[Tricks]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

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.

Actually in Canada, at least for kiddie porn, that's not true. Bill C-22 "An Act Respecting the Mandatory Reporting of Internet Child Pornography by Persons who Provide an Internet Service"

Basically if you provide an internet service (defined as "Internet Service means a service providing Internet access, Internet content hosting or electronic mail. (services Internet)") you are required by Canadian law to report child pornography.

So this is probably similar regulation of internet services.

[BeaverFever]

Freakinoldguy 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?

* sigh*. Because as I already explained, despite the fact that the material itself illegal, their are no regulations stipulating what social media companies have ro do when said illegal material is posted to their site. For example, whether they have to report it to authorities, what information they have to turn iver, whether they have to proactively search for this kind of stuff instead of just waiting for someone to bring it to their attention. Get it?

[herbie]

$1:

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

Then go yell fire in a theatre or stand on the corner and incite a riot. Tell the Judge how your right to free speech was violated. I'm sure he'll sympathize.
I hate people who want to use "free speech" to harm others.

[Martin15]

herbie herbie:

$1:

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

Then go yell fire in a theatre or stand on the corner and incite a riot. Tell the Judge how your right to free speech was violated. I'm sure he'll sympathize.
I hate people who want to use "free speech" to harm others.

Prove the harm being done by talking about ideas.

If you are so full of rage, then you should move to North Korea.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy 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.

Because TV, Radio or newspapers are physically located in a particular country, and are bound by the laws of that country. Social media may or may not have a presence in that country, so may or may not be bound by the laws of it.

Twitter's servers may be in the US, and technically not bound by the laws of the EU or Canada in that case. By drafting our own laws about what a social media platform must do for hate speech that is illegal here when it reaches the end user in Canada they become compliant with our laws.

Facebook for example, runs every photograph uploaded to its site through a facial recognition program in order to identify people in the photograph. This is illegal in Canada, so they do it on servers in the US, and simply don't make the results available in Canada. Same could be done with hate speech.

[CharlesAnthony]

herbie herbie:

$1:

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

Then go yell fire in a theatre or stand on the corner and incite a riot.

Oh, I get it!
You are a comedian!

[BeaverFever]

Martin15 Martin15:

Prove the harm being done by talking about ideas..

We have these laws because a man named Joseph Goebbels already proved that a long time ago.

[Freakinoldguy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Because TV, Radio or newspapers are physically located in a particular country, and are bound by the laws of that country. Social media may or may not have a presence in that country, so may or may not be bound by the laws of it.

Twitter's servers may be in the US, and technically not bound by the laws of the EU or Canada in that case. By drafting our own laws about what a social media platform must do for hate speech that is illegal here when it reaches the end user in Canada they become compliant with our laws.

Facebook for example, runs every photograph uploaded to its site through a facial recognition program in order to identify people in the photograph. This is illegal in Canada, so they do it on servers in the US, and simply don't make the results available in Canada. Same could be done with hate speech.

Okay, so it's not really introducing new laws it's actually just giving the gov't new tools to enforce the current ones we have if the location of origin is outside Canada?

Now, that would make sense but, we'll just have to wait to see if that's the real intent or if the PM was just talking out his ass again and is expecting something completely different to happen.

Besides, that explanation wouldn't be troublesome or concerning in itself, unless of course the lack of clarity is actually a couched attempt to sneak back in Section 13 or institute new, even more draconian hate speech laws.

[BeaverFever]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Because TV, Radio or newspapers are physically located in a particular country, and are bound by the laws of that country. Social media may or may not have a presence in that country, so may or may not be bound by the laws of it.

Twitter's servers may be in the US, and technically not bound by the laws of the EU or Canada in that case. By drafting our own laws about what a social media platform must do for hate speech that is illegal here when it reaches the end user in Canada they become compliant with our laws.

Facebook for example, runs every photograph uploaded to its site through a facial recognition program in order to identify people in the photograph. This is illegal in Canada, so they do it on servers in the US, and simply don't make the results available in Canada. Same could be done with hate speech.

Okay, so it's not really introducing new laws it's actually just giving the gov't new tools to enforce the current ones we have if the location of origin is outside Canada?

Yes although not just relating to outside Canada.

We should clarify that Hate Speech is defined in the Criminal Code of Canada which is a law, not a “regulation”, meaning its an Act passed by parliament. Regulations aren’t laws and they don’t change the law. They are issued by government departments and just spell out the manner in which the regulated entities (in this case social media companies) must comply with the law. So your fears that a new regulation would somehow change the definition of hate speech are misguided.

This isn’t just about content being outside of Canada or not. See any of my previous posts for examples.

[N_Fiddledog]

I've learned not to accept Beave's statements as fact. Every once in awhile they can be kind of almost correct about some factor of the issue. But as a blank statement of fact in regards to the totality of the claim they are never correct, no matter how sure he seems to sound of himself.

$1:

Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the federal Criminal Code and in some other federal legislation. There are also statutory provisions relating to hate publications in some, but not all, of the provinces and territories.

Even though it fails to define what hate speech is, the Criminal Code creates criminal offences with respect to different aspects of hate propaganda. Those offences are decided in the criminal courts and carry penal sanctions, such as fines, probation orders and imprisonment. The federal government also has standards with respect to hate publications in federal laws relating to broadcasting.

In some provinces and territories, human rights legislation creates civil sanctions for hate publications. Those claims are resolved through administrative tribunals or the civil courts, and can involve civil remedies such as damages or injunctive relief. In some provinces, there are also statutory restrictions on accessing public funds in relation to hate propaganda.

The federal human rights legislation, the Canadian Human Rights Act, formerly included a civil sanction for transmitting hate messages by means of telecommunications facilities under federal jurisdiction. That provision was repealed by a federal statute which was passed in 2013 and came into force in 2014.

The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected constitutional challenges to the hate propaganda offences in the Criminal Code, and has also rejected challenges to the hate publication provisions in human rights legislation. The Court has ruled that while the provisions restrict freedom of expression, the restrictions are justifiable under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_spee ... _in_Canada

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

German Police raided the homes of 60 people suspected of writing ‘hate’ speech on social media in Germany. Coordinated by the Federal Criminal Police (BKA), the operation saw officers from 25 departments search across 14 states.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2016/0 ... net-posts/

But it could never happen here, right?

[PluggyRug]

What's seen as truth by some is seen as hate by others. You can't draw a line as some would try to do.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I've learned not to accept Beave's statements as fact. Every once in awhile they can be kind of almost correct about some factor of the issue. But as a blank statement of fact in regards to the totality of the claim they are never correct, no matter how sure he seems to sound of himself.

$1:

Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the federal Criminal Code and in some other federal legislation. There are also statutory provisions relating to hate publications in some, but not all, of the provinces and territories.

Even though it fails to define what hate speech is, the Criminal Code creates criminal offences with respect to different aspects of hate propaganda. Those offences are decided in the criminal courts and carry penal sanctions, such as fines, probation orders and imprisonment. The federal government also has standards with respect to hate publications in federal laws relating to broadcasting.

In some provinces and territories, human rights legislation creates civil sanctions for hate publications. Those claims are resolved through administrative tribunals or the civil courts, and can involve civil remedies such as damages or injunctive relief. In some provinces, there are also statutory restrictions on accessing public funds in relation to hate propaganda.

The federal human rights legislation, the Canadian Human Rights Act, formerly included a civil sanction for transmitting hate messages by means of telecommunications facilities under federal jurisdiction. That provision was repealed by a federal statute which was passed in 2013 and came into force in 2014.

The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected constitutional challenges to the hate propaganda offences in the Criminal Code, and has also rejected challenges to the hate publication provisions in human rights legislation. The Court has ruled that while the provisions restrict freedom of expression, the restrictions are justifiable under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_spee ... _in_Canada

What point are you attempting to make?

Criminal code says:

$1:

Marginal note:Public incitement of hatred

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.

That doesn’t change.

In any specific ase, the courts decide whether an accused individual broke that law

[CharlesAnthony]

There is no need to over-think the bad guys' strategy.
Their end-game is to terra-fie the common man into not speaking at all. They will unceasingly cluster-fuck every law-book with slathers of bull-shit for eternity.
The bad guys will stop at nothing until they breed absolute submission to their cult of mental illness coerxion.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Because TV, Radio or newspapers are physically located in a particular country, and are bound by the laws of that country. Social media may or may not have a presence in that country, so may or may not be bound by the laws of it.

Twitter's servers may be in the US, and technically not bound by the laws of the EU or Canada in that case. By drafting our own laws about what a social media platform must do for hate speech that is illegal here when it reaches the end user in Canada they become compliant with our laws.

Facebook for example, runs every photograph uploaded to its site through a facial recognition program in order to identify people in the photograph. This is illegal in Canada, so they do it on servers in the US, and simply don't make the results available in Canada. Same could be done with hate speech.

Okay, so it's not really introducing new laws it's actually just giving the gov't new tools to enforce the current ones we have if the location of origin is outside Canada?

Yes, a point that could have been clearer, if you had not use True North as your source for this. This is exactly how they muddy issues in order to piss people off, and keep them reading True North. They tell half truths and leave out important details that a reasonable reader would see highlighting their half truths.

Trudeau isn't changing anything about speech, he's making Social Media companies who want to operate in Canada compliant with our existing laws. That's all.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Now, that would make sense but, we'll just have to wait to see if that's the real intent or if the PM was just talking out his ass again and is expecting something completely different to happen.

So, nothing changes.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Besides, that explanation wouldn't be troublesome or concerning in itself, unless of course the lack of clarity is actually a couched attempt to sneak back in Section 13 or institute new, even more draconian hate speech laws.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Trudeau is in a minority situation. He has to keep the CPC happy, and/or the NDP and Bloc happy. Neither of those groups is going to let him get away with anything clandestine in the next 2 - 4 years.