Ummm, no. None of us, and none of the people you cited, cited hate lmao. Again, youre outlining speech that anyone can be offended by, and frankly that's counter productive and childish. How about instead, if you don't like what someones saying, ignore it? We're all mature here I'd assume.Hate speech via Wikipedia: hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity
Hate speech via the Criminal Code of Canada:
- Section 318 makes it an offense to advocate or promote genocide
- Section 319(1) makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace
- Section 319(B) makes it an offence to willfully promote hatred against any identifiable group by make statements (other than in private conversation)
- Section 319(C) provides defenses to the above (statements are true, good faith opinion from religious text, for public benefit and on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true)
See: Southern, Lauren; Jones, Alex, et al
how do you engage people like this meaningfully?
how do you engage people like this meaningfully?
And no, your right to free speech does not entitle you to a platform from which to speak. You can walk down the street saying whatever you want but any given third party entity has zero obligation to let you use them as your platform to speak.
Ummm, irony overdose. Thanks for allowing my point to stand.user who doesnt know the difference between liberals and leftists: we may not know what the words we're typing mean but umm well at least we're polite!!!!
None of them incited hatred. Ive been doing a lot of the talking and research, how about instead you broaden your premise by telling me how and why theyre promoting hatred in the firstplace?I paraphrased 319(C) to the relevant parts.
Please be so kind as to convince me that people who advocate for white supremacy, people who advocate for the denigration of minorities, and people who advocate for this through media platforms are not inciting hatred.
There's a reason anybody can be offended by the statements covered under hate speech laws and that's because everybody should be offended by them because they are morally wrong.
Your concept is correct but context ignorant. The public platform is the internet, not a given website. If YouTube or Facebook or whomever does not want to display (and implicitly support) given content they are not obligated to. You have every freedom to use the public good of the internet to express whatever views you want, on your own domain should you choose, but anything pushed to a third party is subject to the user agreement terms you accept by using that site.And, yes, it does actually, just as much as it is your right. If the platform is private, yes Id agree with you. If its public, youre wrong.
Ummm, irony overdose. Thanks for allowing my point to stand.
Ok, tell me where PragerU broke the agreement terms when a couple of their videos were restricted on facebook (and then reversed, claiming it was a mistake), and demonitized on Youtube. Nowhere. Its bevause they don't like conservative, and I cant even fully say that, moderate voices. Thats highly subjective. You're correct, but thats where my issue is.Your concept is correct but context ignorant. The public platform is the internet, not a given website. If YouTube or Facebook or whomever does not want to display (and implicitly support) given content they are not obligated to. You have every freedom to use the public good of the internet to express whatever views you want, on your own domain should you choose, but anything pushed to a third party is subject to the user agreement terms you accept by using that site.
Actually you can't because your argument has no logical basis in fact and would be laughed out of court.None of them incited hatred. Ive been doing a lot of the talking and research, how about instead you broaden your premise by telling me how and why theyre promoting hatred in the firstplace?
Also, I can make the same argument that youre offending me, and youd be fined or arrested under that law. I could say youre insighting bigotry (intolerance of other peoples opinions), and relate that to hatred. Do you see how stupid and how faulty that thinking is, it wont go anywhere productive or good.
I neither know nor care who PragerU isOk, tell me where PragerU broke the agreement terms when a couple of their videos were restricted on facebook (and then reversed, claiming it was a mistake), and demonitized on Youtube. You're correct, but thats where my issue is.
Actually you can't because your argument has no logical basis in fact and would be laughed out of court.
Since you love research so much how about you watch a Lauren Southern video yourself and listen to the content and tone without a political agenda.
No, about the hypothetical I made. Only its when someone doesnt want to use transgender pronouns, for instance, and not even close to insighting hate.The conservative government is watching rebel media videos...?
I need you to quote more accurately here it's very unclear what you're trying to sayNo, about the hypothetical I made. Only its when someone doesnt want to use transgender pronouns, for instance, and not even close to insighting hate.
I fixed that post so its organized better, apologies on mobile.I need you to quote more accurately here it's very unclear what you're trying to say
Also, I can make the same argument that youre offending me, and youd be fined or arrested under that law. I could say youre insighting bigotry (intolerance of other peoples opinions), and relate that to hatred. Do you see how stupid and how faulty that thinking is, it wont go anywhere productive or good.
You may want to look at Canada Bill C-16, which does turn it into a legal issue. I oppose this because it forces and stifles speech.As far as transgender pronouns are concerned that issue cannot be considered hate speech because the law has not yet caught up to the world to entitle transgendered individuals to their pronouns of preference.
Refusing to respect someone's identity in that regard is a moral issue, not a legal one
>takes thinly veiled shots at meuser who doesnt know the difference between liberals and leftists: we may not know what the words we're typing mean but umm well at least we're polite!!!!
Said law includes provisions including gender identity and expression under protections of hate crimes, but does not indicate criminal repercussions for refusing to address someone by their chosen pronoun.You may want to look at Canada Bill C-16, which does turn it into a legal issue. I oppose this because it forces and stifles speech.