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!>
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!>
So people should be free to break laws so long as they do it anonymously?
I was asking why they bothered with the big news story on this particular case of defamation, not suggesting they the behaviour was okay…???
Did you reply to the wrong thread, or was there a misunderstanding of my comment?
It’s clearly you who is lost, because you seem unfamiliar with the details of what’s being discussed in this thread.
Noooope, not at all.
Please read ANY of my comments.
I don’t care about this case at all. It’s great, glad they got prosecuted.
I care about the fact that the government is currently trying to push through a bill invading our privacy to try and “prosecute more of these”
That’s why the article exists. There are thousands of cases of defamation every day, why care about this one?
This is all done to try and convince you that new laws are needed, when this case was successfully prosecuted on existing laws.
The article is rage-bait to get you worked up about this specific case of defamation.
In this case, privacy was respected and subpoenas were required. They want you amped up to skip that “due process”
Please re-read before you reply.
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.
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/
Two things can both be true without one being caused by the other.
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.
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.
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.