[Martin15]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

HOLY FUCK NOBODY IS ARBITRARILY DECIDING WHATS ILLEGAL OR NOT WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS NONSENSE???

Go re-read my last post please. For the love of god.

[llama66]

Beve- ever hear of creep?

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

Goombye CKA. See y'all in the bread line at the re-education camp. What a fuckin' pajama-boy country this now is.

I'll buy CKA from Trevor, move it to a US server, and then send Trudeau a handwritten letter inviting him to kiss my ass.

[BartSimpson]

newz newz:

Can I still state that islam is a steaming pile of dogshit?

Further, when I prove islam is a steaming pile of dogshit in court, will I be found guilty of offending peoples feelings and therefore charged with hate speech despite the fact that I have used their own texts to make my case?

Truth is not a defense for the cucks on the left. If anything truth is an even greater crime than is the underlying charge.

[Freakinoldguy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

HOLY FUCK NOBODY IS ARBITRARILY DECIDING WHATS ILLEGAL OR NOT WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS NONSENSE???

Go re-read my last post please. For the love of god.

Okay since this appears to have turned into an argument about semantics i'm going to ask one question to clear up my concerns and then I'll let it rest.

So, here we go:

$1:

Justin Trudeau has told four of his cabinet ministers in his mandate letters to them that they are tasked with regulating online hate speech. Trudeau told the new heritage minister that he’s to “create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a strong requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties.” Except Trudeau doesn’t include a definition of “hate speech,” nor does he direct the heritage minister to come up with a definition.

https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61028

So here's the question.

If we have laws that clearly define what constitutes "hate speech" why did Trudeau find a need to instruct the Heritage Minister to "create new regulations for social media platforms" pertaining to hate speech on the internet?

[llama66]

Exactly, the problem now, Beve, becomes what qualifies as "hate speech". Is it the usual Nazi dreck, or do they add anyone with a dissenting view?

Mandates like this are great ways to whittle away freedoms,

[herbie]

Oh FFS the "freedom" to use hate speech?
I assume that Judges will "arbitrarily" decide if what someone does is hate speech, just like they arbitrarily fake news witch hunt maliciously persecute bank robbers.

Jesus, you guys have swallowed so much of your own bullshit you think everything is a threat or conspiracy against you.

[CharlesAnthony]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

If we have laws that clearly define what constitutes "hate speech" why did Trudeau find a need to instruct the Heritage Minister to "create new regulations for social media platforms" pertaining to hate speech on the internet?

In The Anarcky, it is called a trial balloon.

Trudeau's boss is testing the waters to see how the tards respond.

[llama66]

Hate Speech is already illegal.

$1:

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

So, the question is if there is already a law on the books, why does the government feel the need to further crack down on speech?

Because it's less about "Hate Speech" and more about asserting control over the populace. Telling people what to say and what to think is the ultimate goal of this government, they want everyone to be good little drones and not question their decisions. its basically the worst parts of 1984.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So here's the question.

If we have laws that clearly define what constitutes "hate speech" why did Trudeau find a need to instruct the Heritage Minister to "create new regulations for social media platforms" pertaining to hate speech on the internet?

Ever notice how often the question is also the answer?

[llama66]

It's still covered under 319(1). Social Media is considered "Public Domain"

[Freakinoldguy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So here's the question.

If we have laws that clearly define what constitutes "hate speech" why did Trudeau find a need to instruct the Heritage Minister to "create new regulations for social media platforms" pertaining to hate speech on the internet?

Ever notice how often the question is also the answer?

'

Sorry, that isn't the answer.

But, since you seem to think that it is, could you explain why the current hate laws be can't applied to the internet like they are for every other form of media?

I can't go on TV or rent newspaper space and spout hate speech so why should I be able to do it on the internet and why should the Liberal Gov't need a whole new set of different laws to stop me when the current ones are still applicable no matter the media.

[herbie]

Simple: do you want Faceboook, Twitter and Instagram do some self-policing because they'd be liable or do you want to hire a shitload of cops to sit on their butts combing the Internet all day?

[Freakinoldguy]

herbie herbie:

Simple: do you want Faceboook, Twitter and Instagram do some self-policing because they'd be liable or do you want to hire a shitload of cops to sit on their butts combing the Internet all day?

We already have enforcement for our current "hate laws" both on and off the net, so why do we need even more laws when, what we actually might need is more police to do the job properly.

$1:

Law enforcement agencies have been forced to acknowledge that given the size of networks such as Facebook (which has more than 18 million users in Canada), they cannot be policed without the help of the tech companies themselves.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal ... -1.4501653

Although as mentioned before this might just be another attempt by the Liberals to bring back this piece of free speech stifling crap:

$1:

The law had been enormously contentious, with critics of all political stripes arguing it was overly broad and had weak safeguards around speech rights. Its defenders said the law was a necessary tool to fight hate messages spread through the internet.

Section 13 made it a discriminatory practice to convey messages over the phone or internet that contain “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt,” as long as those people were “identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

Instead of proceeding through the criminal courts, complaints made under Section 13 were dealt with in the quasi-judicial Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which hears complaints made under the Act. If a Section 13 complaint was upheld, the tribunal could levy fines of up to $10,000 and issue cease-and-desist orders.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ ... ed-in-2013

[BartSimpson]

herbie herbie:

Oh FFS the "freedom" to use hate speech?
I assume that Judges will "arbitrarily" decide if what someone does is hate speech, just like they arbitrarily fake news witch hunt maliciously persecute bank robbers.

Jesus, you guys have swallowed so much of your own bullshit you think everything is a threat or conspiracy against you.

I hate people who want to use force to silence others.

I have no compunctions or qualms about using disproportionate and excessive force to frustrate, incapacitate, and destroy such people wherever they may be found. I also encourage others to stand up for liberty and to oppose tyrannical authoritarians by any and all means.

If that constitutes 'hate speech' then so be it.