What is also getting lost in this debate, is that “free speech” laws aren’t being changed in of themselves. The only thing that is being discussed is updating the regulations that ALREADY EXIST, to simply apply to social media companies that are already in place for other content providers (ie..film, radio, tv, print). Thus Facebook needs to remove illegal content or face a fine, just like a newspaper or television channel is required to do now. Of course, the title of this thread is rather misleading.
This is NOT about existing Canadian law. This is about the logical extension of applying laws evenly and fairly.
To those of you vociferously against the extension of the law....why should Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies not have to abide by the very same laws every other media company is required to?
Fair enough. The difference, in the US at least, would be that film, radio, tv, print, etc. are considered "publishers" in that the owners/editors deliberately curate what is presented and have complete control over all content thereupon, and are responsible for same. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. are considered "platforms" and by design are not responsible for any content thereupon as long as it does not violate established laws
because all the content is created and provided by the platform users rather than the owners of the platform(s).
So, you are fine with extreme and violent images on social media?
In general, yes, but with qualifications: If an image is particularly extreme or violent I appreciate having a generic icon to click on accompanied by a brief description in order to see the image rather than being confronted with a grisly image unexpectedly, but even in this context matters. For example, if I'm reading a review of the latest Italian horror film gore-fest then spectacularly gruesome images from said film are to be expected and I know what I'm letting myself in for.
I had heard a statistic that Facebook is the largest trafficker of violent images of children on the world wide web, as opposed to the dark web. I want to find a number but I also do not want the FBI, CIA, CPS, and Interpol showing up at my door.
Those are highly illegal throughout most if not all of the developed world and I fully agree that such images should be taken down whenever found and the poster of such images banned from the platform.
I know there are some interesting consenting adult photos on Facebook if one has the time and inclination. If that is what a person is into, fine. As long as they are consenting adults.
I'm of two minds on that one: On one hand, I imagine looking for "adult photos" on Facebook would be like ordering a steak at McDonald's... Even if you get what you're looking for it is all but guaranteed not to be good. If one seeks "adult photos" then sites such as Pornhub, XVideos, XHamster, and untold others provide far better quality and variety than Facebook ever could. On the other hand, if one wishes to "show off" one's own private assets to a select group then the aforementioned websites would be inappropriate because once an image is posted there it can be seen by anyone, so in that case I can see how the private collections or whatever Facebook calls them where one must obtain direct permission for viewing from the original poster might have value to members. As long as the "adult photos" on Facebook are behind some sort of permission wall or gatekeeping strategy and I can't see them unless I specifically ask to, then I'm fine with them. I just don't want to come across pics of the highlights from Grandma's nude dancing debut on her 72nd birthday unexpectedly.
Canada does have existing "hate speech" laws which, as far as I can understand, boil down to "anything that might
hurt someone's self-image and/or feelings, whether completely and provably true or not, is considered 'hate speech' and must be banned". That is where the problems arise because on a platform
such as Facebook, etc. where everyone is allowed to voice their opinions one will undoubtably hear opinions that one does not like or agree with, and as Redd so succinctly put it-
Talking about anything that does not suit the dogma of the far left is considered hate speech. Immigration, feminism, gender. If I don't agree with their orthodox views, pathological idealogues scream hate speech. Not much different than Fascist and Stalinist tactics.
...And then what are perfectly reasonable opinions to some but not all will get censored.
Bad enough to get censored for having unpopular, or worse yet popular but "politically incorrect" opinions, but far, far worse to actually get penalized for participating in "wrongthink". Since Trudeau seems to be following the 1984
playbook quite closely, I wonder if one possible punishment for "hate speech/wrongthink" will be having a cage full of rats affixed to one's head until one sees the error of one's ways thought-wise as happened to Winston Smith?
No one knows what offends someone else.
Righties and MAGA fans are not offended by nooses or swastikas or burning rainbow flags.
For someone who claims to preach tolerance, diversity, and understanding, you sure don't seem to hesitate to lump anyone who disagrees with you on one issue into easily categorized stereotypical groups, whether they belong to those groups or not, and then accuse them of approving of the very worst behavior exhibited by the most extreme members of those groups.
The bald person sitting next to me on the train might be offended by calling them "sir" so who knows?
There are too many possible reasons to unpack why a bald person might be offended by being called "Sir", but for me that would be a clear sign that they have serious issues not of my making and any further attempts at conversation of any kind would be extremely ill-advised.
"Liberals" are offended by hate.
Correction: "Progressives" are offended by disagreement with their dogmatic beliefs which they choose to label as "hate". Liberals, in the truest sense of the term which is derived from the root word "Liberty", are offended by censorship.
I don't know when hate became good.
Hate has not become good, but far-left progressives have taken to calling any speech, opinion, or idea that goes against their beliefs "hate" in an attempt to get their opposition silenced. Disagreement is not "hate".
But, according to Orwell, right is left, up is down, wrong is right, bad is good, and all like that.
Not exactly. The actual quote from Orwell's book 1984
is “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”.