4 ms·

> Here in Canada we actually removed freedom of speech. Canadian here. Whether one sympathizes with the truckers or not, or has a more nuanced opinion, claimin

> Here in Canada we actually removed freedom of speech. Canadian here. Whether one sympathizes with the truckers or not, or has a more nuanced opinion, claiming that free speech was removed (implying some official stance) is hyperbolic. I will concede that the Charter is more vague than I'd like on where the boundaries of free expression lie. As for GoFundMe, wasn't their decision - whether you agree with it or not - the decision of a private company that's free to choose with whom it conducts business?

darebak 5y ago
I don't understand, didn't GoFundMe take money but refused a service that was paid for? If they decided to ban that particular campaign, they should return money to the donors not donate it to some other cause, no? I am not super knowledgeable about the situation, apologies if I misrepresented something.
- sleepingadmin 5y ago
  They have since decided to auto-refund.
  - account42 5y ago
    That doesn't change that they first tried to misappropriate the money.
sleepingadmin 5y ago
>Canadian here. Whether one sympathizes with the truckers or not, or has a more nuanced opinion, Sure, lets put the trucker sideline aside for discussion. >claiming that free speech was removed (implying some official stance) is hyperbolic. I will concede that the Charter is more vague than I'd like on where the boundaries of free expression lie. The gymnastics of your following sentence proves my point. Lets look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... There are exceptions to free speech. Defamation/Libel, incitement to suicide, false advertising. I find all these exceptions to be reasonable or exceptions to speech. False advertising or fraud in general isn't the speech but rather something beyond the speech. Even obscenity in which porn or even death videos are not obscene. The obscenity exception is very tight. So there can be legitimate exceptions. In fact, in our law we criminalized 'advocating for genocide' which I suspect both of us agree can stay. Mind you, it has literally never been used. Literally only attempt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mugesera_v_Canada_(Minister_of_Citizenship_and_Immigration) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mugesera_v_Canada_(Minister_of... but wasn't even proper. Though perhaps we can agree deporting him was a good idea? The very next rule is the problem. "wilfully promoting hatred' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Andrews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Andrews Supreme court ruled that it did violate freedom of speech but section 1 they made the exception against this scumbag. This is what we call 'best of intentions' and its good to stop that dude but what did it open? When Charlie Hebdo shooting happened in 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo#2015_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo#2015_attack There was a reaction, especially on reddit, to stand up together against these terrorists. You will find however, NOBODY in Canada stood up. The few who did ended up in front of hate crime tribunals for promotion of hatred. Of which lets be realistic, this armchair not-lawyer... they were guilty. The problem was that hate crime tribunals know the line they walk. They dismissed virtually all these guilty cases because they knew when they go over the line they lose this tool. There was a unique feature of these hate crime tribunal cases. Every single group attacked were Conservatives. What happened there? Standing in solidarity with victims of terrorists was indeed promoting hatred of islam. It was discovered in 2015 that you can use the hate crime tribunals to silence political opponents. Suddenly the Conservatives were all racists. How about Comedians who make dark jokes? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55959133 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55959133 Sorry, but Mike Ward isn't some white supremacist or something. These laws aren't about making people good people. This isn't about making people less mean jerks. Free speech is officially dead until this is fixed.

darebak 5y ago

I don't understand, didn't GoFundMe take money but refused a service that was paid for? If they decided to ban that particular campaign, they should return money to the donors not donate it to some other cause, no? I am not super knowledgeable about the situation, apologies if I misrepresented something.

sleepingadmin 5y ago
They have since decided to auto-refund.
- account42 5y ago
  That doesn't change that they first tried to misappropriate the money.

sleepingadmin 5y ago

>Canadian here. Whether one sympathizes with the truckers or not, or has a more nuanced opinion, Sure, lets put the trucker sideline aside for discussion. >claiming that free speech was removed (implying some official stance) is hyperbolic. I will concede that the Charter is more vague than I'd like on where the boundaries of free expression lie. The gymnastics of your following sentence proves my point. Lets look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... There are exceptions to free speech. Defamation/Libel, incitement to suicide, false advertising. I find all these exceptions to be reasonable or exceptions to speech. False advertising or fraud in general isn't the speech but rather something beyond the speech. Even obscenity in which porn or even death videos are not obscene. The obscenity exception is very tight. So there can be legitimate exceptions. In fact, in our law we criminalized 'advocating for genocide' which I suspect both of us agree can stay. Mind you, it has literally never been used. Literally only attempt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mugesera_v_Canada_(Minister_of_Citizenship_and_Immigration) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mugesera_v_Canada_(Minister_of... but wasn't even proper. Though perhaps we can agree deporting him was a good idea? The very next rule is the problem. "wilfully promoting hatred' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Andrews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Andrews Supreme court ruled that it did violate freedom of speech but section 1 they made the exception against this scumbag. This is what we call 'best of intentions' and its good to stop that dude but what did it open? When Charlie Hebdo shooting happened in 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo#2015_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo#2015_attack There was a reaction, especially on reddit, to stand up together against these terrorists. You will find however, NOBODY in Canada stood up. The few who did ended up in front of hate crime tribunals for promotion of hatred. Of which lets be realistic, this armchair not-lawyer... they were guilty. The problem was that hate crime tribunals know the line they walk. They dismissed virtually all these guilty cases because they knew when they go over the line they lose this tool. There was a unique feature of these hate crime tribunal cases. Every single group attacked were Conservatives. What happened there? Standing in solidarity with victims of terrorists was indeed promoting hatred of islam. It was discovered in 2015 that you can use the hate crime tribunals to silence political opponents. Suddenly the Conservatives were all racists. How about Comedians who make dark jokes? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55959133 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55959133 Sorry, but Mike Ward isn't some white supremacist or something. These laws aren't about making people good people. This isn't about making people less mean jerks. Free speech is officially dead until this is fixed.