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!>
Ahhh the straw man argument.
We both know I didn’t say that, but as you’ve taken to arguing the point in bad faith, I’m not going to fight you.
Have a nice day.
Straw man? This is literally about people being charged for defamation lmao
Sure, but that’s not what I said at all.
People get charged with defamation every day….
Why make a big fuss out of it? Why big news stories?
What makes this one special?
Oh, right, they’re trying to push a censorship bill that forces companies to allow the government to audit your communications.
This is the 4th time they’ve done the same thing, and I need people to realize that while this case was an absolutely correct ruling, using the EXISTING infrastructure and legal framework to prosecute, we don’t need new tools to destroy privacy.
Privacy matters.
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/