Right-Wing Trolls Are Freaking Out After Learning They Can Get Sued for Calling People ‘Groomers’ on the Internet
pressprogress.ca
New court decision reinforces that there is no public interest in speech that exposes vulnerable groups to hate

Other right-wing accounts variously reacted by describing the move as Orwellian, lamenting the death of free speech and even contemplating leaving Canada for good.

Oh no. Not that. Please no.

<Tee hee!>

  • cygnus
    21·
    11 months ago

    That train of thought doesn’t make sense. “We need to pass this new law because [gestures at this case] existing laws already work”? If anyone were trying to drum up public support, they would want cases where people got away with it, and this ain’t it.

    I might also add that if everyone is misunderstanding what you’re trying to say here, you’re either not explaining it very clearly or your theory simply doesn’t stand up.

    • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
      22·
      11 months ago

      That’s my entire point. Existing laws work.

      But yet they’ll say “there’s so much of this that we need new laws”

      In fact if you Google it, they’re trying to push new ones through now. Coincidence? Maybe.

      So since you’re right, the argument doesn’t make sense, why do you believe that the following proposed laws exist?

      https://globalnews.ca/news/10178476/liberals-online-harms-bill-not-regulating-speech/

      • cygnus
        21·
        11 months ago

        Two things can both be true without one being caused by the other.

        1. Current laws work
        2. The Liberals are trying to enact laws that excessively curtail privacy, similar to those in the UK

        This doesn’t mean that 2 is caused by 1 or that they have anything to do with each other at all. Not everything has to play into some grand conspiracy. If anything, this case severely undermines the Liberals’ position.

        • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
          22·
          11 months ago

          We have an agreement!

          This current case undermines the suggestion that new laws are needed.

          I would agree that the two are unrelated, but I’ve found that all too often one is used as a false stepping stone to the other.

          The classic “won’t someone please think of the children!” Argument.

          • cygnus
            21·
            11 months ago

            If I may make a suggestion, I would approach future discussions by pointing to this case as a good thing for privacy, since it shows we don’t need to implement draconian measures like the Liberal proposal in order to prosecute crimes. Your negative framing here is what threw others off track.

            • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
              21·
              11 months ago

              Noted.

              I still maintain that this article is meaningless rage-bait designed to garner support for new laws.

              • cygnus
                21·
                11 months ago

                I genuinely believe the opposite is true. Anybody opposing those laws should wave this in the Liberals’ faces. “See? The system already works.”