this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
42 points (68.8% liked)

Canada

7196 readers
499 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


๐Ÿ Meta


๐Ÿ—บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories


๐Ÿ™๏ธ Cities / Local Communities


๐Ÿ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


๐Ÿ’ป Universities


๐Ÿ’ต Finance / Shopping


๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Politics


๐Ÿ Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 58 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Freedom of speech or freedom of expression isn't freedom from consequences. Words matter, and they have consequences, and people should consider the consequences of their speech in public.

[โ€“] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Agreed. Fuck off with this "we have no free speech" bullshit, substack (and it's freedom of conscience in Canada in the first place, not free speech). All of the things listed are social consequences, not criminal prosecution or some other government persecution. Sarah was booted by her party, not the government, and the rest are employers and universities. If there is fault, it lies with those organizations.

It's also not protected speech, so if there is fault, those organizations will have to suffer social consequences themselves, as it doesn't seem that they broke any laws.

[โ€“] cobra89@beehaw.org 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The censured her:

The Doug Ford government has put forward a motion that would censure an Ontario NDP MPP over her comments on the Israel-Gaza war and ask they not be recognized in the legislature until a formal apology is made and a statement on social media is deleted.

The motion calls comments made by Hamilton Centre MPP Sarah Jama last week โ€œantisemiticโ€ and โ€œdiscriminatory.โ€ If passed, it would call on the Speaker not to recognize Jama in the House โ€œuntil the Member retracts and deletes her statement on social media and makes an apology in her place in the House.โ€

So they're trying to completely take away her ability to govern because of her speech. So yes, the government is trying to silence her.

[โ€“] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And like several things Douggie has put through, it will ultimately be deemed illegal. That bill is a clear violation of charter rights.

[โ€“] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

I'm not familiar with how censure works in the Ontario Provincial Parliament legal framework. Do you have any examples of precedent where a censure motion has been struck down in court? Because my understanding is that the majority was within their legal powers to do this.

You mean the government that was handed a 66% majority by 17% of eligible voters?

You get the government you deserve when you don't fucking show up to vote.

[โ€“] phx@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's a bit of a blurred line when they're members of government or government organizations versus private employers.

A political party IS part of government, even if it's not the political party leading the country. However, a party shouldn't be forced to keep somebody who goes off the rails and is causing them damage. At the same time, those same parties seem to be very pick-and-choose about which "rebellious" members they decide to expel and over what issues

load more comments (4 replies)
[โ€“] Kichae@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Indeed. And if the NDP won't allow its members to recognize that Israel is an apartheid state, then members who see it as such should abandon the party. Both those serving as public representatives, and regular members and donors.

load more comments (3 replies)
[โ€“] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Don't be dense, read the article. The story is not about legality or free speech absolutism. It is about how the window of acceptable political speech in what is considered mainstream has narrowed to a stifling degree to exclude very reasonable milquetoast peacenik sentiments.

[โ€“] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

the story is not about legality

Then it shouldn't use the words "free speech" in the headline. Free speech is very much a legal term.

[โ€“] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So is theft and murder and inheritance. We use legal terms in regular parlance all the time.

[โ€“] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Ok, and? Regular parlance can be about legal implications too, I've never heard the words "free speech" used in a context with no connection to their legal meaning. Do you have a counter example?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[โ€“] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 year ago (5 children)

We don't. This isn't the U.S. with their freedom of speech, where you can say literally anything. We have something called freedom of expression, which does not cover hate speech, and a few other things.

[โ€“] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The article is not about free speech absolutism. It is about journalism. Hate speech has nothing to do with it.

[โ€“] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Perhaps the headline should have reflected the actual topic more accurately.

[โ€“] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Take it up with Nora.

[โ€“] Maalus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or maybe people should've read the article instead of commenting based on the title

[โ€“] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A) Welcome to the internet.

B) I don't actually think it's unreasonable to think that a headline should clearly indicate the subject of the article - why have headlines otherwise?

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] corrupts_absolutely@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (7 children)

well you should use your freedom of expression to express your concern for israel's actions on mainstream tv channels

load more comments (7 replies)
[โ€“] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The US doesn't have freedom of speech either... Source: American.

[โ€“] folkrav@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

I mean, you do have it codified in your Constitution as its very first amendment. Now, how much is it really protected, in practice...

load more comments (2 replies)
[โ€“] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Iโ€™m pretty sure only Cons try to say we have free speech because they donโ€™t know our laws

Of note though; freedom of speech means freedom from persecution not freedom from consequence

load more comments (2 replies)
[โ€“] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, we have freedom of expression, not freedom of speech and it's not unlimited contrary to the USA.

[โ€“] Nougat@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not unlimited in the US, either, despite what the fascists think.

[โ€“] ram@bookwormstory.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ya, "Free Speech" as written in the constitution only covers congressional laws.

[โ€“] Nougat@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Even in the context of the US First Amendment, which makes it so that the government cannot abridge your right to free speech, it's not unlimited. Think "Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, when there's no fire," or libel/slander, or terroristic threats, or, I dunno, witness tampering.

There's lots of speech which must yield to other rights and protections.

[โ€“] Templa@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

I agree with many points from the article but I don't think the title choice was good

[โ€“] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Therer are people who could be discussing this credibly but a troll like Loreto isn't one of them.

load more comments
view more: next โ€บ