4 ms·

You think that the onus is on the sleepers rather than the protestors? Why should the sleepers have to put up with endless noise (along with the damage that sle

You think that the onus is on the sleepers rather than the protestors? Why should the sleepers have to put up with endless noise (along with the damage that sleeplessness brings) just so another person can exercise their right to free speech?

shermablanca 5y ago
What makes you think they’re honking all through the night? From what I’ve heard they stop at 8:00pm. Claims to the contrary do not come with corresponding evidence. Anyone here with on the ground experience about the nighttime situation?
- monkeydreams 5y ago
  > What makes you think they’re honking all through the night? From what I’ve heard they stop at 8:00pm. Claims to the contrary do not come with corresponding evidence. Perhaps reading the comment in context of the comment chain is necessary. I am making no claims as to the truckers, I am stating that the onus is on those who are causing damage by their "Free Speech" to adjust to avoid causing that damage, rather than on the people suffering the damage.
- chaps 5y ago
  https://twitter.com/MariekeWalsh/status/1490190716378701826 https://twitter.com/MariekeWalsh/status/1490190716378701826 Took 5s to find.
- slothtrop 5y ago
  You've heard wrong. There are residents who have opted to just leave the city because sleep is impossible. It's a fucking shit show.
listenallyall 5y ago
Sadly, I doubt you even recognize your small contribution to, and complicity with, the normalization of an Orwellian, dystopian society. Look at how casually you make these connections: speech -> noise -> sleeplessness -> damage ... therefore implying, purposefully or not, that speech = violence. No. Speech is NOT violence. I suggest you get a pair of earplugs.
- monkeydreams 5y ago
  > Sadly, I doubt you even recognize your small contribution to, and complicity with, the normalization of an Orwellian, dystopian society. Sadly, I doubt you even recognise your contribution to the polarisation of society and removal of nuance from social discourse. > No. Speech is NOT violence. I suggest you get a pair of earplugs. Threats. That's one form of violence. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, that's another.
  - rmbyrro 5y ago
    > Threats. That's one form of violence. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, that's another. Threat is instigating fear of injury. Violence is causing injury. You can have your own personal definition, but from a legal perspective, threat is not a violent crime. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre isn't even illegal. Let alone a violence. Inciting panic is illegal. If you incite panic through yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, you'll answer for inciting panic and will bear responsibility for the actual consequences, if any, not for the yelling.
    - tremon 5y ago
      Of course. https://dictionary.thelaw.com/violence/ https://dictionary.thelaw.com/violence/ this violence is not confined to an actual assault of the person, [..] whatever goes to intimidate or overawe, by the apprehension of personal violence, or by fear of life [..] equally falls within its limits
      - listenallyall 5y ago
        That's pretty creative editing there. Everything you quoted (and omitted via ellipse) is prefaced by "In cases of robbery". The part about intimidation only counts when it is "to compel the delivery of property." Since this isn't a discussion about a robbery or theft or possession of property, the entirety of your quote is irrelevant. Instead, read a little further: The term “violence” is synonymous with “physical force,” and the two are used interchangeably, in relation to assaults Speech is not physical force, and is not an assault, and is not violence.
rmbyrro 5y ago
I just don't think we have to take away their right of free speech in order to protect other people's rights to peace in their homes. It doesn't have to be either one or the other. A more conciliatory approach by the Canadian government would pay off better. My personal opinion, only. I might be wrong, who knows?...
- odonnellryan 5y ago
  They should be able to demonstrate and make noise, but there is a limit to things. I cannot have a festival out on my lawn for similar reasons...
- irthomasthomas 5y ago
  If you people would just watch some of the live streams then they would know the nuisance honking ended almost 2 weeks ago. This whole thread is people arguing about something they evidently know nothing about.
  - odonnellryan 5y ago
    I watched the livestream last night, there is still honking...
    - irthomasthomas 5y ago
      It is the middle of a city, there is going to be some honking, but it's not as bad as the media is making out. And as crime is down there are fewer sirens. The truckers aren't trying to anger residents, they want them on board, which is why they have always kept lanes open for people to get around.

shermablanca 5y ago

What makes you think they’re honking all through the night? From what I’ve heard they stop at 8:00pm. Claims to the contrary do not come with corresponding evidence. Anyone here with on the ground experience about the nighttime situation?

monkeydreams 5y ago
> What makes you think they’re honking all through the night? From what I’ve heard they stop at 8:00pm. Claims to the contrary do not come with corresponding evidence. Perhaps reading the comment in context of the comment chain is necessary. I am making no claims as to the truckers, I am stating that the onus is on those who are causing damage by their "Free Speech" to adjust to avoid causing that damage, rather than on the people suffering the damage.
chaps 5y ago
https://twitter.com/MariekeWalsh/status/1490190716378701826 https://twitter.com/MariekeWalsh/status/1490190716378701826 Took 5s to find.
slothtrop 5y ago
You've heard wrong. There are residents who have opted to just leave the city because sleep is impossible. It's a fucking shit show.

listenallyall 5y ago

Sadly, I doubt you even recognize your small contribution to, and complicity with, the normalization of an Orwellian, dystopian society. Look at how casually you make these connections: speech -> noise -> sleeplessness -> damage ... therefore implying, purposefully or not, that speech = violence. No. Speech is NOT violence. I suggest you get a pair of earplugs.

monkeydreams 5y ago
> Sadly, I doubt you even recognize your small contribution to, and complicity with, the normalization of an Orwellian, dystopian society. Sadly, I doubt you even recognise your contribution to the polarisation of society and removal of nuance from social discourse. > No. Speech is NOT violence. I suggest you get a pair of earplugs. Threats. That's one form of violence. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, that's another.
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  > Threats. That's one form of violence. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, that's another. Threat is instigating fear of injury. Violence is causing injury. You can have your own personal definition, but from a legal perspective, threat is not a violent crime. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre isn't even illegal. Let alone a violence. Inciting panic is illegal. If you incite panic through yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, you'll answer for inciting panic and will bear responsibility for the actual consequences, if any, not for the yelling.
  - tremon 5y ago
    Of course. https://dictionary.thelaw.com/violence/ https://dictionary.thelaw.com/violence/ this violence is not confined to an actual assault of the person, [..] whatever goes to intimidate or overawe, by the apprehension of personal violence, or by fear of life [..] equally falls within its limits
    - listenallyall 5y ago
      That's pretty creative editing there. Everything you quoted (and omitted via ellipse) is prefaced by "In cases of robbery". The part about intimidation only counts when it is "to compel the delivery of property." Since this isn't a discussion about a robbery or theft or possession of property, the entirety of your quote is irrelevant. Instead, read a little further: The term “violence” is synonymous with “physical force,” and the two are used interchangeably, in relation to assaults Speech is not physical force, and is not an assault, and is not violence.

rmbyrro 5y ago

I just don't think we have to take away their right of free speech in order to protect other people's rights to peace in their homes. It doesn't have to be either one or the other. A more conciliatory approach by the Canadian government would pay off better. My personal opinion, only. I might be wrong, who knows?...

odonnellryan 5y ago
They should be able to demonstrate and make noise, but there is a limit to things. I cannot have a festival out on my lawn for similar reasons...
irthomasthomas 5y ago
If you people would just watch some of the live streams then they would know the nuisance honking ended almost 2 weeks ago. This whole thread is people arguing about something they evidently know nothing about.
- odonnellryan 5y ago
  I watched the livestream last night, there is still honking...
  - irthomasthomas 5y ago
    It is the middle of a city, there is going to be some honking, but it's not as bad as the media is making out. And as crime is down there are fewer sirens. The truckers aren't trying to anger residents, they want them on board, which is why they have always kept lanes open for people to get around.