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

[+joc]

12 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

You can't use it like that though 

I can't see anywhere in the links that it can be used by individuals against individuals. Corporations carry the responsibility.

If musk's X allowed harf *spam filter*ography that exposed to you and any children to it, you could sue the board at X. They are supposed to be catching such people and handing them over to the law already. It's more like that. 

This is how I see it.  A law that prohibited 'hate speech' with life in prison as a possible consequence would only mean anything if it were a law say in China or North Korea...

Canada...I don't think Canadians are in danger from their government at all.  I just don't see Boot Thug Mounties...or am I missing something?  I don't think so.  

I think it's much to do about nothing.

[psyche101]

5 minutes ago, joc said:

This is how I see it.  A law that prohibited 'hate speech' with life in prison as a possible consequence would only mean anything if it were a law say in China or North Korea...

Canada...I don't think Canadians are in danger from their government at all.  I just don't see Boot Thug Mounties...or am I missing something?  I don't think so.  

I think it's much to do about nothing.

I think the only people in danger are those doing the wrong thing 

Which really makes me wonder about some of these arguments. 

Libertarians tend to have a panic attack whenever the government does its job so there's that too. 

[+joc]

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I think the only people in danger are those doing the wrong thing 

Which really makes me wonder about some of these arguments. 

Libertarians tend to have a panic attack whenever the government does its job so there's that too. 

The legislation is mostly focused on protecting minors against online sexual abuse, extortion and exploitation, which have seen a sharp increase in recent years. In a span of a decade, RCMP National Child Exploitation Crime Center reports have increased by 1,077 per cent..

It isn't a slippery slope of any kind...I don't usually read threads like this but I would bet someone said it...wouldn't surprise me anyway.  

Plus, a lot of people don't understand what real hate speech is.  We live in a free society, but there are always consequences for actions that put that society in danger.

[Hankenhunter]

12 hours ago, OverSword said:

Read it again liar, that is not what I said.  Rights are more important than individuals lives.  People die to defend American rights all over the globe and have for 250 years

Yup, tell it to the dead children. Tell it to their parents, siblings, and Grandparents. I'm sure you can be convincing to them, because you're sure as hell not convincing me. 

Question for you. You have a loaded pistol in your hand, and a choice. If you shoot and kill a child, guns stay. If you throw away the gun, the child lives and guns are regulated heavily simaler to Canada. What do you do?

Edited February 29 by Hankenhunter

[Hankenhunter]

4 hours ago, A rather obscure Bassoon said:

Maybe you should read that to the liberals/NDP who just had it handed to them by the highest court in the land for invoking the emergency act.

Maybe you should read that they're working to change that. Majority rules. Laws change all the time to keep up with changing social problems. 

[Hankenhunter]

9 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Not too much, and not too little. Most of my confidence lies with the Supreme Court.

Which aren't bought, and paid for for by a corrupt political party. 

[Hankenhunter]

9 hours ago, OverSword said:

It's supposed to be media that has to censor the names of minors, not citizens.  Until now of course, as Canada bit by bit erodes protected speech. 

You seem to live by worst case scenarios, and bleating out non existent problems. Paranoid much?

[Hankenhunter]

12 hours ago, OverSword said:

We've already seen that and he didn't make any attempt to limit my rights that I can recall.  If you would like to remind me of any go right ahead.

You've just reached and-then levels of absurdities. But then you'd vote for Trump in a heartbeat. You've said otherwise before but your posts bellie otherwise.

Edited February 29 by Hankenhunter
Spelling

[Hankenhunter]

12 hours ago, OverSword said:

Read it again liar, that is not what I said.  Rights are more important than individuals lives.  People die to defend American rights all over the globe and have for 250 years

I'm not lying at at all. That's just you getting defensive, and lashing out at me.

You could care less about the kids as long as everyone gets their guns without any strings attached. In other words,

 

[Golden Duck]

7 hours ago, DayoOlabisi said:

i'm trying not to get into personal details, but i can tell you this does not reflect reality. to further the conversation we would have to talk about types of public servants because the actions and consequences vary based upon type.

i think you missed that i was using narcissist CEOs and bully cops as examples of certain personal flaws that might aggregate in certain fields. i didn't say public servants are made of a disproportionate number of narcissists (though depending again on type that might be a possible claim). rather my point is that most believe that humans are flawed and prone to temptation of one sort or another. yet public servants are often defended idealistically as though that doesn't apply, and when it is used it is often defended against on partisan terms and/or for short-term interests.

happy to dig into this in more detail if you are, but i might be away for a while after this post or the next couple.

If you're talking about your personal experience, that's fine.  I'm guessing you saw an exceptional circumstance from your side.

Some famous cases from Australia include:

. Mick Young and the Colour TV

. Australian Customs v Midford

. Skywest Aviation

. Human Sevices and Robodebt

. Sports-rorts

In some of these cases the Government Auditor picked up malpractice. Others, went through a standard process but escalated.

I've given examples at a Federal Government Level.  I think you are talking about local government.  I would suggest there is more opportunity for corruption in smaller organisations.

[+DieChecker]

20 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

In Canada, freedom of speech is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically in section 2(b) — freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html

Exactly, and in the USA ww have a right to own weapons. Psyche101 appears not to want to recognize that. And is why I asked the question, to see if he would correct himself, or not.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

10 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

If you're not a MAGA, quit talking like one.

Before you can file suit, you must have standing.  What is your standing?  Be specific.

 

Yes, I know this can be abused.  Apparently you didn't read Post #90.

Doug

M6 standing is “in the corner. Crying”. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

10 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

If you're not a MAGA, quit talking like one.

Before you can file suit, you must have standing.  What is your standing?  Be specific.

 

Yes, I know this can be abused.  Apparently you didn't read Post #90.

Doug

Also, folks who disagree with you aren’t MAGA. 

[+DieChecker]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You can't use it like that though 

I can't see anywhere in the links that it can be used by individuals against individuals. Corporations carry the responsibility.

If musk's X allowed harf *spam filter*ography that exposed to you and any children to it, you could sue the board at X. They are supposed to be catching such people and handing them over to the law already. It's more like that. 

I does seem like if the law is well defined the problem of misuse would be negligible.

The follow on question would be how hard would it be to alter the law? I admit ignorance, but is it the same process in Csnada? A whole new law would be needed?

And the last issue is how hard would it be for a "Trump" to gain power in Canada? Would there even be someone wanted to misuse the law? In the US, sure, there's power grabbing politicians everywhere, but how is the politics in Canada,  eh?

[+DieChecker]

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You said in the two previous posts

Ban the internet. Ban an app.

Neither of those se things are proposed. There are no band proposed. There are gives proposed for organisations who run social media sites. 

Hummm... Frustrating...

I was NOT saying this law is, or should, ban the internet, or an app. I was drawing a parallel based on the internet being used by bullies, and guns bring used to kill people.

To put forward a question of is it fair to restrict the access of 99.9% of users, if it helps 0.1%. I'm sorry I was too suble in my posing of the question.

Quote

No, he can't, they aren't social media organisations. They aren't the people supposedly watching content.

The question was, couldn't "Trump" misuse a vague law to suppress opponents. Again, I must have been too suble in asking it. 

According to some of the Canadian posters, the law will be well defined, so it hopefully is a moot issue, even if a "bad" politician got into power.

Quote

In the way that I seriously doubt .1% criminals use guns with deadly force.

I'm saying the number of weapons per person is such a ridiculous number because many people have not one, but five or ten guns if not more hanging on walls. 

I'm still not getting your criminals angle. Sounds like you mean 100% of criminals use guns and kill people regularly???

As to owning guns, lots of people do. I own two. A hunting rifle and a lever action single shot rifle.

Quote

I'd like to hope citizens don't need guns as often as police and military? 

Happens more often then you think. In nearby Portland the emergency response time is like 20 minutes.

Someone comes into your house, or is robbing your car, or shooting at your teenager, and you call the police, don't expect help for 20 minutes. By then the perpetrators are back home counting what they've stolen, or gloating over whom they've shot.

Quote

I consider that hand waving.  

No. It's been paraded as a right. In islam it's a right to kill a women unaccompanied by a male in public. That's not a right either. It's claimed as not only a right, but gods will. 

Depends on if you believe rights are from the State, or... Intrinsic, and only protected by the State.

If it's by the State, then 100% Muslims living under Sharia law in their nation will claim that right. It's in their legal system.

If you believe rights are intrinsic, then the Right to Self Defense is why guns are allowed in the USA. Very simple. Bad guy has gun. Good guy can have gun too.

Quote

Same thing. It's a reason I have an issue with the GOP. That is who is pushing the lie as if truth. God given right. To kill. 

You just wrote... "No, blame the people who are using those tools without proper community standards". Implying its not the internet, or an app, that is bad but those using it wrongly, who should be punished.

Using guns wrongly is already punished. 

If you think the guns being removed will fix the issue better, then why wouldnt removing an app (social media platform) do the same thing if its being misused?

How is your stand on guns different then those posters railing that this law could be abused? Because you are right, and they are dumb? C'Mon...

Quote

The side of America fighting proper regulations is pushing the narrative for personal gain. 

I don't hate regulations. I only want them spelled out in detail, to prevent abuses.

Quote

Does that actually affect what I said though? 911 was three thousand and it resulted in a 20 year war that America lost.

Actually we won all the Middle East Wars. But lost at our attempts at nation building. Hoping we could turn Iraq, and Afghanistan, into South Korea, or at least into Western consumer (Customer?) States.

Edited February 29 by DieChecker

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I does seem like if the law is well defined the problem of misuse would be negligible.

Yes, that's the point. It states that the proposal will be well defined and it's aimed at specifically bad things, not tantrums. 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

The follow on question would be how hard would it be to alter the law? I admit ignorance, but is it the same process in Csnada? A whole new law would be needed?

I know no more about laws in Canada than you. 

Perhaps a Canadian poster can clear this up? 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

And the last issue is how hard would it be for a "Trump" to gain power in Canada? Would there even be someone wanted to misuse the law? In the US, sure, there's power grabbing politicians everywhere, but how is the politics in Canada,  eh?

And how is he going to prove what upsets him is actually hate speech? 

It's not like a frivolous open idea is being implemented. There's a genuine threat that this law is specifically targeting. You can't just throw a tantrum and implement the law any more than one can claim a stolen election without any evidence. If it was as easy as that, Trump would have been successful in his insurrection by comparison. 

It's a real problem and I don't know if you have read any of the accounts but they are heartbreaking. One such case in your area I believe. Jadin Bell. It's a helpless situation brought on by new technology that really does need to be addressed. It's more important than the right to post offensive material in public places. IMHO, that's encouraging unacceptable behaviour.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I does seem like if the law is well defined the problem of misuse would be negligible.

The follow on question would be how hard would it be to alter the law? I admit ignorance, but is it the same process in Csnada? A whole new law would be needed?

The process is fairly rigorous:

Proposed legislation is introduced in Parliament in the form of a bill which provides the basis to amend or repeal existing laws or put new ones in place. To become Canadian federal law, a bill must be approved in identical form by both houses of Parliament – the Senate and the House of Commons. All bills follow a process of debate, review and voting. After a bill is passed by both the Senate and the House of Commons, the Governor General grants Royal Assent and the bill becomes a law.

https://learn.parl.ca/understanding-comprendre/en/how-parliament-works/how-a-bill-becomes-a-law/

 

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

And the last issue is how hard would it be for a "Trump" to gain power in Canada? Would there even be someone wanted to misuse the law? In the US, sure, there's power grabbing politicians everywhere, but how is the politics in Canada,  eh?

It would be extremely difficult for a 'Trump' to gain power in Canada. First of all, our Liberal Party is the longest-serving and oldest active federal political party, having dominated federal politics of Canada for much of our history. Our Conservative Party, which I guess in terms of the political spectrum is like the equivalent of your Republican Party, is, in reality, significantly more left-leaning when it comes to actual policy.

The following article nicely summarizes the differences between our Conservative Party and the US Republican Party:

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/571892-canadas-conservatives-show-how-dangerously-skewed-us-politics-have/

So, in short, a 'Trump' in Canada would commit political suicide the minute he opened his mouth.

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Hummm... Frustrating...

I was NOT saying this law is, or should, ban the internet, or an app. I was drawing a parallel based on the internet being used by bullies, and guns bring used to kill people.

To put forward a question of is it fair to restrict the access of 99.9% of users, if it helps 0.1%. I'm sorry I was too suble in my posing of the question.

D'Oh

Stupid me. I get it now. Obviously I was taking your points literally. 

Well see this is a good parallel that can apply. It's not an app or the internet in question. It's a law. Like proper nationwide regulations would work. It targets the bad and isolates it to be dealt with. And alike, over reactions such as "take away the internet!" and "it's giving the government unlimited power to persecute people!" all just hyperbole. Like "guns could never be properly regulated ". 

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The question was, couldn't "Trump" misuse a vague law to suppress opponents. Again, I must have been too suble in asking it. 

Ok, but it's not a vague law, and it's not proposed as an open license to sue people. It's going after the corporation's who fail to implement safety protocols, such as the musk link I used as an example. It's not for individuals to chase each other. The only people who need fear it would be those already doing the wrong thing. Even then, they would come in on charges that already exist, but after charges are laid on the parent company who is affected by this law. 

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

According to some of the Canadian posters, the law will be well defined, so it hopefully is a moot issue, even if a "bad" politician got into power.

According to the information available both at the link and other sources. I'll admit I didn't check Breitbart. 

From the OP and link one:

Bill C-63 aims to force social-media, user-uploaded adult content and live-streaming services to reduce exposure to online content deemed harmful, to strengthen the reporting of *** Blocked ***ography and to better address hate propaganda and provide recourse to victims of hate online.

Following link one we find:

The bill also creates a new Digital Safety Commission, which will be responsible for enforcing rules and holding online services accountable, as well as a separate Digital Safety Ombudsperson, which will support and advocate for users and make recommendations to social media services and the government.

There's nothing there about individuals suing. 

In an extreme situation that could end up in court, the ombudsman can provide advocacy if deemed sound where a circumstance cannot be resolved.

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'm still not getting your criminals angle. Sounds like you mean 100% of criminals use guns and kill people regularly???

No, more than 0.1% is what I'm saying. 

And likely own the least amount of guns. A street rat won't have a room to dedicate to walls of weapons. 

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

As to owning guns, lots of people do. I own two. A hunting rifle and a lever action single shot rifle.

This is where I'm coming from 

Hypothetical:

Everyday Joe goes to work. Loves to shoot on the weekends. Goes through life. Has ten guns in the basement. Locked away. 

One day thirty years on stuff gets to him. He forgets his morning medication. Ends up doing a "Tom Cooper" (from unhinged). Kills eight people. 

Nine guns weren't used to kill, one was.

I strongly suspect that so many guns vs so many shootings suffers a form of parallax error. 

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Happens more often then you think. In nearby Portland the emergency response time is like 20 minutes.

Someone comes into your house, or is robbing your car, or shooting at your teenager, and you call the police, don't expect help for 20 minutes. By then the perpetrators are back home counting what they've stolen, or gloating over whom they've shot.

The police and military are out there chasing down baddies to shoot. Surely you're not telling me crime is as prolific in homes as it is for those who are on the front line going to work knowing they will probably shoot someone this week or month? 

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Depends on if you believe rights are from the State, or... Intrinsic, and only protected by the State.

If it's by the State, then 100% Muslims living under Sharia law in their nation will claim that right. It's in their legal system.

If you believe rights are intrinsic, then the Right to Self Defense is why guns are allowed in the USA. Very simple. Bad guy has gun. Good guy can have gun too.

The situation is circular. 

It's not bad guy has a gun. It's bad guy can have a gun. That's the flaw in vigilante law aka 2A. And where the circle begins. Regulation targets criminal supply. That's the nature of it. 

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

You just wrote... "No, blame the people who are using those tools without proper community standards". Implying its not the internet, or an app, that is bad but those using it wrongly, who should be punished.

Those in the parent organisation unwilling or not caring enough , or can't be arsed spending the money to implement safety protocols where no age limits are required. 

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Using guns wrongly is already punished. 

When it's too late. 

Prevention is the key. Its death as a result. That just can't be fixed. Fines and sentences don't change that. 

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

If you think the guns being removed will fix the issue better, then why wouldnt removing an app (social media platform) do the same thing if its being misused?

I do. I'm for regulation in both instances. 

I've not said ban guns. I've advocated strongly for regulation. Strong regulation as per other western countries. How it's implemented would have to be different but the model and and goal should provide worthy examples. How specific aspects are achieved are unique to all countries. There's no standard model America is expected to adopt. It's not do what we did. It's achieve what we did using any data that can assist with a working solution. 

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

How is your stand on guns different then those posters railing that this law could be abused? Because you are right, and they are dumb? C'Mon...

On the last bit, no comment.

My personal view on weapons is upheld by precedents. 

The posters complaining about this law are claiming it can do thing it cannot do. Reading the OP refutes pretty much all of the paranoia driven arguments 

Americans seem to be the ones pushing Canadian posters to adopt their paranoid stance, but it doesn't seem to be having any effect on the Canadians who seem to be supportive. As I would be if it was here and now. 

Some Americans seem to think everything is America. Outside America, America is on a stage. The Western world gets your television, movies, magazines, news and these days bloggers, social media, and Trump's loud mouth was heard around the world. As such we are more familiar with you than you are with the rest of the world. There's one of you, many of us. So it's understandable. But the government paranoia is more prevalent there than I would think the rest of the western world, so when talking about other countries it's probably a fair thing to say dial back the American a bit when other countries are involved. You've even put in a hit n run post in the past saying Australians should fight for access to weapons as openly and easy as there. Yet you would find the majority of people here wouldn't take your comment well, you would be considered a bit of a you know what. 

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I don't hate regulations. I only want them spelled out in detail, to prevent abuses.

No more than regulation has been proposed though unless you can illustrate otherwise? There's only a framework to put forward, not something bring implemented. 

It's a bit early to be screaming about the sky falling. There's no good reason to do so. If something develops during drafting of the law, then would be the time. But if people are losing their minds already, there's less hope that social media can be a safer place. 

In America it seems a national pastime to scream blue murder everytime the government farts. It's not like that everywhere. 

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Actually we won all the Middle East Wars. But lost at our attempts at nation building. Hoping we could turn Iraq, and Afghanistan, into South Korea, or at least into Western consumer (Customer?) States.

20 years and everything falls in hours. Nothing achieved I all that time. 

That's a loss in anyone's book. It shouldn't be a point of contention, it should at the very least be a learning experience. I'd say Israel learned from it. Hamas will be a thing of the past sometime soon I suspect. After that it gets scary I reckon. 

Edited February 29 by psyche101

[+joc]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Hamas will be a thing of the past sometime soon I suspect. After that it gets scary I reckon. 

It's  never really been anything but scary over there.  Maybe it gets ... scarier?

Edited February 29 by joc

[+OverSword]

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

without a modern precedent.

You're joking.  Do you recall fascism and communism in the 20th century?  Plenty of examples.

[+OverSword]

13 hours ago, joc said:

This is how I see it.  A law that prohibited 'hate speech' with life in prison as a possible consequence would only mean anything if it were a law say in China or North Korea...

Canada...I don't think Canadians are in danger from their government at all.  I just don't see Boot Thug Mounties...or am I missing something?  I don't think so.  

I think it's much to do about nothing.

What would you think if it were the USA making laws that could punish vaguely defined speech a punishable offense?

[+OverSword]

12 hours ago, joc said:

The legislation is mostly focused on protecting minors against online sexual abuse, extortion and exploitation, which have seen a sharp increase in recent years. In a span of a decade, RCMP National Child Exploitation Crime Center reports have increased by 1,077 per cent..

It isn't a slippery slope of any kind...I don't usually read threads like this but I would bet someone said it...wouldn't surprise me anyway.  

Plus, a lot of people don't understand what real hate speech is.  We live in a free society, but there are always consequences for actions that put that society in danger.

Perhaps you missed the other bullet points then.  Specifically numbers 4, 5, and 6. There could be a lot of leeway interpreting these. I say if you want to make a law protecting children then do so but don't use children as a way to sneak in a potentially oppressive agenda.

• Quote

   

  • Content that sexually victimizes a child or re-victimizes a survivor
  •     Content used to bully a child
  •     Content that induces a child to harm themselves
  •     Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism
  •     Content that incites violence
  •     Content that foments hatred, and
  •     Intimate content communicated without consent, including deepfakes.

   

   

[+joc]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

Perhaps you missed the other bullet points then.  Specifically numbers 4, 5, and 6. There could be a lot of leeway interpreting these. I say if you want to make a law protecting children then do so but don't use children as a way to sneak in a potentially oppressive agenda.

•  

I don't see anything oppressive about it.  And I don't see it as 'sneaky' either.  And I don't see Canadian Authority as Jack Booted Thugs either.

I honestly don't see what  you are obviously seeing. 

[Doug1066]

21 hours ago, DayoOlabisi said:

we'll have none of that now. i'm told courts aren't political.

Somebody told you wrong.

Doug

[+joc]

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

What would you think if it were the USA making laws that could punish vaguely defined speech a punishable offense?

It isn't though is it?  Canada and other countries may have similar constitutions.  But the US has the US Constitution...and it is a different animal altogether. 

Edited February 29 by joc