Fox News could soon be banned from Canadian cable

[Western Theram]

And yet here you are, advocating banning something to take away agency of thought for the perceived health of society, just like a conservative.

Ah yes everyone is secretly the same so I don’t have to care about politics attitude. There’s a difference between freedom and blatantly spreading criminal lies for personal, political, and monetary gain. People’s lives have been put in ACTUAL danger when you say things like “gay people are trying to groom your kids” or “immigrants are trying to replace your ‘kind” it’s not about freedom when these people are actively engaging in the wrong thing, that they ACKNOWLEDGE is not only wrong but completely false in leaked interviews. Yet continue to do it anyway

[Nilokeras]

It's probably a more deliberate effort at censorship that happens to appeal with progressive values. One can, of course, rationalize it every which way, but it's not really terribly different from what China or Russia does.

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.

[EuroStralia]

It's probably a more deliberate effort at censorship that happens to appeal with progressive values. One can, of course, rationalize it every which way, but it's not really terribly different from what China or Russia does.

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.

[Nilokeras]

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.

Why do you love hate speech so much?

[EuroStralia]

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

Why do you love hate speech so much?

I don't, saying that censoring hate speech is an attempt to censor opposing views does not mean I love hate speech.

[Nilokeras]

Why do you love hate speech so much?

I don't, saying that censoring hate speech is an attempt to censor opposing views does not mean I love hate speech.

Sure it does. It means that you hate civil society and democracy so much that you want to give the extremely narrow band of 'views' that actively call for violence against people carte blanche to destroy that society.

Why do you love hate speech and hate democracy so much? Do you also love Hitler?

[Heavenly Assault]

And yet here you are, advocating banning something to take away agency of thought for the perceived health of society, just like a conservative.

Ah yes everyone is secretly the same so I don’t have to care about politics attitude. There’s a difference between freedom and blatantly spreading criminal lies for personal, political, and monetary gain. People’s lives have been put in ACTUAL danger when you say things like “gay people are trying to groom your kids” or “immigrants are trying to replace your ‘kind” it’s not about freedom when these people are actively engaging in the wrong thing, that they ACKNOWLEDGE is not only wrong but completely false in leaked interviews. Yet continue to do it anyway

I didn't try to imply everyone is the same. I am saying censorship and thought control is inherently conservative in nature, at least to me. Regardless, "freedom isn't free" and you're trying to wind back the clock on social progress because of fear. It's counter-productive in the long run.

[EuroStralia]

I don't, saying that censoring hate speech is an attempt to censor opposing views does not mean I love hate speech.

Sure it does. It means that you hate civil society and democracy so much that you want to give the extremely narrow band of 'views' that actively call for violence against people carte blanche to destroy that society.

Why do you love hate speech and hate democracy so much? Do you also love Hitler?

Sure it does. It means that you hate civil society and democracy

It means none of those things.

Why do you love hate speech

I don't.

hate democracy so much

I don't hate democracy, and I never implied that I did.

Do you also love Hitler?

Weird how you went me saying that censoring hate speech is censoring opposing views, to asking if I love Hitler, but no I do
n't love hitler.

[Nilokeras]

Sure it does. It means that you hate civil society and democracy so much that you want to give the extremely narrow band of 'views' that actively call for violence against people carte blanche to destroy that society.

Why do you love hate speech and hate democracy so much? Do you also love Hitler?

Sure it does. It means that you hate civil society and democracy

It means none of those things.

Why do you love hate speech

I don't.

hate democracy so much

I don't hate democracy, and I never implied that I did.

Do you also love Hitler?

Weird how you went me saying that censoring hate speech is censoring opposing views, to asking if I love Hitler, but no I do
n't love hitler.

It absolutely does mean you hate democracy and civil society. The bare minimum Canadian law requires is that it doesn't promote violence or abuse against people. Said violence is corrosive to a civil society and functioning democracy.

Why do you love speech that promotes violence and hatred against people?

[EuroStralia]

It means none of those things.

I don't.

I don't hate democracy, and I never implied that I did.

Weird how you went me saying that censoring hate speech is censoring opposing views, to asking if I love Hitler, but no I do
n't love hitler.

It absolutely does mean you hate democracy and civil society. The bare minimum Canadian law requires is that it doesn't promote violence or abuse against people. Said violence is corrosive to a civil society and functioning democracy.

Why do you love speech that promotes violence and hatred against people?

I don't love it.

[Drongonia]

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.

[Nilokeras]

It absolutely does mean you hate democracy and civil society. The bare minimum Canadian law requires is that it doesn't promote violence or abuse against people. Said violence is corrosive to a civil society and functioning democracy.

Why do you love speech that promotes violence and hatred against people?

I don't love it.

Then why are you defending it? What is gained by allowing people to violate the extremely basic principle that speech shouldn't promote violence or abuse against people? Do you just love Hitler that much?

[-Astoria-]

I don't get why and how Fox News is mired so deeply in controversy.

Assuming that that wasn't in jest... hoo boy, where do we begin?

[EuroStralia]

I don't love it.

Then why are you defending it? What is gained by allowing people to violate the extremely basic principle that speech shouldn't promote violence or abuse against people? Do you just love Hitler that much?

When did I defend it? I said that banning it is censoring opposing views, which it is. Also, why do you keep bringing up Hitler.

[Drongonia]

Then why are you defending it? What is gained by allowing people to violate the extremely basic principle that speech shouldn't promote violence or abuse against people? Do you just love Hitler that much?

When did I defend it? I said that banning it is censoring opposing views, which it is. Also, why do you keep bringing up Hitler.

Watch Tucker Carlson? You were Hitler's top guy in a past life.

[Heavenly Assault]

Do you just love Hitler that much?

Are you really doing this?

Lol

Lmao, even.

[Nilokeras]

Then why are you defending it? What is gained by allowing people to violate the extremely basic principle that speech shouldn't promote violence or abuse against people? Do you just love Hitler that much?

When did I defend it? I said that banning it is censoring opposing views, which it is. Also, why do you keep bringing up Hitler.

The speech in question is speech that promotes violence or abuse against people. If you're here defending it clearly you think it has a great deal of value. Do you think Hitler's speech is of value too?

[EuroStralia]

When did I defend it? I said that banning it is censoring opposing views, which it is. Also, why do you keep bringing up Hitler.

The speech in question is speech that promotes violence or abuse against people. If you're here defending it clearly you think it has a great deal of value. Do you think Hitler's speech is of value too?

I'm not defending it.

Do you think Hitler's speech is of value too?

If you ask the same question, expect the same anwser.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

If I point to a gay person, accuse him of being a satanist pedophile, and try to whip up a mob to run him out of town, that is slander and the person I'm targeting would be within his rights to sue me for the undue damage which I have done to his reputation.

If I point to a gay person, accuse gay people in general of being satanist pedophiles, and try to whip up a mob to run all the gay people out of town, then that is free speech and nobody can hold me legally responsible if, say, the person I was pointing at gets lynched.

I have never really understood why US libel law is written this way, and frankly I find arguments that this is how it should in fact work to be utterly contemptible. Canadian law on broadcast licenses is in my opinion far, far more internally consistent.

[Heavenly Assault]

If I point to a gay person, accuse him of being a satanist pedophile, and try to whip up a mob to run him out of town, that is slander and the person I'm targeting would be within his rights to sue me for the undue damage which I have done to his reputation.

If I point to a gay person, accuse gay people in general of being satanist pedophiles, and try to whip up a mob to run gay people out of town, then that is free speech and nobody can hold me legally responsible if, say, the person I was pointing at gets lynched.

I have never really understood why US libel law is written this way, and frankly I find arguments that this is how it should in fact work to be utterly contemptible. Canadian law on broadcast licenses is in my opinion far, far more internally consistent.

The cure to anti-intellectualism is not more anti-intellectualism.

[EuroStralia]

If I point to a gay person, accuse him of being a satanist pedophile, and try to whip up a mob to run him out of town, that is slander and the person I'm targeting would be within his rights to sue me for the undue damage which I have done to his reputation.

If I point to a gay person, accuse gay people in general of being satanist pedophiles, and try to whip up a mob to run all the gay people out of town, then that is free speech and nobody can hold me legally responsible if, say, the person I was pointing at gets lynched.

I have never really understood why US libel law is written this way, and frankly I find arguments that this is how it should in fact work to be utterly contemptible. Canadian law on broadcast licenses is in my opinion far, far more internally consistent.

If I point to a gay person, accuse gay people in general of being satanist pedophiles, and try to whip up a mob to run all the gay people out of town, then that is free speech and nobody can hold me legally responsible if, say, the person I was pointing at gets lynched.

If you accuses all gay people of being satanic pedos, and then try to whip up a mob to run a gay person out of town and he gets lynched you can still be held responsable. But simply saying all gay people of being satanist pedophiles is protected under free speech.

[Neu California]

If I point to a gay person, accuse him of being a satanist pedophile, and try to whip up a mob to run him out of town, that is slander and the person I'm targeting would be within his rights to sue me for the undue damage which I have done to his reputation.

If I point to a gay person, accuse gay people in general of being satanist pedophiles, and try to whip up a mob to run all the gay people out of town, then that is free speech and nobody can hold me legally responsible if, say, the person I was pointing at gets lynched.

I have never really understood why US libel law is written this way, and frankly I find arguments that this is how it should in fact work to be utterly contemptible. Canadian law on broadcast licenses is in my opinion far, far more internally consistent.

If I point to a gay person, accuse gay people in general of being satanist pedophiles, and try to whip up a mob to run all the gay people out of town, then that is free speech and nobody can hold me legally responsible if, say, the person I was pointing at gets lynched.

If you accuses all gay people of being satanic pedos, and then try to whip up a mob to run a gay person out of town and he gets lynched you can still be held responsable. But simply saying all gay people of being satanist pedophiles is protected under free speech.

As are the possible nonviolent reactions to such that conservatives love to bitch about, including deplatforming, banning, firing, etc.

Also, I'm not sure Canada has free speech codified in their constitution like the US does.

[Nilokeras]

The speech in question is speech that promotes violence or abuse against people. If you're here defending it clearly you think it has a great deal of value. Do you think Hitler's speech is of value too?

I'm not defending it.

Do you think Hitler's speech is of value too?

If you ask the same question, expect the same anwser.

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?

[EuroStralia]

I'm not defending it.


If you ask the same question, expect the same anwser.

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.

[Nilokeras]

Also, I'm not sure Canada has free speech codified in their constitution like the US does.

It does. From the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

The difference is that said fundamental rights have to be weighed in the balance - they are 'subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.' Successive Supreme Court rulings have stated pretty definitively that one of the very few provisions that can suspend that right is when speech promotes violence or hatred against other people, which promotes criminality and erodes the fabric of the society that upholds those fundamental rights to freedom of expression.