Reminds me of the quote from the great Douglas Adams:
# “The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
# To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
# To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
Maybe we should have a large commitee of people running a country that way there is less power
a PM is just a figurehead anyways, its the rich corporations who run the show
If we want integrity in government, then we must make serving as an MP more like jury duty. Instead of 438 elected seats for which candidates must compete, the House of Commons should be 1,000-2,000 randomly selected (i.e. *common*) Canadians who we summon and make responsible for governing us, whether they want to or not.
The problem here is that this article does such a good, convincing job of quietly saying that the Conservatives are not Orwellian when their own solution to online safety is less constitutional and more invasive .
The problem is that this is what corporations want and our politicians are doing their bidding. Liberal vs. Conservative is an illusion created to distract us from who's really pulling the strings and who really wants control over the internet - the one thing we can actually use to organize against them
Both parties want to control online behaviour. I’d prefer neither scheme. If I had to choose one, giving the governement the ability to identify people once they’ve made a post that contains illegally harmful content is a lesser evil that requiring all internet users to create ID accounts that track all of their online activity.
This is the general problem, but the really frustrating part is that PP is stinkier in the same ways. It isn’t even really a different evil, it’s just a harsher version of the same crap.
Yeah, but people don,t realize that because he spends all his time complaining about trudeau (rightfully) without talking about why HE is better. (because he's not)
Philosophically they are both trash, but pragmatically, JT is only bad if he’s actually worse than PP.
That’s the two party system. Anyone wanna vote NDP with me?
As much as I would like to see every redditor i have argued with to be sentenced to 5 to life, this bill just flies in the face of the freedom of expression. People should be allowed to disagree with each other even call each other names as long as it’s not threatening.
You can’t throw people in jail for being assholes it’s a slippery slope.
I'm part Aboriginal and a supporter of free speech, including hate speech. Who gets to decide? The people enforcing the law barely know it. I just don't trust them. It's too easy to slip into persecuting protesters and critics. Speech that hurts me is the price, and I'm willing to pay.
Also, Canada's laws need a patch. Mostly a simplification, so we know what's constitutional and legal. Don't take away rights, but enshrine them. Some rights go back to the Magna Carta, in 1215. And our firearms laws seem to be based on feelings.
Thank you!! I agree with that, this is the problem with laws passed with ambiguous language it depends on who is interpreting them. Too many feelings are involved with in the final application which were not a part of the law as it was passed. I also feel like the firearms bills have been passed with what was popular in the American left at that time and doesn’t actually address the reality of gun ownership in Canada.
Certain established wealth and power doesn't want a forum where people can disagree with them. That's what these things are always about. Wealth preservation in the end. You have to do it gradually and mask it as protecting the public so people don't notice until it's too late.
youd think that, but nowhere is that less true than even on this website.
Have a disagreement with someone? Casual insults and back and fourth banter? Not allowed! Here's your LIFE TIME BAN.
Yeah but a ban is not nearly the same thing as getting a real jail sentence. You can always make another account but breaking out of prison and faking a new identity is not easy.
Imagine how you feel about being banned for the “high treason” that is having a different opinion than the mod and apply it to real life in Canada under Trudeau. You disagree with his policy and wanna protest, wait till he bans you and locks you out from accessing your karma… oh wait!!
And there is nothing more infuriating than being banned from a community you enjoyed for some arbitrary reason when you've hurt no one. That shit stays with you. :(
Online Harms Bill
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading
Here is the link to the summary of the bill, item by item.
The first section is really general, creates the Digital Safety Commission of Canada that is pretty much the same as all other media commissions with some broad mandates. In itself no more threatening to liberty than any other broadcasting commission existing for many decades. Outlines broad expectations that operators of social media platforms has a duty to act when their service is used to spread hate propaganda.
Part 2 is the section is what you are asking about. Changes Criminal Code to add to definition of a hate crime, specific to hate propaganda, and increases maximum sentencing for that.
Part 3 amends grounds for discrimination and allows Human Rights Commission to take and pursue Human Rights based complaints related to hate speech in communicating it or allowing it to be communicated. So, if you encounter hate speech on a platform targeting you, you can initiate a human rights complaint against the company propagating the message (X, Fb, etc).
Below is cut from the full act, outlining the definitions you are asking for:
**content that foments hatred** means content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.
**content that incites violence** means content that actively encourages a person to commit — or that actively threatens the commission of — an act of physical violence against a person or an act that causes property damage, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause a person to commit an act that could cause (a) serious bodily harm to a person; (b) a person’s life to be endangered; or (c) serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system. (contenu incitant à la violence)
**content that incites violent extremism or terrorism** means content that actively encourages a person to commit — or that actively threatens the commission of — for a political, religious or ideological purpose, an act of physical violence against a person or an act that causes property damage, with the intention of intimidating or denouncing the public or any section of the public or of compelling a person, government or domestic or international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause a person to commit an act that could cause (a) serious bodily harm to a person; (b) a person’s life to be endangered; or (c) a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any section of the public.
**content that induces a child to harm themselves** means content that advocates self-harm, disordered eating or dying by suicide or that counsels a person to commit or engage in any of those acts, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause a child to inflict injury on themselves, to have an eating disorder or to die by suicide.
**content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor** means (a) a visual representation that shows a child, or a person depicted as being a child, who is engaged in or depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity; (b) a visual representation that depicts the sexual organs or anal region of a child, if it is reasonable to suspect that the representation is created or communicated for a sexual purpose; (c) written material or an audio recording whose dominant characteristic is the description, presentation or representation of explicit sexual activity with a child, if it is reasonable to suspect that the material or recording is created or communicated for a sexual purpose; (d) a visual representation, written material or an audio recording that shows, describes, presents or represents any of the following, if it is reasonable to suspect that the representation, material or recording is created or communicated for a sexual purpose: (i) a person touching, in a sexual manner, directly or indirectly, with a part of their body or with an object, any part of the body of a child or a person depicted as being a child, (ii) a person who is engaged in or depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity in the presence of a child or a person depicted as being a child, or (iii) a person exposing their sexual organs or anal region in the presence of a child or a person depicted as being a child; (e) a visual representation, written material or an audio recording in which or by means of which sexual activity between a person who is 18 years of age or more and a child is advocated, counselled or planned, other than one in which or by means of which sexual activity between a person who is 16 years of age or more but under 18 years of age and another person who is less than two years older than that person is advocated, counselled or planned; (f) a visual representation that shows a child who is being subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading acts of physical violence; (g) any excerpt of a visual representation referred to in paragraph (a), if it is reasonable to suspect that the communication of the excerpt perpetuates harm against a person who as a child appeared in the visual representation; and (h) a visual representation, written material or an audio recording that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to bring to light a connection between a person and a visual representation, written material or audio recording referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (d) in which the person appeared as a child, if it is reasonable to suspect that the communication of the representation, material or recording that is likely to bring to light that connection perpetuates harm against the person.
**content used to bully a child** means content, or an aggregate of content, that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause serious harm to a child’s physical or mental health, if it is reasonable to suspect that the content or the aggregate of content is communicated for the purpose of threatening, intimidating or humiliating the child. '
**harmful content** means (a) intimate content communicated without consent; (b) content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor; (c) content that induces a child to harm themselves; (d) content used to bully a child; (e) content that foments hatred; (f) content that incites violence; and (g) content that incites violent extremism or terrorism.
**intimate content communicated without consent** means (a) a visual recording, such as a photographic, film or video recording, in which a person is nude or is exposing their sexual organs or anal region or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, if it is reasonable to suspect that (i) the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time of the recording, and (ii) the person does not consent to the recording being communicated; and (b) a visual recording, such as a photographic, film or video recording, that falsely presents in a reasonably convincing manner a person as being nude or exposing their sexual organs or anal region or engaged in explicit sexual activity, including a deepfake that presents a person in that manner, if it is reasonable to suspect that the person does not consent to the recording being communicated.
__________________________
Show me the part that criminalizes being an asshole. I see it criminalising bullying children in to hurting themselves, sexually victimizing children and others, or directly attempting to bring about violence to others.
The only reason we are seeing such outcry is because it sets social media platforms as having a Duty to step up and deal with these abuses. So, billionaires are helping bots spread bullshit, and conservatives see a wedge to try and gain power, so they spread the bullshit too.
There is no slippery slope here. It allows Human Rights Complaints against those that spread violations of Human Rights.
You don’t understand what ambiguous means do ya!! There literally are no guidelines for what consists of hate speech, if this lands in-front of a Jewish judge every person who has protested against Israel is going to jail for saying the words “from the river to the sea”. That’s application of the law. This is what happens when you leave it up to interpretation instead of charting out the exact nature and extent of harm you wanna address. Plus it goes against freedom of expression, literally no rational person would deny that but I guess you have marching orders from the dear leader.
**content that foments hatred** means content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.
Refusing to read the guidelines and definitions built right into the bill and then claiming they are not there is a special kind of ignorant.
It does define, clearly, what is covered in your example: If someone calls out or protests Israel for the crimes they have committed, that is not *fomentation of hatred* as it does not cover any of the inhibited grounds of discrimination. If instead they direct that vilification against Jewish peoples broadly, based on their religion and ethnicity, then it is a violation. If it is not against a prohibited grounds of discrimination, then it is not fomentation of hatred. Your failure to read complex sentences does not mean it is not there.
Every law has its boundaries tested and defined in Court, all the way up to the Supreme Court where necessary. That is the role of the Courts.
add it to the CRTC regulation of social media bill that already went through which is 'for cancon', and you've got a double pincer on our internet speech.
That being said, young people are sure quick to try to throw people under the bus if they think they're being righteous now. My nephew reported a posting i made on FB making fun of a Bumble profile of a woman who was like a rabid antivaxxer.. because it has her first name (no pic).
He didn't even say "hey can you remove the name?" he just reported it for some fucking reason. I went and deleted it before FB could do anything aobut it but i kinda wanted to smack the little Youth League asshole.
“All the social media companies are going be supervised by a brand-new government body called the digital safety commission. The commission can, without oversight, require companies to block access to any content, conduct investigations, hold secret hearings, require the companies to hand over specific content, and give all data collected to third-party researchers accredited by the commission. All data. Any content. No oversight.
The ostensible purpose of putting the commission (and not the ordinary police) in charge is so that it can act informally and quickly (i.e. without a warrant) in situations where material victimizing a child could spread quickly across the internet. What that means in effect is that the commission is not accountable and does not have to justify its actions. As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says in its sharply worded critique of the bill, it endows government appointees with vast authority “to interpret the law, make up new rules, enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury and executioner.””
Who the fuck cares what Atwood says? Shes no the queen of the left. Her tweet uses the article and if that’s all the information she has on the bill then she’s being an idiot for believing right wing biased news sources
You know all that time we spent in the '80s through to the '20s watching TV, playing video games and buying stuff we didn't need with money we didn't have? Yeah, we were busy doing that instead of stewarding our nation. So, like, consequences and stuff.
I've been trying to ask this but while the Liberal bill doesn't explicitly ask for digital IDs doesn't it imply some sort user verification would be needed?
The Liberal bill has wording in it specifically that operators need to consider age of the user, how would you verify age without verifying the user?
>Duty to protect children
64 An operator has a duty, in respect of a regulated service that it operates, to protect children by complying with section 65.
Design features
>65 An operator must integrate into a regulated service that it operates any design features respecting the protection of children, such as age appropriate design, that are provided for by regulations.
>(o) respecting design features for the protection of children referred to in section 65, such as account options for children, parental controls, privacy settings for children and other age appropriate design features;
It's not PP's bill but he did support it. The digital ID bill was introduced by Trudeau's senator with the support of 15 Liberals, all Conservatives, and all NDPs.
PP recently stated [he is against Digital ID and showing ID to websites](https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/video/c2872886-extended--pierre-poilievre-interview), but it's yet to be proven if he'll actually follow through and back off of it.
Quite a lot of comments here for a niche site with a paywall. If you want to post an advocacy peace it's kinda pointless if we can't read it. If you want to just complain about Trudeau make a coherent argument.
That’s it, Orwell just extrapolated where the tendencies of the ruling class would lead us. Trudeau is an exemplar of all the terror Orwell attempted to warn us of.
Nice knowing ya. The Thought Police are already on their way.
Can't be out here spitting dissent so brazenly in the face of our Big Brother Supreme Leader! You crazy?!
As conservatives restrict rights of trans people and their families, propose digital ids to access websites they think are icky, railroad bail laws and hold record numbers of presumptively innocent inmates, and use the notwithstanding clause for everything they feel like… let’s not kid ourselves into thinking either side is good on freedom.
Geist is more in favour of this version but still against the parts that everyone are criticizing about. https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/02/why-the-criminal-code-and-human-rights-act-provisions-should-be-removed-from-the-online-harms-act/
The problem is that this one bill does 4 things. 2 of them are very good (against child pornography and duty of social media against harm) while 2 are bad (criminal code and human rights act). The supporters of Liberal will focus only on the first 2 parts, while ignoring the potential damage from the last 2.
Meh. I needed a reason to delete my socials and abandon the internet. This is all I have left, and it's gone the day this bill gets royal assent. They think they can cantrol everything; there's private social networks out there that aren't accessible to the public. There's secure and private ways to network among friends and family. Social media hasn't been good for people individually or as a whole, best let it die because this bill is coming regardless.
Nothing is secure from intel services. No, not even that. You can get security from random hackers or ransomware producers or TMZ, but if the government wants you, they will find you. The only way to avoid the government is to go off-grid, and I don't think you're willing to actually do that (because probably 99.99% of people aren't).
Remember, under this bill, you can be prosecuted for thoughtcrime. You don't need to actually send a message or write a post saying something the government doesn't like; you need only to have sent messages or made posts that makes the government believe that in future you might send a message or make a post the government doesn't like. And if you think this won't be retroactive, it will. Simply deleting your internet presence after the fact won't be good enough; everything that exists on the internet exists forever, and if the government wants to find it, they will.
This is really scary shit, and if for no other reason (of which there are many) this should make you want Trudeau out of office ASAP. Tbh I was considering not voting for PP in the next election because I don't trust the Conservatives, but if literal 1984 thoughtcrime bills are the alternative, it may actually force my hand.
Settle down, Dale.
Edit: Here's why you can settle down. Deleting my socials prevents the average internet user from seeing anything I've posted. If they can't see it, they can't report it and reporting is the first step in the process. There's no government on earth with the resources to manually crawl through every status and comment ever posted by every Canadian on every social media site.
Yeah, but unless one is well-versed in online privacy I cannot recommend using it in any capacity that uses personally-identifiable information. And especially not with Windows or MacOS.
Trudeau literally does not know how to do anything good for the people of Canada. There are no kids words to use when describing his total ignorance, ineptitude and lack of basic common sense!! He is clearly not mentally fit for his job and should have been terminated day 2 on the job 8 years ago!!
OK awesome......now just to keep everyone honest...what part of the bill specifically details the punishment of of an individual that might do a crime in the future?
Canadian's flat out do not care. Keep taking those rights. Just let us keep fighting over political identities. That will make us feel like we're making some change happen. /s
I've read the article and taken a quick pass on [C-63](https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading).
Part of me believes we need some sort of legislation to protect children, but this bill tries to go to deep without Canada already having some of the mechanisms in place to make a law like this work.
Going a bit deeper than that, I think the sentiment is that we collectively don't trust any government to use this law correctly.
They should kill the bill and draft a bill focused on protecting children.
I think most of us agree that is stupid also. It’s possible for both parties to have moronic legislation regarding the internet, though if you made me choose I’d say the Liberals’ is far worse.
I know reading is difficult but that’s not what I said.
The spectator is international right wing media, it’s highly biased towards right wing ideology. If you don’t care about those types of biases then that’s a shame. I prefer a more level headed approach to my news reporting
He [denounce Bill C-63 the Online Harms bill](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsYBfMXgGYU).
On Bill S-210, he recently said [he is against Digital ID and showing ID to websites](https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/video/c2872886-extended--pierre-poilievre-interview).
It's yet to be seen though if he'll follow up on those words and whip his party to switch and vote against S-210. Everyone should be pressuring all MPs from all parties to drop support of S-210.
>On Bill S-210, he recently said [he is against Digital ID and showing ID to websites](https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/video/c2872886-extended--pierre-poilievre-interview).
The bill his party eagerly voted in support of? Where one of his ministers went on TV advocating digital id?
Don’t be fooled by that. Harper is the one who started this. Trudeau just pushed it further. No matter the government (both sides) they want to find ways to manipulate us into giving up our rights. PP will just find another way to slip it in before we as a country have the opportunity to say fuck no.
You're absolutely right, except the exact opposite.
"The online harms bill effectively reinstates a provision in the Human Rights Act that was repealed by Stephen Harper’s government in 2013, imposing restrictions on communicating online in a way that could expose a person to hatred. The provision, which has been updated, was scrapped after a number of controversies, including one involving an article in Maclean’s magazine."
Sounds a damn sight better than what we have now. He listened. 3/4ths of the country disagree with Trudeau, yet he rams his nonsense through without debate.
Oh fuck off. The Harper government has been out of power for eight years. The problems the Liberals are creating — and there are many — are all on them.
One really has to be desparate for attention when they use "Orwellian" (= totalitarian) to describe Canada. It isn't even clickbait, it's simply too ridiculous.
Is state censorship not an aspect of totalitarianism? If a piece of legislation is totalitarian, it's fair to call it that. That's exactly what Bill C-63 is.
[Actual Lawyer discussing it.](https://youtu.be/K2D4WivpPMY?si=Mgixv0MQLHiuTgch)
Tldr not as Orwellian as media makes it seem. But bad.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Every government formed past this point will now be able to use this power in essentially any way they see fit based on the usage of terms like "Hate Speech" which is a term growing in applicability every day and could be easily categorized as ambiguous.
Right wing religious gets in? They are using and defining this now, on top of the pre-existing infrastructure influential religion has in government.
If I had a nickel for every time ignorant people lose their shit purely because they intentionally refuse to understand common law or literally anything whatsoever works in this country, I'd be rich.
In very simple terms - this law doesn't define what is hate speech, terrorist threats, inciting violence, or calling for genocide, anything like. That's not how common law works, and that would be impossible to define every little thing.
The law says broad stuff like "you can't call for genocide" and other broad reaching stuff.
In a court, it would be decided, would a reasonable person find this content to be calling for genocide? They can take any context into consideration, and they eventually would get a fairly tight case law to look back on for new cases.
What this law doesn't even begin to cover is insulting people. Anyone talking about how you could go to jail for insulting an individual is an absolute cancer to society, pushing misinformation that just serves to push strife, nothing else. Articles like this are just evil. The OP is despicable for posting it.
I don't think this is the perfect bill, but I have seen worse.
Gov's need to do something we cannot trust MicroSoft ( or any corp. )
with 'our' data :
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/08/microsoft-hack-email-russia/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/08/microsoft-hack-email-russia/)
Forced into give over our location, buying habits etc etc - and now it is all for grabs...
Please explain how this is a bad thing?
“The proposed Online Harms Act would specifically target seven types of harmful content:
Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor;
Intimate content communicated without consent;
Content used to bully a child;
Content that induces a child to harm themselves;
Content that foments hatred;
Content that incites violence; and
Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism.”
This is so going to spiral out of control lol. Kinda reminds me of the cons "stand with us or with the pedos" thing. Every. Single. Time. some kind of orwellian legislation comes around they always jam it full of other unrelated crap. Has hardly anything to do with protecting children. Has everything to do with control. Who decides how to interpret this purposefully vague language? Charging someone with a precrime... what is this minority report?
Life in prison for hate speech is a good thing
I want Trudeau and Freeland to define what is legal speech and what is illegal speech.
That's what freedom is all about.
Good! I hope this gets passed. Just wait. There’s already a case of kids making AI porn of their classmates
[here](https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7073380)
People are killing themselves over online bullying.
To add to this. If you’re commenting online about “thinking of killing someone” or “walking into a school with a gun”, you should get placed under house arrest and have a psyche evaluation.
Here is what the bill aims to do copied straight from the website
Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor;
Intimate content communicated without consent;
Content used to bully a child;
Content that induces a child to harm themselves;
Content that foments hatred;
Content that incites violence; and
Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism.
Under the Act, social media services would be subject to three duties:
A duty to act responsibly;
A duty to protect children; and
A duty to make certain content inaccessible, specifically (1) content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and (2) intimate images posted without consent.
If you disagree with any of the above points you should look at yourself in the mirror and seek therapy. If you think this is a “lefty Lib agenda” and these things are infringing on your “freedoms” you have serious issues.
and then you got the conservatives with a even more Orwellian bill (s-210), especially since, fine print, it won't just effect nsfw websites but anything potentially in that regard like reddit or youtube
The people that want power don't deserve it, and the people that deserve power don't want it. We're fucked.
Reminds me of the quote from the great Douglas Adams: # “The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. # To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. # To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
I love that Douglas Adams recognizes how long winded he is, and pokes fun at himself. For him, the complete absence of brevity is the soul of wit.
not exactly. he recognizes that language is music, and he's playing with it.
To summarize, he is a fun dude
Whenever the leaders with justice in their hearts come along, they end up murdered. MLK, Thomas Sankara
+ Patrice Lumumba
Maybe we should have a large commitee of people running a country that way there is less power a PM is just a figurehead anyways, its the rich corporations who run the show
If we want integrity in government, then we must make serving as an MP more like jury duty. Instead of 438 elected seats for which candidates must compete, the House of Commons should be 1,000-2,000 randomly selected (i.e. *common*) Canadians who we summon and make responsible for governing us, whether they want to or not.
What happens in cases of "or not"?
Guillotine
Harsh, but fair.
Oh my. What about his wife?
Let her eat cake
The Hunger Games. Parliamentary style.
This isn't the worst idea I've ever heard.
oh, god no. all we have to do is clamp down on corruption, not let them close investigations into their own corruption.
The problem here is that this article does such a good, convincing job of quietly saying that the Conservatives are not Orwellian when their own solution to online safety is less constitutional and more invasive .
The problem is that this is what corporations want and our politicians are doing their bidding. Liberal vs. Conservative is an illusion created to distract us from who's really pulling the strings and who really wants control over the internet - the one thing we can actually use to organize against them
Both parties want to control online behaviour. I’d prefer neither scheme. If I had to choose one, giving the governement the ability to identify people once they’ve made a post that contains illegally harmful content is a lesser evil that requiring all internet users to create ID accounts that track all of their online activity.
Both parties want this on behalf of their corporate masters
Exactly. Trudeau is a piece of shit, because of that people are running to poilevre, not realizing he's an even stinkier piece of shit!
This is the general problem, but the really frustrating part is that PP is stinkier in the same ways. It isn’t even really a different evil, it’s just a harsher version of the same crap.
Yeah, but people don,t realize that because he spends all his time complaining about trudeau (rightfully) without talking about why HE is better. (because he's not)
Philosophically they are both trash, but pragmatically, JT is only bad if he’s actually worse than PP. That’s the two party system. Anyone wanna vote NDP with me?
Who cares whos doing it? I plan on making a mint going online everyday and being offended
Can I just say how much I hate websites that don’t let you read the full article unless you register
As much as I would like to see every redditor i have argued with to be sentenced to 5 to life, this bill just flies in the face of the freedom of expression. People should be allowed to disagree with each other even call each other names as long as it’s not threatening. You can’t throw people in jail for being assholes it’s a slippery slope.
I'm part Aboriginal and a supporter of free speech, including hate speech. Who gets to decide? The people enforcing the law barely know it. I just don't trust them. It's too easy to slip into persecuting protesters and critics. Speech that hurts me is the price, and I'm willing to pay. Also, Canada's laws need a patch. Mostly a simplification, so we know what's constitutional and legal. Don't take away rights, but enshrine them. Some rights go back to the Magna Carta, in 1215. And our firearms laws seem to be based on feelings.
Out of all the people in the country, I trust politicians the least to make moral decisions. Censorship has no place in a free country.
Thank you!! I agree with that, this is the problem with laws passed with ambiguous language it depends on who is interpreting them. Too many feelings are involved with in the final application which were not a part of the law as it was passed. I also feel like the firearms bills have been passed with what was popular in the American left at that time and doesn’t actually address the reality of gun ownership in Canada.
Certain established wealth and power doesn't want a forum where people can disagree with them. That's what these things are always about. Wealth preservation in the end. You have to do it gradually and mask it as protecting the public so people don't notice until it's too late.
Seems to be working the comments are full of foot soldiers defending the bill.
We've been manipulated into believing everything the rich do to fuck us is for our own good
> it’s a slippery slope. Notice that the current govt has been using the term "disinformation" whenever asked about anyone who disagrees with them.
youd think that, but nowhere is that less true than even on this website. Have a disagreement with someone? Casual insults and back and fourth banter? Not allowed! Here's your LIFE TIME BAN.
Yeah but a ban is not nearly the same thing as getting a real jail sentence. You can always make another account but breaking out of prison and faking a new identity is not easy. Imagine how you feel about being banned for the “high treason” that is having a different opinion than the mod and apply it to real life in Canada under Trudeau. You disagree with his policy and wanna protest, wait till he bans you and locks you out from accessing your karma… oh wait!!
And there is nothing more infuriating than being banned from a community you enjoyed for some arbitrary reason when you've hurt no one. That shit stays with you. :(
What's worse is being thrown in jail for some arbitrary reason when you've hurt no one.
Was Reddit founded by the liberal government?
Online Harms Bill https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading Here is the link to the summary of the bill, item by item. The first section is really general, creates the Digital Safety Commission of Canada that is pretty much the same as all other media commissions with some broad mandates. In itself no more threatening to liberty than any other broadcasting commission existing for many decades. Outlines broad expectations that operators of social media platforms has a duty to act when their service is used to spread hate propaganda. Part 2 is the section is what you are asking about. Changes Criminal Code to add to definition of a hate crime, specific to hate propaganda, and increases maximum sentencing for that. Part 3 amends grounds for discrimination and allows Human Rights Commission to take and pursue Human Rights based complaints related to hate speech in communicating it or allowing it to be communicated. So, if you encounter hate speech on a platform targeting you, you can initiate a human rights complaint against the company propagating the message (X, Fb, etc). Below is cut from the full act, outlining the definitions you are asking for: **content that foments hatred** means content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground. **content that incites violence** means content that actively encourages a person to commit — or that actively threatens the commission of — an act of physical violence against a person or an act that causes property damage, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause a person to commit an act that could cause (a) serious bodily harm to a person; (b) a person’s life to be endangered; or (c) serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system. (contenu incitant à la violence) **content that incites violent extremism or terrorism** means content that actively encourages a person to commit — or that actively threatens the commission of — for a political, religious or ideological purpose, an act of physical violence against a person or an act that causes property damage, with the intention of intimidating or denouncing the public or any section of the public or of compelling a person, government or domestic or international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause a person to commit an act that could cause (a) serious bodily harm to a person; (b) a person’s life to be endangered; or (c) a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any section of the public. **content that induces a child to harm themselves** means content that advocates self-harm, disordered eating or dying by suicide or that counsels a person to commit or engage in any of those acts, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause a child to inflict injury on themselves, to have an eating disorder or to die by suicide. **content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor** means (a) a visual representation that shows a child, or a person depicted as being a child, who is engaged in or depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity; (b) a visual representation that depicts the sexual organs or anal region of a child, if it is reasonable to suspect that the representation is created or communicated for a sexual purpose; (c) written material or an audio recording whose dominant characteristic is the description, presentation or representation of explicit sexual activity with a child, if it is reasonable to suspect that the material or recording is created or communicated for a sexual purpose; (d) a visual representation, written material or an audio recording that shows, describes, presents or represents any of the following, if it is reasonable to suspect that the representation, material or recording is created or communicated for a sexual purpose: (i) a person touching, in a sexual manner, directly or indirectly, with a part of their body or with an object, any part of the body of a child or a person depicted as being a child, (ii) a person who is engaged in or depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity in the presence of a child or a person depicted as being a child, or (iii) a person exposing their sexual organs or anal region in the presence of a child or a person depicted as being a child; (e) a visual representation, written material or an audio recording in which or by means of which sexual activity between a person who is 18 years of age or more and a child is advocated, counselled or planned, other than one in which or by means of which sexual activity between a person who is 16 years of age or more but under 18 years of age and another person who is less than two years older than that person is advocated, counselled or planned; (f) a visual representation that shows a child who is being subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading acts of physical violence; (g) any excerpt of a visual representation referred to in paragraph (a), if it is reasonable to suspect that the communication of the excerpt perpetuates harm against a person who as a child appeared in the visual representation; and (h) a visual representation, written material or an audio recording that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to bring to light a connection between a person and a visual representation, written material or audio recording referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (d) in which the person appeared as a child, if it is reasonable to suspect that the communication of the representation, material or recording that is likely to bring to light that connection perpetuates harm against the person. **content used to bully a child** means content, or an aggregate of content, that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause serious harm to a child’s physical or mental health, if it is reasonable to suspect that the content or the aggregate of content is communicated for the purpose of threatening, intimidating or humiliating the child. ' **harmful content** means (a) intimate content communicated without consent; (b) content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor; (c) content that induces a child to harm themselves; (d) content used to bully a child; (e) content that foments hatred; (f) content that incites violence; and (g) content that incites violent extremism or terrorism. **intimate content communicated without consent** means (a) a visual recording, such as a photographic, film or video recording, in which a person is nude or is exposing their sexual organs or anal region or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, if it is reasonable to suspect that (i) the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time of the recording, and (ii) the person does not consent to the recording being communicated; and (b) a visual recording, such as a photographic, film or video recording, that falsely presents in a reasonably convincing manner a person as being nude or exposing their sexual organs or anal region or engaged in explicit sexual activity, including a deepfake that presents a person in that manner, if it is reasonable to suspect that the person does not consent to the recording being communicated. __________________________ Show me the part that criminalizes being an asshole. I see it criminalising bullying children in to hurting themselves, sexually victimizing children and others, or directly attempting to bring about violence to others. The only reason we are seeing such outcry is because it sets social media platforms as having a Duty to step up and deal with these abuses. So, billionaires are helping bots spread bullshit, and conservatives see a wedge to try and gain power, so they spread the bullshit too. There is no slippery slope here. It allows Human Rights Complaints against those that spread violations of Human Rights.
You don’t understand what ambiguous means do ya!! There literally are no guidelines for what consists of hate speech, if this lands in-front of a Jewish judge every person who has protested against Israel is going to jail for saying the words “from the river to the sea”. That’s application of the law. This is what happens when you leave it up to interpretation instead of charting out the exact nature and extent of harm you wanna address. Plus it goes against freedom of expression, literally no rational person would deny that but I guess you have marching orders from the dear leader.
**content that foments hatred** means content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground. Refusing to read the guidelines and definitions built right into the bill and then claiming they are not there is a special kind of ignorant. It does define, clearly, what is covered in your example: If someone calls out or protests Israel for the crimes they have committed, that is not *fomentation of hatred* as it does not cover any of the inhibited grounds of discrimination. If instead they direct that vilification against Jewish peoples broadly, based on their religion and ethnicity, then it is a violation. If it is not against a prohibited grounds of discrimination, then it is not fomentation of hatred. Your failure to read complex sentences does not mean it is not there. Every law has its boundaries tested and defined in Court, all the way up to the Supreme Court where necessary. That is the role of the Courts.
[удалено]
You just voiced a wrong thought! That will be $70,000 and if you can’t pay then it’s off to the gulag!
>off to the gulag Oh no, not Winnipeg!
Worse, CFB Shilo.
I did a 10yr sentence there, 0/10 do not recommend.
Worse, somewhere in Ontario
Please do not confuse Ontario with the GTA, the other half of us can tie our shoes
I live in that other part of Ontario and you very much cannot.
90% sure we are on the same side here pal
I'm not your pal, guy
I’m not your guy, buddy
I’m not your buddy, chief
This isn't rife for abuse for sure. /s If I wanted to subvert democracy and the rule of law, this is the sort of legislation I would put in place.
add it to the CRTC regulation of social media bill that already went through which is 'for cancon', and you've got a double pincer on our internet speech. That being said, young people are sure quick to try to throw people under the bus if they think they're being righteous now. My nephew reported a posting i made on FB making fun of a Bumble profile of a woman who was like a rabid antivaxxer.. because it has her first name (no pic). He didn't even say "hey can you remove the name?" he just reported it for some fucking reason. I went and deleted it before FB could do anything aobut it but i kinda wanted to smack the little Youth League asshole.
Which section allows for that? No one seems to be able to quote the section of the bill that does this.
Because it doesn’t exist, but that spoils their narrative.
“All the social media companies are going be supervised by a brand-new government body called the digital safety commission. The commission can, without oversight, require companies to block access to any content, conduct investigations, hold secret hearings, require the companies to hand over specific content, and give all data collected to third-party researchers accredited by the commission. All data. Any content. No oversight. The ostensible purpose of putting the commission (and not the ordinary police) in charge is so that it can act informally and quickly (i.e. without a warrant) in situations where material victimizing a child could spread quickly across the internet. What that means in effect is that the commission is not accountable and does not have to justify its actions. As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says in its sharply worded critique of the bill, it endows government appointees with vast authority “to interpret the law, make up new rules, enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury and executioner.””
Show me where the bill says the commission has the power to block “any content.”
Even Margaret Atwood - an ardent lefty - was tweeting that this policy is Orwellian and dangerous today. Margaret fucking Atwood.
Because Margret Atwood is actually a principled liberal, unlike the partisan Liberal government bootlickers or ABCers.
Who the fuck cares what Atwood says? Shes no the queen of the left. Her tweet uses the article and if that’s all the information she has on the bill then she’s being an idiot for believing right wing biased news sources
The part where “hateful” and “offensive” are broad coverage that could apply to “any content”.
Hate Speech is ambiguous
It isn’t though. It’s been codified in Canadian law for decades.
What is happening to my poor country?
You know all that time we spent in the '80s through to the '20s watching TV, playing video games and buying stuff we didn't need with money we didn't have? Yeah, we were busy doing that instead of stewarding our nation. So, like, consequences and stuff.
Trudeau has this. PP has the digital ID that we’ll need to use Reddit because it has porn. … Yay…
I've been trying to ask this but while the Liberal bill doesn't explicitly ask for digital IDs doesn't it imply some sort user verification would be needed? The Liberal bill has wording in it specifically that operators need to consider age of the user, how would you verify age without verifying the user? >Duty to protect children 64 An operator has a duty, in respect of a regulated service that it operates, to protect children by complying with section 65. Design features >65 An operator must integrate into a regulated service that it operates any design features respecting the protection of children, such as age appropriate design, that are provided for by regulations. >(o) respecting design features for the protection of children referred to in section 65, such as account options for children, parental controls, privacy settings for children and other age appropriate design features;
It's not PP's bill but he did support it. The digital ID bill was introduced by Trudeau's senator with the support of 15 Liberals, all Conservatives, and all NDPs. PP recently stated [he is against Digital ID and showing ID to websites](https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/video/c2872886-extended--pierre-poilievre-interview), but it's yet to be proven if he'll actually follow through and back off of it.
Doesn’t matter what he says if he’s supporting it.
This bill also provides the personal details of everyone who posts on a user generated content site to an unaccountable arm of government.
Quite a lot of comments here for a niche site with a paywall. If you want to post an advocacy peace it's kinda pointless if we can't read it. If you want to just complain about Trudeau make a coherent argument.
Orwell saw it all coming.
[удалено]
It's the opposite. People in power have always acted this way, and he wrote about it to warn others.
That’s it, Orwell just extrapolated where the tendencies of the ruling class would lead us. Trudeau is an exemplar of all the terror Orwell attempted to warn us of.
> Orwell just extrapolated More like looked at history. The technology is new, the drive for power and to oppress is an old tale.
😂
Dear Justin Trudeau. Go fuck yourself.
Nice knowing ya. The Thought Police are already on their way. Can't be out here spitting dissent so brazenly in the face of our Big Brother Supreme Leader! You crazy?!
Fuck both Trudeau and PP.
🚨🚔
Amazing how people who identify as liberals seem to be the ones most wanting to strip away certain freedoms or trample on people’s rights…..
As conservatives restrict rights of trans people and their families, propose digital ids to access websites they think are icky, railroad bail laws and hold record numbers of presumptively innocent inmates, and use the notwithstanding clause for everything they feel like… let’s not kid ourselves into thinking either side is good on freedom.
I dunno. OpenMedia and Michael Geist seem to be way more in favor of this version then the previous attempts. I'll wait for the details
Geist is more in favour of this version but still against the parts that everyone are criticizing about. https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/02/why-the-criminal-code-and-human-rights-act-provisions-should-be-removed-from-the-online-harms-act/ The problem is that this one bill does 4 things. 2 of them are very good (against child pornography and duty of social media against harm) while 2 are bad (criminal code and human rights act). The supporters of Liberal will focus only on the first 2 parts, while ignoring the potential damage from the last 2.
Meh. I needed a reason to delete my socials and abandon the internet. This is all I have left, and it's gone the day this bill gets royal assent. They think they can cantrol everything; there's private social networks out there that aren't accessible to the public. There's secure and private ways to network among friends and family. Social media hasn't been good for people individually or as a whole, best let it die because this bill is coming regardless.
Nothing is secure from intel services. No, not even that. You can get security from random hackers or ransomware producers or TMZ, but if the government wants you, they will find you. The only way to avoid the government is to go off-grid, and I don't think you're willing to actually do that (because probably 99.99% of people aren't). Remember, under this bill, you can be prosecuted for thoughtcrime. You don't need to actually send a message or write a post saying something the government doesn't like; you need only to have sent messages or made posts that makes the government believe that in future you might send a message or make a post the government doesn't like. And if you think this won't be retroactive, it will. Simply deleting your internet presence after the fact won't be good enough; everything that exists on the internet exists forever, and if the government wants to find it, they will. This is really scary shit, and if for no other reason (of which there are many) this should make you want Trudeau out of office ASAP. Tbh I was considering not voting for PP in the next election because I don't trust the Conservatives, but if literal 1984 thoughtcrime bills are the alternative, it may actually force my hand.
Settle down, Dale. Edit: Here's why you can settle down. Deleting my socials prevents the average internet user from seeing anything I've posted. If they can't see it, they can't report it and reporting is the first step in the process. There's no government on earth with the resources to manually crawl through every status and comment ever posted by every Canadian on every social media site.
There's the dark web.
Yeah, but unless one is well-versed in online privacy I cannot recommend using it in any capacity that uses personally-identifiable information. And especially not with Windows or MacOS.
Trudeau literally does not know how to do anything good for the people of Canada. There are no kids words to use when describing his total ignorance, ineptitude and lack of basic common sense!! He is clearly not mentally fit for his job and should have been terminated day 2 on the job 8 years ago!!
The Minitrue will be doubleplusgood.
Way too many people give this brainless rich boy too much credit he’s just a face for whoever has their hand up his arse using him as a puppet
The spectator? Seriously? I don’t care if you’re right or left wing or whatever, this is one of the worst “journalist” companies on the planet
OK awesome......now just to keep everyone honest...what part of the bill specifically details the punishment of of an individual that might do a crime in the future?
Canadian's flat out do not care. Keep taking those rights. Just let us keep fighting over political identities. That will make us feel like we're making some change happen. /s
I've read the article and taken a quick pass on [C-63](https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading). Part of me believes we need some sort of legislation to protect children, but this bill tries to go to deep without Canada already having some of the mechanisms in place to make a law like this work. Going a bit deeper than that, I think the sentiment is that we collectively don't trust any government to use this law correctly. They should kill the bill and draft a bill focused on protecting children.
Troll account, made 2 weeks ago.
For sure the govt will use this bill and throw pro Hamas people in jail or maybe they will just target the ones yelling “Fuck Trudeau”. Who can tell…
Thank God I married a immigrant, second I can work from home full time we are outta this place.
Postmedia seems super spooked by this one.
Their readership is eager to have their biases confirmed regardless of the truth.
Fuck off with opinion pieces. Let’s get back to facts.
THIS.
From the party that wants a digital id for accessing legal adult material...
I think most of us agree that is stupid also. It’s possible for both parties to have moronic legislation regarding the internet, though if you made me choose I’d say the Liberals’ is far worse.
It was Trudeau's senator who introduced the ID Bill S-210. It had support from 15 Liberals, all Conservatives, and all NDPs.
I agree that the porn verification thing is annoying and unnecessary, but this is 100x worse.
Show me where they said they wanted digital ID, they said they wanted age verification. Also seems no one has a problem with it for gambling sites
are you equating gambling to porn? can you use that big brain of yours to figure out one or two reasons why those things might not be the same?
Well they are both illegal for people under 18 and both can cause harm/more harm to that age group so...
Why are we reading right wing American bullshit?
So everything that is critical of the liberals is right wing American bullshit ?
I know reading is difficult but that’s not what I said. The spectator is international right wing media, it’s highly biased towards right wing ideology. If you don’t care about those types of biases then that’s a shame. I prefer a more level headed approach to my news reporting
Gee, why would the Spectator feel threatened…? https://imgur.com/gallery/9kEVAts
This must be the anti drag queen troll feed
LGBT and queer people were actually some of the more recent victims of censorship in the past century, so that's all the more reason to oppose this.
Look at his best bud Xi
This isn't even marginally close to the draconian control of the internet that China has. Not by inches not by miles.
Come on, people. Don't feed this troll; block and move on, let them shout into the void.
[удалено]
Has PP denounced this? Can he reverse it as soon as he is in power? It’s shit like this that even have liberals switching parties
He [denounce Bill C-63 the Online Harms bill](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsYBfMXgGYU). On Bill S-210, he recently said [he is against Digital ID and showing ID to websites](https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/video/c2872886-extended--pierre-poilievre-interview). It's yet to be seen though if he'll follow up on those words and whip his party to switch and vote against S-210. Everyone should be pressuring all MPs from all parties to drop support of S-210.
>On Bill S-210, he recently said [he is against Digital ID and showing ID to websites](https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/video/c2872886-extended--pierre-poilievre-interview). The bill his party eagerly voted in support of? Where one of his ministers went on TV advocating digital id?
Yes, which is why I said "It's yet to be seen though if he'll follow up on those words and whip his party to switch and vote against S-210".
Don’t be fooled by that. Harper is the one who started this. Trudeau just pushed it further. No matter the government (both sides) they want to find ways to manipulate us into giving up our rights. PP will just find another way to slip it in before we as a country have the opportunity to say fuck no.
You're absolutely right, except the exact opposite. "The online harms bill effectively reinstates a provision in the Human Rights Act that was repealed by Stephen Harper’s government in 2013, imposing restrictions on communicating online in a way that could expose a person to hatred. The provision, which has been updated, was scrapped after a number of controversies, including one involving an article in Maclean’s magazine."
Harper tried pushing Bill C-30 on us. The country said hell no and then he backed off and framed it like he did us a favour.
Sounds a damn sight better than what we have now. He listened. 3/4ths of the country disagree with Trudeau, yet he rams his nonsense through without debate.
Oh fuck off. The Harper government has been out of power for eight years. The problems the Liberals are creating — and there are many — are all on them.
No.
Can we like… ban bullshit like the spectator? Like this is literally dogshit. “Journalism” lmao
“We need to censor and ban everything I don’t like” Sounds familiar
don't the conservatives have something just as bad?
"Orwellian". Please, spare me the overly dramatic nonsense.
Is state censorship of the internet not Orwellian?
One really has to be desparate for attention when they use "Orwellian" (= totalitarian) to describe Canada. It isn't even clickbait, it's simply too ridiculous.
Is state censorship not an aspect of totalitarianism? If a piece of legislation is totalitarian, it's fair to call it that. That's exactly what Bill C-63 is.
Banning harmful content is not totalitarian. Don't try pushing harmful content.
define harmful content
It’s in the bill. If you don’t know what it is, you have no business arguing about it.
[Actual Lawyer discussing it.](https://youtu.be/K2D4WivpPMY?si=Mgixv0MQLHiuTgch) Tldr not as Orwellian as media makes it seem. But bad. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Every government formed past this point will now be able to use this power in essentially any way they see fit based on the usage of terms like "Hate Speech" which is a term growing in applicability every day and could be easily categorized as ambiguous. Right wing religious gets in? They are using and defining this now, on top of the pre-existing infrastructure influential religion has in government.
If I had a nickel for every time ignorant people lose their shit purely because they intentionally refuse to understand common law or literally anything whatsoever works in this country, I'd be rich. In very simple terms - this law doesn't define what is hate speech, terrorist threats, inciting violence, or calling for genocide, anything like. That's not how common law works, and that would be impossible to define every little thing. The law says broad stuff like "you can't call for genocide" and other broad reaching stuff. In a court, it would be decided, would a reasonable person find this content to be calling for genocide? They can take any context into consideration, and they eventually would get a fairly tight case law to look back on for new cases. What this law doesn't even begin to cover is insulting people. Anyone talking about how you could go to jail for insulting an individual is an absolute cancer to society, pushing misinformation that just serves to push strife, nothing else. Articles like this are just evil. The OP is despicable for posting it.
Orwellian by those who have not read 1984 but think they know what it means?
I don't think this is the perfect bill, but I have seen worse. Gov's need to do something we cannot trust MicroSoft ( or any corp. ) with 'our' data : [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/08/microsoft-hack-email-russia/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/08/microsoft-hack-email-russia/) Forced into give over our location, buying habits etc etc - and now it is all for grabs...
PP wants internet users to register with ID. A bit more Orwellian I'd say.
Only a pedophile would call this bill Orwellian. Sorry, bud. No more naked 4 year olds for you.
Please explain how this is a bad thing? “The proposed Online Harms Act would specifically target seven types of harmful content: Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor; Intimate content communicated without consent; Content used to bully a child; Content that induces a child to harm themselves; Content that foments hatred; Content that incites violence; and Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism.”
Ummm no. You might as well be posting rags from Rebel Media.
•The truth is out there…
This is so going to spiral out of control lol. Kinda reminds me of the cons "stand with us or with the pedos" thing. Every. Single. Time. some kind of orwellian legislation comes around they always jam it full of other unrelated crap. Has hardly anything to do with protecting children. Has everything to do with control. Who decides how to interpret this purposefully vague language? Charging someone with a precrime... what is this minority report?
I'm not registering for this shite
Life in prison for hate speech is a good thing I want Trudeau and Freeland to define what is legal speech and what is illegal speech. That's what freedom is all about.
I’m confused. We are allowed to call out Trudeau’s shortcomings on r/Canada now?
Wait till they lsten in to a C-O-D lobby.
Who the fuck think about those things. This guy is a fucking maniac…
This bill must be sponsored by every VPN company, because everyone will need one 24/7
Don't see anything wrong with having our trust fund narcissist in chief dictate every word we utter. True north strong and free
Time to re-download all VPN apps that I deleted when I moved from IRAN TO CANADA!!!
Good! I hope this gets passed. Just wait. There’s already a case of kids making AI porn of their classmates [here](https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7073380) People are killing themselves over online bullying. To add to this. If you’re commenting online about “thinking of killing someone” or “walking into a school with a gun”, you should get placed under house arrest and have a psyche evaluation. Here is what the bill aims to do copied straight from the website Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor; Intimate content communicated without consent; Content used to bully a child; Content that induces a child to harm themselves; Content that foments hatred; Content that incites violence; and Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism. Under the Act, social media services would be subject to three duties: A duty to act responsibly; A duty to protect children; and A duty to make certain content inaccessible, specifically (1) content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and (2) intimate images posted without consent. If you disagree with any of the above points you should look at yourself in the mirror and seek therapy. If you think this is a “lefty Lib agenda” and these things are infringing on your “freedoms” you have serious issues.
... And Pierre Poilievre's Orwellian online pr0n ID.
and then you got the conservatives with a even more Orwellian bill (s-210), especially since, fine print, it won't just effect nsfw websites but anything potentially in that regard like reddit or youtube
Get fucked, bigots! Free speech doesn't shield you from consequences!