A nation that lost its free speech

[Loran]

And oddly the Alan troll just can' seem to deal with it.

He must be a Turdeau-sponsored social media shill.

It is kind of unfair to hold the rest of the nation to task when they
know all too well that the way Canaduh persecuted preachers, truckers,
and unvaxed citizens during Covid means it would be hopeless to resist
and life in prison to speak out.

Brutal fascism it is, just brutal.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2024/03/22/free-speech-is-under-such-threat-in-canada-it-would-make-orwell-blush/

Shockingly, the Canadian government is pushing new legislation that
would, among other abominations, allow you to be arrested if a judge is
convinced you are about to say something that is considered unlawful.

That’s right: You don’t have to say it to be arrested, just the
suspicion that you might. Canada is about to make a reality of what
George Orwell labeled “thoughtcrime” in his dystopian novel 1984.

Cuba, North Korea and other tyrannies are applauding.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ottawas-move-to-regulate-video-posts-on-youtube-and-social-media-called-assault-on-free-speech

The Liberal-dominated House of Commons Heritage committee has cleared
the way for the federal government to regulate video content on internet
social media, such as YouTube, the same way it regulates national
broadcasting, under a new amendment made to a bill updating the
Broadcasting Act.

Critics denounced the move to give the country’s broadcast regulator the
ability to oversee user-generated content, and said it amounted to an
attack on the free expression of Canadians, particularly in light of
Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault’s recent plans to give Ottawa power
to order take-downs of online content it deems objectionable.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/06/canada-online-harms-act/678605/

In 1984, George Orwell coined the term thoughtcrime. In the short story
“The Minority Report,” the science-fiction author Philip K. Dick gave us
the concept of “precrime,” describing a society where would-be criminals
were arrested before they could act. Now Canada is combining the
concepts in a work of dystopian nonfiction: A bill making its way
through Parliament would impose draconian criminal penalties on hate
speech and curtail people’s liberty in order to stop future crimes they
haven’t yet committed.

The Online Harms Act states that any person who advocates for or
promotes genocide is “liable to imprisonment for life.” It defines
lesser “hate crimes” as including online speech that is “likely to
foment detestation or vilification” on the basis of race, religion,
gender, or other protected categories. And if someone “fears” they may
become a victim of a hate crime, they can go before a judge, who may
summon the preemptively accused for a sort of precrime trial. If the
judge finds “reasonable grounds” for the fear, the defendant must enter
into “a recognizance.”

[Alan]

Post by Loran
And oddly the Alan troll just can' seem to deal with it.

There's nothing to deal with.

It's not law yet.

[Loran]

Post by Alan

Post by Loran
And oddly the Alan troll just can' seem to deal with it.

There's nothing to deal with.
It's not law yet.

ROTFLMFAO!

It soon will be as your odious history of chilling free speech instructs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Canada

Freedom of expression in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom"
by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; however, in
practice the Charter permits the government to enforce "reasonable"
limits censoring speech. Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are
common categories of restricted speech in Canada. During the 1970
October Crisis, the War Measures Act was used to limit speech from the
militant political opposition.

In the province of Quebec, freedom of expression is restricted in the
interest of protecting the French language. Outdoor commercial signage
may only use English text if it is half the size of the French text
under the Charter of the French language, or businesses can face
financial penalties. The Supreme Court ruled the signage regulation a
"reasonable" limit on the freedom of expression.

Internet censorship may also be undertaken by the corporations that
control access - Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In 2005, a major
Canadian ISP, Telus, blocked access to a website set up to publicize the
views of a labour union in conflict with the company. The Canadian
Telecommunications Act prohibits carriers controlling the content they
carry for the public; however Telus argued that it acted within the law,
citing its contractual power to block certain sites. The block
incidentally affected hundreds of unrelated websites...

Communications control institutions are governmental agencies that
regulate, may change the media, regulations, and new regulatory bodies.
In 1982, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said: "When the media do not
discipline themselves, the state steps in".[22]: 91  There are some
inter-media control institutions that regulate themselves to avoid being
regulated by the government such as: The Canadian Association of
Broadcasters, the Ontario Press Council, publishers associations, and
advertising groups.

In 2004, broadcast carriers were to monitor foreign stations at all
times and delete any content that may go against the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. Restrictions were placed on the broadcasting
license for Al-Jazeera, an Arabic-language news network, by the Canadian
Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Canada

In Canada, appeals by the judiciary to community standards and the
public interest are the ultimate determinants of which forms of
expression may legally be published, broadcast, or otherwise publicly
disseminated.[1] Other public organisations with the authority to censor
include some tribunals and courts under provincial human rights laws,
and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission,
along with self-policing associations of private corporations such as
the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and the Canadian Broadcast
Standards Council.

Over the 20th century, legal standards for censorship in Canada shifted
from a "strong state-centred practice", intended to protect the
community from perceived social degradation, to a more decentralised
form of censorship often instigated by societal groups invoking the
state to restrict the public expression of political and ideological
opponents.

[CaLaVeRa]

Post by Alan
There's nothing to deal with.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2024/03/22/free-speech-is-under-such-threat-in-canada-it-would-make-orwell-blush/

Shockingly, the Canadian government is pushing new legislation that
would, among other abominations, allow you to be arrested if a judge is
convinced you are about to say something that is considered unlawful.

That’s right: You don’t have to say it to be arrested, just the
suspicion that you might. Canada is about to make a reality of what
George Orwell labeled “thoughtcrime” in his dystopian novel 1984.

Cuba, North Korea and other tyrannies are applauding.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ottawas-move-to-regulate-video-posts-on-youtube-and-social-media-called-assault-on-free-speech

The Liberal-dominated House of Commons Heritage committee has cleared
the way for the federal government to regulate video content on internet
social media, such as YouTube, the same way it regulates national
broadcasting, under a new amendment made to a bill updating the
Broadcasting Act.

Critics denounced the move to give the country’s broadcast regulator the
ability to oversee user-generated content, and said it amounted to an
attack on the free expression of Canadians, particularly in light of
Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault’s recent plans to give Ottawa power
to order take-downs of online content it deems objectionable.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/06/canada-online-harms-act/678605/

In 1984, George Orwell coined the term thoughtcrime. In the short story
“The Minority Report,” the science-fiction author Philip K. Dick gave us
the concept of “precrime,” describing a society where would-be criminals
were arrested before they could act. Now Canada is combining the
concepts in a work of dystopian nonfiction: A bill making its way
through Parliament would impose draconian criminal penalties on hate
speech and curtail people’s liberty in order to stop future crimes they
haven’t yet committed.

The Online Harms Act states that any person who advocates for or
promotes genocide is “liable to imprisonment for life.” It defines
lesser “hate crimes” as including online speech that is “likely to
foment detestation or vilification” on the basis of race, religion,
gender, or other protected categories. And if someone “fears” they may
become a victim of a hate crime, they can go before a judge, who may
summon the preemptively accused for a sort of precrime trial. If the
judge finds “reasonable grounds” for the fear, the defendant must enter
into “a recognizance.”

[D. Ray]

Post by Loran
Canada is about to make a reality of what
George Orwell labeled “thoughtcrime” in his dystopian novel 1984.

They want to do the same thing in United States.

<https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64491>

[Loran]

Post by D. Ray

Post by Loran
Canada is about to make a reality of what
George Orwell labeled “thoughtcrime” in his dystopian novel 1984.

They want to do the same thing in United States.
<https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64491>

Good context:

As I reported in April, the bill was introduced by a bipartisan pair of
AIPAC-funded senators -- Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Sen. James Lankford
(R-OK) -- and championed by the ADL for its provisions aimed at
stripping Americans of their free speech rights.

RINO traitors must be dealt with!

[m***@invalid.com]

Post by Loran

Post by D. Ray

Post by Loran
Canada is about to make a reality of what
George Orwell labeled “thoughtcrime” in his dystopian novel 1984.

They want to do the same thing in United States.
<https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64491>

As I reported in April, the bill was introduced by a bipartisan pair of
AIPAC-funded senators -- Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Sen. James Lankford
(R-OK) -- and championed by the ADL for its provisions aimed at
stripping Americans of their free speech rights.
RINO traitors must be dealt with!

You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech"
advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.

As has been said, "you are not allowed to falsely yell fire in a
crowded theater."

You people get to damn complicated with all your frantic "solutions".

[CaLaVeRa]

Post by m***@invalid.com

Post by Loran

Post by D. Ray

Post by Loran
Canada is about to make a reality of what
George Orwell labeled “thoughtcrime” in his dystopian novel 1984.

They want to do the same thing in United States.
<https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64491>

As I reported in April, the bill was introduced by a bipartisan pair of
AIPAC-funded senators -- Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Sen. James Lankford
(R-OK) -- and championed by the ADL for its provisions aimed at
stripping Americans of their free speech rights.
RINO traitors must be dealt with!

You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech"
advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.
As has been said, "you are not allowed to falsely yell fire in a
crowded theater."
You people get to damn complicated with all your frantic "solutions".

So quick to discard rights we barely can enumerate let alone explain today.

Sad times.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by m***@invalid.com
You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech"
advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.

Not the USA. You can only get in trouble if you commit a real
crime or take material steps thereof.

[m***@invalid.com]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 18:25:39 -0700, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by m***@invalid.com
You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech"
advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.

Not the USA. You can only get in trouble if you commit a real
crime or take material steps thereof.

That's nonsense that only a "real" crime is punishable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is
unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent
lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[8]

Incitement to suicide
In 2017, a juvenile court in Massachusetts ruled that repeatedly
encouraging someone to commit suicide was not protected by the First
Amendment,[12] and found a 20-year-old woman, who was 17 at the time
of the offense, guilty of manslaughter on this basis.[13] The judge
cited a little-known 1816 precedent.[14] On February 6, 2019, the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the defendant acted
with criminal intent, so her involuntary manslaughter conviction was
ordered to stand.[15] The United States Supreme Court declined to hear
the case in January 2020, leaving in place the Massachusetts Supreme
Court conviction.[16]

Fighting words
Main article: Fighting words
A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive
speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that
speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[37] Fighting
words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an
immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is
a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary
citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to
provoke a violent reaction".[38] Additionally, such speech must be
"directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen
as a 'direct personal insult'".[39][40]

"True threats of violence" that are directed at a person or group of
persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily
harm or death are generally unprotected.[41] However, there are
several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that
"threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand
them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[42][43] Additionally, threats
of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are
constitutionally protected.[44]

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by m***@invalid.com
On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 18:25:39 -0700, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by m***@invalid.com
You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech"
advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.

Not the USA. You can only get in trouble if you commit a real
crime or take material steps thereof.

That's nonsense that only a "real" crime is punishable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

True, but you were wrong when you claimed advocacy of violence is not
protected by the First Amendment. To the contrary, it is generally
protected with the exceptions noted below: 1) incitement of imminent
lawless conduct, 2) criminal intent, 3) fighting words, and 4) true threats.

Thus, if someone writes an editorial arguing that "Jews who support
Israel should be killed," that's almost certainly protected by the First
Amendment.

Post by m***@invalid.com
The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is
unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent
lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[8]
Incitement to suicide
In 2017, a juvenile court in Massachusetts ruled that repeatedly
encouraging someone to commit suicide was not protected by the First
Amendment,[12] and found a 20-year-old woman, who was 17 at the time
of the offense, guilty of manslaughter on this basis.[13] The judge
cited a little-known 1816 precedent.[14] On February 6, 2019, the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the defendant acted
with criminal intent, so her involuntary manslaughter conviction was
ordered to stand.[15] The United States Supreme Court declined to hear
the case in January 2020, leaving in place the Massachusetts Supreme
Court conviction.[16]
Fighting words
Main article: Fighting words
A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive
speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that
speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[37] Fighting
words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an
immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is
a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary
citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to
provoke a violent reaction".[38] Additionally, such speech must be
"directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen
as a 'direct personal insult'".[39][40]
"True threats of violence" that are directed at a person or group of
persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily
harm or death are generally unprotected.[41] However, there are
several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that
"threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand
them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[42][43] Additionally, threats
of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are
constitutionally protected.[44]

[26xh.0717]

Post by m***@invalid.com
On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 18:25:39 -0700, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by m***@invalid.com
You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech"
advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.

Not the USA. You can only get in trouble if you commit a real
crime or take material steps thereof.

That's nonsense that only a "real" crime is punishable.

But NOW we have THOUGHT-CRIMES ....

[Loran]

Post by m***@invalid.com
You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech"
advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.

Not the USA. You can only get in trouble if you commit a real crime or
take material steps thereof.

XIDEN crime family, you scabrous meth whore.

[D. Ray]

Post by m***@invalid.com

Post by Loran

Post by D. Ray

Post by Loran
Canada is about to make a reality of what
George Orwell labeled “thoughtcrime” in his dystopian novel 1984.

They want to do the same thing in United States.
<https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=64491>

As I reported in April, the bill was introduced by a bipartisan pair of
AIPAC-funded senators -- Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Sen. James Lankford
(R-OK) -- and championed by the ADL for its provisions aimed at
stripping Americans of their free speech rights.
RINO traitors must be dealt with!

You don't need a law to stop free speech. If a certain "free speech"
advocates violence, there are laws to arrest the hate mongers.

Oh, but of course only certain people with big noses and small hats can say
if speech in question advocates violence or not, right? For example,
according to those people “free Palestine” is definitely advocating
violence while calls to “destroy Whiteness” and phrases like “death to
America” and “we’re coming for your children” are free speech. Right?