Right-Wing Trolls Are Freaking Out After Learning They Can Get Sued For Calling People 'Groomers' On The Internet
Right-Wing Trolls Are Freaking Out After Learning They Can Get Sued For Calling People 'Groomers' On The Internet
New court decision reinforces that there is no public interest in speech that exposes vulnerable groups to hate
Other right-wing accounts variously reacted by describing the move as Orwellian, lamenting the death of free speech and even contemplating leaving Canada for good.
Oh no. Not that. Please no.
<Tee hee!>
You're viewing part of a thread.
Because of significant backlash, they were forced to abandon the efforts.
The “experts” just reworded the same problems. The issues still exist in the bill. In fact the bill itself is the issue. They were able to change the guy in the article on this post, why didn’t they need the “new law” for that?? Which countries have this law? They didn’t mention?
Curious.
The root of the problem is that the proposed law itself requires the government to be able to see/audit all your online communication. That hasn’t changed. They make their intentions in “look at this awful case”, but they ignore that the new law wasn’t required for that case, so then what’s the reason for needing the new law? Why did privacy ever matter? Wouldn’t they find more murders if they had cameras in everyone’s house?
Yes, that argument is extreme, but it’s intended to make you think about “if” and “why” privacy matters.
I said this was coming, you called me out for not having any sources and I gave you sources.
I worry that nothing I could say or prove would change your mind.
What does cameras in people's house have to do with the current conversation?
It sounds like fear mongering to me. I find it's easier to keep track of a subject if you stay on topic.
Cool, let’s stay on topic.
This case is about defamation and was investigated and put to trial on the existing tools.
A big story was written about it, and I believe it was to garner support for privacy-invading new laws.
Clearly the laws weren’t needed to prosecute this case, so why are they needed then?
So, I have 3 questions for you.
Why will they need new laws to prosecute similar cases when this case didn’t require it?
Why was this case written into a big news story when defamation cases halted every day?
Why does privacy matter at all?
-
According to the news article you sent me, a group of experts asked the government to bring the bill forward.
-
Why was this case written into a big news story when defamation cases halted every day? (Can you try this again because I don't understand the question)
-
Canada's laws for the expectation of privacy is judged on 'the degree of privacy needed to maintain a free and open society, not necessarily the degree of privacy expected by the individual or respected by the state in a given situation…'
Do you feel this infringes on ability to maintain a free and open society?
“A group of experts” is not “why” What problem does the bill solve?
Defamation cases “happen” everyday, what makes this one special? (Autocorrect strikes again)
This doesn’t answer why privacy matters, why have any privacy at all? What value does it bring to a society?
-
According to the article you linked 'They said Canadian children are less protected than kids in countries where similar laws are already in effect.'
-
I'm guessing a journalist saw the news and decided to report on it and the editors thought it would bring in the eyeballs to the ads. The other option is that Justin Trudeau told them to print it so he would look good, but that seems a little tin foil hatty for my liking.
-
I'm no privacy expert I was just letting you know what the expectation of privacy was as a Canadian citizen. I personally think the laws we have strike a good balance between the good of the individual citizen and the society so I don't know why the new ones wouldn't either. Especially after it has been gone over by a group of experts after the government listened to their people. Isn't that how a decent government is supposed to operate?
Yes, “won’t someone PLEASE think of the children” a joke so old the Simpsons did it in the 90’s. What protections does this offer? HOW does this protect the children?
Maybe, hard to say and definitely a little “tin foil hat” But…. Ehhhh…
Ahhh, the meat of it. Yes they listened to experts. Yes they revised the law from these experts. No, the law is still bad. Warrantless wiretapping is always bad. Who watches the watchers? Who reigns in police powers? Governments around the world have been doing things in bad faith since the beginning of time. Bringing in “experts” might just be “someone else that agrees” it’s a meaningless appeal to an unknown authority.
It still doesn’t answer if, and why you personally believe privacy matters. I mean you could keep many more kids safe with less privacy, where’s the line? Is there a line? Should we withdraw ALL privacy to protect the most children possible?
I think I clearly talked about the balancing act between the good of the individual and the good of society at large, you can't just hand wave that away.
But WHAT is that balance?
Can police just listen in to your calls at all times?
Can they search you just because you look suspicious?
Can they read your mail?
What is the balance between “police can do this” and “police need oversight “?
The balance is fine, but what does that balance look like?
Like I said in my previous comment I think we as Canadians have struck that balance well and if the new laws don't then they will be repealed.
I'm not into baseless fear mongering about what ifs and I definitely don't think Justin Trudeau is an omnipotent dictator with the ability to control all media.
Okay but the new law allows police to search your online messages and accounts without warrants. Warrants are intended to BE that balance.
And I have little faith that the law will be struck down if it “goes too far”
If we look to the south and their “patriot act” you’ll find that it went WAY too far and the abuses were RAMPANT. Yet to this day, it’s still around.
-
-