+OverSword]

7 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Looks like you still didn't read them very thoroughly. Keep trying.

Anecdotes are not statistics.