I suppose that would, and the admin of the board would be expected to deal with it.
Anyone worried about the “Online Harms Act” introduced …..
- Thread starter Jenesis
- Start date
Yeah I guess if it is being dealt with, TERB is compliant with the Bill.
Because zionists try to weaponize criticism of Israel through acts like the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Dude...these people believe that engaging in this industry is inherent violence against women. You honestly think it's a leap for them to jump from that to calling discussion of inherent violence against women hate speech?
You are being paranoid. It was the conservatives btw that introduced the current law criminalizing buying sex on the grounds that it is violence against women.
I have very little faith in humanity. I’ve seen the worst in both my careers
Regarding topic. At least in the present day and foreseeable future. What’s more important?
Protecting children or proving ( protecting) your age.
As far as potentially shutting down various sites.
Prove your age and why would it go “poof”. And if people think there’s much privacy these days. lol! Don’t know what to say, and some I probably can’t/shouldnt.
Will say, the world changed after 9/11. One thing I find sort of ironic is people stressing about proving their age or rights and privacy. But think they have some today, But have no problems with JT stomping all over them, and
Freezing bank accounts ( cough)
Last edited:
Based on the very liberal Nordic Model. The workers are not in any legal danger. Activists will try to stretch this. "Emotional violence" in the context of free speech is already under fire.
The Liberals, including Trudeau himself, have said this industry is violence against women. I'm aware the Conservatives also have that viewpoint.
It's naive to rule out them using this law to go after people who engage in violence against women. Will it happen? Maybe not. Maybe even probably not. But it's not outside the realm of possibility.
Consider, 15 years ago I would have thought it unlikely that refusing to use someone's pronouns would constitute harassment, but here we are. I never would have thought our government would freeze the bank accounts of citizens financially supporting a protest, no matter how disruptive that protest, yet we've been there and gone. They will use what laws they are able to in order to achieve their ideological aims. There are less and less qualms about this as the years go by, since the citizenry just rolls over and takes it.
When? I've never heard Justin come after the industry unless, of course, it was in regards to underage. Provide a link. It was under the Harper government with Pee Pee by his side that made the johns criminals.
If JT promised it....you can count on it...The bill has all kinds of power grabs in it, but hey, if he promises
There are plenty of sexual predators out there. Plenty. Likely many here on Terb in disguise too.
Because no SPs have really bad days when they open stall door.
There are millions of teenage boys that jerk off in bathrooms. With or without pictures of hot naked girls on their phones, never mind hot girls two feet away with their sexy panties around their ankles two feet away.
I never said he was coming after the industry itself in the form of laws. I said he views it as a form of violence against women.
"Prostitution itself is a form of violence against women." -Trudeau
I worry about a PEE PEE government further coming after the industry as opposed to the Liberals just ignoring it as if it doesn't exist.
WTF, lmao. Man, sometimes best to just shake my head and leave it at that.
Pee Pee now softens his usual stances against any legislations that the Liberals propose to implement. Obviously, this is a well researched Bill that most MPs are in agreement with. But he has to come up with something spewed out of his nostrils :
Pierre Poilievre softens criticism of online harms bill but rejects how content will be policed
The Conservative leader agreed with several categories of harms the Liberals are targeting in Ottawa's new legislation.
www.thestar.com
Pierre Poilievre softens criticism of online harms bill but rejects how content will be policed
The Conservative leader agreed with several categories of harms the Liberals are targeting in Ottawa's new legislation.
Pierre Poilievre softens criticism of online harms bill but rejects how content will be policed
The Conservative leader agreed with several categories of harms the Liberals are targeting in Ottawa's new legislation.
Trudeau is a fucking nutcase. He should absolutely be voted out in 2025.
If any of you wonder why the US has 1st amendment, now you know.
The original founding fathers knew there'd be people like Trudeau coming to power and taking away all your rights
www.foxnews.com
Free speech advocates around the world railed against a new Canadian law that could demand a life sentence for adults who violate speech laws on social media.
Introduced last month, the Online Harms Act, or Bill C-63, would empower judges to imprison adults for life if they post views supportive of genocide. The bill would increase the maximum penalty for advocating genocide from five years to life imprisonment and from two years to five years, on indictment, for the willful promotion of hatred.
Advocates of the bill say it will make online platforms safer. However, critics called the law "totalitarian" and "Orwellian" for its crackdown on speech. The bill also allows a judge to impose house arrest and a fine if there are reasonable grounds to believe a defendant "will commit" an offense.
"The proposed changes constitute a doubling down on Canada’s commitment to reducing free speech for citizens despite criticism from many in the civil liberties community," he wrote in a new column.
Justice Minister Arif Virani, who introduced the bill, argued that laws exist regulating the safety of toys kids play with but not the "screen that is in our children’s faces."
As a father, he said he was "terrified of the dangers that lurk on the internet for our children."
However, Turley argued the same reasons given to stifle speech in this bill could be expanded to apply in less extreme examples.
"It is not likely to end there. Today the rationale is genocide. However, once the new penalties are in place, a host of other groups will demand similar treatment for those with opposing views on their own causes. This law already increased the penalties for anything deemed hateful speech," Turley added.
Canadian psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson also spoke out against the bill by warning that even liberals fear it will chill speech.
"If even the mother of the progressive feminists in Canada thinks that Bill C-63 is dangerous then perhaps the rest of us might think twice as well," he wrote, referring to criticism of the bill from "Handmaid's Tale" author Margaret Atwood.
Atwood previously blasted the measure as "Orwellian" and said it invited "possibilities for revenge false accusations and thoughtcrime stuff."
Conservative author Stephen Moore called the bill the "most shocking of all the totalitarian, illiberal, and anti-Enlightenment pieces of legislation that have been introduced in the Western world in decades."
A recent poll found a majority of Canadians, 70%, supported the government's plan to regulate online content, The National Post reported.
Only 41% of respondents said they believed the legislation would create safer online platforms and just 10% of those polled said they "completely trust" the government to do the job while protecting free speech rights.
If any of you wonder why the US has 1st amendment, now you know.
The original founding fathers knew there'd be people like Trudeau coming to power and taking away all your rights
Jonathan Turley warns Canada 'doubling down' on push to restrict free speech: 'Not likely to end there'
Constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley warned about a new Canadian law that could demand a life sentence for violating online speech laws.
www.foxnews.com
Free speech advocates around the world railed against a new Canadian law that could demand a life sentence for adults who violate speech laws on social media.
Introduced last month, the Online Harms Act, or Bill C-63, would empower judges to imprison adults for life if they post views supportive of genocide. The bill would increase the maximum penalty for advocating genocide from five years to life imprisonment and from two years to five years, on indictment, for the willful promotion of hatred.
Advocates of the bill say it will make online platforms safer. However, critics called the law "totalitarian" and "Orwellian" for its crackdown on speech. The bill also allows a judge to impose house arrest and a fine if there are reasonable grounds to believe a defendant "will commit" an offense.
"The proposed changes constitute a doubling down on Canada’s commitment to reducing free speech for citizens despite criticism from many in the civil liberties community," he wrote in a new column.
Justice Minister Arif Virani, who introduced the bill, argued that laws exist regulating the safety of toys kids play with but not the "screen that is in our children’s faces."
As a father, he said he was "terrified of the dangers that lurk on the internet for our children."
However, Turley argued the same reasons given to stifle speech in this bill could be expanded to apply in less extreme examples.
"It is not likely to end there. Today the rationale is genocide. However, once the new penalties are in place, a host of other groups will demand similar treatment for those with opposing views on their own causes. This law already increased the penalties for anything deemed hateful speech," Turley added.
Canadian psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson also spoke out against the bill by warning that even liberals fear it will chill speech.
"If even the mother of the progressive feminists in Canada thinks that Bill C-63 is dangerous then perhaps the rest of us might think twice as well," he wrote, referring to criticism of the bill from "Handmaid's Tale" author Margaret Atwood.
Atwood previously blasted the measure as "Orwellian" and said it invited "possibilities for revenge false accusations and thoughtcrime stuff."
Conservative author Stephen Moore called the bill the "most shocking of all the totalitarian, illiberal, and anti-Enlightenment pieces of legislation that have been introduced in the Western world in decades."
A recent poll found a majority of Canadians, 70%, supported the government's plan to regulate online content, The National Post reported.
Only 41% of respondents said they believed the legislation would create safer online platforms and just 10% of those polled said they "completely trust" the government to do the job while protecting free speech rights.
