“World Events, Politics & News”

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 263960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Supreme Court of Canada's decision recognizing IP addresses as protected under the Charter of Rights can be viewed as both a victory against state encroachment and a potential hurdle for internet safety. On the one hand, the recognition reinforces individuals' rights to privacy and protection from unwarranted state intrusion into their online activities. However, it may pose challenges for internet safety efforts, potentially limiting law enforcement's ability to track and address online threats effectively. Striking a balance between individual rights and ensuring a secure online environment may be a complex challenge in the wake of this decision.
 
Katherine561 said:
The Supreme Court of Canada's decision recognizing IP addresses as protected under the Charter of Rights can be viewed as both a victory against state encroachment and a potential hurdle for internet safety. On the one hand, the recognition reinforces individuals' rights to privacy and protection from unwarranted state intrusion into their online activities. However, it may pose challenges for internet safety efforts, potentially limiting law enforcement's ability to track and address online threats effectively. Striking a balance between individual rights and ensuring a secure online environment may be a complex challenge in the wake of this decision.
Click to expand...
You believe that do you? Because the Supreme Court ruled this so that would mean that this is victorious? Ah?

There IS no privacy with the current technologies available and especially the advance type of technologies that you and I WOULDN’T have access to.

Far out man….has everybody gone dumb and dumber to believe that we have privacy in our lives?

Forget it.
 
Big-Brother-is-Watching-You.jpg
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
is freedom of expression in danger in Canada? Censoring "Speech I hate" under the umbrella of "Hate Speech laws"
Click to expand...
I’d say not. The definitions are quite stringent

“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.‍ (contenu fomentant la haine)”

And they go further:

“For greater certainty and for the purposes of the definition content that foments hatred, content does not express detestation or vilification solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”

If there was a group of 20 people who diiike divorcees they could:

  • Discuss in private messages how they think divorcees should all be burnt at the stake, or
  • Post on social media site that the dislike divorcees
But they couldn’t post in public on a social media platform saying that they think all divorcees are trash because they’re dirty, washed up, subhuman individuals that should be kept in cages for the amusement of all spinsters, bachelors, and married folk. (More accurately they could post it but it would have to be removed by the platform)
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
"denialism" a crime? Or long overdue? Currently its a crime to say the holocausr didnt happen.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go as far as saying it needs to be criminalised. There probably isn't a need for that anyway - the people that advance "denialism" of serious things such as the Holocaust are often/usually guilty of many other offences. An anti-Semite is going to have something knocking around in their lives showing that they hate Jews
 
Inkandtatts said:
I wouldn't go as far as saying it needs to be criminalised. There probably isn't a need for that anyway - the people that advance "denialism" of serious things such as the Holocaust are often/usually guilty of many other offences. An anti-Semite is going to have something knocking around in their lives showing that they hate Jews
Click to expand...
what I find concerning, is that ultimately a wrong view of history is criminalized- which really is "thought crime" alarming that a factual error can be criminalized.
 
It's only a crime if it can be proven you were doing it to willfully promote antisemitism and didn't actually believe the things you were saying.
(3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)

  • (a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
  • (b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
  • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
  • (d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.

still an extreme overreach by any government to threaten prison for people expressing their beliefs and opinions, no matter how shite they are. and for them to decide whether or not you truly believe them.
 
rapinoes smirking revenge said:
It's only a crime if it can be proven you were doing it to willfully promote antisemitism and didn't actually believe the things you were saying.
(3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)

  • (a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
  • (b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
  • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
  • (d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.

still an extreme overreach by any government to threaten prison for people expressing their beliefs and opinions, no matter how shite they are. and for them to decide whether or not you truly believe them.
Click to expand...

In Germany, the penalty for publicly denying the Holocaust is a prison sentence, which I find understandable in light of Germany’s troubled history, even though not all Germans were on the wrong side of history so to speak.

If my memory serves me correctly, a woman called Ursula Haverbeck was recently sentenced to a total of 4 years in prison for publicly denying the Holocaust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top