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!>

  • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
    41·
    11 months ago

    But just to clarify they aren’t asking for better tools to combat the epidemic of it yet, that’s just something you’ve invented out of whole cloth and are now getting mad about it?

      • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
        21·
        11 months ago

        Last year, the government sent its initial plans for the bill back to the drawing board in after facing criticism. Virani now says he hopes to bring the final bill forward sometime next year. He is taking over the bill from Canadian Heritage, which shepherded two highly controversial media bills on online streaming and compensation for news media.

        The group of experts the government tasked with reworking the bill recently published an open letter saying it was time for the Liberals to bring it forward. They said Canadian children are less protected than kids in countries where similar laws are already in effect.

        Sounds like people had concerns so they got a group of experts in to rework the previous bill.

        Is that an issue to you because it looks to me like it is the opposite of what you just explained.

        • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
          31·
          11 months ago

          Because of significant backlash, they were forced to abandon the efforts.

          The “experts” just reworded the same problems. The issues still exist in the bill. In fact the bill itself is the issue. They were able to change the guy in the article on this post, why didn’t they need the “new law” for that?? Which countries have this law? They didn’t mention?

          Curious.

          The root of the problem is that the proposed law itself requires the government to be able to see/audit all your online communication. That hasn’t changed. They make their intentions in “look at this awful case”, but they ignore that the new law wasn’t required for that case, so then what’s the reason for needing the new law? Why did privacy ever matter? Wouldn’t they find more murders if they had cameras in everyone’s house?

          Yes, that argument is extreme, but it’s intended to make you think about “if” and “why” privacy matters.

          I said this was coming, you called me out for not having any sources and I gave you sources.

          I worry that nothing I could say or prove would change your mind.

          • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
            21·
            11 months ago

            What does cameras in people’s house have to do with the current conversation?

            It sounds like fear mongering to me. I find it’s easier to keep track of a subject if you stay on topic.

            • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
              21·
              11 months ago

              Cool, let’s stay on topic.

              This case is about defamation and was investigated and put to trial on the existing tools.

              A big story was written about it, and I believe it was to garner support for privacy-invading new laws.

              Clearly the laws weren’t needed to prosecute this case, so why are they needed then?

              So, I have 3 questions for you.

              Why will they need new laws to prosecute similar cases when this case didn’t require it?

              Why was this case written into a big news story when defamation cases halted every day?

              Why does privacy matter at all?

              • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                22·
                11 months ago

                1. According to the news article you sent me, a group of experts asked the government to bring the bill forward.

                2. Why was this case written into a big news story when defamation cases halted every day? (Can you try this again because I don’t understand the question)

                3. Canada’s laws for the expectation of privacy is judged on ‘the degree of privacy needed to maintain a free and open society, not necessarily the degree of privacy expected by the individual or respected by the state in a given situation…’

                Do you feel this infringes on ability to maintain a free and open society?

                • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
                  21·
                  11 months ago

                  “A group of experts” is not “why” What problem does the bill solve?

                  Defamation cases “happen” everyday, what makes this one special? (Autocorrect strikes again)

                  This doesn’t answer why privacy matters, why have any privacy at all? What value does it bring to a society?

                  • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                    12·
                    11 months ago

                    1. According to the article you linked ‘They said Canadian children are less protected than kids in countries where similar laws are already in effect.’

                    2. I’m guessing a journalist saw the news and decided to report on it and the editors thought it would bring in the eyeballs to the ads. The other option is that Justin Trudeau told them to print it so he would look good, but that seems a little tin foil hatty for my liking.

                    3. I’m no privacy expert I was just letting you know what the expectation of privacy was as a Canadian citizen. I personally think the laws we have strike a good balance between the good of the individual citizen and the society so I don’t know why the new ones wouldn’t either. Especially after it has been gone over by a group of experts after the government listened to their people. Isn’t that how a decent government is supposed to operate?