[Newsbot]

Title: Trudeau directs cabinet to regulate internet �hate speech�
Category: Political
Posted By: Freakinoldguy
Date: 2019-12-15 22:42:38
Canadian

[Freakinoldguy]

If accurate this is more than a little disconcerting and without a definition of what constitutes hate speech it leave the door open for all kinds of abuses by the Gov't.

But of course the left will see it as necessary to ensure that people don't have their feelings hurt. While, the rest of us will see it for what it really is. A Liberal attempt to stifle free speech especially if it's not politically correct and happens to be anti Liberal.

$1:

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.

True North's Andrew Lawton, who covered the government's online hate study last year, warns this could be the return of a supercharged version of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, meaning a limitation of free speech.

[Thanos]

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

[BeaverFever]

True North another one of these pop-up right wing online rags. I noticed the “Trudeau hate speech” article making its way across the right’s propaganda platforms like Sputnik I guess TN has its marching orders

For the record thus is what the mandate letter directive actually says

$1:

Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties. This should include other online harms such as radicalization, incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda.

https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/min ... ate-letter


So as usual this is just more overblown anti-Trudeau hysteria and propaganda.

As for FOGs comments about there not being a definition of hate speech , there’s plenty of case law that establishes the criteria it’s not up to the PM or Minister to invent a definition. A court or tribunal will decide if they’re applying it properly. This has been your education session for the day

[CharlesAnthony]

Great news!
Completely fucking useless lawyers need more work!!

[Freakinoldguy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

True North another one of these pop-up right wing online rags. I noticed the “Trudeau hate speech” article making its way across the right’s propaganda platforms like Sputnik I guess TN has its marching orders

For the record thus is what the mandate letter directive actually says

$1:

Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties. This should include other online harms such as radicalization, incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda.

https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/min ... ate-letter


So as usual this is just more overblown anti-Trudeau hysteria and propaganda.

As for FOGs comments about there not being a definition of hate speech , there’s plenty of case law that establishes the criteria it’s not up to the PM or Minister to invent a definition. A court or tribunal will decide if they’re applying it properly. This has been your education session for the day

$1:

Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties. This should include other online harms such as radicalization, incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda.

I'll agree that the True North's use of words in this article are inaccurate because like you say there is a definition of "hate speech" in Canadian law. But, the term "Create new regulations for social media platforms starting with a requirement to remove illegal content" could and should be viewed as an indictment that the gov't considers the definition of "illegal content" open to their own interpretation when it comes to social media pages.

So the real test of these "illegal content laws" will be when the Rebel Media or any of the other non left wing social media outlets gets hauled up in front of the HRC or SCoC which they undoubtedly will for breaking some heretofor unknown gov't ban on what the lib's consider "illegal content"

So, while the True North's choice of words may have been wrong their concern was right.

[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 dispite the fact that I have used their own texts to make my case?

[Martin15]

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 dispite the fact that I have used their own texts to make my case?

There is a judge in Canada who already ruled using the truth won't help.

[BeaverFever]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

True North another one of these pop-up right wing online rags. I noticed the “Trudeau hate speech” article making its way across the right’s propaganda platforms like Sputnik I guess TN has its marching orders

For the record thus is what the mandate letter directive actually says

$1:

Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties. This should include other online harms such as radicalization, incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda.

https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/min ... ate-letter


So as usual this is just more overblown anti-Trudeau hysteria and propaganda.

As for FOGs comments about there not being a definition of hate speech , there’s plenty of case law that establishes the criteria it’s not up to the PM or Minister to invent a definition. A court or tribunal will decide if they’re applying it properly. This has been your education session for the day

$1:

Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties. This should include other online harms such as radicalization, incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda.

I'll agree that the True North's use of words in this article are inaccurate because like you say there is a definition of "hate speech" in Canadian law. But, the term "Create new regulations for social media platforms starting with a requirement to remove illegal content" could and should be viewed as an indictment that the gov't considers the definition of "illegal content" open to their own interpretation when it comes to social media pages.

So the real test of these "illegal content laws" will be when the Rebel Media or any of the other non left wing social media outlets gets hauled up in front of the HRC or SCoC which they undoubtedly will for breaking some heretofor unknown gov't ban on what the lib's consider "illegal content"

So, while the True North's choice of words may have been wrong their concern was right.

Uh no. You’re desperately reaching again. Illegal means illegal. That’s pretty clear. As in expressly prohibited by law. Like kiddie porn or ISIS videos.

Right now there are no regulations specifying how social media companies should handle this kind of content when its posted to their sites and what responsibilities they have to proactively identify, remove and report it to authorities. We currently rely on social media companies’ to voluntarily police themselves and enforce their own internal guidelines while the companies try to argue they should have zero responsibility.

[stratos]

I know this is false because if it was true BeaverFever or at least 70% of his comments would be found as hate speech and thus removed.

[Freakinoldguy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Uh no. You’re desperately reaching again. Illegal means illegal. That’s pretty clear. As in expressly prohibited by law. Like kiddie porn or ISIS videos.

Right now there are no regulations specifying how social media companies should handle this kind of content when its posted to their sites and what responsibilities they have to proactively identify, remove and report it to authorities. We currently rely on social media companies’ to voluntarily police themselves and enforce their own internal guidelines while the companies try to argue they should have zero responsibility.

Desperately reaching, my ass.

$1:

Internet

Internet content is not specifically regulated in Canada, however local laws apply to websites hosted in Canada as well as to residents who host sites on servers in other jurisdictions. A well-known example is the case of Ernst Zündel, who was investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for promoting ethnic hatred via his website.

In November 2006, Canadian Internet service providers Bell, Bell Aliant, MTS Allstream, Rogers, Shaw, SaskTel, Telus, and Vidéotron announced Project Cleanfeed Canada, a voluntary effort to block websites hosting child pornography. The list of blocked sites is compiled from reports by Internet users and investigated by the independent organization Cybertip.ca. Project Cleanfeed was praised following its founding by Royal Canadian Mounted Police Supt. Earla-Kim McColl (then-head of the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre).[34]

In October 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that online publications cannot be found liable for linking to defamatory material as long as the linking itself is not defamatory.[35]

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

So just like you said.Canada as a country has no specific laws which define what is ILLEGAL on the internet which means that Trudeau and the Minister of Justice now have a blank slate to consider what they want to, as "illegal". Fair enough they're the gov't but what's bothering people is that there's been no definition of what's illegal which means that it's open to Liberal gov't interpretation.

So, like it or not their reluctance to publicly come out with a policy or list of what they consider illegal on the internet before enforcing it certainly smacks of a star chamber like attitude. Especially since there are already enough laws on the books to keep the anti gov't groups, racists, Muslim extremists, kiddie diddlers, riot inciting assholes and others from using the internet or any other form of the media to spread their hate.

But, here's the big question. Given their blase attitude towards regulating the internet up to the announcement, are they going to even bother introducing a bill that specifically states what they consider illegal or are they just going to enforce it without it becoming a law and if they do are they going to allow it to stand on it's own merits. Or are they going to try and jam it through in an omnibus bill and hope nobody notices because it might stifle free speech?

My monies on the latter, if at all.

[PluggyRug]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Uh no. You’re desperately reaching again. Illegal means illegal. That’s pretty clear.

It's not clear, what's legal today could become illegal tomorrow depending on dear leaders current brand of weed.

[BeaverFever]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Uh no. You’re desperately reaching again. Illegal means illegal. That’s pretty clear. As in expressly prohibited by law. Like kiddie porn or ISIS videos.

Right now there are no regulations specifying how social media companies should handle this kind of content when its posted to their sites and what responsibilities they have to proactively identify, remove and report it to authorities. We currently rely on social media companies’ to voluntarily police themselves and enforce their own internal guidelines while the companies try to argue they should have zero responsibility.

Desperately reaching, my ass.

$1:

Internet

Internet content is not specifically regulated in Canada, however local laws apply to websites hosted in Canada as well as to residents who host sites on servers in other jurisdictions. A well-known example is the case of Ernst Zündel, who was investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for promoting ethnic hatred via his website.

In November 2006, Canadian Internet service providers Bell, Bell Aliant, MTS Allstream, Rogers, Shaw, SaskTel, Telus, and Vidéotron announced Project Cleanfeed Canada, a voluntary effort to block websites hosting child pornography. The list of blocked sites is compiled from reports by Internet users and investigated by the independent organization Cybertip.ca. Project Cleanfeed was praised following its founding by Royal Canadian Mounted Police Supt. Earla-Kim McColl (then-head of the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre).[34]

In October 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that online publications cannot be found liable for linking to defamatory material as long as the linking itself is not defamatory.[35]

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

So just like you said.Canada as a country has no specific laws which define what is ILLEGAL on the internet which means that Trudeau and the Minister of Justice now have a blank slate to consider what they want to, as "illegal". Fair enough they're the gov't but what's bothering people is that there's been no definition of what's illegal which means that it's open to Liberal gov't interpretation.

So, like it or not their reluctance to publicly come out with a policy or list of what they consider illegal on the internet before enforcing it certainly smacks of a star chamber like attitude. Especially since there are already enough laws on the books to keep the anti gov't groups, racists, Muslim extremists, kiddie diddlers, riot inciting assholes and others from using the internet or any other form of the media to spread their hate.

But, here's the big question. Given their blase attitude towards regulating the internet up to the announcement, are they going to even bother introducing a bill that specifically states what they consider illegal or are they just going to enforce it without it becoming a law and if they do are they going to allow it to stand on it's own merits. Or are they going to try and jam it through in an omnibus bill and hope nobody notices because it might stifle free speech?

My monies on the latter, if at all.

Come on. I know you are not this dense. You’re just letting your rabid partisanship overwhelm your ability to reason

There are currently no regulations on how social media’s companies have to handle illegal content, like kiddie porn. Can you understand that?

As I already tried explaining to you, illegal means prohibited under the laws of Canada not under the prerogative of The PM or a member of his cabinet.

For example do social media companies have to notify authorities when they find kiddie porn? Do they they have to proactively search for i? Do they have to take proactive active measures to prevent it? What info do they have to provide authorities? Right now there are few actual requirements just the social media companies’ voluntary policies

Is this really so fucking hard for you to grasp?

[Freakinoldguy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Uh no. You’re desperately reaching again. Illegal means illegal. That’s pretty clear. As in expressly prohibited by law. Like kiddie porn or ISIS videos.

Right now there are no regulations specifying how social media companies should handle this kind of content when its posted to their sites and what responsibilities they have to proactively identify, remove and report it to authorities. We currently rely on social media companies’ to voluntarily police themselves and enforce their own internal guidelines while the companies try to argue they should have zero responsibility.

Desperately reaching, my ass.

$1:

Internet

Internet content is not specifically regulated in Canada, however local laws apply to websites hosted in Canada as well as to residents who host sites on servers in other jurisdictions. A well-known example is the case of Ernst Zündel, who was investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for promoting ethnic hatred via his website.

In November 2006, Canadian Internet service providers Bell, Bell Aliant, MTS Allstream, Rogers, Shaw, SaskTel, Telus, and Vidéotron announced Project Cleanfeed Canada, a voluntary effort to block websites hosting child pornography. The list of blocked sites is compiled from reports by Internet users and investigated by the independent organization Cybertip.ca. Project Cleanfeed was praised following its founding by Royal Canadian Mounted Police Supt. Earla-Kim McColl (then-head of the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre).[34]

In October 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that online publications cannot be found liable for linking to defamatory material as long as the linking itself is not defamatory.[35]

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

So just like you said.Canada as a country has no specific laws which define what is ILLEGAL on the internet which means that Trudeau and the Minister of Justice now have a blank slate to consider what they want to, as "illegal". Fair enough they're the gov't but what's bothering people is that there's been no definition of what's illegal which means that it's open to Liberal gov't interpretation.

So, like it or not their reluctance to publicly come out with a policy or list of what they consider illegal on the internet before enforcing it certainly smacks of a star chamber like attitude. Especially since there are already enough laws on the books to keep the anti gov't groups, racists, Muslim extremists, kiddie diddlers, riot inciting assholes and others from using the internet or any other form of the media to spread their hate.

But, here's the big question. Given their blase attitude towards regulating the internet up to the announcement, are they going to even bother introducing a bill that specifically states what they consider illegal or are they just going to enforce it without it becoming a law and if they do are they going to allow it to stand on it's own merits. Or are they going to try and jam it through in an omnibus bill and hope nobody notices because it might stifle free speech?

My monies on the latter, if at all.

Come on. I know you are not this dense. You’re just letting your rabid partisanship overwhelm your ability to reason

There are currently no regulations on how social media’s companies have to handle illegal content, like kiddie porn. Can you understand that?

As I already tried explaining to you, illegal means prohibited under the laws of Canada not under the prerogative of The PM or a member of his cabinet.

For example do social media companies have to notify authorities when they find kiddie porn? Do they they have to proactively search for i? Do they have to take proactive active measures to prevent it? What info do they have to provide authorities? Right now there are few actual requirements just the social media companies’ voluntary policies

Is this really so fucking hard for you to grasp?

Can I grasp your thought process? Well to be honest, no. But, that's not really the issue here is it.

What i'm arguing about is the fact that when you allow someone be it the PM or his Minister of Justice to arbitrarily decide what's illegal or not on any medium you run the risk of abuse which is what I've been arguing about. Unless of course you think this type of governance is alright?

But TBH I did find it hilarious that one of the most partisan persons on this forum is calling anyone out for being partisan.

[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.