Fox News could soon be banned from Canadian cable

[Nilokeras]

You're minimizing incitement to violence to just 'opposing views'. Why else would you be going to bat this hard for incitement to violence if not because you support it?

I'm not "minimizing incitement to violence", I am saying that it is opposing views to yours.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my views. This is about the CRTC evaluating Fox News' content to see if it violates Canadian law on inciting violence and hatred against Canadians. That you are squeamish about being in the same bin with the Holocaust deniers is not my problem.

[Neu California]

Suddenly you're going to LARP as a free speech absolutist? Makes me totally believe that Fox, the GOP, etc. are not simply aligned with your values.

I'm not a free speech absolutist at all, it's just ridiculous that what amounts to basically milquetoast conservatism from 15 years ago is up for censorship. And for the record, no - FOX or the GOP could not accurately represent me or my values if I were an American.

So, saying things like all gays are groomers or if we allow trans people into bathrooms of their preferred gender, they'll assault people should not be considered hate speech to use two examples?

Society is becoming more tolerant of people different from the norm, and less tolerant of hateful rhetoric and that's a good thing. I mean, 60 years ago, milquetoast conservatism was all about segregation and keeping the blacks in their place. No one wants to go back to that aside from far-right nutters.

If conservatives want to hold still, then they shouldn't be surprised when society moves past them and finds their more intolerant beliefs awful and unacceptable.

[EuroStralia]

I'm not "minimizing incitement to violence", I am saying that it is opposing views to yours.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my views. This is about the CRTC evaluating Fox News' content to see if it violates Canadian law on inciting violence and hatred against Canadians. That you are squeamish about being in the same bin with the Holocaust deniers is not my problem.

I'm in no way similier to a Holocauat denier.

[Nilokeras]

I'm in no way similier to a Holocauat denier.

They are the ones that cemented the legality of hate speech legislation in Canada through successive Supreme Court battles that affirmed the state's right to prosecute hate speech and incitement to violence. They're right there with you when you say that bare minimum hate speech legislation is 'censoring opposing views', and almost nobody else is. Get comfortable with it.

[EuroStralia]

I'm in no way similier to a Holocauat denier.

They are the ones that cemented the legality of hate speech legislation in Canada through successive Supreme Court battles that affirmed the state's right to prosecute hate speech and incitement to violence. They're right there with you when you say that bare minimum hate speech legislation is 'censoring opposing views', and almost nobody else is. Get comfortable with it.

Legislation that cencors hate speech does censor opposing views, I don't know why that doesn't make sense to you.

[Nilokeras]

They are the ones that cemented the legality of hate speech legislation in Canada through successive Supreme Court battles that affirmed the state's right to prosecute hate speech and incitement to violence. They're right there with you when you say that bare minimum hate speech legislation is 'censoring opposing views', and almost nobody else is. Get comfortable with it.

Legislation that cencors hate speech does censor opposing views, I don't know why that doesn't make sense to you.

Hate speech is a specific class of action that involves incitement to violence or abuse. You and your friends can be Holocaust deniers in Canada - you can be secure in that. You can have that viewpoint. You can even express that viewpoint in speech, media, etc. What you can't do is commit the specific act of inciting violence or abuse against people. And that's why Fox News is being investigated by the CRTC, because the argument is that their content contains hate speech.

[EuroStralia]

Legislation that cencors hate speech does censor opposing views, I don't know why that doesn't make sense to you.

Hate speech is a specific class of action that involves incitement to violence or abuse. You and your friends can be Holocaust deniers in Canada - you can be secure in that. You can have that viewpoint. You can even express that viewpoint in speech, media, etc. What you can't do is commit the specific act of inciting violence or abuse against people. And that's why Fox News is being investigated by the CRTC, because the argument is that their content contains hate speech.

Hate speech is a specific class of action that involves incitement to violence or abuse.

Under that definition of hate speech, were did Fox incite violence.

[Terminus Station]

Canada really should ban Fox News, hate speech isn't protected under our bill of rights.

[Nilokeras]

Hate speech is a specific class of action that involves incitement to violence or abuse. You and your friends can be Holocaust deniers in Canada - you can be secure in that. You can have that viewpoint. You can even express that viewpoint in speech, media, etc. What you can't do is commit the specific act of inciting violence or abuse against people. And that's why Fox News is being investigated by the CRTC, because the argument is that their content contains hate speech.

Hate speech is a specific class of action that involves incitement to violence or abuse.

Under that definition of hate speech, were did Fox incite violence.

CTV News:

Egale Canada, a Toronto-based LGBTQ2 advocacy group, urged the CRTC to hold the consultation in an April 4 open letter that cited “false and horrifying claims” about transgender people made by then-host Tucker Carlson during a March 28 broadcast.

“This programming is in clear violation of Canadian broadcasting standards and has no place on Canadian broadcasting networks,” Egale’s executive director Helen Kennedy wrote.

...

The segment of Tucker Carlson Tonight in question, which remains online after Carlson’s firing, came a day after the mass shooting at a Nashville Christian school that killed three nine-year-old children and three adults. The shooter, identified initially by police as a woman and then as a transgender man who was a former student at The Covenant School, was killed by police.

“During the segment, Carlson made the inflammatory and false claim that trans people are ‘targeting’ Christians. To position trans people in existential opposition to Christianity is an incitement of violence against trans people that is plain to any viewer,” Egale said in the open letter to the CRTC.

“Lies and hateful propaganda are not news programming.”

Carlson — who has a long history of anti-trans rhetoric — spoke about what he described as the dangers of transgender “ideology” while downplaying the dangers trans people face and arguing they enjoy social, economic and educational advantages in the U.S.

During the broadcast in question, Carlson cited an open letter released by Egale the same day which was unrelated to the previous day’s shooting. That open letter noted “an unprecedented and exponential rise in anti-2SLGBTQI, hate-fueled, and gender-critical movements” around the world.

“This is a lie,” Carlson told his viewers. 

[EuroStralia]

Under that definition of hate speech, were did Fox incite violence.

CTV News:

Egale Canada, a Toronto-based LGBTQ2 advocacy group, urged the CRTC to hold the consultation in an April 4 open letter that cited “false and horrifying claims” about transgender people made by then-host Tucker Carlson during a March 28 broadcast.

“This programming is in clear violation of Canadian broadcasting standards and has no place on Canadian broadcasting networks,” Egale’s executive director Helen Kennedy wrote.

...

The segment of Tucker Carlson Tonight in question, which remains online after Carlson’s firing, came a day after the mass shooting at a Nashville Christian school that killed three nine-year-old children and three adults. The shooter, identified initially by police as a woman and then as a transgender man who was a former student at The Covenant School, was killed by police.

“During the segment, Carlson made the inflammatory and false claim that trans people are ‘targeting’ Christians. To position trans people in existential opposition to Christianity is an incitement of violence against trans people that is plain to any viewer,” Egale said in the open letter to the CRTC.

“Lies and hateful propaganda are not news programming.”

Carlson — who has a long history of anti-trans rhetoric — spoke about what he described as the dangers of transgender “ideology” while downplaying the dangers trans people face and arguing they enjoy social, economic and educational advantages in the U.S.

During the broadcast in question, Carlson cited an open letter released by Egale the same day which was unrelated to the previous day’s shooting. That open letter noted “an unprecedented and exponential rise in anti-2SLGBTQI, hate-fueled, and gender-critical movements” around the world.

“This is a lie,” Carlson told his viewers. 

Saying that trans people are targeting christian is not hate speech according to the definition you provided, it does not mean that trans people should be targetted just because someone took it that way.

[Nilokeras]

CTV News:

Egale Canada, a Toronto-based LGBTQ2 advocacy group, urged the CRTC to hold the consultation in an April 4 open letter that cited “false and horrifying claims” about transgender people made by then-host Tucker Carlson during a March 28 broadcast.

“This programming is in clear violation of Canadian broadcasting standards and has no place on Canadian broadcasting networks,” Egale’s executive director Helen Kennedy wrote.

...

The segment of Tucker Carlson Tonight in question, which remains online after Carlson’s firing, came a day after the mass shooting at a Nashville Christian school that killed three nine-year-old children and three adults. The shooter, identified initially by police as a woman and then as a transgender man who was a former student at The Covenant School, was killed by police.

“During the segment, Carlson made the inflammatory and false claim that trans people are ‘targeting’ Christians. To position trans people in existential opposition to Christianity is an incitement of violence against trans people that is plain to any viewer,” Egale said in the open letter to the CRTC.

“Lies and hateful propaganda are not news programming.”

Carlson — who has a long history of anti-trans rhetoric — spoke about what he described as the dangers of transgender “ideology” while downplaying the dangers trans people face and arguing they enjoy social, economic and educational advantages in the U.S.

During the broadcast in question, Carlson cited an open letter released by Egale the same day which was unrelated to the previous day’s shooting. That open letter noted “an unprecedented and exponential rise in anti-2SLGBTQI, hate-fueled, and gender-critical movements” around the world.

“This is a lie,” Carlson told his viewers. 

Saying that trans people are targeting christian is not hate speech according to the definition you provided, it does not mean that trans people should be targetted just because someone took it that way.

From a unanimous Supreme Court ruling on hate speech, Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott:

Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.

Clearly fits the bill.

[Western Theram]

As far as I’m concerned they haven’t banned the website or its online presence. If those idiots wanna watch right-wing propaganda being shoved down their throats they still can. It just won’t be as mainstream because said propaganda has been extremely untrue in its statements and cost itself its television presence

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Tucker Carlson said that the US should invade Canada. I found out about that after doing a recent Google Search today.

Kinda based. Ngl.

Reasonable excuse to deliver Tucker an explosive "journalism award".

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

When did they advocate invading Canada?

Tucker Carlson said that the US should invade Canada. I found out about that after doing a recent Google Search today.

why do these americans have such a bloody damn hard time getting over 1812

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Putting people in caskets because of the minor inconvenience of having to access Fox News online as opposed to over cable. Assuming they even ban it from cable, since they probably won't.

Why am I not surprised you'd have that take?

1. One would think the humorous tone was obvious. Especially given how ridiculous avenging the War of 1812 by making Canada North North Dakota would be.

2. Nobody mentioned putting people in caskets, and I doubt the existence of boomer television is going to lead directly to actual deaths. Generally, you need a stronger poison for that. One could potentially make an argument about systemic violence, but that’s a can of worms we probably shouldn’t open given it justifies my meme-tier arch-conservative reaction whereby all y’all get married, have three kids, go to synagogue, burn the poetry of the beatniks, and reject social atomization in favor of kinship and community.

3. I actually believe Canada reserves the power to censor media. I just happen to believe doing so is both illiberal and likely contrary to Canadian law. Something something democratic backsliding. Sadly, the US and Canada have dweebs for strongmen.

The casket comment was a reference to an invasion.

Tucker Carlson did unironically call the the invasion of Canada, so your humor wasn't obvious. Especially since absurdity is becoming mainstream in American politics. 10 years ago, something like QAnon would have been more of a parody of right-wing views, now it is a core tenant of the modern right.

Yes, we do have dweebs. They're the ones who croak "freeze peach" when someone on the far-right may even come close to facing any kind of negative reaction.

Something Something Freeze Peach.

[Equai]

Specifically, Canadian broadcasters can be fined or even lose their licenses for broadcasting “any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or a group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability” (Television Broadcasting Regulations, section 5(b); emphasis added). 

We have quite strong Charter rights that protect people from hate speech here. Fox News' coverage of trans people seems to violate those protections. Hence the consultation, which followed an LGBT rights group calling on the CRTC to investigate Fox News' content.

It's still is an attempt to censor opposing views.

Good. We as a collective society should censor, criticize and heavily sanction anyone who supports hate speech.

[GCMG]

I've read some of the posts here and I have one question... is banning false advertising censorship?

[Fahran]

I've read some of the posts here and I have one question... is banning false advertising censorship?

Potentially, yes. In the US, fraud is illegal, but there’s a pretty high bar needed to commit criminal fraud and it relates almost entirely to commercial dealings. The easiest way to run afoul of such laws is to deliberately cook your books and have the SEC drop like a hammer on you. FOX hasn’t really committed fraud. They have committed defamation in the past, similar to other media networks, and were compelled to settle and pay damages. But, in the US, we wouldn’t really have any grounds to ban them. Because we don’t ban hate speech, really.

[Fahran]

Good. We as a collective society should censor, criticize and heavily sanction anyone who supports hate speech.

Hate speech as defined by Canada largely frames the issue in such a way that it’s exclusively applied to hostile commentary by only a handful of groups. It’s effectively a form of progressive censorship.

[Fahran]

The casket comment was a reference to an invasion.

Tucker Carlson did unironically call the the invasion of Canada, so your humor wasn't obvious. Especially since absurdity is becoming mainstream in American politics. 10 years ago, something like QAnon would have been more of a parody of right-wing views, now it is a core tenant of the modern right.

Yes, we do have dweebs. They're the ones who croak "freeze peach" when someone on the far-right may even come close to facing any kind of negative reaction.

Something Something Freeze Peach.

I meant Trump and Trudeau. Both have made a show of employing violence against protestors and suppressing political enemies in a brazen fashion that really hasn’t been in vogue since the 1960s or 1970s.

The ACLU remains a pretty important organization within the broader liberal sphere in the US and they have previously defended expressions of speech more extreme than anything right-wingers would countenance. As I’ve said before, Canada and Germany do reserve the power to censor whoever they wish, but we shouldn’t suppose that this is, in principle, liberal or that it’s terribly different from China, Saudi Arabia, the UK, or Iran doing the same thing. The main distinction is in the dominant ideological grouping and the precise methodology. I doubt Canada is yet draconian enough to torture folks just yet.

[Fahran]

Tucker Carlson said that the US should invade Canada. I found out about that after doing a recent Google Search today.

why do these americans have such a bloody damn hard time getting over 1812

To quote my film studies professor talking about 9/11, the Canadians burning the White House down represented the realization of American castration anxiety and thus our hostile response is an attempt to reassert our masculine power. Home girl probably has dozens of crystals in her bed room.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

why do these americans have such a bloody damn hard time getting over 1812

To quote my film studies professor talking about 9/11, the Canadians burning the White House down represented the realization of American castration anxiety and thus our hostile response is an attempt to reassert our masculine power. Home girl probably has dozens of crystals in her bed room.

mfw wasn't even the Canadians...
it was four regular British regiments of foot and the Royal Engineers

[Dimetrodon Empire]

The casket comment was a reference to an invasion.

Tucker Carlson did unironically call the the invasion of Canada, so your humor wasn't obvious. Especially since absurdity is becoming mainstream in American politics. 10 years ago, something like QAnon would have been more of a parody of right-wing views, now it is a core tenant of the modern right.

Yes, we do have dweebs. They're the ones who croak "freeze peach" when someone on the far-right may even come close to facing any kind of negative reaction.

Something Something Freeze Peach.

I meant Trump and Trudeau. Both have made a show of employing violence against protestors and suppressing political enemies in a brazen fashion that really hasn’t been in vogue since the 1960s or 1970s.

The ACLU remains a pretty important organization within the broader liberal sphere in the US and they have previously defended expressions of speech more extreme than anything right-wingers would countenance. As I’ve said before, Canada and Germany do reserve the power to censor whoever they wish, but we shouldn’t suppose that this is, in principle, liberal or that it’s terribly different from China, Saudi Arabia, the UK, or Iran doing the same thing. The main distinction is in the dominant ideological grouping and the precise methodology. I doubt Canada is yet draconian enough to torture folks just yet.

You mean Trump and Trudeau are the dweebs? My apologies then, since I did think those comments were directed at me, and you did phrase it as a potshot/mockery at just the left and liberals.


I doubt Canada is going to torture people or become draconian. Hate speech laws aren't anything new nor has it lead to any slippery slope towards totalitarianism. To even compare it to Iran is ludicrous, since those states censor a lot more than Canada or even the UK does, and the punishments are much more severe.

[Fahran]

mfw wasn't even the Canadians...
it was four regular British regiments of foot and the Royal Engineers

We’re Americans. Expecting us to know history or geography was your first mistake. Plus invading people for maple syrup is funnier than invading them for oil.

[Nilokeras]

Good. We as a collective society should censor, criticize and heavily sanction anyone who supports hate speech.

Hate speech as defined by Canada largely frames the issue in such a way that it’s exclusively applied to hostile commentary by only a handful of groups. It’s effectively a form of progressive censorship.

It's really not that small of a group though - under the CRTC's operating rules it's 'any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or a group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability'.

It doesn't define any equity-seeking groups that this applies to, notably. Writing a racist screed about Anglo-Canadians is just as inadmissible as antisemitism. Which is probably the broadest possible set of protections against hate speech I'm aware of.