578
Right-Wing Trolls Are Freaking Out After Learning They Can Get Sued For Calling People 'Groomers' On The Internet (pressprogress.ca)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
168 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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!>

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 49 points 2 years ago (4 children)

This is Canada, they have different laws around protected free speech. People don't realize that the US is basically the only country that has these super broad free speech laws written into the constition.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    The US Constitution does NOT have super broad free speech protections; a violent activist SCOTUS has simply granted overly broad protections to fascists and their radio shows, also protected by a radicalized right wing FCC for almost half a century.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Broad as defined by the standard around the world.

    "A violent activist SCOTUS"

    You heard it here folks... Washington DC is terrorised by the John Roberts gang.

    Are you literally so stupid as to think that leftists (especially the ones that argue for violence) don't also benefit from broad free speech protections?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I am sure that they do not. They are not allowed in news channels. They have House resolutions passed against them. They have had their shows barred from the airwaves and corporations given the right to both slander and censor them.

    And the SCOTUS is, in fact, a violent entity, using it's unchecked power against the American people under the fraudulent guise of morality. They are violent and should be met with equal violence, including removal and imprisonment and financial liability for all the women.they have caused direct physical harm and death to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    "They are violent and should be met with equal violence, including removal imprisonment and financial liability".

    You complain that leftists are denied freedom of speech protections, and then immediately use that legal protection to call for violence.

    "Unchecked power against the American people"

    You know SCOTUS simply decides what rules are allowed, they don't actually create them, that's the legislatures.

    Do you really just want violent revolution so badly that you don't care about reality?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    Technically Canada (and most other Liberal democracies) have similar freedom of expression (which includes speech). Where the difference lies between Canada and the US is in the Canadian Charter of Rights' structure vs. the US Constitution's structure.

    In the US, "Freedom of Speech" is the first amendment, and as such (as I understand it) stands largely on it's own as an enumerated right. Unless it intersects with another Constitutional provision, or with the interpretation of the text of the first amendment itself, it's otherwise unlimited.

    In Canada, Freedom of Expression is provided for in Section 2 of the Charter, but Section 1 provides for the limitation of any of the following rights and freedoms:

    The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

    I Am Not A Lawyer, but the legal framework for testing Section 1 laws is call the Oakes test, and the language in this article bears the hallmark of justifications of the application of Section 1:

    In its decision, the court found Webster’s statements failed a basic “public interest” test since “perpetuating hurtful myths and stereotypes about vulnerable members in our society” does not represent speech anti-SLAPP rules are “intended to protect."

    I would assume that since this was an attempt to dismiss a lawsuit using Ontario's anti-SLAPP law, that the motion to dismiss was overruled because the anti-SLAPP laws were in line with promoting a Free and Democratic society.

    Also there is Section 33, the "notwithstanding clause", which allows for the temporary suspension on just about any of the rights by the legislature, but that's not relevant here, ans is fairly rarely used (except in Quebec).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent