4 ms·

I feel like Americans (HN in particular), distrustful of their government, will not like this. I think it's great. People will look at Fox News and think 'than

I feel like Americans (HN in particular), distrustful of their government, will not like this. I think it's great. People will look at Fox News and think 'thank god,' but as a Canadian, I'm glad we have more stringent restrictions on reckless forms of speech (hate/inciting genocide, fake news, etc). Further, I cannot recount a time when I've seen someone's speech restricted in a way I thought was improper. Yes, it is possible for a power to be abused. I don't agree with not granting the power though. But I think it's fundamentally a 'trust in government' thing (which Americans sadly have little of).

baggy_trough 3y ago
What constitutes a reckless form of speech is entirely in the eye of the beholder, which is why this is a terrible idea.
AwaAwa 3y ago
As a Canadian, we are in dire straits because of government overreach. And reading history it looks like that has been the case for at least the last 4 decades. Of course the Canadian rug under which everything is swept has become a tapestry of national Pride. Though that pride runs naked, like an emperor. Good thing MAID in Canada means something final.
- jpalawaga 3y ago
  How, exactly, are we in dire straits, in a way that is connected to the limits on free speech?
msandford 3y ago
The COVID vaccines have saved many lives. They've also caused some adverse reactions in some folks. Should people be allowed to discuss this? Is this reckless or responsible? Why? What happens if the science changes? Who ensures that the folks in charge stay current?
- betaby 3y ago
  Point is that some Canadian provinces had a literal curfew and any discussion of it was absolutely shut down.
- jpalawaga 3y ago
  It depends what you mean by "discuss." Do you mean, go on live TV news program and tell a bunch of half-truths such that people walk away with with the wrong impression? Do you mean, two people chatting in a forum? Similarly, should Facebook be able to promote blatantly false information? Not pen it mind you, but "simply link?" -- at what point are Facebook's (and YouTube's, etc) algorithms responsible for curating and disseminating information, and why would I think that free speech laws should apply in that scenario? So yeah, I can throw up a smoke screen of questions to ask, but I still think overall the vector is positive, not negative.
  - msandford 3y ago
    Yeah I understand the sentiment there. Now fast forward a few years to when a new government is elected that perhaps doesn't reflect your sensibilities. Now they can use this apparatus to promote their version of the truth (might actually be false) and to suppress yours (which might actually be true). What do you do now? How do you even mount a criticism of this entity? They'll likely work very hard to suppress your criticism and label you a misinformer.
Fervicus 3y ago
Who decides what is fake news? Will you still hold the same view when the party you don't like is in power and defining what is fake news?
- jpalawaga 3y ago
  Well, generally the parties have flip-flopped provincially and nationally the current controls on broadcasters have not been an issue. The CRTC is responsible for enforcing that provision of the broadcasting act AFAIK.

baggy_trough 3y ago

What constitutes a reckless form of speech is entirely in the eye of the beholder, which is why this is a terrible idea.

AwaAwa 3y ago

As a Canadian, we are in dire straits because of government overreach. And reading history it looks like that has been the case for at least the last 4 decades. Of course the Canadian rug under which everything is swept has become a tapestry of national Pride. Though that pride runs naked, like an emperor. Good thing MAID in Canada means something final.

jpalawaga 3y ago
How, exactly, are we in dire straits, in a way that is connected to the limits on free speech?

msandford 3y ago

The COVID vaccines have saved many lives. They've also caused some adverse reactions in some folks. Should people be allowed to discuss this? Is this reckless or responsible? Why? What happens if the science changes? Who ensures that the folks in charge stay current?

betaby 3y ago
Point is that some Canadian provinces had a literal curfew and any discussion of it was absolutely shut down.
jpalawaga 3y ago
It depends what you mean by "discuss." Do you mean, go on live TV news program and tell a bunch of half-truths such that people walk away with with the wrong impression? Do you mean, two people chatting in a forum? Similarly, should Facebook be able to promote blatantly false information? Not pen it mind you, but "simply link?" -- at what point are Facebook's (and YouTube's, etc) algorithms responsible for curating and disseminating information, and why would I think that free speech laws should apply in that scenario? So yeah, I can throw up a smoke screen of questions to ask, but I still think overall the vector is positive, not negative.
- msandford 3y ago
  Yeah I understand the sentiment there. Now fast forward a few years to when a new government is elected that perhaps doesn't reflect your sensibilities. Now they can use this apparatus to promote their version of the truth (might actually be false) and to suppress yours (which might actually be true). What do you do now? How do you even mount a criticism of this entity? They'll likely work very hard to suppress your criticism and label you a misinformer.

Fervicus 3y ago

Who decides what is fake news? Will you still hold the same view when the party you don't like is in power and defining what is fake news?

jpalawaga 3y ago
Well, generally the parties have flip-flopped provincially and nationally the current controls on broadcasters have not been an issue. The CRTC is responsible for enforcing that provision of the broadcasting act AFAIK.