• A nation that lost its free speech

    From Loran@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jun 15 14:41:47 2024
    XPost: can.politics, talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: alt.privacy

    And oddly the Alan troll just can' seem to deal with it.

    He must be a Turdeau-sponsored social media shill.

    It is kind of unfair to hold the rest of the nation to task when they
    know all too well that the way Canaduh persecuted preachers, truckers,
    and unvaxed citizens during Covid means it would be hopeless to resist
    and life in prison to speak out.

    Brutal fascism it is, just brutal.


    https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2024/03/22/free-speech-is-under-such-threat-in-canada-it-would-make-orwell-blush/

    Shockingly, the Canadian government is pushing new legislation that
    would, among other abominations, allow you to be arrested if a judge is convinced you are about to say something that is considered unlawful.

    That’s right: You don’t have to say it to be arrested, just the
    suspicion that you might. Canada is about to make a reality of what
    George Orwell labeled “thoughtcrime” in his dystopian novel 1984.

    Cuba, North Korea and other tyrannies are applauding.

    https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ottawas-move-to-regulate-video-posts-on-youtube-and-social-media-called-assault-on-free-speech

    The Liberal-dominated House of Commons Heritage committee has cleared
    the way for the federal government to regulate video content on internet
    social media, such as YouTube, the same way it regulates national
    broadcasting, under a new amendment made to a bill updating the
    Broadcasting Act.

    Critics denounced the move to give the country’s broadcast regulator the ability to oversee user-generated content, and said it amounted to an
    attack on the free expression of Canadians, particularly in light of
    Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault’s recent plans to give Ottawa power
    to order take-downs of online content it deems objectionable.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/06/canada-online-harms-act/678605/

    In 1984, George Orwell coined the term thoughtcrime. In the short story
    “The Minority Report,” the science-fiction author Philip K. Dick gave us the concept of “precrime,” describing a society where would-be criminals were arrested before they could act. Now Canada is combining the
    concepts in a work of dystopian nonfiction: A bill making its way
    through Parliament would impose draconian criminal penalties on hate
    speech and curtail people’s liberty in order to stop future crimes they haven’t yet committed.

    The Online Harms Act states that any person who advocates for or
    promotes genocide is “liable to imprisonment for life.” It defines
    lesser “hate crimes” as including online speech that is “likely to
    foment detestation or vilification” on the basis of race, religion,
    gender, or other protected categories. And if someone “fears” they may become a victim of a hate crime, they can go before a judge, who may
    summon the preemptively accused for a sort of precrime trial. If the
    judge finds “reasonable grounds” for the fear, the defendant must enter into “a recognizance.”

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Loran on Sat Jun 15 13:51:52 2024
    XPost: can.politics, talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: alt.privacy

    On 2024-06-15 13:41, Loran wrote:
    And oddly the Alan troll just can' seem to deal with it.

    There's nothing to deal with.

    It's not law yet.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Loran@21:1/5 to Alan on Sat Jun 15 15:17:30 2024
    XPost: can.politics, talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: alt.privacy

    Alan wrote:
    On 2024-06-15 13:41, Loran wrote:
    And oddly the Alan troll just can' seem to deal with it.

    There's nothing to deal with.

    It's not law yet.

    ROTFLMFAO!

    It soon will be as your odious history of chilling free speech instructs:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Canada

    Freedom of expression in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom"
    by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; however, in practice the Charter permits the government to enforce "reasonable"
    limits censoring speech. Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are
    common categories of restricted speech in Canada. During the 1970
    October Crisis, the War Measures Act was used to limit speech from the
    militant political opposition.

    In the province of Quebec, freedom of expression is restricted in the
    interest of protecting the French language. Outdoor commercial signage
    may only use English text if it is half the size of the French text
    under the Charter of the French language, or businesses can face
    financial penalties. The Supreme Court ruled the signage regulation a "reasonable" limit on the freedom of expression.

    Internet censorship may also be undertaken by the corporations that
    control access - Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In 2005, a major
    Canadian ISP, Telus, blocked access to a website set up to publicize the
    views of a labour union in conflict with the company. The Canadian Telecommunications Act prohibits carriers controlling the content they
    carry for the public; however Telus argued that it acted within the law,
    citing its contractual power to block certain sites. The block
    incidentally affected hundreds of unrelated websites...

    Communications control institutions are governmental agencies that
    regulate, may change the media, regulations, and new regulatory bodies.
    In 1982, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said: "When the media do not
    discipline themselves, the state steps in".[22]: 91  There are some inter-media control institutions that regulate themselves to avoid being regulated by the government such as: The Canadian Association of
    Broadcasters, the Ontario Press Council, publishers associations, and advertising groups.

    In 2004, broadcast carriers were to monitor foreign stations at all
    times and delete any content that may go against the Canadian Charter of
    Rights and Freedoms. Restrictions were placed on the broadcasting
    license for Al-Jazeera, an Arabic-language news network, by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Canada

    In Canada, appeals by the judiciary to community standards and the
    public interest are the ultimate determinants of which forms of
    expression may legally be published, broadcast, or otherwise publicly disseminated.[1] Other public organisations with the authority to censor include some tribunals and courts under provincial human rights laws,
    and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission,
    along with self-policing associations of private corporations such as
    the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and the Canadian Broadcast
    Standards Council.

    Over the 20th century, legal standards for censorship in Canada shifted
    from a "strong state-centred practice", intended to protect the
    community from perceived social degradation, to a more decentralised
    form of censorship often instigated by societal groups invoking the
    state to restrict the public expression of political and ideological
    opponents.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D. Ray@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 16 07:03:05 2024
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, talk.politics.misc
    XPost: alt.privacy

    Canada is about to make a reality of what
    George Orwell labeled “thoughtcrime” in his dystopian novel 1984.

    They want to do the same thing in United States.

    <https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64491>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Loran@21:1/5 to D. Ray on Sun Jun 16 10:50:24 2024
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, talk.politics.misc
    XPost: alt.privacy

    D. Ray wrote:
    Canada is about to make a reality of what
    George Orwell labeled “thoughtcrime” in his dystopian novel 1984.

    They want to do the same thing in United States.

    <https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64491>


    Good context:

    As I reported in April, the bill was introduced by a bipartisan pair of AIPAC-funded senators -- Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Sen. James Lankford
    (R-OK) -- and championed by the ADL for its provisions aimed at
    stripping Americans of their free speech rights.

    RINO traitors must be dealt with!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mark@invalid.com@21:1/5 to Loran on Sun Jun 16 14:12:40 2024
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, talk.politics.misc
    XPost: alt.privacy

    On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 10:50:24 -0600, Loran <loran@invalid.net> wrote:

    D. Ray wrote:
    Canada is about to make a reality of what
    George Orwell labeled thoughtcrime in his dystopian novel 1984.

    They want to do the same thing in United States.

    <https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64491>


    Good context:

    As I reported in April, the bill was introduced by a bipartisan pair of >AIPAC-funded senators -- Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Sen. James Lankford >(R-OK) -- and championed by the ADL for its provisions aimed at
    stripping Americans of their free speech rights.

    RINO traitors must be dealt with!

    You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech"
    advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.

    As has been said, "you are not allowed to falsely yell fire in a
    crowded theater."

    You people get to damn complicated with all your frantic "solutions".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From CaLaVeRa@21:1/5 to mark@invalid.com on Sun Jun 16 14:08:58 2024
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, talk.politics.misc
    XPost: alt.privacy

    On 6/16/2024 1:12 PM, mark@invalid.com wrote:
    On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 10:50:24 -0600, Loran <loran@invalid.net> wrote:

    D. Ray wrote:
    Canada is about to make a reality of what
    George Orwell labeled “thoughtcrime” in his dystopian novel 1984.

    They want to do the same thing in United States.

    <https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64491>


    Good context:

    As I reported in April, the bill was introduced by a bipartisan pair of
    AIPAC-funded senators -- Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Sen. James Lankford
    (R-OK) -- and championed by the ADL for its provisions aimed at
    stripping Americans of their free speech rights.

    RINO traitors must be dealt with!

    You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech" advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.

    As has been said, "you are not allowed to falsely yell fire in a
    crowded theater."

    You people get to damn complicated with all your frantic "solutions".

    So quick to discard rights we barely can enumerate let alone explain today.

    Sad times.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Siri Cruise@21:1/5 to mark@invalid.com on Sun Jun 16 18:25:39 2024
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, talk.politics.misc
    XPost: alt.privacy

    mark@invalid.com wrote:
    You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech" advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.

    Not the USA. You can only get in trouble if you commit a real
    crime or take material steps thereof.

    --
    Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
    'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
    The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
    of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mark@invalid.com@21:1/5 to chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com on Sun Jun 16 20:42:29 2024
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, talk.politics.misc
    XPost: alt.privacy

    On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 18:25:39 -0700, Siri Cruise
    <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

    mark@invalid.com wrote:
    You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech"
    advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.

    Not the USA. You can only get in trouble if you commit a real
    crime or take material steps thereof.

    That's nonsense that only a "real" crime is punishable.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

    The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is
    unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent
    lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[8]

    Incitement to suicide
    In 2017, a juvenile court in Massachusetts ruled that repeatedly
    encouraging someone to commit suicide was not protected by the First Amendment,[12] and found a 20-year-old woman, who was 17 at the time
    of the offense, guilty of manslaughter on this basis.[13] The judge
    cited a little-known 1816 precedent.[14] On February 6, 2019, the
    Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the defendant acted
    with criminal intent, so her involuntary manslaughter conviction was
    ordered to stand.[15] The United States Supreme Court declined to hear
    the case in January 2020, leaving in place the Massachusetts Supreme
    Court conviction.[16]

    Fighting words
    Main article: Fighting words
    A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive
    speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)

    In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that
    speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[37] Fighting
    words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an
    immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is
    a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary
    citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to
    provoke a violent reaction".[38] Additionally, such speech must be
    "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen
    as a 'direct personal insult'".[39][40]

    "True threats of violence" that are directed at a person or group of
    persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily
    harm or death are generally unprotected.[41] However, there are
    several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that
    "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand
    them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[42][43] Additionally, threats
    of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.[44]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Josh Rosenbluth@21:1/5 to mark@invalid.com on Sun Jun 16 19:39:56 2024
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, talk.politics.misc
    XPost: alt.privacy

    On 6/16/2024 6:42 PM, mark@invalid.com wrote:
    On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 18:25:39 -0700, Siri Cruise
    <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

    mark@invalid.com wrote:
    You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech"
    advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.

    Not the USA. You can only get in trouble if you commit a real
    crime or take material steps thereof.

    That's nonsense that only a "real" crime is punishable.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

    True, but you were wrong when you claimed advocacy of violence is not
    protected by the First Amendment. To the contrary, it is generally
    protected with the exceptions noted below: 1) incitement of imminent
    lawless conduct, 2) criminal intent, 3) fighting words, and 4) true threats.

    Thus, if someone writes an editorial arguing that "Jews who support
    Israel should be killed," that's almost certainly protected by the First Amendment.
    The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is
    unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent
    lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[8]

    Incitement to suicide
    In 2017, a juvenile court in Massachusetts ruled that repeatedly
    encouraging someone to commit suicide was not protected by the First Amendment,[12] and found a 20-year-old woman, who was 17 at the time
    of the offense, guilty of manslaughter on this basis.[13] The judge
    cited a little-known 1816 precedent.[14] On February 6, 2019, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the defendant acted
    with criminal intent, so her involuntary manslaughter conviction was
    ordered to stand.[15] The United States Supreme Court declined to hear
    the case in January 2020, leaving in place the Massachusetts Supreme
    Court conviction.[16]

    Fighting words
    Main article: Fighting words
    A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive
    speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)

    In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that
    speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[37] Fighting
    words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is
    a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary
    citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to
    provoke a violent reaction".[38] Additionally, such speech must be
    "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen
    as a 'direct personal insult'".[39][40]

    "True threats of violence" that are directed at a person or group of
    persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily
    harm or death are generally unprotected.[41] However, there are
    several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that
    "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand
    them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[42][43] Additionally, threats
    of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.[44]




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From 26xh.0717@21:1/5 to mark@invalid.com on Mon Jun 17 00:44:36 2024
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, talk.politics.misc
    XPost: alt.privacy

    On 6/16/24 9:42 PM, mark@invalid.com wrote:
    On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 18:25:39 -0700, Siri Cruise
    <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

    mark@invalid.com wrote:
    You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech"
    advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.

    Not the USA. You can only get in trouble if you commit a real
    crime or take material steps thereof.

    That's nonsense that only a "real" crime is punishable.


    But NOW we have THOUGHT-CRIMES ....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Loran@21:1/5 to Siri Cruise on Mon Jun 17 08:29:19 2024
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, talk.politics.misc
    XPost: alt.privacy

    Siri Cruise wrote:
    mark@invalid.com wrote:
    You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech"
    advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.

    Not the USA. You can only get in trouble if you commit a real crime or
    take material steps thereof.

    XIDEN crime family, you scabrous meth whore.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D. Ray@21:1/5 to mark@invalid.com on Tue Jun 18 13:50:44 2024
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, talk.politics.misc
    XPost: alt.privacy

    <mark@invalid.com> wrote:
    On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 10:50:24 -0600, Loran <loran@invalid.net> wrote:

    D. Ray wrote:
    Canada is about to make a reality of what
    George Orwell labeled “thoughtcrime” in his dystopian novel 1984.

    They want to do the same thing in United States.

    <https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64491>


    Good context:

    As I reported in April, the bill was introduced by a bipartisan pair of
    AIPAC-funded senators -- Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Sen. James Lankford
    (R-OK) -- and championed by the ADL for its provisions aimed at
    stripping Americans of their free speech rights.

    RINO traitors must be dealt with!

    You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech" advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.

    Oh, but of course only certain people with big noses and small hats can say
    if speech in question advocates violence or not, right? For example,
    according to those people “free Palestine” is definitely advocating violence while calls to “destroy Whiteness” and phrases like “death to America” and “we’re coming for your children” are free speech. Right?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From CaLaVeRa@21:1/5 to Alan on Mon Jun 24 09:31:34 2024
    XPost: can.politics, talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
    XPost: alt.privacy

    On 6/15/2024 2:51 PM, Alan wrote:
    There's nothing to deal with.




    https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2024/03/22/free-speech-is-under-such-threat-in-canada-it-would-make-orwell-blush/

    Shockingly, the Canadian government is pushing new legislation that
    would, among other abominations, allow you to be arrested if a judge is convinced you are about to say something that is considered unlawful.

    That’s right: You don’t have to say it to be arrested, just the
    suspicion that you might. Canada is about to make a reality of what
    George Orwell labeled “thoughtcrime” in his dystopian novel 1984.

    Cuba, North Korea and other tyrannies are applauding.

    https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ottawas-move-to-regulate-video-posts-on-youtube-and-social-media-called-assault-on-free-speech

    The Liberal-dominated House of Commons Heritage committee has cleared
    the way for the federal government to regulate video content on internet
    social media, such as YouTube, the same way it regulates national
    broadcasting, under a new amendment made to a bill updating the
    Broadcasting Act.

    Critics denounced the move to give the country’s broadcast regulator the ability to oversee user-generated content, and said it amounted to an
    attack on the free expression of Canadians, particularly in light of
    Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault’s recent plans to give Ottawa power
    to order take-downs of online content it deems objectionable.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/06/canada-online-harms-act/678605/

    In 1984, George Orwell coined the term thoughtcrime. In the short story
    “The Minority Report,” the science-fiction author Philip K. Dick gave us the concept of “precrime,” describing a society where would-be criminals were arrested before they could act. Now Canada is combining the
    concepts in a work of dystopian nonfiction: A bill making its way
    through Parliament would impose draconian criminal penalties on hate
    speech and curtail people’s liberty in order to stop future crimes they haven’t yet committed.

    The Online Harms Act states that any person who advocates for or
    promotes genocide is “liable to imprisonment for life.” It defines
    lesser “hate crimes” as including online speech that is “likely to
    foment detestation or vilification” on the basis of race, religion,
    gender, or other protected categories. And if someone “fears” they may become a victim of a hate crime, they can go before a judge, who may
    summon the preemptively accused for a sort of precrime trial. If the
    judge finds “reasonable grounds” for the fear, the defendant must enter into “a recognizance.”

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)