6 ms·

Canadians are too apathetic to care. It's one of those "they came for X but I wasn't one so I didn't care" situations up here. It's going to get way worse befor

Canadians are too apathetic to care. It's one of those "they came for X but I wasn't one so I didn't care" situations up here. It's going to get way worse before it gets better.

olalonde 3y ago
Yes and unfortunately, courts have already ruled that the CRTC had the right to shutdown radio stations because of insults and swear words[0]. So it wouldn't surprise me if they had the authority to ban Fox News. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHOI-FM#Dispute_with_the_CRTC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHOI-FM#Dispute_with_the_CRTC
- AlanYx 3y ago
  This latest proposed ban is significantly more serious than the CHOI-FM dispute, in the sense that they're now considering banning an entire channel because of a complaint that one particular program on that channel was allegedly in violation of particular norms. At least with CHOI-FM the alleged offending content was peppered throughout the day. (I'm not saying either move is a sign of a healthy society, but this latest proposed ban is a step beyond. It's basically communicating to channel operators that absolutely all of their content has to fall in line, or they risk an end to their business. It doesn't even matter if the CRTC ultimately decides not to impose a ban here -- there is now a content-based sword of damocles over every channel.)
- bawolff 3y ago
  There wouldn't be much point of a radio & television regulator that didn't have the ability to in theory shut down radio or television stations violating canadian law. Like that is basically the definition of what a regulator is.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - version_five 3y ago
    Serious answer: there isn't a point anymore. I understand the relevance in a past model of spectrum allocation for channels, where there was both a will and a possiblity of controlling who got a broadcast slot. That ship has sailed - spectrum still needs to be regulated, but it's no longer relevant to "allowing" content. Crtc should be no more able to ban Fox than, say porn.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - olalonde 3y ago
    Yes but the point is that they didn't shutdown CHOI-FM for violating Canadian law (nor did Tucker Carlson violate Canadian law).
    - AlanYx 3y ago
      The CRTC did order CHOI-FM to be shut down, and they lost the lawsuit and all appeals, so they would have been shut down. But at the last minute they were bought by another channel with a different CRTC licence, which saved them from the shutdown order.
      - olalonde 3y ago
        I understand. My point was they shut it down because they used "bad words" and insults, not because they violated Canadian law. The idea that the CRTC only shuts down stations that are violating Canadian law is not true. By the way, I used to listen to that radio station and it was pretty mild compared to what you often hear on American talk shows. They were occasionally disrespectful towards some celebrities and politicians, but that's it. It's clear to me that they were unfairly targeted for being the only libertarian-leaning radio station in the province. 50,000 people marched in Quebec city to contest the decision, the largest such march since the 1960s.
        bawolff 3y ago
        The law of the land is whatever the court says it is after exhausting all appeals. They lost all their appeals. Whether you describe the issue as "bad words" or failing to obtain a broadcast license due to non compliance, is just semantics
        olalonde 3y ago
        The courts ruled on whether the CRTC was authorized to shut them down, not on whether CHOI broke Canadian law.

Canadians are too apathetic to care. It's one of those "they came for X but I wasn't one so I didn't care" situations up here. It's going to get way worse before it gets better.

olalonde 3y ago

Yes and unfortunately, courts have already ruled that the CRTC had the right to shutdown radio stations because of insults and swear words[0]. So it wouldn't surprise me if they had the authority to ban Fox News. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHOI-FM#Dispute_with_the_CRTC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHOI-FM#Dispute_with_the_CRTC

AlanYx 3y ago
This latest proposed ban is significantly more serious than the CHOI-FM dispute, in the sense that they're now considering banning an entire channel because of a complaint that one particular program on that channel was allegedly in violation of particular norms. At least with CHOI-FM the alleged offending content was peppered throughout the day. (I'm not saying either move is a sign of a healthy society, but this latest proposed ban is a step beyond. It's basically communicating to channel operators that absolutely all of their content has to fall in line, or they risk an end to their business. It doesn't even matter if the CRTC ultimately decides not to impose a ban here -- there is now a content-based sword of damocles over every channel.)
bawolff 3y ago
There wouldn't be much point of a radio & television regulator that didn't have the ability to in theory shut down radio or television stations violating canadian law. Like that is basically the definition of what a regulator is.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- version_five 3y ago
  Serious answer: there isn't a point anymore. I understand the relevance in a past model of spectrum allocation for channels, where there was both a will and a possiblity of controlling who got a broadcast slot. That ship has sailed - spectrum still needs to be regulated, but it's no longer relevant to "allowing" content. Crtc should be no more able to ban Fox than, say porn.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- olalonde 3y ago
  Yes but the point is that they didn't shutdown CHOI-FM for violating Canadian law (nor did Tucker Carlson violate Canadian law).
  - AlanYx 3y ago
    The CRTC did order CHOI-FM to be shut down, and they lost the lawsuit and all appeals, so they would have been shut down. But at the last minute they were bought by another channel with a different CRTC licence, which saved them from the shutdown order.
    - olalonde 3y ago
      I understand. My point was they shut it down because they used "bad words" and insults, not because they violated Canadian law. The idea that the CRTC only shuts down stations that are violating Canadian law is not true. By the way, I used to listen to that radio station and it was pretty mild compared to what you often hear on American talk shows. They were occasionally disrespectful towards some celebrities and politicians, but that's it. It's clear to me that they were unfairly targeted for being the only libertarian-leaning radio station in the province. 50,000 people marched in Quebec city to contest the decision, the largest such march since the 1960s.
      - bawolff 3y ago
        The law of the land is whatever the court says it is after exhausting all appeals. They lost all their appeals. Whether you describe the issue as "bad words" or failing to obtain a broadcast license due to non compliance, is just semantics
        olalonde 3y ago
        The courts ruled on whether the CRTC was authorized to shut them down, not on whether CHOI broke Canadian law.