[Newsbot]

Title: Trudeau announces �digital charter,� tells social media companies to fight fake news or be fined
Category: Misc CDN
Posted By: N_Fiddledog
Date: 2019-05-17 10:13:45
Canadian

[llama66]

Another attempt to shave rights away for the people.

Censoring what is said, thought or written is an affront to democracy. What's to stop government from declaring "right" news media or media that critisizes the government as fake?

Just another step closer to the death of freedom of the press, and freedom of thought, opinion and expression.

I mean we've already seen dear leader's totalitarian tendencies, with the SNC and Adm. Norman investigation stonewallings, this will just be another tool for the Federal Government to maintain control and keep themselves in power.

[DrCaleb]

llama66 llama66:

Another attempt to shave rights away for the people.

Censoring what is said, thought or written is an affront to democracy. What's to stop government from declaring "right" news media or media that critisizes the government as fake?

We'll have to see what this charter is to know that.

I've seen some pretty well done fake news on Facebook. One really pissed me off, which was the point. Until I looked into it, and it was 100% fake. Then it pissed me off that I fell for it.

Which was the point of the fake news, to piss me off.

[peck420]

llama66 llama66:

Another attempt to shave rights away for the people.

As the laws that pertain to defamation have not changed, exactly what rights are being shaved?

Be specific.

[DrCaleb]

This is one example:

[llama66]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

llama66 llama66:

Another attempt to shave rights away for the people.

Censoring what is said, thought or written is an affront to democracy. What's to stop government from declaring "right" news media or media that critisizes the government as fake?

We'll have to see what this charter is to know that.

I've seen some pretty well done fake news on Facebook. One really pissed me off, which was the point. Until I looked into it, and it was 100% fake. Then it pissed me off that I fell for it.

Which was the point of the fake news, to piss me off.

I see the same shit on FB too. But seriously, if you do some digging, it quickly becomes evident what's credible and what's absolute bullshit. But the onus is on YOU, the reader to exercise some intelligence and do the leg work. Think a little. The government has no right telling me how or what to think. That action is reminiscent of another country.

[raydan]

The problem will be to define what is "news".

[peck420]

llama66 llama66:

But the onus is on YOU, the reader to exercise some intelligence and do the leg work. Think a little. The government has no right telling me how or what to think. That action is reminiscent of another country.

Incorrect.

The onus on every other medium is on the CRTC. The way this latest release is worded, it appears that our government would like the same action for social media.

Note the listed consequence....a fine.

I imagine our "grand strategy" on this, is nothing more than giving CRTC "truthiness rules" teeth on social media.

[DrCaleb]

llama66 llama66:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

llama66 llama66:

Another attempt to shave rights away for the people.

Censoring what is said, thought or written is an affront to democracy. What's to stop government from declaring "right" news media or media that critisizes the government as fake?

We'll have to see what this charter is to know that.

I've seen some pretty well done fake news on Facebook. One really pissed me off, which was the point. Until I looked into it, and it was 100% fake. Then it pissed me off that I fell for it.

Which was the point of the fake news, to piss me off.

I see the same shit on FB too. But seriously, if you do some digging, it quickly becomes evident what's credible and what's absolute bullshit. But the onus is on YOU, the reader to exercise some intelligence and do the leg work. Think a little. The government has no right telling me how or what to think. That action is reminiscent of another country.

The problem is, most people don't think. They react. It tends to be one or two people on FB, constantly falling for this BS and publishing it. It gets boring always telling them it's bullshit, and to be more careful. But they never do.

So like Peck says, Libel/slander/defamation laws have existed forever. Perhaps it's time to hold social media companies feet to the fire, and remind them that they are responsible for things they are aware of. Right now, they get more traffic by ignoring the law and republishing these things.

I found that image, of a complete fabrication, easily on Youtube.

[llama66]

peck420 peck420:

llama66 llama66:

Another attempt to shave rights away for the people.

As the laws that pertain to defamation have not changed, exactly what rights are being shaved?

Be specific.

From the CCRF
Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Freedom of the press means just that, Freedom. So long as they are not defaming or acting in malice they can report on what they deem relevant. Declaring some media as "fake" is a Trumpean tactic, media is media, either you agree with it or you don't. By creating a "Charter" to "guide" the media violate's the media's freedom of the press; because suddenly the press is no longer free.

[llama66]

peck420 peck420:

llama66 llama66:

But the onus is on YOU, the reader to exercise some intelligence and do the leg work. Think a little. The government has no right telling me how or what to think. That action is reminiscent of another country.

Incorrect.

The onus on every other medium is on the CRTC. The way this latest release is worded, it appears that our government would like the same action for social media.

Note the listed consequence....a fine.

I imagine our "grand strategy" on this, is nothing more than giving CRTC "truthiness rules" teeth on social media.

Charter trumps CRTC

No need for it, its unconstitutional.

Define truth.

[peck420]

llama66 llama66:

Charter trumps CRTC

Section 1 supersedes Section 2, per the Supreme Court of Canada.

$1:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

[llama66]

peck420 peck420:

llama66 llama66:

Charter trumps CRTC

Section 1 supersedes Section 2, per the Supreme Court of Canada.

$1:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

CRTC isn't mentioned in Section 1, how odd. Key words "Free" and "Democratic". Controlling the media is NOT a hallmark of a "free" society. Free means we get both good and bad media, it is incumbent on the individual to discern the difference. NOT for the Government to legislate the difference.

[peck420]

llama66 llama66:

peck420 peck420:

llama66 llama66:

Charter trumps CRTC

Section 1 supersedes Section 2, per the Supreme Court of Canada.

$1:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

CRTC isn't mentioned in Section 1, how odd. Key words "Free" and "Democratic". Controlling the media is NOT a hallmark of a "free" society. Free means we get both good and bad media, it is incumbent on the individual to discern the difference. NOT for the Government to legislate the difference.

Ahh, now I know you're just being obtuse.

If you have a problem with this, it has only been law for 34 years now. You had plenty of time to change it.

FYI, Section 1 refers to "limits prescribed by law", which absolutely covers CRTC, who was given legal authority with the passing of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Act in 1985.

[DrCaleb]

llama66 llama66:

Controlling the media is NOT a hallmark of a "free" society. Free means we get both good and bad media, it is incumbent on the individual to discern the difference. NOT for the Government to legislate the difference.

Controlling media is one thing, but defining a profession is another. Government defines all sorts of professional organizations, such as Doctor, Lawyer and Engineer.

Why not define 'Journalist'? There used to be an informal definition, ie: you worked for a newspaper. Then a TV News crew. But when anyone can hang a sign and say "I'm a Journalist", are they? Orson Wells "War of the Worlds" blurred that line. Some guy with a website can come along now and report things like 'news', but if it never actually happened, do we call him a journalist or fiction writer?

Should he have to state "Fiction, for entertainment purposes" in the copy? And what about actual newspapers that publish advertisements as if they were stories? Shouldn't that be identified?