Fox News could soon be banned from Canadian cable

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Awww, the answer is that you cannot.

When you are really just trying to rile people up, it becomes very obvious, especially when you have no ideology, wither established or even your own unique blend.

Surely there's an idiom for this. It's not "pot calling the kettle black", because the accusations only apply to you...

There is a word in psychology for this. It's called Projection and it's what you're doing here.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Nothing shows your commitment to freedom of expression and open dialogue like banning a news channel.

I think Fox News is a disaster and run by charlatans, but this only plays into their hands. Brain-dead move from our friends up north, they ought to reconsider.

It's not a news channel, and that was admitted by Fox themselves.

And even free speech should have exceptions.

[Life empire]

Nothing shows your commitment to freedom of expression and open dialogue like banning a news channel.

I think Fox News is a disaster and run by charlatans, but this only plays into their hands. Brain-dead move from our friends up north, they ought to reconsider.

It's not a news channel, and that was admitted by Fox themselves.

And even free speech should have exceptions.

why should free speech have exceptions? and even if it should as far as I know fox news hasn't done anything even remotely severe enough for that

[EuroStralia]

yay, hate speech is finally being banned. i wish the U.S. would follow suit, but that's a pipe dream, sad as it is

Banning "hate speech" would be a direct breach of the First Amendment.

[Wallenburg]

It's not a news channel, and that was admitted by Fox themselves.

And even free speech should have exceptions.

why should free speech have exceptions? and even if it should as far as I know fox news hasn't done anything even remotely severe enough for that

Because free speech isn't good in of itself. It is good as a result of its generally good consequences. FOX broadcasting misinformation and hate propaganda on a daily basis does not advance the good. It undermines democracy and advances anti-reality ideological commitments among impressionable viewers.

[Des-Bal]

Yeah fuck canada. I mean it's not new, Canada hates free speech.

Because free speech isn't good in of itself. It is good as a result of its generally good consequences. FOX broadcasting misinformation and hate propaganda on a daily basis does not advance the good. It undermines democracy and advances anti-reality ideological commitments among impressionable viewers.

So you don't believe in a right so much as a general ability to advance the public good.

[EuroStralia]

why should free speech have exceptions? and even if it should as far as I know fox news hasn't done anything even remotely severe enough for that

Because free speech isn't good in of itself. It is good as a result of its generally good consequences. FOX broadcasting misinformation and hate propaganda on a daily basis does not advance the good. It undermines democracy and advances anti-reality ideological commitments among impressionable viewers.

So you don't support free speech.

[The Black Forrest]

Because free speech isn't good in of itself. It is good as a result of its generally good consequences. FOX broadcasting misinformation and hate propaganda on a daily basis does not advance the good. It undermines democracy and advances anti-reality ideological commitments among impressionable viewers.

So you don't support free speech.

So you support hate and racism.

See how simple that was? Don’t be silly.

[Des-Bal]

So you support hate and racism.

See how simple that was? Don’t be silly.

Bullshit.

Supporting a person's right to say a thing is different from supporting the thing they're saying or opposing punitive action being taken in response.

Example:

I don't believe the earth is flat.

If you started ripping out flat earther's fingernails I'd be just a touch bothered.

[The Black Forrest]

So you support hate and racism.

See how simple that was? Don’t be silly.

Bullshit.

Supporting a person's right to say a thing is different from supporting the thing they're saying or opposing punitive action being taken in response.

Example:

I don't believe the earth is flat.

If you started ripping out flat earther's fingernails I'd be just a touch bothered.

Nobody is saying the flat earthers are out to groom children.

Try again.

[EuroStralia]

So you don't support free speech.

So you support hate and racism.

See how simple that was? Don’t be silly.

No.

[Undemocacy]

yay, hate speech is finally being banned. i wish the U.S. would follow suit, but that's a pipe dream, sad as it is

Banning "hate speech" would be a direct breach of the First Amendment.

Canada doesn't follow the American constitution.

[EuroStralia]

Banning "hate speech" would be a direct breach of the First Amendment.

Canada doesn't follow the American constitution.

If you looked at the post I qouted, you would see that they said, " i wish the U.S. would follow suit, but that's a pipe dream, sad as it is", that is what I was responding to.

[Des-Bal]

Nobody is saying the flat earthers are out to groom children.

Try again.

I don't care and I don't need to.

[The Black Forrest]

Nobody is saying the flat earthers are out to groom children.

Try again.

I don't care and I don't need to.

*shrugs*

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

why should free speech have exceptions?

We generally find that it is desirable, for the good functioning of democratic politics, that people not be permitted to slander other people's reputations with unsubstantiated rumours. That is why in, for example, the UK, you can be held criminally liable for the things you say about people unless you can show in court that you have reasonable enough evidence to believe that the things you said are true.

People have a right to a reputation that truthfully reflects their behaviour.

[Des-Bal]

*shrugs*

Yeah, having no understanding of what's happening is a valid response.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

why should free speech have exceptions?

Agreed. How dare anyone infringe on my right to decorate my van with a pornographic mural, scream obscenities at people and shout fire in a crowded theatre.

[The Black Forrest]

*shrugs*

Yeah, having no understanding of what's happening is a valid response.

I thought you didn’t care?

[EuroStralia]

why should free speech have exceptions?

Agreed. How dare anyone infringe on my right to decorate my van with a pornographic mural, scream obscenities at people and shout fire in a crowded theatre.

Decorating your van with p*rn isn't free speech, and yes, should be illegal.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Agreed. How dare anyone infringe on my right to decorate my van with a pornographic mural, scream obscenities at people and shout fire in a crowded theatre.

Decorating your van with p*rn isn't free speech, and yes, should be illegal.

What is and isn't free speech is usually up to the courts to decide, but thanks for demonstrating that you agree that there should be some sort of limits when it comes to what speech is protected and what speech is not. Court rulings regarding porn as free speech

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, back to discussing how to define reasonable limits.

Also, in the US porn is protected under the 1st Amendment: https://reason.com/2019/10/04/pornograp ... amendment/

[Des-Bal]

I thought you didn’t care?

I don't but I've acknowledged your submission to my superior values.

*shrugs*

[EuroStralia]

Decorating your van with p*rn isn't free speech, and yes, should be illegal.

What is and isn't free speech is usually up to the courts to decide, but thanks for demonstrating that you agree that there should be some sort of limits when it comes to what speech is protected and what speech is not.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, back to discussing how to define reasonable limits.

You seem to have ignored the part were I said that wasn't free speech.

[The Black Forrest]

I thought you didn’t care?

I don't but I've acknowledged your submission to my superior values.

*shrugs*

Unhuh. You are worth a laugh. I will give you that.

[Undemocacy]

What is and isn't free speech is usually up to the courts to decide, but thanks for demonstrating that you agree that there should be some sort of limits when it comes to what speech is protected and what speech is not.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, back to discussing how to define reasonable limits.

You seem to have ignored the part were I said that wasn't free speech.

give a good reason why it isn't free speech, that isn't in relation to the technicality that it isn't spoken.